bulletproof alternate universe

no more than a standard education should give one interested in learning about "life, the universe, and everything" to quote D. Adamsunencumbered.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

How could you get that impression when I keep asking you questions about serious problems with your concepts and you are the one avoiding the anwers with hand waving and epicycles of flavours on top of processes undefined. the fogginess is all in your bank, and it's your turn to show some cash.Or try contesting the Hindu Model ...
no problems with that one has been presented yet.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

What, leave without answering the problems that have shot holes in the concept from the start and are still unresolved?Allow me to recap (again) where we stand on your concept ("AC"), while also making reference to the superior Hindu Model ("HM") and how it solves the problems -- there are testable differences in what they predict:

1. age of the universe
   • "AC" predicts age of 6200 years
   • "HM" predicts 100 billion year old universe
   • Observation: minimum age of the universe is 13.7 billion years
   • Conclusion: contradicts "AC" and allows "HM"
2. light behavior
   • "AC" predicts light from less than 6200 lt-yr away or less will be 'normal' brightness and anything further away will be extremely dim to the point of being unvisible OR
   • "AC" predicts light from furthest depths of the universe will be 'normal' brightness and light from less than 6200 lt-yr away will be blinding bright
   • "HM" predicts light uniformly visible based on depths of the universe
   • Observation: light uniformly visible from the depths of the universe
   • Conclusion: contradicts "AC" and confirms "HM"
3. age of the earth
   • "AC" predicts age of 6200 years
   • "HM" predicts much greater age, the earth being a cyclic event in a 100 billion year old universe
   • Observation: minimum age of the earth is 4.55 billion years
   • Conclusion: contradicts "AC" and confirms "HM"

Thus the Hindu model is much superior, no (12 day now but still undefined) "process" needed, no flavour of light needed, no problems with observed data ... must be correct version.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Your concept is the black night of the holy grail monty python movieand again for reference testable differences in versions:

1. age of the universe
   • "AC" predicts age of 6200 years
   • "HM" predicts 100 billion year old universe
   • Observation: minimum age of the universe is 13.7 billion years
   • Conclusion: contradicts "AC" and allows "HM"
2. light behavior
   • "AC" predicts light from less than 6200 lt-yr away or less will be 'normal' brightness and anything further away will be extremely dim to the point of being unvisible OR
   • "AC" predicts light from furthest depths of the universe will be 'normal' brightness and light from less than 6200 lt-yr away will be blinding bright
   • "HM" predicts light uniformly visible based on depths of the universe
   • Observation: light uniformly visible from the depths of the universe
   • Conclusion: contradicts "AC" and confirms "HM"
3. age of the earth
   • "AC" predicts age of 6200 years
   • "HM" predicts much greater age, the earth being a cyclic event in a 100 billion year old universe
   • Observation: minimum age of the earth is 4.55 billion years
   • Conclusion: contradicts "AC" and confirms "HM"

Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

If there is no detectable difference it must obey the same rules as all other light, including the same problems with the age horizon process flavour modulation.If there is a detectable difference then what is it?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

One would expect it to if it was light. again -- is there a detectable difference or no difference?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

well why bring it up then?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

correction: some christian folks have questioned ... OR some scientists have questioned ...if the questioning is based on a presupposition of faith it is not scientificif the questioning is based on science the faith is irrelevant (it could be Hindu ...)and we haven't yet discussed what the horizon process would do with red shift levels ... got any ideas?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

previous mix? is this another wrinkle in the epicycle game? do you mean before the separation when the speed of light was instantaneous? instantaneous light cannot red shift, mathematically impossible.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Hardly a basis for science if you don't even have observations to base your concepts on. Looks like you need to do some work.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

logic failure ... logic failure ...undistributed conclusionwe could as easily say that time is green, for it is not based on any part of any preceeding argument. I suggest a remedial course in basic logic (assuming you have had a course in logic ... )enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

In other words ... no. Here you are basing a correction to your original concept in the hope of alleviating a severe problem with it and you have (a) no observational basis for it (b) no faith basis for it and (c) do not know what it is while (d) it does not solve the problem anyway ...Time to lose the process ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

you think the idea was ... ?you have an age horizon in your concept whether you recognize it or not -- the limit beyond which light cannot have travelled in the time since the separation occured, 6200 lt-yrs according to your first posts on this concept.for light to reach here from beyond that horizon means that it is not normal compared to the light inside that horizon, no matter how you cut it, that dog don't hunt

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You still have a problem with inside age horizon light being different from outside age horizon light, so in effect this does not solve your problems in trying to fit a 13.7 billion year old universe into a 6200 year old {myth \ story \ belief \ faith}.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

saw it, sorry for the inconvenience. wilco.