bulletproof alternate universe

Silas
Glad to hear others say you are of sufficient wherewithal to be taken seriously. I'll have to look again at your eye opening post.

quote:

---

Of course, the question he asks at the end indicates a severe ignorance of cosmology.

---

And it is that cosmology is severely ignorant of any spirit world that is what is being sought after! Admititly, you have a good point -I quickly said it wouldn't rule out any age. But, wouldn't that only be if the main christian creation acount was untrue? So, in other words, what I was saying, more or less, was that, as long as you accept God devided the two worlds for now, until they merge, fine, I suppose I could be happy you accept that point, even though you havn't been able to accept that it was done recently.

.....I thought that the whole point of your theory was to somehow reconcile the apparent age of the Universe with your insistence that it is only 6200 years old. If you're willing to accept any age, then what's the point of your theory? The only reason that the bullets don't seem to be hitting your theory (in your eyes) is because they're flying through the huge, gaping holes in it! Have you considered the possibility that the chap who wrote the "Christian" account might have done exactly what you are doing - trying to find an explanation as to why we're all here? Exactly the same thing that cosmologists are doing! We have absolutely no evidence that the Genesis account was dictated or inspired by God. We do have a wealth of evidence that contradicts the Genesis account, for example the fossil record, rock dating. How can your theory account for these?Edited to apologise for having replied to the wrong person, but the title says it all really [This message has been edited by Trixie, 04-01-2004]

quote:

---

Don't think I didn't notice that you made no refutation for the Hindu Model,

---

Perhaps you should build a temple to the speck? I know you don't like the term, but it's shorter than a bunch of math, and long winded parrables for the little item that supposedly expanded out to all that now is. I think it might go well. Perhaps your evo brothers might want to build one to a rat, or cockcroach as well, since you are all thinking you came (most of you anyhow)from the identical relatives! No, you are entitled to your religion. Besides, I was suspended, so I didn't get back in much time to give your hindu concepts some tlc!

quote:

---

When separation (process now not instant moment as it was originally) occurs as each section is ripped spiritual from physical universe the light now travels at speed (c), wherever it was dropped. (New undefined) process takes at most 2 days for your (weaker than the Hindu Model) Christian version (stars on 4th day rested on 7th, job done -- do we now get to the "a day is as a thousand years" bit huh do we huh?), except that you claim all was made before the "process" started ... was the "process" on the 7th day? Is that when it happened?

---

Even though your tounge seems in cheek, it's a fair question. I looked back at the thread, to see where I dealt with the light thing, and couldn't find it quickly. Hope I did mention it somewhere. Oh well, no time like the present. This is the item I am most concerned with.
So we say, are now in a complete universe. The need has come to seperate man and his universe from the spiritual one, for whatever reason, say as a timed demo. Why doesn't matter much, but if we had ate the fruit and stayed in an immortal state kinda situation, that would leave us permanently screwed so to speak. Anyhow, the seperation comes. How long would a process like this take? I don't know. It seems silly to lock into a certain little time frame at this point. So lets say, just to have a number to visualize, it took 12 days. I suppose it could have been 12 hours or whatever, I don't know.
Light would be seen I think almost right away, from the stars. Even though the light speed was now slowed to it's present speed. Either slowed, or was what light could be left in a physical universe. It would be very different light in the other universe, not limited to our speed. So we could see that not even being able to detect the other spiritual world, we would be very limited in knowing the exact seperation process. Maybe one day we will get these things and much more in our science. As it is then, the distant stars that we were now able to see in our universe, with our new laws, and speeds of the physical only, would very much appear to take a long time to get to. In our present state, and yes, in light's present state, it would take millions of years. This does not mean they were made millions of years ago, but that 6000 years ago, or so, it became impossible to get there faster.
So when I see someone talk about how we can trace backwards some process now existant here, like a movement, inflation, expansion, whatever they have, or think they have, they can't wind it backwards beyond when our physical world actually came into existance. Actual time, as opposed to apparent time. This basically is my proposed concept.

quote:

---

If you're willing to accept any age,

---

You are right. I don't for a New York minute accept any other date, and in this life, I never will. I guess I was trying to make the point there, not nailing a date down for the poster, that my main concern was that the creation date would have to be accepted as every bit as possible as any other date. In other words, believe what you like, as long as you are forced to admit the young creation date cannot be ruled out. It is impervious to one claiming then, that it was less svientific than say a speck date, or whatever.
If all agreed to this, it should be easy to spend a billion dollars on lawyers, and have God's creation ruled back in schools! After all, regardless of what hindu scientific beliefs some may hold, or athiestic, etc., craetion would be every bit as valid. That's all I was allowing for. Do I accept there is no creator, or that His dates are wonky? No.

quote:

---

We have absolutely no evidence that the Genesis account was dictated or inspired by God. We do have a wealth of evidence that contradicts the Genesis account, for example the fossil record, rock dating. How can your theory account for these?

---

The theory really deals with the cosmic things, not the earth science things. Like I said, I am not worried about that battle, once the heavens are conceeded.

quote:

---

I sympathize; this is not easy stuff. But it will help if you try to co-operate a bit. I mean it when I say there is something wrong with speaking of a little speck. That notion does not correspond to what is actually proposed in modern cosmology.

---

"There is a time when it was the size of a basketball, and the size of a pea, and the size of an atom." (silas quote) http://EvC Forum: How big are the stars? -->EvC Forum: How big are the stars?
If something is as big as an atom, what's wrong with calling it a speck?

quote:

---

What I have consistently pointed out as an error, right from the start, is to speak of the universe being a certain size at a certain time.

---

As you were quoted above, maybe not as consistantly as you may think!

quote:

---

The plain fact is that we don't know the total size of the universe, either now or at any other time. The size of the universe is not established by big bang cosmology. In fact, we don't even know if the universe is finite, or infinite. And if it is infinite,

---

We're not talking about now, but when as you say, it was the size of an orange, etc. You can't blame me, it's your words, and explanation!
I looked at your 'ekpyrosis theory' link. --". But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time.--"It's almost crazy enough to be correct." ---- They talk about a small 'point' for the big bang here too. As far as the rest of the 'crazy' conjecture, "These membranes, or "branes" as theorists call them, would have floated like sheets of paper through a fifth dimension that even scientists admit they find hard to picture " Sorry, even though they do add in a 5th dimension, it is beyond creation, God, and reason, in my opinion.

quote:

---

When I speak of "soup" I speak of a substance; not a thing.

---

Fair enough, so an atom sized 'substance'.

quote:

---

It was thick... very thick, and filled with a strange kind of soup.

---

So then we have very chunky hot soup. At one time, as you said, small. Say, less than a cup o soup!

quote:

---

because the soup is far more violent than the center of the Sun

---

At least it's still little here, near it's beginning.

quote:

---

in the early universe, this expansion is rapid.

---

Yes the cup of soup is eager to stretch out to a universe.

quote:

---

Modern cosmology proposes that a small fraction of a second after the big bang, the size of this "horizon of visibility" was very small. This is not the size of any speck; it is simply an indication of how far away in the space are points that can see each other after 13.7 million years.

---

So these space points that can see each other, are thy some material millions of miles apary, or mass-less phantoms? Is this after it was as big as an orange? Or are these space points millions of miles away just for spectators who don't exist yet? In other words, are there actually lots of oranges, or just the one that is now a cup o soup?

quote:

---

Since nothing travels faster than light, this means that everything we now see was once compressed within a small region of this small size...

---

Oh, thank goodness, we're back here again, where everything is compressed into the cup o soup!

quote:

---

. But this small region would not look like a speck; because all you have is a universe of unknown size, filled with quark-gluon soup.

---

To be quite honest, I don't care much what it looked like! You say it was so small as an atom at one time anyhow. When it grew up to be as big as a pepper piece, one might look more carefully, and see what shape it was or wasn't. Regardless, the main thing to me of concern is not the shape of the pepper sized thing that isn't a speck, but that people feel that billions of years before the actual creation, all things in our universe were in the little violent hot soup!

quote:

---

In fact, his first post in the thread includes phrases such as "it really is billions of our light years away" and "It leaves science pretty well intact!"

---

(my posts) Yes it really is billions of our present light years away, at speeds it now takes. But in no way is it billions of years old! Don't blame gip for lack of understanding! And as for leaving science fairly intact, all that means, is that as long as they stop extrapolations to billions of real years, their measurements of many things like distances, etc. can specify it is only physical universe light years in question, and not real time that they are talking about. So it can still be far away, but not long away.

Question: Would spiritual light haveA) A finite but very very fast speed
B) An infinite speedaccording to your model?Note that these two scenarios would each produce a separate phenomena that would be observable on earth.

I don't know, I'd go with infinite in the spirit world. But unless we had a pretty good idea of the seperation process, how would it be perceived here?

Well, if that is what your model predicts...If light would instantly arrive at it's destination, it would be impossible to catch it 'mid-flight' (during the separation) which would mean that once light got a finite speed (c) only newly generated light would be visible. Hence, no stars would be visible unless the age (in years) of the universe since the split is the same or greater as their distance (in lightyears) from us.Hence, since we can clearly detect light from billions of lightyears away, any separation must have occured billions of years ago.Any gradual change from infinite to c should also have been direct observable in terms of rather extreme changes in frequency unless the separation took place very very slowly (in which case you could argue that the currently observed slight redshift could cover that).[This message has been edited by Melchior, 04-01-2004]

You dishonest little turd... don't you DARE try to thank me for putting effort into these posts, and claim to be looking into the matter, when you deliberately play the moron with stuff like this.The "it" in that quote you extracted from another thread is plainly and clearly identified in the original post, and it DOES NOT refer to the universe. You propose an inconsistency by ignoring everything I was actually saying in the posts, ripping two disconnected sentences out of their context, and impling the pronoun "it" in the first extract is a reference to "the universe" in the second.What a revolting display of a bankrupt intellect! Even one preceding sentence of context would be sufficient to clarify what I mean... but the last thing a fraud like you wants is honest engagement with anyone else's point of view.You seem to think you are defending a biblical view of creation. And yet in doing so you ride roughshed over basic decency and integrity and truth. What a screwed up system of values! People like you are the reason that Christians are increasing regarded with contempt as untrustworthy frauds willing to promulgate calculated distortions of other people's views as a debating tactic. You are a profoundly ugly example of how faith goes rotten when unconstrained by concerns for honesty.A better link for the quoted extract is Message 228. Abbreviated but with essential context retained so as to truthly follow the use of pronouns, it reads as follows: Snip the rest of the inane refusal to even try and deal honestly with this material. What is contemptible is not the misunderstandings of science, or the inability to accept conventaionl science. I have no problem with that. The contempt is strictly for the deliberate distortions of the views of others, and the lack of integrity in responding to views he does not share.PS. I know that arkathon is not representative. My scorn and contempt for his childish behaviour is not extended to Christians in general.

quote:

---

If light would instantly arrive at it's destination, it would be impossible to catch it 'mid-flight' (during the separation)

---

The light of the spirit world is not the same light as here. When someone dies, goes through a tunnel, and see a light, it usually is thought of as different. Also, Me standing at a bedside, would not see this light the dead person sees. So, are we assuming here that the properties of light in our physical universe must be applied to the spititual? The thing is, in the process where we were seperated, if the combination was of both spiritual and physical, and then ended up with just a physical left, say, missing certain portions of it's original state, so that all that was left was the photons etc we now have. Almost like they took over, as the invisible was split. So rather than be caught mid flight, it could have been more like they were robbed mid flight of the spiritual. So what is arriving now, is not so much what was caught in flight, as what is left from, or replaced that which was in flight first. Yes, if we took the present stuff that travels at it's known speed, and replaced it mid flight we would have an entirely different matter.
It's a little like asking, how could light have been made before the sun and stars? Like in the day one I think it was. What kind of light was up in the sky providing the day and night? Some type of cosmic light that has since disappeared? In other words, what is light? Is it just the stuff in our physical universe? And that's all? Or is there much more to it than that? If so, what we see here could basically be all that could exist here for light, in this physical universe.
Could it have ridden on the highyway of true light,(now gone, seperated) and gotten a 'free ride' so as it would be visible after the seperation process? This would have had the light in our universe coming from the stars, sort of boosted here, or hitchhiked on the spirit light, but left on it's own after the other became split. Could it be the remains of a different light, and all that could survive in our physical dimension? Could the time that was made to affect our world have had any effect? So, then in a nutshell, the light we now see may not be the same light as the spiritual. So our light, now following the highway of light that was in place (and being now with it's finite speed in our universe), took over the highway. Looking at the incoming light, though, unless we also look at the original spirit light, and the process of splitting, as well, we can not say it took the billions of years. That would be only if there was nothing else.
OK, whats wrong with this?

Or perhaps the myseterious white light described by people whoe haved "NDE" is simply a biological phenomena as you brain dies due to oxygen deprivaton, and not a real light at all.

This is all more than enough. Time to ignore fools like this.

but I told you so. lol lol

quote:

---

The contempt is strictly for the deliberate distortions of the views of others, and the lack of integrity in responding to views he does not share.

---

Very indignant sounding. No one is trying to distort anything. It seems to me you said I could consider the little baby big bang thingy basically any size I want. Why are you ranting on here that this is now bad? Maybe you are sincere, but you seem yo me like a yo yo on this, back and forth.
"if you go back to within a tiny fraction of a second of the initial singularity, then there was a very small region, the size of an orange, or pea, or atom (depending on how far back you go) which contained every particle or graviton or photon or physical influence which could possibly have had any interaction or engagement with any of the particles of which we are made." Do you have english subtitles for this? Does this little whatever not contain basically everything?
"But in relativity, distance and space get a bit more tricky. The effect of the expansion of space is that the region from which those photons might have come is much smaller. Even more strange is that as you approach the singularity, the size of this subspace shrinks without limit. There is a time when it was the size of a basketball, and the size of a pea, and the size of an atom. Because of space expansion, even two photons separated by that small distance don't have enough time to meet which other after travelling through space for 13 billion years.Unfortunately, our current physics breaks down as we approach the singularity; so before we reach infinite density and infintesimal size we enter the unknown." Here another one by you! No one's trying to make up quote from you, fess up, this stuff you said, and more. Now you're thinking it is evil to say so?
Was there a little whatever where the universe came from in the big bang theory. I am not asking to embrace it. I'm asking so we will see how silly it is! And did you not say to get to the beginning point, you extrapolated backward? Cool down, you're as hot as a cup o soup! Your false accusations seem unlike your previous posts. I am pretty sure you said it was small. If I'm wrong, it's not on purpose or trying to invent things you said.