bulletproof alternate universe

Far more hits than misses. If you want any one to take your hallucinations seriously, you are going to have to do some applied math, such as calculating what percentage of the Universe should be hydrogen. You apparently don't understand the distinction between pure and applied math, and the distinction between pure math and science. I am not surprised. Off topic, and that's what FAQs are for. Study Introduction to Evolutionary Biology"... witnessed event, 6 ways from sunday ..."???? ROTFLMAO! You snipped a much more accurate descritption: "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." We haven't heard from any witnesses, and we don't see rcords that we shoould see if it happened. You're the one that's boxed in ... I've stated explicitly, several times, that I accept the possiblity of things existing that science can't address. You haven't even atempted to answer a key question I posed several messages back: what evidence, whether it exists or not, would convince you that your ideas are wrong? If you can't come up with an answer to that question, you're just blowing smoke. No, it is not true. You don't know enough about the BB to ask a coherent question. Many scientists beleive in God. Science does not require abandoni.ng that belief. Nobody here is denying the obvious but you.Science is useful; it works. If it came out of its box in the way you propose, then it would not work any more and it would not be useful. "God did it" has no explanatory power and is the end of investigation.

quote:

---

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

---

The prediction that it will merge soon. The prediction that when it does the visible heavens will be different, with the added dimension. The natural phenomena of not naturally dying in the new earth. The prediction thet time-space will be demolished as we now understand it. The prediction of easy deep space travel, in new spirit bodies. I could give more, but I'll leave it here.

quote:

---

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?

---

The phenomena of spirits popping up from it, which might have been seen by witnesses. Or things like UFOs, or the star of Bethlehem, which also are seen, but you don't see them long enough, and they don't stay long enough to measure. Like something in a particle accelerator that only lasts a moment. The phenomena of something traveling faster than light.

quote:

---

Science gets results

---

It does the best it can with what it has to work with. But so much of the spiritless speculation, and nonscensical numbers, and mysterious specks, seems less important than a known spirit world that science enjoys ignoring to it's own peril.

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?"

---

The big bang at it's so called earliest stage, when it was just a little (metaphysical?) specky.

quote:

---

you are going to have to do some applied math, such as calculating what percentage of the Universe should be hydrogen.

---

How much hydrogen does the invisible prallel universe produce? How much is it you think we need?

quote:

---

You apparently don't understand the distinction between pure and applied math,

---

You apparently don't understand the math can't be applied to the pure spirit world.

quote:

---

So why is it wrong to say Marilyn Monroe essentially came from some bacteria long long ago
"Off topic"

---

It isn't wrong, that's what you evos think, I've talked to many who admitted as much.

quote:

---

what evidence, whether it exists or not, would convince you that your ideas are wrong?

---

Your idea of evidence doesn't even have to exist!? Well, If no one believed in a God, or creator, or ghosts, or haunted houses, or ufos, or the star of bethlehem, or angels, or devils, or heaven, or even a soul, or life after life, or esp, or prohesies coming true, and diddn't claim to see and feel these things, I might get a little shaken. Also, if the biggest selling book in the world, and oldest, (argueably, but I would leave it if I was you) didn't talk of exactly the same thing, I might also get shaken. As it is I have the bible, and a planet of witnesses to back me up. Also common sense, and opponents who actually believe in a speck that contained all in the universe!

quote:

---

No, it is not true. You don't know enough about the BB to ask a coherent question.

---

Sorry your comprehension is a little low. In other words, if we look back, or wind the clock back to that creation time, we might get a little expansion that happened in that time frame. We extrapolate backwards, as to how the universe (physical) would have contracted over time. Fine. Now, when we go beyond this, say extrapolating to billions of years backwards, way past this actual creation time, we get a contraction so small, it is a speck. And from this we imagine everything sprung from. So, you see, it is true. You take good thought, and science, then try to hijack it to some imaginary speck. Then you call it based on good science. Just because you may see some expansion, does not in any way mean you can dream us back to a speck with it!

quote:

---

"God did it" has no explanatory power and is the end of investigation.

---

Not when you realize He is a scientist. All it shows is that one either thinks He (and the supernatural) is not real, or that their little box is all there is to science. As if the supernatural is not perfectly scientific. You just need to make the jump to realize there is much more science than you know about yet, and quit trying to deny the other known world.

You still don't get this; but you are showing some signs of assimilating a couple of points, so it may be worth trying again.First point. The big bang model (or family of models) for cosmology is an empirical model; not a metaphysical one. It models physical reality; and stands or falls by how well it describes the physical world.The metaphysical issues about who (if anyone) created the universe, or design and meaning in the universe, etc, are not addressed by the big bang. The big bang -- like any other proposed empirical model for aspects of the physical world -- is used equally by theists, atheists, deists, agnostics, or folks who don't care about metaphysics.To call the big bang metaphysical is just wrong. It may be correct, or incorrect, in various aspects; but this is established only by physical correspondences to processes and events; not by any metaphysics. Metaphysics may try to become informed by and integrate what we know of the physical universe, but that applies for any empirical model.Second; it is really misleading to speak of the big bang as a little speck. We've gone over this, but it never seems to sink in. Let's try again.If the big bang model is correct, then very early stages of the universe were extremely hot and dense, to such an exceptional degree that many amateurs who read about it just cannot accept that scientists are serious with such a model. But actually, there is no intrinsic physical problem with such states. The questions are simply to do with trying to evaluate the evidence which might tell us more about the early universe.The big bang model does not, repeat does not, imply anything about a total size of the universe in this state. The big bang model admits an infinite universe, or a finite universe of any sufficiently large size. The notion of "small size" which is frequently expressed is not speaking of any "speck" or "particle"; but only of the size of the region which corresponds to the now visible universe, given the effects of relativistic expansion of space.According to big bang cosmology, if we could take an instantaneous snapshot of the very early universe, at the stages we are speaking of, we would have a seething dense soup of elementary particles; even more elementary than protons or neutrons. This is called "quark-gluon" soup. This would be a continuous soup, with no identifiable edge or particle or speck or primeval atom or anything like that which corresponds to the now visible universe. What cosmologists do is draw an imaginary sphere inside this soup, to contain all the matter and energy that will become what we now see, 13.7 billion years later.Third point. Attempts to match up some 6200 creationist model with what we know of the universe descend into the absurd long before we run into any issues with big bang or the origins of the universe. The galaxy itself is some 70,000 light years across. The wealth of available evidence absolutely rules out any possibilty of detectable changes to the speed of light over those time spans. Either the universe is old, or light was created in transit ... which would mean that the detailed measurements we make of many stars within our own galaxy are not even looing at stars; that are just looking at light which somehow got formed in regions close to Earth to look like it comes from distant stars.Cheers -- Sylas

That's a question for you to answer. The amount that we observe. The BB model correctly predicts that; if your model can't, your model isn't as good as the BB model. Oh, I understand it quite well. I was the first one to point out, back on the first page of this thread, that your spirit world idea isn't science. You just confirmed it yet again. Nope. As I said, you don't know enough about the BB to ask a coherent question. 400-ish posts on the topic and you are still pig-ignorant. OK, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that we accept your idea about the "spirit universe". Where does cosmology go from there when "God did it" is the answer to every question?

quote:

---

The notion of "small size" which is frequently expressed is not speaking of any "speck" or "particle"; but only of the size of the region which corresponds to the now visible universe,

---

The speck I refered to was in relation to our visible universe. Precisely what we now consider a speck. You yourself have even said, then we could also compare it with an orange if we like, as it got a little bigger! The reason I put a little (metaphysical?) in there was because the poor guy was avoiding giving an explanation of where he thought it came from.

quote:

---

This is called "quark-gluon" soup. This would be a continuous soup, with no identifiable edge or particle or speck or primeval atom or anything like that which corresponds to the now visible universe. What cosmologists do is draw an imaginary sphere inside this soup, to contain all the matter and energy that will become what we now see,

---

So they draw an imaginary sphere in their imaginary soup! Sounds like a good healthy well shaped place for the galaxies to have sprung from.

quote:

---

Attempts to match up some 6200 creationist model with what we know of the universe descend into the absurd long before we run into any issues with big bang or the origins of the universe.

---

Until the bulletproof invisible universe theory that is. So, even when the creos were poorly equiped you think your waiting billions of years to get absurd was superior.

quote:

---

The wealth of available evidence absolutely rules out any possibilty of detectable changes to the speed of light over those time spans

---

I explained in this thread from the getgo how this is no longer needed for a young earth. You can now have all the light years you'd like, and the young earth still stands supreme.

quote:

---

Either the universe is old, or light was created in transit ...

---

That was the old arguement, yes. Of course with our invisible universe, that would not have applied when it was created, then seperated. It does apply now in the physical universe, but not for much longer. In other words, check, and mate.

quote:

---

The metaphysical issues about who (if anyone) created the universe, or design and meaning in the universe, etc, are not addressed by the big bang.

---

So it doesn't matter how, but an all containing speck came into being. All else is mere metaphysical speck ulation.
This time I'm like the bulletproof monk, and I don't think you can shoot it down.

quote:

---

That's a question for you to answer.

---

Well, why would the spiritual universe have physical gas? Would the angels toot?

quote:

---

How much is it you think we need?
"The amount that we observe. "

---

Well with the bulletproof model, you got it! Everything in the physical universe still exists, as is, for now!

quote:

---

Oh, I understand it quite well. I was the first one to point out, back on the first page of this thread, that your spirit world idea isn't science.

---

Just because your physical math is limited to our physical universe doesn't mean the spirit world isn't a fun, sexy place-or real.

quote:

---

Nope. As I said, you don't know enough about the BB to ask a coherent question. 400-ish posts on the topic and you are still pig-ignorant.

---

But you can't say right, how it works. Maybe I had to much of bb's strange soup.

quote:

---

OK, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that we accept your idea about the "spirit universe". Where does cosmology go from there when "God did it" is the answer to every question?

---

It can stop going away from all supernatural, and try to include it the best they can. It can stop pronouncing God as dead. It can concentrate on the wonderful things we can see, and the wonderful things we will soon see, and be thankful for that.

Except, goober, for what Ned has been patiently prodding you about for days now: regardless of what goes on outside our atmosphere this ain't a young earth! A dozen or so completely independent lines of evidence show that it's been here quite a while.....Troll.

So your "model" is useless. All it says is "what is, is". Exceptionally sterile. The BB model makes useful predictions. Yup, agreed. Your spirit world may be all those things (although you have offered no reason to bleieve that it actually is any of those things) ... but it's not science. Science already includes the supernatural as best it can. Science has never done that. Some people have ... talk to them. Science already does that, far more than you do ... you are trying to stop science from concentrating on what we do and will see, and look only at your peculiar interpretation of your holy book.I note that you have no answer for my question, just vague and inaccurate generalities. I also notice that you agree that your "model" cannot predict anything, offers no insight, and has no application. IOW, just as I said back on page 1, not science ... and not even intesting metaphysics.

The simple truth regarding the Big Bang:Scientists does not know absolutely everything without any doubt regarding absolutely everything about the development of the big bang. That is unrealistic to ask for. No one is ever infallible.However, enough is measured and tested that we can use the model for practical reasoning, and direct predictions. This is what makes the model itself useful. The model corresponds to the real world in that we can see for ourselves that what it states is correct. But it's still a model. Compare this to the models we have about electricity, which allows us to make computers and electronics. We refine our knowledge all the time, and along comes more and more useful applications of our knowledge.The model says a couple of things about the mechanisms of our universe, and we can verify or deny these based upon what we find out about the universe.So what you should do, if you want to be taken seriously, is to start with observing evidence in the real world. Or take verified evidence from astronomers, if you don't have access to Hubble (which I doubt).Then, formulate a simple and direct mechanism based on any patterns you find in the evidence. It should predict things as accurate as possible, and it should let us test things to find out if your hypothesis is true.In your case, please feel free to estimate (doesn't have to be exact at this stage) the time for, and the effects of, this merge you claim is coming. This is a good and direct way we can test it. If it happens, obviously things are going to become rather stirred up, and you'll be famous for figuring it out in advance. If it does not happen, even though your model depends on that it would, then we know your model is false.Fair enough?

quote:

---

Except, goober, for what Ned has been patiently prodding you about for days now: regardless of what goes on outside our atmosphere this ain't a young earth! A dozen or so completely independent lines of evidence show that it's been here quite a while.....

---

Yes, when that becomes clearly your last resort, we'll blow it out of the water for you maybe.

quote:

---

Exceptionally sterile. The BB model makes useful predictions.

---

Yes, I wanted to know your great soup mix. Apprently it was even hot. Very practical.

quote:

---

Science already includes the supernatural as best it can.

---

Yes I read about grandma bacteria, mother of us all, and the speck that ate Chicago. You actually do pretty good on some aspects, except the real supernatural.

quote:

---

The prediction that it will merge soon. The prediction that when it does the visible heavens will be different, with the added dimension. The natural phenomena of not naturally dying in the new earth. The prediction thet time-space will be demolished as we now understand it. The prediction of easy deep space travel, in new spirit bodies. I could give more, but I'll leave it here.

---

That's funny, because not so long ago you claimed this idea of yours was bulletproof against science. If you can predict the time these events will happen, your idea would be in danger of being falsified when that time comes.Actually, it doesn't really matter. All you're doing is making wild (and silly) guesses about what will happen in the future. Go back and read my post explaining what science is. Recall that a scientific model is a. an casual explanation for some observable phenomena and b. an explanation that predicts new phenomena in the process. In order for a hypothesis to be scientific, it must satisfy both critera, or it fails to be science.If I were to claim there are gremlins from another dimension, and then make a prediction that they will attack New York in the future, do I have a scientific hypothesis? Of course not. The idea of gremlins is not an explanation for any observed phenomena, and the predictions do not follow from such. Likewise, even the most comprehensive explanation of any given phenomena is not scientific if it is not testible in principle. Both factors are needed for a scientific theory, as I hope you can see by now.

quote:

---

The phenomena of spirits popping up from it, which might have been seen by witnesses.

---

This is another important aspect of science that needs to be highlighted, and is an aspect that sets it apart from metaphysics. Any experiment must be repeatable by anyone, regardless of their personal beliefs or other biases. As an example, an observer performing an experiment with an atom smasher will get the exact same results as the next observer. It doesn't matter what beliefs an individual has, because the experiment will yeild the same results. Can you perform an experiment where everyone will see a ghost/spirit? Of course not. Likewise, if a scientific model predicts certain astronomical phenomena on a certain date, anyone with access to the sky will be able to verify it. This is not the case with UFO's are other similar sightings because they are unpredictible.Certainly, it is easy to demonstrate that many people believe they have seen ghosts. But this is not a new phenomena. People have been seeing ghosts for the past 5000 years, and so this kind of phenomena cannot be claimed as a prediction. This is what is called a post - diction.

quote:

---

It does the best it can with what it has to work with. But so much of the spiritless speculation, and nonscensical numbers, and mysterious specks, seems less important than a known spirit world that science enjoys ignoring to it's own peril.

---

You can believe it is less important, but I think something that actually gets results is a much more productive methodology. On the other hand, there is no reason for you to take a branch of science you haven't taken any time to understand (such as cosmology) and call it nonsensical. How do you know a model is nonsensical if you don't even know what the model actually is?

quote:

---

The big bang at it's so called earliest stage, when it was just a little (metaphysical?) specky.

---

Perfect example of what I posted above. There is no model that claims the early universe was a speak. What we do have is a prediction of a very successful cosmological model that claims the early universe was very hot and dense. The hot dense universe is not a scientific hypothesis. It is the prediction of a theory. Scientists agree with this prediction (even though it can't be observed) because the model has made several other accurate predictions and is considered a useful working theory.

quote:

---

Scientists does not know absolutely everything without any doubt regarding absolutely everything about the development of the big bang. That is unrealistic to ask for. No one is ever infallible.

---

Of course not, as I do not know everything about the spirit world.

quote:

---

The model corresponds to the real world in that we can see for ourselves that what it states is correct.

---

How does the bb correspond to anything? Are you talking about some movement, or expansion in the last several thousand years? Is this what you think makes it correct? If not, what?

quote:

---

Compare this to the models we have about electricity, which allows us to make computers and electronics.

---

What's wrong with electrical models? That doesn't sail out past creation, omit the invisible universe, and end up with a speck in some soup.

quote:

---

The model says a couple of things about the mechanisms of our universe, and we can verify or deny these based upon what we find out about the universe.

---

And which couple are these?

quote:

---

Then, formulate a simple and direct mechanism based on any patterns you find in the evidence.

---

I see patterns of millions of real people who have seen angels, or ghosts, or stars of Bethlehem. The mechanism to get here is from the other universe. I don't even need binoculars for this. Expand relativity to include the spirit universe, and things become even more relative!

quote:

---

In your case, please feel free to estimate (doesn't have to be exact at this stage) the time for, and the effects of, this merge you claim is coming. This is a good and direct way we can test it. If it happens, obviously things are going to become rather stirred up, and you'll be famous for figuring it out in advance.

---

It just so happens that not only the bible, but pretty well all the major prophets seem to drift out, and don't go much beyond our present time, of just after the turn of this particular millenium! I can't get too deep into it on a cosmo thread, but the clock is ticking, and there can be no stopping it! My estimate is only about 8 or 9 years! There is some possible window of interpretation here, where we could stretch it out a little. But the clock is in motion beyond doubt, and can only go so long.
As far as being famous, forget it. There are thousands of precise predictions spanning thousands of years the spirit world would come. I'm just looking at really a known quantity, and applying it to our known time limits, and orgin age.

quote:

---

If you can predict the time these events will happen, your idea would be in danger of being falsified when that time comes.

---

Woudn't that make it falsifiable? You guys like that.

quote:

---

Can you perform an experiment where everyone will see a ghost/spirit?

---

Well many more people than will ever see your speck. Go ahead, repeat that one!

quote:

---

Certainly, it is easy to demonstrate that many people believe they have seen ghosts. But this is not a new phenomena. People have been seeing ghosts for the past 5000 years, and so this kind of phenomena cannot be claimed as a prediction. This is what is called a post - diction.

---

OK then, let's close the deal with a genuine PRE diction. People will continue to see ghosts, and angels, and ufos.

quote:

---

On the other hand, there is no reason for you to take a branch of science you haven't taken any time to understand (such as cosmology) and call it nonsensical.

---

No. So much of it is good, and right, and interesting. It is when you take a little wiggle of an expansion in the last several thousand years, and try to measure it backwards to a speck in a soup that appeared out of nowhere, that you get nonsensical.

quote:

---

There is no model that claims the early universe was a speak.

---

Hey Silas, looks like you were out to lunch. I wonder if he'll rule out your orange next!