RE: Matter and energy can be past-eternal
July 1, 2017 at 12:02 am
(This post was last modified: July 1, 2017 at 12:06 am by bennyboy.)
Again, you are quoting a source that almost everyone here has read (at least in this thread), and you are ignoring more recent sources.
You've made an assertion-- not that your view of the BBT is valid, but that most cosmologists believe it to be true. Your support for this sweeping assertion is that you've read or talked with "most cosmologists," an assertion which can only be false. The truth is that you've read at least one popular science book (written for laypeople) and one blog, both by Hawking, and have not demonstrated knowledge of any other writer, or of any challenges from other schools of thought, or of the proofs for or against them.
Alex has pretty specifically described how QM might inform modern views on the Big Bang, and given a link for you to read. You, in turn, have done nothing at all to engage with any of the new content you've been posed with. You just keep crowing about how Hawking said it (true), and how the majority of cosmologists insist it's true (unproven and possibly false).
You need to roll up your sleeves and engage in the content being provided to you, and MAKE SOME IDEAS OF YOUR OWN in response to them. There are thousands of papers, or at least abstracts of papers, thousands of blogs, thousands of threads in physics forums, and thousands or millions of videos about the Big Bang, about QM, and about a lot of things related to them. And your response to all this huge amount of intellectual struggle and exploration is:
"Hawking. Shut up! You don't know anything. Do you even PHYSICS, bro?!?!?!"
You are smart enough to put together grammatical sentences (mostly). Why don't you turn some of your intellect toward learning new things, and then come back and engage in a more informed, and therefore more interesting, discussion?
You've made an assertion-- not that your view of the BBT is valid, but that most cosmologists believe it to be true. Your support for this sweeping assertion is that you've read or talked with "most cosmologists," an assertion which can only be false. The truth is that you've read at least one popular science book (written for laypeople) and one blog, both by Hawking, and have not demonstrated knowledge of any other writer, or of any challenges from other schools of thought, or of the proofs for or against them.
Alex has pretty specifically described how QM might inform modern views on the Big Bang, and given a link for you to read. You, in turn, have done nothing at all to engage with any of the new content you've been posed with. You just keep crowing about how Hawking said it (true), and how the majority of cosmologists insist it's true (unproven and possibly false).
You need to roll up your sleeves and engage in the content being provided to you, and MAKE SOME IDEAS OF YOUR OWN in response to them. There are thousands of papers, or at least abstracts of papers, thousands of blogs, thousands of threads in physics forums, and thousands or millions of videos about the Big Bang, about QM, and about a lot of things related to them. And your response to all this huge amount of intellectual struggle and exploration is:
"Hawking. Shut up! You don't know anything. Do you even PHYSICS, bro?!?!?!"
You are smart enough to put together grammatical sentences (mostly). Why don't you turn some of your intellect toward learning new things, and then come back and engage in a more informed, and therefore more interesting, discussion?
