RE: Matter and energy can be past-eternal
July 1, 2017 at 3:34 am
(This post was last modified: July 1, 2017 at 4:14 am by ManofYesterday.)
Benny, bud… it’s time to stop.
Benny… you’re not intelligent, I’m sorry. I understand that I’ve hurt your ego and I know that deep down inside you're struggling with the realization that I’m more intelligent and knowledgeable than you are, but that’s OK. You’re going to get through this. Alright? Let’s start from the beginning again.
You asked me to support three points that I’ve made over the course of this thread. Remember? I wrote,
“[The] big bang is a singularity? Yes, most cosmologists do believe that. Or are you referring to my definition of singularity? Yes, most cosmologists also agree with my definition of a singularity.”
And you responded with,
“Okay, that's an assertion. Now demonstrate that your assertion is correct.”
So it seems you wanted me to address at least two points. Right? Good. Here are the two points (and I threw in a third one for good measure):
One, a singularity is point of infinite mass, heat, space-time curvature, etc. Two, the Big Bang model contains a singularity. Three, the Big Bang model is the most widely accepted view in cosmology.
For the first and second points,
“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”
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/list...p?id=28470
This question was asked in 2015, not that it matters. Remember Benny, it doesn’t matter how old an argument, hypothesis, or theory is. What matters is if it’s true.
For the first, second, and third points:
“You have probably heard the term "Big Bang" before when people start to talk about the origins of the universe, but when people tell you that the universe started really small (tinier than a grain of sand) and incredibly dense, and then suddenly expanded to what it is today, things become a little more difficult to grasp. The theory of a Hot Big Bang is the most widely accepted hypothesis for the origin of the universe”
http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/pub/tutorial/bigbang.html
For the third point:
“What is the currently most accepted model for the Universe?
The current best fit model is a flat ΛCDM Big Bang model where the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, and the age of the Universe is 13.7 billion years.”
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmol...ml#bestfit
For the third point:
“Today the Big Bang theory, which began with Friedmann's calculations in 1922, has become the accepted view of cosmology.”
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth1.html
For the first and second points:
“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.“
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
Moreover, the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang model supports my first, second, and third points. The article opens with,
“The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe[1]”
And the article provides a “timeline section” in which there’s the entry, “Singularity.” The first line in the Singularity section reads,
“Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[14]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Singularity
And the atheist/secular Wiki, rationalwiki, has an article for the Big Bang model and the article opens with, “The phrase "Big Bang" summarises the most widely accepted scientific theory of how the universe developed into its present state.” That seems to support my third point.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Big_Bang
So I don’t know what to do with you at this point, Benny. I’m starting to worry about your psychological health. Are you going to ignore all of these sources? Are you going to continue to believe that a singularity is not a function with infinite values? Are you going to continue to believe that the Big Bang doesn’t have a singularity? Are you going to continue to believe that the Big Bang model isn’t the most widely accepted cosmological model for the universe? Remember, this is what you asked me to demonstrate.
Benny, remember, I wrote,
“[The] big bang is a singularity? Yes, most cosmologists do believe that. Or are you referring to my definition of singularity? Yes, most cosmologists also agree with my definition of a singularity.”
And you responded with,
“Okay, that's an assertion. Now demonstrate that your assertion is correct.”
I’ve done what you’ve asked me to do. Haven’t I? Are you trying to move the goal posts now, Benny? We can talk about time now if you want, but not until you concede that I’ve fulfilled your original request.
Benny, you never asked me about time. Remember, I wrote,
“[The] big bang is a singularity? Yes, most cosmologists do believe that. Or are you referring to my definition of singularity? Yes, most cosmologists also agree with my definition of a singularity.”
And you responded with,
“Okay, that's an assertion. Now demonstrate that your assertion is correct.”
Are you just dyslexic? I don’t get it. You also mentioned something about every single one of my sources being 15 years old... What? For shits and giggles, can you provide evidence for that claim? And then afterwards, can you explain to me why that's even relevant?
I like how you wrote, "and the math starts to look a lot different," as though you understand what's going on. You fucking pseudo-intellectual asshat.
Currently, we don't have a quantum theory of gravity and even if we did, it wouldn't miraculously change the definition of a singularity. It would just avoid singularities. Big difference. Do you mean to tell me that you're going to stick your head in the sand until there is a quantum theory of gravity? "La-la-la-la-la... big bang model doesn't exist... i don't understand what a singularity is.... la-la-la-la... the big bang doesn't have singularities.... la-la-la" Dude, there's something wrong with you.
Benny… you’re not intelligent, I’m sorry. I understand that I’ve hurt your ego and I know that deep down inside you're struggling with the realization that I’m more intelligent and knowledgeable than you are, but that’s OK. You’re going to get through this. Alright? Let’s start from the beginning again.
You asked me to support three points that I’ve made over the course of this thread. Remember? I wrote,
“[The] big bang is a singularity? Yes, most cosmologists do believe that. Or are you referring to my definition of singularity? Yes, most cosmologists also agree with my definition of a singularity.”
And you responded with,
“Okay, that's an assertion. Now demonstrate that your assertion is correct.”
So it seems you wanted me to address at least two points. Right? Good. Here are the two points (and I threw in a third one for good measure):
One, a singularity is point of infinite mass, heat, space-time curvature, etc. Two, the Big Bang model contains a singularity. Three, the Big Bang model is the most widely accepted view in cosmology.
For the first and second points,
“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”
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/list...p?id=28470
This question was asked in 2015, not that it matters. Remember Benny, it doesn’t matter how old an argument, hypothesis, or theory is. What matters is if it’s true.
For the first, second, and third points:
“You have probably heard the term "Big Bang" before when people start to talk about the origins of the universe, but when people tell you that the universe started really small (tinier than a grain of sand) and incredibly dense, and then suddenly expanded to what it is today, things become a little more difficult to grasp. The theory of a Hot Big Bang is the most widely accepted hypothesis for the origin of the universe”
http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/pub/tutorial/bigbang.html
For the third point:
“What is the currently most accepted model for the Universe?
The current best fit model is a flat ΛCDM Big Bang model where the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, and the age of the Universe is 13.7 billion years.”
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmol...ml#bestfit
For the third point:
“Today the Big Bang theory, which began with Friedmann's calculations in 1922, has become the accepted view of cosmology.”
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth1.html
For the first and second points:
“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.“
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
Moreover, the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang model supports my first, second, and third points. The article opens with,
“The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe[1]”
And the article provides a “timeline section” in which there’s the entry, “Singularity.” The first line in the Singularity section reads,
“Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[14]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Singularity
And the atheist/secular Wiki, rationalwiki, has an article for the Big Bang model and the article opens with, “The phrase "Big Bang" summarises the most widely accepted scientific theory of how the universe developed into its present state.” That seems to support my third point.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Big_Bang
So I don’t know what to do with you at this point, Benny. I’m starting to worry about your psychological health. Are you going to ignore all of these sources? Are you going to continue to believe that a singularity is not a function with infinite values? Are you going to continue to believe that the Big Bang doesn’t have a singularity? Are you going to continue to believe that the Big Bang model isn’t the most widely accepted cosmological model for the universe? Remember, this is what you asked me to demonstrate.
Quote:From the start, you have been asked to support a position about whether time is past-finite or not.
Benny, remember, I wrote,
“[The] big bang is a singularity? Yes, most cosmologists do believe that. Or are you referring to my definition of singularity? Yes, most cosmologists also agree with my definition of a singularity.”
And you responded with,
“Okay, that's an assertion. Now demonstrate that your assertion is correct.”
I’ve done what you’ve asked me to do. Haven’t I? Are you trying to move the goal posts now, Benny? We can talk about time now if you want, but not until you concede that I’ve fulfilled your original request.
Quote:Even Hawking dismisses pre-BB time on a pragmatic basis:
Benny, you never asked me about time. Remember, I wrote,
“[The] big bang is a singularity? Yes, most cosmologists do believe that. Or are you referring to my definition of singularity? Yes, most cosmologists also agree with my definition of a singularity.”
And you responded with,
“Okay, that's an assertion. Now demonstrate that your assertion is correct.”
Are you just dyslexic? I don’t get it. You also mentioned something about every single one of my sources being 15 years old... What? For shits and giggles, can you provide evidence for that claim? And then afterwards, can you explain to me why that's even relevant?
Quote:but then QM and string theory entered the scene, and the math starts to look a lot different
I like how you wrote, "and the math starts to look a lot different," as though you understand what's going on. You fucking pseudo-intellectual asshat.
Currently, we don't have a quantum theory of gravity and even if we did, it wouldn't miraculously change the definition of a singularity. It would just avoid singularities. Big difference. Do you mean to tell me that you're going to stick your head in the sand until there is a quantum theory of gravity? "La-la-la-la-la... big bang model doesn't exist... i don't understand what a singularity is.... la-la-la-la... the big bang doesn't have singularities.... la-la-la" Dude, there's something wrong with you.
