RE: Matter and energy can be past-eternal
June 30, 2017 at 10:46 pm
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2017 at 10:54 pm by ManofYesterday.)
The main issue here is most of you are stupid and uneducated; however, this website exists in a subculture that alleges to champion skepticism (conveniently ignored in lieu of Alex's credentials), evidence, and science. So, there’s this bizarre mish-mash of low IQ middle-aged adults and children who think they’re smart because they’re part of the so-called skeptic community; yet, none of you have ever cracked open a book about physics or mathematics. I’d be surprised if any of you have ever graduated from college with a degree in the hard sciences (a real degree). Even when a person explains things to you in a plain and concise manner, you still don’t understand. With that being said, let’s start again.
At the beginning, I said the big bang is a singularity, and I defined it here https://atheistforums.org/thread-49668-p...pid1577204 with "The big bang is a point of infinite mass, heat, and space-time curvature. It's a singularity."
Cthulhu Dreaming then responded with, “This is not something that can be stated as a matter of fact with any degree of certainty.” Alex gave Kudos to this post. That’s interesting in itself and it foreshadowed a little of what happened afterwards.
Alex then wrote, “I would assume that most cosmologists would agree that any past singularities one encounters in cosmological models are merely points where classical relativity breaks down”
The first nail in Alex’s coffin. Of course cosmologists think singularities are parts where classical physics breaks down. A singularity is when there are infinite values like infinite curvature, density, heat, etc.; and because of these infinite values, classical physics breaks down. Put another way, in what other way would a cosmologist think of a singularity? There isn’t another way because that’s just what a singularity is. So it would seem Alex doesn’t completely understand what a singularity is; otherwise, why would he state something so redundant and obvious?
Alex then followed up with, “In which sense precisely ‘is the big bang’ a singularity?” The second nail. In what way is it not? If a cosmologist says the big bang is a singularity, then that means the big bang represents a point where there was infinite curvature, infinite heat, infinite density, etc. In what other sense could it be a singularity? Again, it would appear Alex doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
It was at this point that I quoted a 1996 blog entry (lecture) by renowned physicist Stephen Hawking which echoed my own sentiments, “At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down.”
Afterwards, Alex made the mistake of saying the above citation is from a book published in 1988. It isn’t. It’s from 1996 and it’s on Stephen Hawking’s blog. http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html And, yes, I know that this material is a rehashing of the material found in A Brief History of Time, but the point is this particular citation is from a lecture in 1996. Moreover, age by itself doesn’t matter when it comes to truth. Number Theory is extremely old and so is Newton’s theory of gravity (from the 1600s). Special Relativity is also relatively old. The fact that Alex would mention age as though that’s some sort of litmus test for truth demonstrates that he’s an idiot. Of course he’s not a physicist. By the way, Stephen Hawking mentioned this singularity in a 2008 lecture as well, “We showed that the universe couldn't bounce. If Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is correct, there will be a singularity, a point of infinite density and spacetime curvature, where time has a beginning.”
It’s also worth mentioning that there aren’t any updates or edits on Hawkings' page that read, “Just kidding…” or “This stuff is too old, don’t worry about it.”
So, uh, Alex… when are you going to provide evidence of your credentials? Hack.
At the beginning, I said the big bang is a singularity, and I defined it here https://atheistforums.org/thread-49668-p...pid1577204 with "The big bang is a point of infinite mass, heat, and space-time curvature. It's a singularity."
Cthulhu Dreaming then responded with, “This is not something that can be stated as a matter of fact with any degree of certainty.” Alex gave Kudos to this post. That’s interesting in itself and it foreshadowed a little of what happened afterwards.
Alex then wrote, “I would assume that most cosmologists would agree that any past singularities one encounters in cosmological models are merely points where classical relativity breaks down”
The first nail in Alex’s coffin. Of course cosmologists think singularities are parts where classical physics breaks down. A singularity is when there are infinite values like infinite curvature, density, heat, etc.; and because of these infinite values, classical physics breaks down. Put another way, in what other way would a cosmologist think of a singularity? There isn’t another way because that’s just what a singularity is. So it would seem Alex doesn’t completely understand what a singularity is; otherwise, why would he state something so redundant and obvious?
Alex then followed up with, “In which sense precisely ‘is the big bang’ a singularity?” The second nail. In what way is it not? If a cosmologist says the big bang is a singularity, then that means the big bang represents a point where there was infinite curvature, infinite heat, infinite density, etc. In what other sense could it be a singularity? Again, it would appear Alex doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
It was at this point that I quoted a 1996 blog entry (lecture) by renowned physicist Stephen Hawking which echoed my own sentiments, “At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down.”
Afterwards, Alex made the mistake of saying the above citation is from a book published in 1988. It isn’t. It’s from 1996 and it’s on Stephen Hawking’s blog. http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html And, yes, I know that this material is a rehashing of the material found in A Brief History of Time, but the point is this particular citation is from a lecture in 1996. Moreover, age by itself doesn’t matter when it comes to truth. Number Theory is extremely old and so is Newton’s theory of gravity (from the 1600s). Special Relativity is also relatively old. The fact that Alex would mention age as though that’s some sort of litmus test for truth demonstrates that he’s an idiot. Of course he’s not a physicist. By the way, Stephen Hawking mentioned this singularity in a 2008 lecture as well, “We showed that the universe couldn't bounce. If Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is correct, there will be a singularity, a point of infinite density and spacetime curvature, where time has a beginning.”
It’s also worth mentioning that there aren’t any updates or edits on Hawkings' page that read, “Just kidding…” or “This stuff is too old, don’t worry about it.”
So, uh, Alex… when are you going to provide evidence of your credentials? Hack.
