Changes

To date the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been in 1994 by physicists George Ellis and David Coule in the journal ''General Relativity and Gravitation''.<ref name="EllisCoule1994b">G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/xh785g1534074045/ "Life at the end of the universe?"], ''General Relativity and Gravitation'', Vol. 26, No. 7 (July 1994), pp. 731-739, {{doi|10.1007/BF02116959}}, {{bibcode|1994GReGr..26..731E}}.</ref> In the paper, Ellis and Coule gave an argument that the Bekenstein bound violates the [[second law of thermodynamics]] if the universe collapses without having [[event horizon]]s eliminated. Tipler argues that in order to bring about the Omega Point that event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of his contention that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.<ref name="Tipler2005"/>

To date the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been in 1994 by physicists George Ellis and David Coule in the journal ''General Relativity and Gravitation''.<ref name="EllisCoule1994b">G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/xh785g1534074045/ "Life at the end of the universe?"], ''General Relativity and Gravitation'', Vol. 26, No. 7 (July 1994), pp. 731-739, {{doi|10.1007/BF02116959}}, {{bibcode|1994GReGr..26..731E}}.</ref> In the paper, Ellis and Coule gave an argument that the Bekenstein bound violates the [[second law of thermodynamics]] if the universe collapses without having [[event horizon]]s eliminated. Tipler argues that in order to bring about the Omega Point that event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of his contention that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.<ref name="Tipler2005"/>

There have also been a number of non-refereed book reviews appearing in science journals and popular science magazines which have been critical of Tipler's Omega Point Theory. Writing in the "Book Reviews" section of the journal ''Nature'', Ellis described Tipler's book ''The Physics of Immortality'' as "a masterpiece of [[pseudoscience]]. ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific or philosophical discipline."<ref name="Ellis1994">George Ellis, [http://impleri.net/files/ellis.pdf "Piety in the sky"], ''Nature'', Vol. 371, No. 6493 (September 8, 1994), p. 115, {{doi|10.1038/371115a0}}. [http://www.webcitation.org/5qX3ee5mG Mirror link]. A review of Frank J. Tipler, ''The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead'' (New York: Doubleday, 1994), ISBN 0385467982, {{lccn|93045046}}, {{bibcode|1994pimc.book.....T}}.</ref> In the magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'', physicist Lawrence M. Krauss referred to Tipler's book ''The Physics of Christianity'' as "a collection of half-truths and exaggerations, I am tempted to describe Tipler's new book as nonsense—but that would be unfair to the concept of nonsense."<ref name="">Lawrence Krauss, [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/Tiplerreview.pdf "More dangerous than nonsense"], ''[[New Scientist]]'', Vol. 194, Issue 2603 (May 12, 2007), p. 53, {{doi|10.1016/S0262-4079(07)61199-3}}. [http://www.webcitation.org/5qX3mRoAO Mirror link]. A review of Frank J. Tipler, ''The Physics of Christianity'' (New York: Doubleday, 2007), ISBN 0385514247, {{lccn|2006039028}}.</ref>

There have also been a number of non-refereed book reviews appearing in science journals and popular science magazines which have been critical of Tipler's Omega Point Theory. Writing in the "Book Reviews" section of the journal ''Nature'', Ellis described Tipler's book ''The Physics of Immortality'' as "a masterpiece of [[pseudoscience]]. ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific or philosophical discipline."<ref name="Ellis1994">George Ellis, [http://impleri.net/files/ellis.pdf "Piety in the sky"], ''Nature'', Vol. 371, No. 6493 (September 8, 1994), p. 115, {{doi|10.1038/371115a0}}. [http://www.webcitation.org/5qX3ee5mG Mirror link]. A review of Frank J. Tipler, ''The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead'' (New York: Doubleday, 1994), ISBN 0385467982, {{lccn|93045046}}, {{bibcode|1994pimc.book.....T}}.</ref> In the magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'', physicist Lawrence M. Krauss referred to Tipler's book ''The Physics of Christianity'' as "a collection of half-truths and exaggerations, I am tempted to describe Tipler's new book as nonsense—but that would be unfair to the concept of nonsense."<ref>Lawrence Krauss, [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/Tiplerreview.pdf "More dangerous than nonsense"], ''[[New Scientist]]'', Vol. 194, Issue 2603 (May 12, 2007), p. 53, {{doi|10.1016/S0262-4079(07)61199-3}}. [http://www.webcitation.org/5qX3mRoAO Mirror link]. A review of Frank J. Tipler, ''The Physics of Christianity'' (New York: Doubleday, 2007), ISBN 0385514247, {{lccn|2006039028}}.</ref>

==See also==

==See also==