Matter and energy can be past-eternal

[ManofYesterday]

This thread has become so cringe-inducing… I really feel bad for some of you. Wow.

You’re asking me to provide evidence for the claim that most cosmologists believe that the Big Bang model contains a singularity? That’s like asking me for evidence that most biologists believe that evolution involves genetic mutations.

And it looks like you’re also asking me to provide evidence that a singularity is a function with infinite values like infinite space-time curvature, density, and heat. Correct? Again, wow. Just… wow.

My initial response is… look it up…  and that it should be trivially easy for you to demonstrate if I’m incorrect if I’m indeed incorrect. The fact that you couldn’t do that is itself interesting, don’t you think?

Yes… the Big Bang model… contains a singularity. That’s what the Big Bang model is. I’m legitimately confused by your line of questioning. Or are you asking me if it is true that most cosmologists accept the Big Bang model as the best model for the beginnings of the universe? The answer to that question is also yes; and if you were up-to-date in your scientific knowledge, then this would obvious to you as well—but you aren’t.

In any case,

“Similary in physics, a singularity usually refers to a point of infinity, and thus a not-well-defined point. In other words, physics breaks down at a singularity (we cannot describe it with our known physical laws - infinite mass or infinite energy is not something we expect from our nature)…For example, when we study the beginning of Big Bang or the inside of a black hole, we use general relativity. However, both cases have a singularity”
http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=28470

By the way, the aforementioned quote took me about 10 seconds to find. You couldn’t do that? No, you could have, but you’re not interested in learning. You’re more interested in “winning.” Please notice that the physics professor just assumed the Big Bang contains a singularity. Why? Because that’s what the Big Bang model is, you dolt… I don’t know how else to put this to you.

As for the question of the Big Bang model being the most widely accepted cosmological model… that’s a little trickier because it involves you reading scientific literature and listening to what cosmologists have to say to get a feel for what the consensus is. But you obviously don’t do that, which is why you’re asking all of these dumb questions.

Nevertheless, here are some sources from institutions of learning claiming that the big bang is the most widely accepted model:
http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/pub/tutorial/bigbang.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmol...ml#bestfit
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth1.html
 

Bullshit. I'm saying there a lot of cosmologists, and it's not possible for you to have either read or communicated with most of them.

I’m not so certain. We would have to first total the number of cosmologists there are in the world and then define what we mean by “most.” Until then, I’m going to have to remain agnostic with respect to the idea that it’s logically impossible for a person to read or communicate with most cosmologists.

This statement is incoherent. You're saying I've discarded your arguments based on a portrayal of your person. In fact, I've never discarded your arguments at all, or even suggested that they are false. You can't have an argumentum ad hominem when you're not making an argument.

Your entire post focused on you speculating on what I read and watch in an effort to discredit my arguments. Next time, focus on my arguments.

 and you demonstrating a vast lack of knowledge of anything conceived in the last several decades.

You are such a retard. Lol.

Let me just throw this in here for good measure because I think it's funny.

"The phrase "Big Bang" summarises the most widely accepted scientific theory of how the  developed into its present state."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Big_Bang

I think rationalwiki is garbage, but you seem like a fellow who reads rationalwiki.

And... it's outa here. *crowd cheers*

Hey Alex: I still haven't forgotten that you haven't provided any evidence that you're a physicist. Hack.

---

Considering I listed at least on physicist who does not agree with Hawkings and another who disagrees with Yesmens definition of singularity .......

Oh my goodness....

It's not my definition. It's the definition. Are you really this much of a retard?