[wuliwong]

I agree that it seems as if the article is a bit overzealous as to the implications of this work (claiming singularities cannot exist, in particular the one from which the big bang expanded). But, your idea that something has "always existed" in a universe that hasn't "always existed" doesn't seem plausible.

The author's claim that the big bang theory is now invalid because of this calculation of energy loss of a collapsing star being too fast to result in a black hole seems incorrect to me. The singularity from which the universe expanded (according to the big bang) is sort of "untouchable" by physics at the moment. I would guess there are some of the string/brane theory models out there that postulate what caused the big bang but currently it is my understanding that whatever information was around about the cause of that singularity is not accessible to us. Again, who knows what we will discover in the future but as of now, making any bold assertion about the lack of existence of that initial singularity seems presumptuous.

[kuhhk]

You're experiencing cognitive bias.

If it is presumptuous to present calculations that may invalidate a _theory_ based on assumptions, then it is also presumptuous to disregard such calculations and state that the _theory_ itself is automagically correct, just because the assumptions are untouchable.

A bold assertion indeed.