Models and theories about the origins of the universe or greater cosmos.

[seer]

Shu's work was published through MIT Technology Review. I believe this is a cooperative relationship.

That doesn't mean he studied at MIT.

[seer]

I did not in any way propose a cyclic universe in this argument. Please respond to the references I cited.

What are you taking about Shuny? There is nothing in your link that pointed to an eternal past for matter or energy. So what are you getting at?

[Paprika]

Shu's work was published through MIT Technology Review. I believe this is a cooperative relationship.

Perhaps. Or it could be just a review of an interesting new paper on arxiv.

Regardless, was it peer-reviewed? And what do you think of a model with c tending to infinity at a certain time?

[shunyadragon]

That doesn't mean he studied at MIT.

Your probably correct, but the publication would not happen if there was not an acknowledgement of a cooperative relationship.

[shunyadragon]

What are you taking about Shuny? There is nothing in your link that pointed to an eternal past for matter or energy. So what are you getting at?

Please respond to the references cited.

[seer]

Please respond to the references cited.

Shuny I just don't get your point, here is the opening quote from your quote:

Now if you read the rest of the article Vilenkin explains why none of these possible scenarios work. So what is your point?

[Paprika]

Please respond to the references cited.

Could you respond to my question too? Is the paper by Shu peer-reviewed? If not, why did you bring it up?

[shunyadragon]

That doesn't mean he studied at MIT.

I corrected that, let's go on. Still waiting . . .

[shunyadragon]

Could you respond to my question too? Is the paper by Shu peer-reviewed? If not, why did you bring it up?

Please respond to the quotes by Vilenkin concerning the BGV work. Still waiting . . .


Shu's paper could not have been in the MIT Technical Review if it was not accepted and peer reviewed. Actually this is part of the process of further review.

[Paprika]

Please respond to the quotes by Vilenkin concerning the BGV work.

Me? Or Seer?

Shu's paper could not have been in the MIT Technical Review if it was not accepted and peer reviewed. Actually this is part of the process of further review.

MIT Technology Review is a media company, and not a scientific journal. It reports on news ranging from scientific discoveries to bitcoin crashes to problems with Google's Android OS.

Come on. Admit it, shunyadragon, you just picked the first article you found online to support your point without even reading it or checking if it was peer-reviewed.

[seer]

I corrected that, let's go on. Still waiting . . .

Still waiting for what Shuny? I read the whole article that you linked - what is your point? Stop dodging and tell me what you are after.

Look you quoted this:

In one scenario

Ok you quoted scenario one, Vilenkin goes on about this possibility:

Question to Vilenkin: How were you able to rule out the first two scenarios?

He answers:

For the eternal inflation model, what we can show mathematically is that there is no end to this process. Some people thought maybe you could avoid a beginning, too. But our 2003 theorem shows that [avoiding a beginning] is impossible for this scenario. Although inflation may be eternal into the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past. So that was that.

No eternal past - so again what is your point?

[shunyadragon]

Still waiting for what Shuny? I read the whole article that you linked - what is your point? Stop dodging and tell me what you are after.

Look you quoted this:



Ok you quoted scenario one, Vilenkin goes on about this possibility:

No eternal past - so again what is your point?

THIS ONLY REFERS TO EACH ONE OF ALL POSSIBLE UNIVERSES AND NOT THE COSMOS FROM WHICH THEY ORIGINATE.

Question to Vilenkin: How were you able to rule out the first two scenarios?

He answers:

For the eternal inflation model, what we can show mathematically is that there is no end to this process. Some people thought maybe you could avoid a beginning, too. But our 2003 theorem shows that [avoiding a beginning] is impossible for this scenario. Although inflation may be eternal into the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past. So that was that.

This refers to the individual universes only.

As far as existence prior to the beginnings of all possible universes you neglected responding to this. Note bolded

Quote Originally Posted by http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

If the laws describe the creation of the universe, that suggests they existed prior to the universe. The question that nobody has any idea how to address is where these laws come from and why these laws in particular? So there are a lot of mysteries to keep us working.
- See more at: http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginn....qcx71GHe.dpuf

There is no conclusion in any of the BVG work that concludes 'no eternal past.'

[seer]

THIS ONLY REFERS TO EACH ONE OF ALL POSSIBLE UNIVERSES AND NOT THE COSMOS FROM WHICH THEY ORIGINATE.

Question to Vilenkin: How were you able to rule out the first two scenarios?

He answers:



This refers to the individual universes only.

That is false Shuny. There is no model for an eternal past. The inflation model is the model that includes multiple beginnings, multiple bubbles. And inflation is not eternal into the past.

As far as existence prior to the beginnings of all possible universes you neglected responding to this. Note bolded

I cannot really claim that I understand the beginning of the universe.It seems you can keep asking these questions and the answer is impossible

Yes and Vilenkin admits that he has no idea how the universe began. So?

There is no conclusion in any of the BVG work that concludes 'no eternal past.'

You are so devious Shuny. What have I been saying or claiming? That there is NO EVIDENCE for an eternal past. And there isn't.

[JonathanL]

There is no conclusion in any of the BVG work that concludes 'no eternal past.'

I see you've decided to ignore the discussion we had where I showed that Alan Guth said that the BGV theorem implies that there is an ultimate beginning. So atleast Guth believes that the BGV theorem implies 'no eternal past'.

[JonathanL]

Again, here Vilenkin responds to the use of their work for theistic claims of beginnings . . .

And this is relevant, because?