Matter and energy can be past-eternal

[Astonished]

Did anyone mention anything about there being the idea of multiple successive big bangs, where after the theoretical heat death of the universe, it collapses and starts over again? They did it on Futurama which was pretty neat, watching it in fast-motion (actually they did it twice, LOL). I don't know how they'd go about confirming whether there is a big crunch/big bang cycle that just keeps repeating every however long it takes (trillions of years? Longer?) but it's an interesting idea. I mean, it's not exactly the multiverse in the colloquial sense that we see on things like Sliders, Rick and Morty, etc., but each cycle would be its own version of a new universe, possibly with different physical laws under different conditions. I get that creationists can try to argue that the big bang is an act of a creator, but the cycle hypothesis would rule that out. If there was any validity to it, which I can't vouch for, it's just a fascinating concept.

[LadyForCamus]

It's so cute when trolls try to argue physics with Alex without the foreknowledge that he's a physicist.

Bad troll! Get on home now, you little scamp!

[The Valkyrie]

Why would we run out of energy?

Because we didn't pay the bill?

[bennyboy]

The statements the big bang is a singularity and the statement classic physics breaks down at the big bang are not mutually exclusive. That's your first problem. In fact, the reason why physics (as we know it) breaks down is because the big bang is a singularity.

In which sense precisely "is the big bang" a singularity?

Your second problem is ignoring where most contemporary scientific evidence points to: a cosmic beginning.

Again, it's one thing to say, "Yes, most evidence is pointing in this direction, but this argument for a past-eternal universe is very strong and here it is."

So tell me. What are your emotional reasons for ignoring science?

Don't be silly and stop simply restating that "scientific evidence points to a cosmic beginning" and be more concrete.

[The Valkyrie]

It's so cute when trolls try to argue physics with Alex without the foreknowledge that he's a physicist.  

Bad troll!  Get on home now, you little scamp!

It's like watching a baby playing in the rush hour traffic.

Yeah, it's a little cute, but sooner or later you know there's a bus coming...

[bennyboy]

Now you're copypasting some snippets from a popular science book from 1988 and resort to insults instead of arguments. So you obviously have no clue at all what you are talking about. So long.

I wrote that the big bang itself is considered a singularity by contemporary cosmologists.

You responded by saying, “past singularities one encounters in cosmological models are merely points where classical relativity breaks down,” and then went on to ask me, “In which sense precisely "is the big bang" a singularity?”

Regardless of how one interprets this, the correct conclusion is you don’t know what you’re talking about. A singularity and the statement “classical physics break down” are not mutually exclusive. You actually said at the big bang physics breaks down, which means it’s a singularity, but then you went on to ask me how the big bang is a singularity. The mind boggles.

Then I’m called a troll for knowing what I’m talking about.

Then I quote Stephen Hawking who wrote, “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. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang." -- Stephen Hawking

And this is exactly what I’ve been saying.

Now you want to run away. Very interesting.

By the way, just because a theory is old doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Number theory is old. The law of gravity was discovered by Newton in the 1600s. Regardless, this snippet isn’t from a book written in 1988. It’s from Stephen Hawking’s blog and it’s a lecture from 1996. By the way, at the end of the lecture he concludes with, “The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.” Here’s the entry, by the way: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

By the way, he doesn't offer a retraction of his statements on his blog nor has he provided an update saying "just kidding guys."

So, yes, you don’t know what you’re talking about and yes, you should step away.

So many debate fails.  The non sequiturs, the red herrings, the appeals to authority.  Dude, at some point, you're going to have to stop copying stuff you don't understand, and put together a couple of your own ideas.  Cuz Alex knows more than you about physics-- that's an objective fact.  That you don't know this is going to make this a really unpleasant time for you. And yet you keep flailing away with your face thrust forward, like you're daring him to do it.

[ManofYesterday]

I wrote that the big bang itself is considered a singularity by contemporary cosmologists.

You responded by saying, “past singularities one encounters in cosmological models are merely points where classical relativity breaks down,” and then went on to ask me, “In which sense precisely "is the big bang" a singularity?”

Regardless of how one interprets this, the correct conclusion is you don’t know what you’re talking about. A singularity and the statement “classical physics break down” are not mutually exclusive. You actually said at the big bang physics breaks down, which means it’s a singularity, but then you went on to ask me how the big bang is a singularity. The mind boggles.

Then I’m called a troll for knowing what I’m talking about.

Then I quote Stephen Hawking who wrote, “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. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang." -- Stephen Hawking

And this is exactly what I’ve been saying.

Now you want to run away. Very interesting.

By the way, just because a theory is old doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Number theory is old. The law of gravity was discovered by Newton in the 1600s. Regardless, this snippet isn’t from a book written in 1988. It’s from Stephen Hawking’s blog and it’s a lecture from 1996. By the way, at the end of the lecture he concludes with, “The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.” Here’s the entry, by the way: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

By the way, he doesn't offer a retraction of his statements on his blog nor has he provided an update saying "just kidding guys."

So, yes, you don’t know what you’re talking about and yes, you should step away.

So many debate fails.  The non sequiturs, the red herrings, the appeals to authority.  Dude, at some point, you're going to have to stop copying stuff you don't understand, and put together a couple of your own ideas.  Cuz Alex knows more than you about physics-- that's an objective fact.  That you don't know this is going to make this a really unpleasant time for you.  And yet you keep flailing away with your face thrust forward, like you're daring him to do it.

Specifically quote where there is a non sequitur, appeal to authority, etc. All you're doing is bullshitting at the current moment.

And Alex isn't a physicist. Here's a tip for you: people lie on the Internet. If Alex said he was a physicist, he was probably lying. How do I know? Because the guy doesn't know anything about physics. He doesn't even know what a singularity is. If he is a physicist, then he's a very bad one. That's a possibility too. Taking a physics course at your local community college doesn't make you a physicist. Reading Physics For Dummies doesn't make you a physicist. Watching a five minute clip of Sean Carroll speaking doesn't make you a physicist.

Notice how none of you have rebutted any of my arguments? That's because you're unable to. Instead you've resorted to, "DER ALEX IS A PHYSCIIST!" Alex got owned, kid. That's why he stopped talking. He was embarrassed. Your cheerleading isn't going to clean the cum out of his ass.

You guys are fucking hilarious.

[Jesster]

This troll isn't even a fun one. Liven up already or I'm just going to start placing bets on when the ban hammer will fall. We want to be entertained too you know!

[Amarok]

Alex knows physics you don't. He has a proven track record you don't. He's pwned dozens of theists on this site who misuse cosmology the way you do. You have simply shown you can quote people that's not a skill. It's not Alex running away it's the fact he can't be bothered .

[Alex K]

I'm on MEST here...