bulletproof alternate universe

This does not logically follow from any of the previous concept and in fact contradicts the "So that, the cosmos would reflect that. In other words it really is billions of our light years away!" statement due to the lenght of time required for the light to get here in order to be seen.It certainly does not explain a 4.55 billion year old earth and 3.5 billion year old life.{{edit fixes title reference ...}}[This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 03-26-2004]

---

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

alas poor Yorick. I knew him, Horatio.my bad.[This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 03-26-2004]

---

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

Woman in front of Mona Lisa at the Louvre(new yawk accent)"I've seen reproductions that are better than this!"

Still doesn't workBefore the moment of separation with no time, light travel would be instantaneous. At the moment of separation time starts and suddenly there is a velocity problem, the universe would be dark until new light reached earth from each star according to its distance.And I have yet to see how this in any exclusive way "explains a 6200 year old creation" -- particularly as it equally explains any age you want, including a 13.7 billion year old universe that would be consistent with the observed radiation from stars, galaxies and background cosmic microwave radiation -- without the light problem.Further it doesn't explain the solid evidence here on earth for an age well in excess of 6200 years just from annual rings and layers. (see Age Correlations and an Old Earth for more on this).

---

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

or her view was clouded by preconceived perceptions of what it should be.

---

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

the total lack of understanding would be on your part as much as anyone elses ... andit still doesn't get the light from there to here once time startsmyths are like that. fantasy is like that.science is not like that. reality is not like that.enjoy.

---

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

Show how this is an effect predicted by the invisible universe and exactly how it operates.A lot of "what ifs" scattered into the dark in shotgun format hoping mightily that one might find a target.As noted by NoseyNed -- please go to Age Correlations and an Old Earth -- it shows how the minimum age of the earth is orders of magnetude greater than your belief (567,700 years minimum) based on rock solid evidence.Consider your concept invalidated until you answer that thread on the age of the earth.

---

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

arkathon --I'll try to make this simple yet succinct. You state: please explain how it

• rules out any other age from last Tuesday to over 13.7 billion years ago.
• explains how light gets here from even just 1 million light years away when it can only have traveled 6200 light years (0.62%)
• explains the observed 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)

If you cannot do the first then this concept can be used to simulate any desired age of the cosmos without discrimination. This amounts to mental masturbation and is useless for any purpose.If you cannot do the second then your concept is obviously in error and needs to be discarded as invalidated.If you cannot do the third then your concept is obviously in error and needs to be discarded as invalidated.Please consider the concept both useless and invalidated until you show otherwise.Enjoy.

---

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

What you have given is a bunch of fancy words signifying nothing to answer the question of ruling out any other age of the universe that anyone wants to imagine. This means your concept is still worthless. An you gave another bunch of fancy words signifying nothing to answer the question of how light travels more than 6200 light years in the interval since time supposedly began. This means it is still invalidated. What your are saying is that you are not answering a question that goes to the heart of your concept and knocks it dead in the water, hoping for a miracle, perhaps with ketchup. Failure to address the question means that your concept is still invalidated. Congratulations you failed all three tests, getting an absolute ZERO on each one, which means that this concept of yours does not have any intellectual validity, scientific or philosophical -- it is pure fantasy. This is just more fake mystical fantasy of the most infantile kind. Enjoy your little fantasy world. The men with the white coats are your friends ... honest ...

---

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

You can't answer the ones I asked, so how good they are is irrelevant. The fact remains that they are three direct challenges to your concept, and unanswered they make your concept useless. This fact seems to escape the cognitive centers within (I assume) your skull. There are a few possiblities for how that could be.Richard Dawkins once said "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." He goes on to show that ignorance is the least problematical of these as it can be easily cured through education. Stupidity, insanity (including delusions) and wickedness are not, or at least not as easily, remedied.The errors in your thinking have been pointed out to you by others as well, so you cannot be ignorant of the problems that have been raised that invalidate your fantasy cosmology concept ...

---

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

You still have not explained how it

• rules out any other age from last Tuesday to over 13.7 billion years ago.
• explains how light gets here from even just 1 million light years away when it can only have traveled 6200 light years (0.62%)
• explains the observed 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)

The first means it is fantasy
The second means it is invalid
The third means it is invalid

---

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

You were given two "ferinstances" to rule out -- last tuesday and 13.7 billion years ago. You claim it shows the universe is only 6200 years old. How does it explain 6200 years old if exactly the same explanation can be used for any other age (which is currently the case). Therefore light that we are seeing that comes from over 6200 light-years away proves that the universe is older than 6200 years. Thank you for admitting that your concept is invalid.

---

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

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

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

Sounds good to me.He has now gotten to the point of changing his concept to accomodate the problems of inescapable logical failures inherent within the original concept. A tacit admission of the failure of the concept, and a typical "move the goalpost" tactic.My work here is done ...

---

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