bulletproof alternate universe

quote:

---

You can carry on with all this stuff if you want. What I'm suggesting is that you have to handle an old earth in your 6,000 year old universe. If you can't then you don't need to both with all this wild eyed speculation.

---

Good. Soon as I'm sure no one can get back up and fight, I'll accept their surrender and concentrate on just the one front I am itching to punch out, so to speak. You know, it takes a lot of effort to fight all over the place. Get it down to one front, and I'll predict a fairly quick end to the battle.

quote:

---

I think that all psychic claims to date are false

---

Your thinking is noted, number two.

Damn! I wish that I'd thought to do that last week before I drove all the way to south Arkansas! The gasoline savings would have been great, and I could have though myself home to my own bed and saved on motels, too! Thanks for the tip, Arkathon! I'll try that next time!

quote:

---

Care to elaborate what possesed you to come to this conclusion?

---

The observable fact that time now exists. The extreme veiw that we sailed out of a speck, when you add too much time to the equation. The scientific speculations of creation science people who postulate that the speed of light has changed a lot. The fact that the world's population largely thinks there is an unseen world. The chatter of cosmologists who have many things they don't actually really understand still. Ancient documentation that leads in that direction. And prophetic visions some have of a new heaven and earth coming. The fact that we don't know it all. The cosmic 'verified by witnesses' happenings in history, that require more than what cosmologists can explain. Missing so called matter, and other things that would indicate a possible flaw in current assumptions. And I could go on.
I guess, in closing, I might ask you, where you think your bang speck came from before it grew into a speck, was it always just there?

quote:

---

Damn! I wish that I'd thought to do that last week before I drove all the way to south Arkansas!

---

Try if you like, but don't get your poor mind in too big a tizzy. Even our limited present science, and common sense should tell you we are still in the physical universe. You are not in a other universe now at least in body.
Get a motel 6 and wait a little longer till you notice you're dead, or the heaven'd departing as a scroll. Then give it another shot. If it still don't work, report for training, and thay might hone your skills.

arkethon Let us follow up on the thought going on behind this.What do you suppose gives us evidence of the quantity we call time anyway?

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

quote:

---

If you want your ideas accepted as science, work out the math

---

That should be easy, instead of going billions of light years, or millions, or even hundreds of light years out, we're already here, it's all around us.

quote:

---

Oh, lots of scientists are investigating the possibilites of an infinite number of parallel universes

---

Aha, it is science. They won't find another physical universe though. And, they can't detect the spiritual one directly yet.

quote:

---

But the speculation and the math are scientific, because they are not trying to deny existing scientific findngs without any evidence and the math is consistent ... we just don't know if the math corresponds to anything real.

---

So these scientists who have math that does not even correspond to anything real are just fine in your books. By the way, which scientific findings is the spiritual world denying? Since you can't even see it yet, is it invisible math corresponding to nothing, that is denying it?

quote:

---

Why is your thinking that you see something more direct than our detection of dark matter by its effects?

---

Well, if we are sure it is dark, then fine. Are these effects that help you see the dark side, for sure coming from what you think they are?

quote:

---

If the Star of Bethlehem was actually the throne of the Almighty then there's no scientific explanation;

---

There are scientists in the other dimension, you know. I bet that there are great scientific laws, and principles at work in the throne propulsion system. Just because someone can't see it in the physical box they are in doesn't mean it isn't science.

quote:

---

To be scientific, you need to find something that is essentially universally accepted as having occurred,

---

Do you think the not universally accepted big bang speck is science? Do you think bacteria turning into Marilyn Monroe, over time is universally accepted science? What about Hawkings mind bending plunge into the depths of theory way way way beyond reason is univesally accepted? Yet, the star that guided wise men of science hundreds of miles is less accepted as having occured?

quote:

---

that is not explainable by other simpler hypotheses.

---

My merging universe seems simple than some 'speck-ulations'

quote:

---

Eta Carinae is by far the most appropriate person to evaluate your calimes, and he's made it clear what he thinks of your ideas.

---

Oh, it's a boy! Thanks, I thought it was sort of like Etna. Maybe mr speck has more brains than manners. He was rude in his dork calling, and most other posts. Typical high priest of evolution.

quote:

---

bang speck came from before it grew into a speck, was it always just there? Let us follow up on the thought going on behind this.What do you suppose gives us evidence of the quantity we call time anyway?

---

Let us answer the question I asked first.

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

arkathonI am answering your question my friend. However I will not do your thinking for you and give you a pat little answer.If you pose the question as to what there was before the big bang initiated it is necessary for you to understand how this question is a wrong question.Again,I ask you,what gives us evidence for the quantity we call time? Please think instead of react.OK?

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

Telling ... "postulate" instead of some other word.The speculations of Humphreys and Setterfield are not scientific; they are ad-hoc and without evidence.

So do it. You are seriously misrepresenting what I said. The math may or may not correspond to something real; the jury is still out.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. "Dark matter" is just a label, so the "dark side" jibe is inappropriate. We're still working on exactly what it is. Yes, the Big Bang is essentially universally accepted among scientists, except for a few psuedoscientific cranks. That's a serious misrepresentation of the theory of evolution but, yes, the Theory of Evolution is essentially universally accepted among scientists, except for a few psuedoscientific cranks. 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 ... the jury is still out. Yuppers. The existence of such a phenomenon goes against everything we know of physical law, it is recorded in only one place from second, third, or fourth hand information by a party with an obvious axe to grind, and it was not noted by any of the several civilizations at the time that were paying great attention to the sky. The scientific conclusion is that it's a nice fairy tale. That does not necesasrily mean it's not true, just that the scientific conclusion is that it didn't happen .. if it did happen, it was a miracle and can't be addressed by science. Only because you know esentially nothing of the evidence, and you are ignoring the evidence and the details.

You have a lot to learn about science. I think it would be beneficial if you took the time to learn about this before continuing here. To clarify, science is a method and a body of evidence. The scientific method is restricted to explaining natural phenomena, which means the obseravble universe. This explanation for observable phenomena is generally a casual explanation, though in the case of physics this consists of a mathematical relation(s). This model must be able to explain all available experimental evidence and observations.Where science is different from religion and other methods, is that it is not enough for these models to explain the pre existing data. Every scientific hypothesis must make testible predictions about the observable universe. In other words, the model must also predict new, as of yet undiscovered phenomena. When a model has made several successful predictions, the hypothesis becomes a theory and is considered a very useful explanation.Notice how there is no mention of metaphysics, or anything beyond models that can successfully explain observable phenomena and predict new ones. That is all there is to it. Since science says nothing about anything outside the observable universe, it is completely neutral to any specualtions about such a thing.Some further clarifications on your post:

quote:

---

Glad to hear you can not disprove it!

---

Why is this important to you? I can also not disprove that Zeus is really the source behind the experiments with atom smashers, or that ghosts and gremlins are lurking in a parallel universe. So what? Those can never be disproven because they are not testible. In other words, they do not predict any unique state of the observable world that would allow us to know the difference between theri existence and nonexistence. This hardly strengthens your position.

quote:

---

Not seeing someting with the available technology does not mean it is not science.

---

There is a difference between not being able to observe something because of technological limits, and because a hypothesis is untestible in principle. To claim there is an invisible, non physical world or that gremlins exist in a hidden universe cannot be tested in principle, 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.You're certainly welcome to believe any metaphysics you want, just don't embarass yourself as so many creationists do by calling it science.

quote:

---

please explain how it...rules out any other age from last Tuesday to over 13.7 billion years ago.

---

Because time would have been of little of no concequence to get to the furthest star when the universe was whole. So, 6200 some years ago, on day 1 (at least somewhere before or at creation week or fall) suddenly, as the physical world was created, seperating from the invisible or spiritual one-it would now take with the present constraints and laws of the physical alone, billions of years to get there.
Several traits of this other world are beings from it have travelled, and were instantly where they were going. They walked through walls. They assumed bodies visible here that could be animals, or young or old people. They were seen by multitudes at the end of long tunnels, after death, or near death. They don't have to eat if they don't want, but can. They don't need to sleep. They can appear and dissapear. And such unphysical things. When the invisible universe is merged with ours, the old speeds, and times become unapplicable. The universe becomes a combination of both sets of laws.

quote:

---

explains how light gets here from even just 1 million light years away when it can only have traveled 6200 light years (0.62%)

---

See above answer, where new laws apply to the invisible universe. Since when the sky 'departs as a scroll', when the merge happens, and it all looks 'new' -one would tend to deduce that some invisible things will no longer be invisible then, and the sky will look quite different, yet, because it was just merged, also somewhat the same. If someone had some math to stretch out to try to come up with some unseen effects happening to some extent even now, in the seperated state it could be interesting.

quote:

---

explains the observed rock solid evidence for an earth at least 567,700

---

It is with some relish that I wait for the cosmos to be conceeded, so I can have a look at that.

quote:

---

This amounts to mental masturbation and is useless for any purpose.

---

In actuality, your ommision of the unseen 'wife' of the physical universe, and insistance on 'going it alone' without her, is much more in the category you mentioned!

quote:

---

Please consider the concept both useless and invalidated until you show otherwise

---

Perhaps if you put your hand to something else besides reaching out for the other half, you might be happy to realize it is very useful, and valid.

quote:

---

If you pose the question as to what there was before the big bang initiated it is necessary for you to understand how this question is a wrong question

---

I thought Silas informed us that the old idea that the physical universe 'crawled back in the womb' was no longer widely held. In that silly scenario, it would go down to a speck, into nothing, or negative stuff or whatever, then pop back out as a new speck, and do the whole universe thing all over again.
So, when at look at your more recent imagined speck, that can only get so small before 'violating the laws of physics' (ha) I don't see why we can't ask where you now imagine it came from?
As far as your time thing, isn't it largely by measuring light speed, to distance? (that you now measure it?)
In other words, in our physical universe, not having spiritual properties, we, or a craft or light, can only go so fast. We have physical universe limitations, the other side does not have.