bulletproof alternate universe

Actually you have no idea how I feel about what you call a "speck" seeing as it does not immediately convey an image of any current model of the universe I am aware of. A usual problem with creationist types is trying to redefine words to new meanings when perfectly good ones exist. Words are for communication, misusing them means miscommunication occurs, and intentional misuse is intentional miscommunication. If by speck you mean the sexy-big-bang, then you can just use BB and it is much shorter, concise, and communicative than the whole phrase of semi-explanation you had to qualify your term with because you know the term "speck" is not used for any cosmological model (refer back to communication please). I don't mind the term at all because it shows ignorance and intentional miscommunication -- in short it is you. Keep using it please

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The model I was referring to does not involve the standard model sexy-big-bang, which is what I believe you are attempting a speck of humor about, so the reference is meaningless on two counts (is that a new record for you or normal?) Suggest you spend more time reading the posts you are supposedly replying to rather than dashing off more examples of ignorance.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You are off suspension now and can devote plenty of time to it. You certainly have devoted time to a lot of other posts without saying anything new.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Please cite a biblical reference for when this happened and that it was in fact 12 days (you do claim this is biblical right?).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

And this still does not solve your problem with the light -- 12 days instead of two means
(12 days/13.7 billion years = 2.4e-10% = 2.4/10000000000%). You either end up with a dark universe until the light reaches here or the light from the stars less than 6200 light-years away would be brighter than the sun. Contradiction of your concept either way by the evidence available to any person on the globe with a view of the stars at night.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The age you claim here is irrelevant as the light needs longer than that to reach here from the distance the star is away -- this is one of the basic contradictions to your concept I have consistently pointed out, and which you still have not answered.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Just to make it easier for you here it is again:However the spiritual plane could be Hindu instead of Christian, and the age could as easily be anything else, so voila it is 100 billion years to fit the Hindu faith. Please note this also means there is no problem with light traveling from distant stars or the age of the universe or the earth, which the Arkathon Concept ("AC") has in double doses.Now let's talk about correspondence between concept and faith: this concept is similar to the ekpyrosis theory that is an alternate to the sexy-big-bang model, using two colliding membranes of {3D space + time} universe in a {4D (or more) space + time} super-universe (the collision is spread out thus avoiding the inflation part of the current BB model), we just define the other brane as the spiritual one and we have the initial AC. Another part of the ekpyrosis theory and the AC is that these branes will come together again. That is as far as the AC goes, but the ekpyrosis model says that it has been and will be a repeated cycle of universe creation. This also fits the Hindu cosmic vision. The Hindu vision also has many layers of spiritual worlds, thus it corresponds to the multiple dimensions of the ekpyrotic model here as well.Because concept fits the observed data better, and current theory better, and the Hindu faith better, than the AC fits Christian creation and reality, means that I am right: prove otherwise.Enjoy.btw - "a thousand ages together make one Brahma's day, and his night lasts just as long" -- sound familiar? (Age of the Universe, Hindu))

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

And to recap the comparison of "AC" to the "HM"Hindu model much superior, no (now 12 day period) "process" needed ... must be correct version. The Holy Trinity (sound familiar?) -- Brahma, Vishnu and Siva -- will be pleased.Notice that between the two there are testable differences in what they predict:

1. age of the universe
   • "AC" predicts age of 6200 years
   • "HM" predicts 100 billion year old universe
   • Observation: minimum age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, contradicts "AC" and allows "HM"
2. light behavior
   • "AC" predicts light from 6200 ly away or less will be full bright, anything further extremely dim to the point of being unvisible
   • "HM" predicts light fully visible from depths of the universe
   • Observation: light fully visible from the depths of the universe, contradicts "AC" and confirms "HM"
3. age of the earth
   • "AC" predicts age of 6200 years
   • "HM" predicts much greater age, the earth being a cyclic event in a 100 billion year old universe
   • Observation: age of the earth is 4.55 billion years, contradicts "AC" and confirms "HM"

You probably recognize these three ...Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Horsefeathers. The existing posts explain it just fine for anyone capable of reading with a minimum of integrity. That rules you right out.No, "it" does not contain basically everything; the extract quoted explains what "it" contains just fine.

Bull. Sylas explained, in detail and quite adequately, exactly how you distorted his meaning by quoting him out of context. Just to make it even more clear, from the message in the older thread:

quote:

---

The notion of "size" refers not to a speck, or particle, but to a region of space. It refers to the region of space from which everything we can see derives. Furthermore, as has been explained, there is no well defined size for that region in general. The size depends on the time of asking.

​

...

​

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.

---

Clearly "it" in the quote you extracted refers to a portion of the universe, the portion that we see now as the observable universe, and not the universe itself. Sylas never said that the universe was ever as big as a basketball, pea. or atom.You are dishonest, you tried to distort Sylas' meaning, and you got caught.

Just to be clear on the concept Lets assume "the process" has taken 6200 years: this still does not solve your problem with the light -- (6200/13.7 billion years = 4.5e-5% = 4.5/100000%).And you either end up with a dark universe until the light reaches here or the light from the stars less than 6200 light-years away would be brighter than the sun.Alpha Centauri would be 2,210,000 times brighter than every star further away than 6200 light-years.Contradiction of your concept either way by the evidence available to any person on the globe with a view of the stars at night.And we haven't even looked at the problems this concept would have with explaining the red-shift

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

[quote]The existing posts explain it just fine for anyone capable of reading with a minimum of integrity. That rules you right out. ..."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"
So it was small, and did contain all this stuff (basically all matter in universe)you mentioned? That's all that concerns me, not the depths of madness that goes any futher. My only point with the whole big bang concept is and was that it was supposed to be some small (zero, speck imaginary sphere in so called soup, etc)'thing' which produced our stars and galaxies. Nothing else at all matters about it to me. It's a lie. It's insanity. The only reason I bring it up is to show how crazy reasoning or science becomes when they rule out God's creation, and sail too far back to when it didn't exist.
You seem to have stooped to false allegations of character, and insults. Too bad, I got some good material from you! Enough to use for a stand up comedy routine. Thanks again. Sorry I'm not buying the bill of goods, not now, not ever.

quote:

---

end up with a dark universe until the light reaches here

---

Assuming what? That the physical light that was left from being seperated ceased to exist? If we had a garden hose shooting out water, and it was also hooked up with a second, and third, and forth little inputs, so now we had the water, as well as some milk, and koolade, and acid, and honey , all coming out the hose together now. We shut off all the other sources, and now we have just the honey coming out. I see no need for the one getting squirted to stop getting 'wet'.
So, As the spirit world was seperated, and we were left only with the slow light we now have, how is it it needed to stop?
Even if the honey now came out a lot slower, than the water would have before, and if it would take a lot longer to get from the source. Since we already had a hose full of all liquids, the honey still comes out. Now if we measure the time it would take for the honey to theoretically get from the other end of the long hose, without realizing that it used to be different, our numbers would be off.
Did your math account for the light we know to have been formed only as a result of seperation? I must admit it is difficult to grasp this stuff.

silas--" Extrapolated backwards, the simplest empirical consequence is that matter in the universe used to be all closer together."
Unfortunately, our current physics breaks down as we approach the singularity; so before we reach infinite density and infintesimal size we enter the unknown"
The expansion is of a kind that, extrapolated into the past, it reduces without bound"
You were asking what "they" think -- "they" being cosmologists. What "they" think is that region of space containing all the now-visible universe used to be tiny; effectively as small as you like. "They" do, however, recognize that they can't get back to zero sizes, because current physics breaks down shortly before reaching such conditions."
Everything which we see was originally contained within a tiny region of that space, in conditions of unimaginable heat and density."There is a time when it was the size of a basketball, and the size of a pea, and the size of an atom. http://EvC Forum: How big are the stars? -->EvC Forum: How big are the stars? "This allows us to speak sensibly of the size of the visible universe as we extrapolate back. When it is said that the visible universe was once the size of an orange, or a pea, or an atom, what this means is that if you go back in time far enough, all world lines which intersect with any event we can see at present, originally came from within a small region.However, that small region was not a "speck" or a "particle"; it is simply a region defined by another abstract line, like the horizon. If, as many cosmologists apparently think plausible, the universe is infinite, then it was always infinite. However, 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.There is no physical edge to this small region; it is a kind or arbitrary line drawn around a portion of a possibly unbounded universe.Many people never get this. The big bang does not propose a particle or speck which exploded. It proposes a space which was expanding; a space which might be finite or infinite but in any case does not have boundaries like particles or specks. Everything which we see was originally contained within a tiny region of that space, in conditions of unimaginable heat and density."http://EvC Forum: How big are the stars? -->EvC Forum: How big are the stars? 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.http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=2&t=128&p=5
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. "

quote:

---

Clearly "it" in the quote you extracted refers to a portion of the universe, the portion that we see now as the observable universe, and not the universe itself. Sylas never said that the universe was ever as big as a basketball, pea. or atom.

---

OK so now what, there was one of these cup o soups over every horizon? So all was not in one, but there were millions of cups of soup? (or you don't know how many there was, since it depends how big the universe is, that you don't know?). Even if this was the case, it wouldn't matter much to me, because is not he still saying that billions of stars and galaxies, all we now can see or know about-was in this 'imaginary sphere' of tiny tiny size that none of you seem to like calling a speck?!

Exactly! If you start in different place, even if it's ever so close, you would imagine a slightly different region.For example, if you measured from Alpha Centauri you'd see a slightly bit of the universe which is impossible to see from our own solar system.It's the same as how a horizon is working.And yes, the big bang model says, based on observations and confirmed predictions, that all the bits that makes up stars and planets in our part of the universe was gathered in a very small bit of space earlier.This might be hard to imagine, what with stuff on earth being so hard to compress, but you have to realize that it's not normal matter. The reason you don't fall through the floor when you stand up isn't that there is a lot of matter in the way. It's mostly empty space, with only very very very small atoms. The region was so hot that there weren't even any atoms.[This message has been edited by Melchior, 04-02-2004]