Bathynomus Giganteus wrote:Oh, I'd like sonme help with this bit, please. I don't have a clue what the " Borde, Guth, Valenken theorem of cosmology " is.
"My points follow the Borde, Guth, Valenken theorem of cosmology which supersedes string theory from my understanding and thus removes reasonable doubt about the universe having an origin (Borde, Guth, Valenken are secular agnostics, not people clinging to faith in the second sense)."
It stems from the work of Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander
Vilenkin (note spelling, which tells you what you're up against, since this numpty can't even be bothered to spell correctly the name of one of the scientists he's citing in support of his arse-gravy, which one would have thought was a trivial matter if he'd actually read and understood the material he's citing. Indeed, it demonstrates that he's regurgitating the soiled intellectual nappies of Kalamity Kraig without even bothering to do more than google the fucking argument and not even bother to read and understand that, palsied and rooted in wibble though Kraig's misrepresentation of the material actually is).
Alan Guth is the father of inflationary cosmology. I'll come back to this in a moment, because just the citation of that name fucks up this ignorant shite wholesale when accompanied with his words, which will follow.
Inflationary cosmology tells us that, rather than the expansion of the universe proceeding directly from the big bang, that there is an outward force propelling an early, highly accelerated, expansion phase before settling down into a more sedate expansion rate. The works stems from the fact that, in certain circumstances, gravity can actually be repulsive. With tendrils coming from different areas of cosmology, Guth has managed to address certain problems of the standard big bang model, most notably the horizon problem and the flatness problem, because this initial expansion phase, which lasted the blink of an eye in real terms, meant that the temperature of the universe could equalise even though the cosmos is accelerating at greater than light speed. Information can't travel any faster than this, so the temperature can't equalise without violating the relativistic speed limit, except if the temperature equalised
before expansion, then an initial phase of expansion, then settling down to a more sedate pace. This is why we see the degree of isotropy in the WMAP and COBE results, something that would be difficult to explain under the standard big bang model. This is the horizon problem (much simplified and in a nutshell). As for the other, the situation is similar. If expansion had proceeded at the rate we observe since its onset, there should be wrinkles in space. These are not observed, which is inconsistent with the standard model. Inflationary expansion keeps space smooth.
Now, applying these ideas to a broader model than our local cosmic expansion, we can see that this repulsive-gravity inflationary cosmology can actually apply to multiple expansions.
Moving on to BVG theorem, we can take a look at the abstract of the paper:
Borde et al wrote:Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating -- or just expanding sufficiently fast -- must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic.
Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.
Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete - Borde, Guth & Vilenkin - Arxiv 2001Note the bold bit. They don't say that the universe requires a beginning, or even anything remotely like it. They are saying that inflationary cosmology alone cannot explain some of the issues with the boundary conditions of the cosmos.
Now coming back to Kalamity Kraig's sock-puppet and Guth's own words about the past boundary of our local cosmic expansion, here's a quotation from a radio interview with himself and Neil Turok regarding the big bang constituting the beginning of the universe...
Alan Guth wrote:So far, it's been made to sound, I think for the purposes of simplifying things, that until the cyclic model, all scientists had believed that the big bang was the origin of time itself. That idea is certainly part of the classic theory of the big bang, but it's an idea which I think most cosmologists have not taken seriously in quite a while. That is, the idea that there's something that happened before what we call the big bang has been around for quite a number of years... In what I would regard as the conventional version of the inflationary theory, the Big Bang was also not in that theory the origin of everything but rather one had a very long period of this exponential expansion of the universe, which is what inflation means, and, at different points, different pieces of this inflating universe had stopped inflating and become what I sometimes call pocket universes.
He goes on to say:
Alan Guth wrote:What we call the Big Bang was almost certainly not the actual origin of time in either of the theories that we’re talking about. … The main difference I think [between the inflationary theory and Neil and Paul's theory] is the answer to the question of what is it that made the universe large and smooth everything out. … The inflationary version of cosmology is not cyclic. … It goes on literally forever with new universes being created in other places. The inflationary prediction is that our region of the universe would become ultimately empty and void but meanwhile other universes would sprout out in other places in this multiverse.
Source, an interesting radio interview with Alan Guth and Neil Turok.
As you can see, Guth doesn't actually agree with Kraig's ignorant assertion. Some fucking philospher of time he is, the lying, weaselly little cunt.
Anyway, hope some of that helps.
by 
.... I hit back with the "big-bounce" theory. )
