What do those Nobel people know anyway?

[TheLurch]

I did not claim it was a super majority, but a consensus among a group of scientists, and there are far more that that agree with Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking. Consensus can also mean 'general agreement,; and a super majority is not necessary.

Consensus in science has a specific meaning, just like "theory". Using it to mean "4 people i picked because they agreed" is misusing the term.

I can think of four scientists who aren't convinced that carbon emissions have warmed the planet. Doesn't mean there's any sort of consensus on that - it's a tiny, fringe opinion in the field, and the scientific consensus leans the exact opposite direction. Words matter, and choosing to use it the way you did has the potential to confuse things even more badly than they already are.

[Jedidiah]

Not according to Vilenkin:

Avoiding a beginning has been a major point in rejecting the so-called Big Bang in the first place.

[shunyadragon]

Consensus in science has a specific meaning, just like "theory". Using it to mean "4 people i picked because they agreed" is misusing the term.

I listed four major well respected physicists/cosmologists, and I could easily cite more. I believe the view of the cosmologists I cited represents at minimum a plurality of scientists.

Add Max Tegmark to the list:



I will do some of the homework for you.

Viable alternatives are for a cyclic universe proposed by Turok and Reinhardt is a cyclic universe, which avoids the recent problem of the matter/anti-matter controversy. The proposal would make the universe infinite.

I can think of four scientists who aren't convinced that carbon emissions have warmed the planet. Doesn't mean there's any sort of consensus on that - it's a tiny, fringe opinion in the field, and the scientific consensus leans the exact opposite direction. Words matter, and choosing to use it the way you did has the potential to confuse things even more badly than they already are.

Off topic, your playing Duck, Bob and Weave, please address the issue at hand with references of alternative explanations that have some sort of consensus of alternatives.general agreement.

[seer]

Avoiding a beginning has been a major point in rejecting the so-called Big Bang in the first place.

Interesting quote from Vilenkin

For nearly a century, physicists have been studying how the fireball expanded and cooled, how particles combined to form atoms, and how galaxies and stars were gradually pulled together by gravity. This story is now understood in great quantitative detail and is supported by abundant observational data.1

The question, however, remains whether the big bang was truly the beginning of the universe. A beginning in what? Caused by what? And determined by what, or whom? These questions have prompted physicists to make every attempt to avoid a cosmic beginning.

http://inference-review.com/article/...f-the-universe

[Sparko]

Avoiding a beginning has been a major point in rejecting the so-called Big Bang in the first place.

Their motivation is transparent: if you can eliminate a beginning then you can eliminate a need for God.

[seer]

Viable alternatives are for a cyclic universe proposed by Turok and Reinhardt is a cyclic universe, which avoids the recent problem of the matter/anti-matter controversy. The proposal would make the universe infinite.

Well, no, it does not work, though we know Shuny that your religious agenda requires and eternal past for matter and energy:

There is another way that the universe might be eternal in the past. It could have cycled through an infinite succession of expansions and contractions. This notion was briefly popular in the 1930s, but was then abandoned because of its apparent conflict with the second law of thermodynamics. The second law requires that entropy should increase in each cycle of cosmic evolution. If the universe had already completed an infinite number of cycles, it would have reached a state of thermal equilibrium, and so a state of maximum entropy. All the energy of ordered motion would have turned into heat, a uniform temperature prevailing throughout.

We do not find ourselves in such a state.

The idea of a cyclic universe was recently revived by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok.11 They suggested that in each cycle expansion is greater than contraction, so that the volume of the universe is increased. The entropy of the universe we can now observe could be the same as the entropy of some similar region in an earlier cycle; nonetheless, the total entropy of the universe would have increased because the volume of the universe is now greater than it was before. As time goes on, both the entropy and the total volume grow without bounds, and the state of maximum entropy is never reached. There is no maximum entropy.12

The problem with this scenario is that, on average, the volume of the universe still grows, and thus the BGV theorem can be applied. This leads immediately to the conclusion that a cyclic universe cannot be past-eternal.

http://inference-review.com/article/...f-the-universe

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf

[shunyadragon]

I can think of four scientists who aren't convinced that carbon emissions have warmed the planet. Doesn't mean there's any sort of consensus on that - it's a tiny, fringe opinion in the field, and the scientific consensus leans the exact opposite direction. Words matter, and choosing to use it the way you did has the potential to confuse things even more badly than they already are.

Off topic, but I do believe a super majority of scientist support global warming by human influences.

[Sparko]

Off topic, but I do believe a super majority of scientist support global warming by human influences.

Look a shiny object!

[shunyadragon]

Well, no, it does not work, though we know Shuny that your religious agenda requires and eternal past for matter and energy:

Turok and Reinhardt's work disagree's with Vilenkin's view cited here. Vilenkin has since not commented on the work of Turok and Reinhardt.

Still hung up on selectively citing old references by Vilenkin to justify your agenda.

[shunyadragon]

Look a shiny object!

Coherent response please in an appropriate thread.

Back to the topic; Anrei Lindt also supports the view of Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking.

[seer]

Turok and Reinhardt's work disagree's with Vilenkin's view cited here. Vilenkin has since not commented on the work of Turok and Reinhardt.

Still hung up on selectively citing old references by Vilenkin to justify your agenda.

You are lying about me again again Shuny, Mithani, and Vilenkin lay out why it can't work. But your religious agenda demands an eternal past for matter and energy.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf

[TheLurch]

I listed four major well respected physicists/cosmologists, and I could easily cite more. I believe the view of the cosmologists I cited represents at minimum a plurality of scientists.

Look figuring out whether you have an actual scientific consensus or not actually requires talking to a bunch of physicists, asking them what they have concluded and what they think most other people in the field have concluded. Until you can do that, just don't use the term consensus, or you're causing problems for both yourself and people who listen to you.

With what you have now, you can argue that a group of prominent physicists has accepted certain things. That should be good enough without muddying the waters by using incorrect terminology.

[shunyadragon]

Look figuring out whether you have an actual scientific consensus or not actually requires talking to a bunch of physicists, asking them what they have concluded and what they think most other people in the field have concluded. Until you can do that, just don't use the term consensus, or you're causing problems for both yourself and people who listen to you.

With what you have now, you can argue that a group of prominent physicists has accepted certain things. That should be good enough without muddying the waters by using incorrect terminology.

Still waiting . . .

[seer]

Still waiting . . .

You really are an idiot Shuny...

[TheLurch]

Still waiting . . .

For what exactly?