bulletproof alternate universe

arkathonOk let us simplfy this.If the universe were to be magically frozen in position at this moment would time exist? Why or why not?

Ain't gonna happen. You're a loon posting nonsensical gibberish. People may get tired of replying to your pointless posts, but nobody's going to agree with you or accede to your claims. Thhere's a story about Wolfgang Pauli:

quote:

---

Physicist X remarked: "But, surely, Pauli, you don't think what I've said is completely wrong?" to which Pauli replied, "No, I think what you said is not even wrong."

---

What you write is so incredibly fallacious, it's got a long way to go before it gets to be just wrong.

quote:

---

The math may or may not correspond to something real; the jury is still out.

---

OK so it's hit and miss, and miss, and miss.

quote:

---

Of course, pure mathematicians do stuff that does not correspond to anything real, or at least they hope it doesn't, but pure math isn't really a science.

---

Then why do you want me to do some? If you can't see the invisible, how do you think invisible math will grab you? You don't even think the visible math is science!

quote:

---

"Dark matter" is just a label, so the "dark side" jibe is inappropriate. We're still working on exactly what it is.

---

Hey, lighten up! Perhaps one day, you may see it may not even be as dark as you guess?

quote:

---

Yes, the Big Bang is essentially universally accepted among scientists, except for a few psuedoscientific cranks.

---

Thank you! Nice to know what I'm up against. The last poster didn't seem to want to say where he thought the speck came from.

quote:

---

the Theory of Evolution is essentially universally accepted among scientists

---

So why is it wrong to say Marilyn Monroe essentially came from some bacteria long long ago. No one said she directly crawled out of your imaginary pond in a swimsuit.

quote:

---

I can't tell which of Hawkings many mind-binding plunges you are referring to; some of them are scientific because they are essentially universally accepted among scientists, except for a few psuedoscientific cranks, and some of them may or may not be scientific ...

---

It's not that the guy isn't brilliant, or that he doesn't take some accepted concepts. It is that, the physical universe can not be bent too far out of shape, or time, so in carrying a concept to an extreme, you get extremely far out in a hurry. But he doesn't seem to stop there, just way beyond reason, he seems to have nothing better to do than to go way, way, way beyong even that. (on some things)

quote:

---

(star of Bethlehem) ..The existence of such a phenomenon goes against everything we know of physical law

---

Right, and the witnessed event, 6 ways from sunday ought to clue you in that maybe there are limits to physical law, when considering the other universe!

quote:

---

if it did happen, it was a miracle and can't be addressed by science.

---

Or it was a simple act of science from the other side, that you are inept at discerning so far. Staying in denial may not be the best course here. Admit you're boxed in with one sided physical limitations, try your best to add in the known other side, and I wouldn't be surprised if you made some real progress.

quote:

---

Only because you know esentially nothing of the evidence, and you are ignoring the evidence and the details.

---

As far as speck evidence you refer to, is it not true that to get to a speck you have to get way past the known limits of a creation time? So who would try to go to this imaginary place, where no God exists, and we pop from a speck, at such a cost? Who would want also to ignore the whole supernatural phenomenon that most admit? Why be in denial of the obvious, and try to claim science is forever in a box?

nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothingSEEKyou're better off looking for that Arkathon...

quote:

---

In other words, the model must also predict new, as of yet undiscovered phenomena.

---

The new merged universe is well predicted.

quote:

---

because the existence of said entities does not make a difference to the observable universe. No amount of technology will allow us to observe magic, since by definition it is not part of the physical universe.

---

Actually, in a way it is. Because only a little bit of time now seperates the worlds, say, 10 years. Therefore this major merge is a lot closer that even your closest star! Which would be say, thousands of light years away. Not only that but there are many known crossovers between the universes now! Every time someone dies, for some. How about the other direction? UFOs? Angels, ghosts, every birth, for another. A lot of traffic both ways. Observable? Well, can we observe, even in a lab, a mother and child? Is not love observable? Do not humans have a soul? Or is it just the few grams of chemicals? You make science sound so utterly retarded and limited, that it misses not only the other universe, but all the important things in this one. I don't think it's as bad as you paint it.

quote:

---

You're certainly welcome to believe any metaphysics you want, just don't embarass yourself as so many creationists do by calling it science.

---

Oh yes, speaking of your universe producing speck, where did it come from? When's the last time also you observed it?
Embarrassed? Not I. You guys ought to be downright redshift faced.

arkathonYou state. I believe that the nearest star is on the order of 4 LY from earth in alpha centauri.

Still wondering why you don't want to discuss the age of the earth iteself. Can you explain that?

quote:

---

The new merged universe is well predicted.

---

Oh? What predictions about the observable universe does this little idea of yours make? What natural phenomena can we expect to find?

quote:

---

Actually, in a way it is. Because only a little bit of time now seperates the worlds, say, 10 years. Therefore this major merge is a lot closer that even your closest star! Which would be say, thousands of light years away.

---

You're not getting it so I'll simplify: How can we detect the existence of this world? What phenomena in the observable world should we be looking for that is predicted by this idea you have? Just list any of them. If it can't be tested even in principle, it's not science.

quote:

---

Not only that but there are many known crossovers between the universes now! Every time someone dies, for some. How about the other direction? UFOs? Angels, ghosts, every birth, for another. A lot of traffic both ways. Observable? Well, can we observe, even in a lab, a mother and child?

---

Ghosts, leprechauns, UFO's, blah blah blah. That has nothing to do with science or the discussion here. Just answer my question above.

quote:

---

You make science sound so utterly retarded and limited, that it misses not only the other universe, but all the important things in this one. I don't think it's as bad as you paint it.

---

Your opinion probably doesn't carry much weight, since you've demonstrated you don't even know what science is. What I've described is the scientific method, and it's the method used by scientists. Maybe you don't like it or wish it included metaphysics, but too bad. Science gets results, period.

quote:

---

Oh yes, speaking of your universe producing speck, where did it come from? When's the last time also you observed it?

---

What in the world are you talking about now?

quote:

---

Embarrassed? Not I. You guys ought to be downright redshift faced.

---

Let's evaluate, shall we? You've posted a metaphysical idea on a science board, claiming it to be bulletproof against science. There is nothing wrong with that in it's own right. But posters here have explained to you why it's bulletproof, and why it has nothing to do with science. But now you are claiming this supernatural idea is scientific. Yet you can't be bothered to spend the slightest amount of time learning what science actually is, and for some reason still feel the need to argue about it. You're arguing about something you know nothing about. So yes, you're making an embarrassment of yourself, whether or not you're capable of seeing it.

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

quote:

---

nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing

---

If you are looking for nothing, perhaps you'll find it. I'm looking for everything, even the spirit universe, and all thats in it, as well as the physical.

quote:

---

I believe that the nearest star is on the order of 4 LY from earth in alpha centauri.

---

So you have a star only 4 years away? OK. I guess that would put you in the running.

quote:

---

Still wondering why you don't want to discuss the age of the earth iteself. Can you explain that?

---

Yes. This is a spacey thread, and if I take it down to earth, I might miss some cosmic potential ammo here, by being bumped to geology or something.

That's why there are other threads. You could drop in to them. Since you are just speculating about stuff here you're wasting your time if the earth is clearly much, much older than 6,000 years. The earth we can walk right up to and mess around with in labs.I am rather forced to the conclusion that you know very well you can't answer the relatively simple evidence put forward there. Here, you actually think you are fooling someone with all the mumbo-jumbo. (and I would have to confess, since some keep replying to you maybe you are )

quote:

---

Congratulations you failed all three tests, getting an absolute ZERO on each one

---

Thank you your excellency. You seem hardly able to ask a good question, let alone pass any comprehension test. Funny coincidence, your mystic create all speck is very close to the zero size you brought up.

Why bother? It is time to stop feeding trolls.