(October 17, 2012 at 10:51 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Ahhhhh, this explains where your misinformation is coming from. You're using WLC's failed arguments. This one has been debunked many times. Here are some examples:
http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/0...-vilenkin/
The article goes on to say:
~~~~
Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:
[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning."
~~~~
But this quote is out of context. Here is the whole quote.
~~~~
You can evade the theorem by postulating prior to some time. This sounds as if there's nothing wrong with having a contraction prior to expansion but the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable. Small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities so it would never make it to the expanding phase.
So if someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.
~~~~
It seems to me that the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorm does imply an absolute beginning of the universe.
