Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

Did the universe have a beginning?

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by EthanT View Post
    No sh_t Sherlock! Although why are you regurgitating to me the content of forum posts that I myself linked?
    Don't get your shorts in a knot. Didn't I say I don't know what you know ? Remember I'm not just addressing you. There are a lot of lurkers.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by really View Post
      Don't get your shorts in a knot. Didn't I say I don't know what you know ? Remember I'm not just addressing you. There are a lot of lurkers.
      They don't know the discussion is about a New Scientist article until they click on the link and then it says right there at the top what you repeated here. I think any lurker could have figured that out ;-)

      So, it just seemed kind of goofy ...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by EthanT View Post
        They don't know the discussion is about a New Scientist article until they click on the link and then it says right there at the top what you repeated here. I think any lurker could have figured that out ;-)

        So, it just seemed kind of goofy ...
        i don't understand what the problem is. she published several peer-reviewed articles on this subject. in particular, the one i linked to plus the 2 part cosmological avatars paper. this was clear before the new scientist link. if it happens to also appear in new scientist that takes away from its scientific credibility?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by 4vektor View Post
          i don't understand what the problem is. she published several peer-reviewed articles on this subject. in particular, the one i linked to plus the 2 part cosmological avatars paper. this was clear before the new scientist link. if it happens to also appear in new scientist that takes away from its scientific credibility?
          Publishing in a peer review does not mean the research passed muster. What it does mean is the editor(s) of the peer review think there's enough credibility in the research for publication.

          Not necessarily, but New Scientist does not add scientific credibility. It's a magazine like Discover. A magazine which I like btw.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by 4vektor View Post
            i don't understand what the problem is. she published several peer-reviewed articles on this subject. in particular, the one i linked to plus the 2 part cosmological avatars paper. this was clear before the new scientist link. if it happens to also appear in new scientist that takes away from its scientific credibility?
            I didn't think there was a problem myself, but Really was for some reason concerned.

            I linked the forum article because there was some additional papers linked in there, one being an arXiv article on the CMB cold spot.

            I think the important point was in my other post that says none of these observations are statistically significant enough yet (i.e they may just go away).

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by really View Post
              [COLOR="Navy"]Publishing in a peer review does not mean the research passed muster. What it does mean is the editor(s) of the peer review think there's enough credibility in the research for publication.
              i think we know what it means. you were saying that new scientist is not a peer reviewed journal. i said she published peer-reviewed papers. now you are saying that doesn't mean it passed muster. what does that mean?

              Comment


              • #22
                I apologize if these video's were already posted. These video's are lectures and interviews of Vilenkin and Guth. they state their position's very clearly that our Universe, even if part of a Multiverse, had an ultimate beginning!

                “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” - Alexander Vilenkin

                I linked to this video of his lecture at Cambridge University at a conference celebrating Hawking’s 70th birthday.

                Vilenkin's closing remarks at the 34:20 mark:
                “For all we know, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.”-Alexander Vilenkin
                The Universe Had a Beginning - Alexander Vilenkin - YouTube


                Just to be sure there is no misunderstandings:

                In this second video, at the 6:00 mark:
                Alan Guth is asked if we are in a Multiverse, is there still "A Mother of all beginnings!"

                "Yes. ...there is a reasonable assumption that (Even in a Multiverse) there is an ultimate beginning!" -Alan Guth
                How Atheists Take Alexander Vilenkin (& the BVG Theorem) Out Of Context - William Lane Craig - YouTube


                "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).


                Last edited by Caveman; September 30th, 2012, 02:47 AM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X