Rudy Vaas paper time before time

[Olias]

Rudy Vaas paper "time before time"

et-al, Background Paper

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

 

[marcus]

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

 

[sol2]

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.

 

[Olias]

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

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?

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

Of course there may be two Ghosts, therefore we may call them Eric & Morcombe?..Two Sunshine Boys?

 

[Olias]

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.

 

[marcus]

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?

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

anyway that's over.