bulletproof alternate universe

You are indeed bullet proof; such determined and resolute stupidity is proof against any amount of learning. S'okay by me. I suspect you are not quite as confident as you sound, and that deep down you may have this nagging concern that perhaps there might even be good reasons why modern cosmology is the way it is, and good reason why nobody at all seems at all moved by your intuitions. But I could be wrong about that. Shug.Your "model" is not an alternative to anything. It is a confused attempt to put an articifical boundary around your 6200 year time line, and call that an origin of some incoherently described bafflegab about spirit universes or whatever else. It is not based on anything in the bible, or any empirical evidence. Since it tries to include the possibility of an old universe, it isn't even an alternative to the big bang. It's bullet proof like fog is bullet proof.You still don't understand the orange analogy, or why your comments about specks fail to accurately describe the big bang model. But I think that explanations of this point have helped others understand modern cosmology a bit better.Cheers -- Sylas

I'm also sure several people here are now much dumber for having read the drivel in this thread. Then again, I should know better. When you live in a fantasy world, who needs science? This forum needs a FAQ on the scientific method to avoid silliness like this.[This message has been edited by Beercules, 03-28-2004]

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

actually i'm looking for a space or a time where absolute nothing exists because there was only one of it and nothing to compare it too......even this "soup" sounds like it was made of constituent parts but before that ???Here's a question for the big bangers...What observable evidence would be neccessary to disprove or discard it as a working model ???yeah yeah, Jesus riding in with a band of angels hell bent on destruction of the wicked would do it but in scientific terms...what???

There is no such space or time in modern cosmological models. Yes, you are correct. The "soup" had "parts" in the sense that space was filled with a seething mass of very elementary particles.Before that, we just don't know. However, when you speak of "before" there are some tricky issues to get past, which are really really hard to understand.Our conventional understanding of time is that it is a kind of backdrop against which things occur. We intuitively think you can always assume more time into the past.That turns out not to be the case in relativistic physics.Interestingly, St Ausgustine was one of the very early church fathers, and he has a perspective on God and time which is in some ways similar to that of many modern Christians who are aware of the physics of relativity. He regards time itself as a creation of God, so that you can't just speak of God in time who creates at some identifiable moment in time. His ideas on creation were not, of course, an anticipation of modern relativistic cosmology, but he did grasp that time itself is a thing for which we need to give an account; rather than an inevitable backdrop.In relativistic cosmology, space and time are aspects of one spacetime continuum; and that continuum may be bounded in the past. That is, there is a limit beyond which not even time exists; so you can't speak of "before". There is no "before".Relativistic models involve an initial instant; and there is no "before" that instant. That instant is the "singularity"; which is just a word that means at that time all our descriptions make one great big division by zero, and become undefined.Of course, because modern physics actually breaks down before you get to this instant, the correct answer is that we just don't know what comes before the quark-gluon soup. However, that does not mean you can assume that there was such a time as one second before the quark gluon soup. We can't assume that; in fact it is almost certainly invalid. If we ever to come up with a more complete picture of events prior to quark gluon soup, it is mostly unlikely to simply recover older simpler intuitions about the flow of time. It will be something we don't know. What observable evidence would be neccessary to disprove or discard the notion of matter being made up of atoms?One thing that people have a trouble grasping is that big bang cosmology is not just a weird assumption. It is solidly grounded in empirical evidence and observation, and it is accepted precisely because nothing else makes sense.But we could certainly imagine some observational evidence which would throw a huge spanner in the works.For example; if it could be found that there were two galaxies in orbit around one another, but that had very different red shifts. This would mean that redshift is not a distance indicator, and would blow apart the major evidence for expansion of space. Halton Arp is famous for proposing physical links between high red shift quasars and low red shift galaxies. Few astronomers are persuaded by his evidence on this.If the background radiation suddenly changed frequency to match a blackbody of 2.9K (rather than 2.7K), that would be inexplicable in big bang cosmology.Cheers -- Sylas

quote:

---

It is a confused attempt to put an articifical boundary around your 6200 year time line

---

It is only articifical if there is no spirit world. Also, it is your attempt to go beyond the creation boundary that puts you in the soup.

quote:

---

deep down you may have this nagging concern that perhaps there might even be good reasons why modern cosmology is the way it is

---

I said parts are good. The deep soup theory stuff is less credible than the known supernatural.

quote:

---

It is not based on anything in the bible, or any empirical evidence. Since it tries to include the possibility of an old universe

---

Of course it is. Include old universe? Have you been dipping in the soup? I explained that when the spiritual, and physical universes merge the old part ceases to be old. It was made 6000 yr ago. Almost right away, as the seperation was effected, it then and only then would take billions of years to get to the far stars. In the coming merge, it will again not take that long at all. Pysical limits will be gone, therefore time limits. You simply must not understand the simple concept.

quote:

---

You still don't understand the orange analogy,

---

I understand you say it was all that size at one time. I understand you extrapolate to get there. What else matters?

quote:

---

Of course, because modern physics actually breaks down before you get to this instant, the correct answer is that we just don't know what comes before the quark-gluon soup.

---

You just don't know. When it comes to spiritual beings, you just don't know. When it comes to the invisible universe, you just don't know. But you little speck you seem to think you know. One sided extrapolations I'd say.

quote:

---

and it is accepted precisely because nothing else makes sense.

---

When you measure only the physical, nothing can make sense. Especially when you measure it backwards.

UFOs have been seen to change direction at speeds that physical crafts would not be able to stand before breaking up. If some of these are spititual world material, that would explain it. The same thing for explaining a lot of known phenomena. If the universe was together with the invisible one, the new universe would have many properties the physical world could never have. This explains how time would not be required to travel great distance. This explains how stars far away would not need to be old, just because they are far away.
This explains how the limited understanding of our physical universe, could lead us to assume an old age, if this was all we put in the calculations. This explains all supernatural phenomena through history, and present. This explains time, as something made for us in the physical, and how it will no more.
This explains death, and life after death, and the tunnel of light passage that would simply be a way between the physical and spiritual worlds.
This also explains why the big bang is a false concept, from a non exsistant imagined backward extrapolation beyond reason and reality. This explains the star of Bethlehem, and everything in the bible.
This explains why modern cosmology can be OK if it gets off the tangent of missing the big picture. This explains the shortcomings of relativity, and gives more to be relative to.
The only criticism seem to be whining, and covering scientific limitations with accusations of 'non scientific'. The priests of the box are freaking. The sooth sayers of the speck are in a soup. Anyone got any real goods?
Seems to be hard to get a straight answer even on your speck. Now it's as big as an orange, -now we are ignorant for thinking it is that big. Now we can imagine it any size as it grew, -now we can't. Now it ops in and out of a cosmic womb, now it doesn't. Now it has the whole universe in it, now it doesn't. Now we don't know, now we do! Now, it's a soup. A soup no one knows who cooked! At least they say it was too hot to eat. The problem is, the soup was made billions of years before the universe was created! We know this, because we can count backwards really high!

I'm sorry, but saying "Other people believe this" does not affect it's credibility. You will HAVE to totally disregard people, and do your experiments regardless of them. People believe whatever they believe, and there is no reason why it would fit the real world.If you want to make a scientific model, or something close to it, you must drop the whole people believe thing because that's exactly the problem science wants to avoid.

Loonier and loonier ...There's a much simpler and far more likely explanation.

ArkathonI have worked with professional geologists who are YEC's, OEC's and atheists. One YEC geologist I worked with was very much like you, but perhaps more confused than you. At least he had a degree in geology and accepted what he learned as reasonable based on the available evidence.But obviously he had a problem reconciling geology with YEC beliefs. Like you he came up with all sorts of "theories" in an attempt to reconcile the two, including postulating theories like the water for the flood came from volcanic eruptions, the speed of life had changed over time etc.He started out with the assumption that the bible was true and therefore had to change geology and physics to fit in with his first assumption.The points I would like to make are :
1. This individual was confused and spent a lot of his time pondering this reconciliation problem.
2. Science does not say there is no god.
3. There is no need to bring in cosmology to show that the universe
( Earth )is ancient.
4. Simply rejecting the bits of science you do not like does not, by default, mean that YOUR god, or any god, is the alternative answer.I have also met religious gelogists who accept mainstream geology, but at the same time accept god. One explained to me that he believed geology was science and his belief was a faith. This, I believe is the way it is. They are two seperate things. You will only become sad and confused if you try to reconcile science and religion.If you believe in god as the creator etc, why can't you simply accept that in faith? If he exists, he exists. Trying to prove that he exists via science or pseudo-science I think cannot be done. And in any event will not alter the fact that he exists or does not exist.

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

quote:

---

People believe whatever they believe, and there is no reason why it would fit the real world.

---

Yes. Sometimes I think everyone else in the world is crazy, but you and me. Sometimes though, I even wonder about you.

quote:

---

Loonier and loonier ...

---

I've seen one do just that myself. What, does your unloony explanation say it was one of the military ones?

quote:

---

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%)

---

Re phrase the rules out part. Do you mean the coexisting invisible to us universe that has so great an effect needs to rule out a bunch of ages you can come up with? If so, gimme a ferinstance.
How light gets here from afar? Easy, it travels at a known, measured speed, so from the million ly you exampled, it would take of course a million years, here in the physical universe. You thought that was a stumper?