| skunker | |
| WLCFan |
| Posted 04/27/12 at 02:58 PM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
| Link doesn't seem to work. That said, I'd be willing to discuss the implications of the theorem if you know the physics necessary to do so. |
| Loading... | |
| skunker |
| Posted 04/27/12 at 04:34 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
| Here is the direct link to Vilenkin's paper that was just released:
Surprisingly, it's only 5 pages long! Even I can read it, lol. |
| Loading... | |
| WLCFan |
| Posted 04/27/12 at 05:00 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
| This paper is a refutation of alternate models that all describe an eternal universe, it is in no way a proof in itself that the universe actually did have a beginning. |
| Loading... | |
| vmancha |
| Posted 04/27/12 at 05:46 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
''At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes 2'' |
| Loading... | |
| skunker |
| Posted 04/27/12 at 05:53 PM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by WLCFan
This paper is a refutation of alternate models that all describe an eternal universe, it is in no way a proof in itself that the universe actually did have a beginning.
Why does he use "proof" like so in his book, MANY WORLDS IN ONE?
"With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe."
|
| Loading... | |
| WLCFan |
| Posted 04/27/12 at 10:39 PM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
Quote: ''At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes''
An author's personal opinion isn't a scientific proof. |
| Loading... | |
| WLCFan |
| Posted 04/27/12 at 11:11 PM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by skunker
"With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe."
The quote that you cite was published many years before this article, and Vilenkin is actually referring to the BGV theorem in it. The actual content of the BGV theorem has been discussed ad nauseum on these very forums, if you're interested. |
| Loading... | |
| Lightfoot |
| Posted 04/27/12 at 11:18 PM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by WLCFanQuote: Originally Posted by skunker
"With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe."
The quote that you cite was published many years before this article, and Vilenkin is actually referring to the BGV theorem in it. The actual content of the BGV theorem has been discussed ad nauseum on these very forums, if you're interested.
IF inflation isn't to the infinite past, than you have to have a beginning.
|
| Loading... | |
| WLCFan |
| Posted 04/27/12 at 11:54 PM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
| A beginning of inflation, yes. There is no reason why, for example, one could rule out a static and eternal universe which spontaneously inflated 13.7 billion years ago. |
| Loading... | |
| Lightfoot |
| Posted 04/28/12 at 12:26 AM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by WLCFan
A beginning of inflation, yes. There is no reason why, for example, one could rule out a static and eternal universe which spontaneously inflated 13.7 billion years ago.
Than what did Vilenkin mean when he said:
"cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe."
|
| Loading... | |
| ChristianJR4 |
| Posted 04/28/12 at 12:30 AM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by WLCFan
A beginning of inflation, yes. There is no reason why, for example, one could rule out a static and eternal universe which spontaneously inflated 13.7 billion years ago.
Did you not read the paper? Vilenkin directly addresses those "static" and "eternal" universe scenarios and states verbatim "we shall argue that none of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal."
And the BGV theorem doesn't just apply to inflation, if that's what you're trying to suggest by saying "a beginning of inflation". The theorem is about expansion in general, and it holds in all non-inflationary models that meet the Hav>0 condition.
|
| Loading... | |
| innerbling |
| Posted 04/28/12 at 08:20 AM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
Quote: A beginning of inflation, yes. There is no reason why, for example, one could rule out a static and eternal universe which spontaneously inflated 13.7 billion years ago.
Laws of logic will rule these out i.e. law of identity as universe cannot be static and eternal and then spontaneously inflate.
Also this undermines uniformity of nature as if some thing can spontaneously change without adequate mechanism then scientific enterprise would be refuted as nonsensical.
|
| Loading... | |
| antybu86 |
| Posted 04/28/12 at 08:56 AM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
Haven't we all been over this about a dozen times?
Vilenkin's definition of "universe" is incompatible with the definition of "universe" that Craig uses in Kalam.
here you go: http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/universe-kalam-and-equivocation/
|
| Loading... | |
| WLCFan |
| Posted 04/28/12 at 11:29 AM | Reply with quote #15 |
|
| What a past-eternal universe means, is that past-going geodesics are unbounded. What the BGV theorem showed was that for a universe ongoing sufficiently fast expansion on average, all past-time geodesic integrals are bound. This suggests that a finite amount of time between the first event, the 'singularity', and the present moment has occurred. But the 'singularity' just isn't the beginning of time. It is the point at which General Relativity theory breaks down, and nothing more. The BGV theorem paper echoes this:
" Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20]."
This has been discussed many many times on here before, and I am beginning to question why I am discussing this with many theists who have admitted to not knowing the slightest thing about physics.
|
| Loading... | |
