bulletproof alternate universe

quote:

---

There is a mountain of indirect evidence of a spirit universe.
"Ok just let us know about this mountain of evidence"

---

Imagine we pile people up in a pile. When we have a mountain full, I would estimate that if say, 24 billion people have lived in the last 6200 years, and 87% believed in the supernatural of some kind, then a mountain of witnesses 4000 feet high, and mountain sized would only be say about 11% of the available mountains of similar witnesses! Then, you take the people who think they were healed or had some miracle, or communication with the spirit world around us, and you have quite a few there. Has any, for example president of the United States ever came out and said he did not believe in God, or ghosts? So you have a lot of repudable witnesses. Now over in another area, lets stack up those who seen the speck. Ha. How many people have travelled to, and set foot on the moon? Not too many, really, right? Yet, one of them, when he got back was more a believer in the invisible world, and was so convinced that there was a Great Spirit, and a flood, that he personally climbed mt Aararat, trying to find the ark! He actually died, I think as a result.
Most court cases would be happy with a witness or two.
I think a lot of the western world's laws are somewhat based on the ten commandments, and they were hand carved, and given to someone by a Spirit!
I think there is much evidence of the supernatural. Also, some unexplained things in our own physical universe that may yet surprise us. Except for counting backwards, what evidence do they have of a speck?

If it doesn't rule out other dates then it does not allow whatever date you want, as in the final analysis all ages are included, from 1 day to 13.7 billion and counting, at once and in cacophonous discord. This means the concept is useless rather than useful. What it explains is a lack of understanding of the question. Let's see if I can break it down to simple steps for you:Stage 1: instantaneous light and physical travel through the great depths of time and space from one end of the cosmos to the other, distances that agree totally with all known distances of objects today. Agreed?Stage 2: the separation. Instantaneous travel of all things immediately ceases, the universe goes black as all light must now travel at the currently known speed of light (approximately 299,800,000 m/s), all light before the instant has already reached it's targets, new light has not arrived yet.It will take over 8 minutes for light to reach the earth from the sun (the distance is roughly one AU or approximately 149,600,000,000 meters ... and {149,600 /299.8} = 499 seconds). Eight minutes of total dark that I'm sure you can fit into your fantasy interpretation.Stage 3: light now takes the slow boat from china, or in this case Alpha Centauri, the third brightest star (actually a triple star system) and 4.3 light-years away ... so it takes 4.3 years for light to reach us. Okay so far eh?Now to our problem star, 1 million light years away, that we currently see easily with standard equipment. For us to see the light it must have been traveling for 1 million years and not be limited to your 6200 year period. A complete contradiction that invalidates the concept.And we haven't even gotten to the furthest observed limits of the universe at 13.7 billion light years away. The universe is at least 13.7 billion years old in order for that light to reach here and be observed.Nor have we gotten to the verifiable age of the earth exceeding 6200 years easily.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

In a fit of masochism; I'll continue this farce.The phrasing above is bad. (Actually, given recent history, arkathon is just being deliberately stupid.)But if we ignore that, we can consider the evidence for the big bang; the expansion of space from early stages of extreme density. Here is the evidence in the order of importance as I percieve it.

• Microwave background radiation. This was predicted in advance of its discovery, on the basis of big bang cosmology. The initial theoretical calculation of blackbody radiation in an expanding universe was performed in 1934. The explicit prediction of a cosmic background, based on big bang cosmology, was made in 1948. Confirmation of the predicted background was made in 1965. From the 1990s onwards, COBE and other measurements have probed the radiation in detail, leading to considerable gains in understanding of the cosmological history of the universe. In particular, detection of a predicted polarity in the CMB is further empirical confirmation. I expect that the next five years will bring the first direct tests of the inflationary epoch in the big bang; already stongly indicated by available evidence. But the universe is a surprising place; if inflation is disconfirmed things could get really interesting.
• Cosmological red shift. This is the first evidence found for the big bang. Red shifts in galaxies were first detected around 1914, and then related to distance by Hubble in around 1929. This showed that the universe was expanding. Combined with the implications of relativity, this was the start of modern big bang cosmology. Since then, further tests on such things as supernova light curves have confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that red shift is caused by the expansion of space.
• Abundences of light isotopes in the universe. The relative proportions of isotopes of Hydrogen, Helium, Beryllium and Lithium are a good match to predictions of big bang nucleosynthesis. For example, Deuterium (heavy hydrogen) occurs in quantities corresponding to cooling of a spuerheated mass of protons and neutrons; but is not produced by any other known natural process; and it is destroyed by fusion processes in stars.
• The age of oldest stars and galaxies. This is the weakest line of evidence, and indeed it is still sometimes cited as an example of a problem for the theory. Basically, big bang cosmology implies that the oldest stares and galaxies and clusters should be nearly as old as the universe, but certainly not older. About ten years ago there was an issue with estimates of the age of the universe that were a bit too small, and ages for some stars that were a bit too big. That problem is now pretty much resolved. The link is a good discussion. The end result is that the oldest stars and clusters turn out to be of the expected age to match big bang cosmology.
• Relativity. This is not the same as a line of evidence, but it has an important role for our confidence in the big bang. When we see a new planetoid, like Sedna, we can discover its orbit around the Sun, even though we have limited observations, and each orbit takes 10,500 years. From limited motions, we just apply basic physics to get the whole orbit, without any basis for doubt. General relativity gives the same kind of process for space itself. In the solutions of Einstein's equations, space is unstable; it will either expand or contract (depending on parameters, much like an orbit depends on parameters). A difference is that solutions to the relativistic equations give a finite origin in time, called the singularity, and enormous densities of objects in compressed space shortly after the singularity. The expansion of the universe is not just an ad hoc explanation for red shift; it involves changes to spacetime structure that fit closely to relativitistic models. Relativity is also confirmed by a host of observations I have not listed. It implies that the universe has come from a condition of enormous heat and density and compression of space. Either this is true, or else relativity itself is all wet. Now we actually know a bit about why we expect relativity to break down before the singularity; but physics as we have tested it allows us to extend back with great confidence to states of extraordinary density, especially given the good fit with other lines of evidence. See the Cambridge Cosmology site.

Cheers -- Sylas[This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-31-2004]

Microwave background radiation. ---".. any attempt to interpret the origin of the CMB as due to present astrophysical phenomena (i.e. stars, radio galaxies, etc.) is discredited. Therefore, the only satisfactory
explanation for the existence of the CMB lies in the physics of the early Universe. While the CMB is predicted to be very smooth, the lack of features cannot be perfect. At some level one expects to see
irregularities, or anisotropies, in the temperature of the radiation. These temperature fluctuations are the imprints of processes
and features of the early universe"
Fine, we can have a look as to how it might be a remmant of the split
Cosmological red shift. ---I already allowed for some expansion in the last several thousand years. (Just not backwards beyond that)
Abundences of light isotopes in the universe. ---a good match to predictions of big bang nucleosynthesis. ...Well what else might it be a match for?
The age of oldest stars and galaxies. ---- In other words great distance that would now take a long time to get there. Dealt with that.
Relativity.--- Yes more to be relative to, a complete universe! (not just the physical part) All grist for the mill, we're battin 100. Still looks like the speck is outgunned to me.

quote:

---

If it doesn't rule out other dates then it does not allow whatever date you want, as in the final analysis all ages are included,

---

Not within reason. But with the beginning being around 6200 years ago, I guess you can rule out then the older dates. OK I may have what you mean this time. "if exactly the same explanation can be used for any other age" So in other words, why not 62 million years. OK that is because there is good indications of the creation age, that would go with the spirit world involved. For example, a Spirit claiming to be the creator gave us the precise dates. So, what evidence would we have to come up with another date?

quote:

---

Stage 2: the separation. Instantaneous travel of all things immediately ceases, the universe goes black as all light must now travel at the currently known speed of light (approximately 299,800,000 m/s), all light before the instant has already reached it's targets, new light has not arrived yet.

---

No the universe doesn't go black! The path and stream of light was already in place and started operating at it's physical universe rate as the seperation took place. As you can see the rest of your stages become inapplicable.

But, that must mean that the speed of light before the split was not instant. Please calculate the exact speed (or the function by which it varies) for us, since it's you proposing this model.It is very important, since it would give us an exact time frame for the time between the creation of the universes to the split, and that would be part of a lot of other explanations.

You do understand that one of the basis principles of science is to remove the enormous personal bias and beliefs that people invariably has? Why do you consider this a bad thing?

You know what is hilarious is that arkathon takes your replies on here and then goes over to Christian Forums and posts snippets of them as the poster 'time'.I wont humour the imbecile.

How about the evidence of geologists, physicists, astronomers, paleontologists, archaeologists, biologists, geneticists, etcetera ... so much independent evidence arrived at separately that not only shows vast age (compared to the creationist model), but each of which corroborates the others for age and for history (or prehistory actually) and for manner of development .... against a book that claims to have a spirit that gives a precise date ( ... based on what evidence? Last I heard it was from a counting up of lives with a lot of assumptions on the way and no corroborating evidence).Actually this is precisely the point I have been making with my third test of your concept. A good place to start on this issue is the rock solid evidence for an earth at least 567,700 years old by direct counting of annual layers (see Age Correlations and an Old Earth). Layers that show patterns of climate that are repeated in several different layering systems from several diverse locations on the planet. I suspect your failure to answer this question is in direct proportion to your ability to answer the question, but I can wait for confirmation. LOL, what about light do you understand? It is not a string stretched tight between the spheres and vibrated to some harmonious color, but a series of particles, photons traveling through time and space. Before the separation, the path of light would have been totally devoid of photons as travel was instantaneous -- as soon as a photon left object (A) it reached object (B) -- this is your concept .... isn't it? For the sake of argument let's assume that one photon was "caught in transit" ... it would be absolutely impossible to have more than one ... stretched from (A) to (B) (seeing as it is at both locations in this infinitesimal ultimate instant) and collapsing to a point at the instant of separation, somewhere along the line (determined by quantum uncertainty?), the universe would still go black. It would still take time to fill the pipeline of light from (A) to (B) based on the speed of light and the distance in between.Obviously the concept is contradicted by it's own conditions and is invalidated, not just by your lack of argument on my three tests, but by the inescapable logical failures inherent in the concept.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

Care to provide a direct link so I can see? I assume you include me in 'your' but you did not use any post-replying, so I'm not sure.

quote:

---

LOL, what about light do you understand?

---

I guess that depends if we are talking about true light, (in the spiritual world), the complete universe light, (merged). or light in the P universe (physical).

quote:

---

It is ... a series of particles, photons traveling through time and space.

---

A time and space, yes, of a P universe, and bound to certain limitations it was not before.

quote:

---

For the sake of argument let's assume that one photon was "caught in transit" " and collapsing to a point at the instant of separation, somewhere along the line

---

First of all, why was it an 'instant seperation', say, rather than a process? For example the creation itself was said to be a process. You know, first 'darkness' was upon the face of the deep. Then there was light.
I wonder if a some things could depend somewhat on our perspective also of seeing things? They have slowed light down to a crawl, in a lab. If I were a little creature looking at lab slowed light, and measuring it, for example, without seeing the big picture, I would have a very different idea of it's speed. If I formulated a little cosmic lab room veiw of things, it would be very flawed using the slow speed as a ruler.
Many things we don't know. Light in the creation process itself was strange as well. First light was made, later the sun, and stars. After creation was complete, all I can notice is the light from the sun, and stars, so where is the other stuff gone? Did it leave some background radiation trace? Could the trace be attributed to something else if it did, like the speck? Could the cosmic lihjt even, for example been acting also as a booster, or path, or engine, for our light to tag along for a while? These are just a few thoughts, to try to get out of thinking our P universe light and time are all that ever could, or will exist.
(Now I think light is thought to be unable to speed up. On a side note, why is this, and could it have slowed down?)
As far as your earth age itself, it's funny, if you talk to some of these guys, they often resort to, 'talk to some cosmo guys'. You know, there is where one could get caught in transit!

Eta

quote:

---

I wont humour the imbecile.

---

OK so the champ is staying out of it. Dance like a butterfly, bitch like a bee.

quote:

---

You do understand that one of the basis principles of science is to remove the enormous personal bias and beliefsthat people invariably has? Why do you consider this a bad thing?

---

Removing belief? We 'borg' must not believe outside the box. We must erradicate all faith. The speck is the one truth. This is the borg way.
If I thought it was so bad, though, why would I remove faith in the speck?

quote:

---

It is very important, since it would give us an exact time frame for the time between the creation of the universes to the split, and that would be part of a lot of other explanations.

---

It may be a little premature to fine tune the speed of the spiritual Universe (S universe for short), and the SP universe (merged), when all you can now directly detect is the P universe. Then in any calculations, we should know if there were any other factors involved, such as a was the split instant, or a process.
It's a little bit like having a son marry, we aren't losing a son, we're gaing a daughter, and grandchildren. So with the spirit world, we don't lose anything, just gain some more.

I'm against moving topics such as this, to the "Free For All" forum.Perhaps it should have been killed somewhere back on page one.I suggest anyone who cares, make their concluding statements.I think I, or someone else, will be closing this topic soon.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads