Rudy Vaas paper time before time

In summary, Olias something odd happened just now, I glanced down the menu and thought I saw where you had started a thread on the new paper Rudy Vaas "time before time". Then I went away and did something about supper and fetched the mail in from the mailbox and when I looked again I couldnt find the thread. Was that a mirage? Or did you actually start a thread about "time before time" on the arxiv? Thanks for the background on the paper.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Olias said:
et-al, Background Paper

http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0408079

Olias something odd happened just now, I glanced down the menu
and thought I saw where you had started a thread on the new
Rudy Vaas paper "time before time"
and then I went away and did something about supper and fetched
the mail in from the mailbox and when i looked again I couldnt
find the thread.

was that a mirage? or did you actually start a thread about
"time before time"
http://arxiv/org/physics/0408111 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Marcus a quick search reveals link you had mentioned.

I notice something like this going on yesterday. I quoted Russell Rierson on the question of sonoluminece. Unfortunately I did not get the thread link but I did get the date. Bringing Arivero's thread back was another case in point. I guess our mentors are throwing in threads for further consideration?

Anyway here is quote from link Olias supplied in that circumstance.

From Time beforeTime

Did the universe have a beginning or does it exist forever, i.e. is it eternal at least in relation to the past? This fundamental question was a main topic in ancient philosophy of nature and the Middle Ages. Philosophically it was more or less banished then by Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. But it used to have and still has its revival in modern physical cosmology both in the controversy between the big bang and steady state models some decades ago and in the contemporary attempts to explain the big bang within a quantum cosmological framework. This paper has two main goals: First a conceptual clarification and distinction of different notions of "big bang" and "universe" is suggested, as well as a multiverse taxonomy and a classification of initial and eternal cosmologies. Second, and with the help of this analysis, it is shown how a conceptual and perhaps physical solution of the temporal aspect of Immanuel Kant's "first antinomy of pure reason" is possible, i.e. how our universe in some respect could have both a beginning and an eternal existence.

Now back to his current link.
 
  • #4
marcus said:
Olias something odd happened just now, I glanced down the menu
and thought I saw where you had started a thread on the new
Rudy Vaas paper "time before time"
and then I went away and did something about supper and fetched
the mail in from the mailbox and when i looked again I couldnt
find the thread.

was that a mirage? or did you actually start a thread about
"time before time"
http://arxiv/org/physics/0408111 [Broken]

I had started a thread, no doubt the removal of it must have been admin?..because of a policy to 'proof-read' posters with certain criteria? :cool:

Only somebody with a capacity of admin..mentor..can make or remove postings. There may be offered an excuse of teething problems due to current re-structuring of P Forum?..or there may be a ghost-in-the-machine ? if so let's call him Sonny :smile:

Of course there may be two Ghosts, therefore we may call them Eric & Morcombe?..Two Sunshine Boys? :smile: :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
sol2 said:
Marcus a quick search reveals link you had mentioned.

I notice something like this going on yesterday. I quoted Russell Rierson on the question of sonoluminece. Unfortunately I did not get the thread link but I did get the date. Bringing Arivero's thread back was another case in point. I guess our mentors are throwing in threads for further consideration?

Anyway here is quote from link Olias supplied in that circumstance.

From Time beforeTime



Now back to his current link.

Thanks Sol, the paper of Time Before Time caused me to read through fully, although I had downloaded the Rovelli et-al paper also, once I started reading, I could not stop, this set me mind to focus on a number of aspects of Spacetime, space and time observations I had been pondering lately, I fell asleep while pondering!

I have got to read through (thoroughly) the Rovelli paper, along with a number of other pending papers.
 
  • #6
Olias said:
I had started a thread, no doubt the removal of it must have been admin?..because of a policy to 'proof-read' posters with certain criteria? :cool:

I think not IMO. I think it was a mental lapse on my part. I forgot which forum I had seen it in and just lost track of where it was----so I couldn't find it, and then later I could.

in this case i do not believe it had to do with the PF board but rather with
my having a bit of overload on my own part :smile:

anyway that's over.
 

1. What is the main idea of "Rudy Vaas paper time before time"?

The main idea of "Rudy Vaas paper time before time" is to propose a new theory of time that challenges the traditional view of time as a linear progression of events. This theory suggests that time is not a fundamental aspect of the universe, but rather emerges from the interactions of various physical processes.

2. What evidence does Rudy Vaas provide to support his theory?

Rudy Vaas provides evidence from various fields of science, including quantum mechanics, cosmology, and neuroscience. He also uses philosophical arguments and thought experiments to support his theory.

3. How does Rudy Vaas' theory of time differ from traditional theories?

Rudy Vaas' theory of time differs from traditional theories in that it rejects the idea of time as a fundamental aspect of the universe. Instead, it views time as a product of various physical processes and interactions. This challenges the notion of a linear and unchangeable timeline and opens up the possibility of multiple timelines and branching realities.

4. What implications does Rudy Vaas' theory have on our understanding of the universe?

Rudy Vaas' theory has significant implications on our understanding of the universe. It challenges our traditional views of time and raises questions about the nature of reality and the possibility of parallel universes. It also has implications for our understanding of causality and determinism.

5. Has Rudy Vaas' theory been widely accepted by the scientific community?

Rudy Vaas' theory is still a subject of debate and has not been widely accepted by the scientific community. While some scientists find it intriguing and thought-provoking, others criticize its lack of empirical evidence and its departure from traditional theories. Further research and experimentation are needed to fully evaluate and validate this theory.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
8
Replies
264
Views
14K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
13
Views
1K
Back
Top