bulletproof alternate universe

quote:

---

with the universe only 6200 years old by your (weaker than the Hindu Model) version the light from all stars inside 6200 light-year radius of earth is sending honeyed light, while further away all we get is the watered version.

---

No, our light everywhere in our universe would be the same light. You must have misunderstood, or I was not clear, or something.

quote:

---

you still have the problem of light from stars nearer than 6200 light-years being full source light and light from further further stars being watered ....

---

Light in our physical universe would be the same. The reason we see it even from far away, would be because, it was already on the way here as it was slowed. If it wasn't simple slowing to present speed, then some process from the seperation which resulted in our physical light. The process left us seeing the far away light still, but light was changed, for our plane, so it was slow now.
PS If you do reply please try to be clear you are not playing games, if you expect any real answer from me. I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, as you seem to know a lot about cosmology. But at the same time the general flavor of your posts strikes me as sarcastic, and a sort of junior high type of fogginess, and tounge in cheek -would be cleverness, written more for a giggling friend than who it is posted for.
By the way I'm closing the thread very soon, from my point anyhow, so if anyone can really shoot the concept down, fine. If not, thanks for the imput.

I don't know what you mean. All I've said is it split off, and became what we have now. The process was such that it was a more or less uninterupted flow, now, at a slow physical plane speed. So yes, before the split it was fudamentally very different.

quote:

---

On the surface of the earth this defaults to the more familiar f=g*m where g = ~10 m/s/s = G*M/d/d (where d = the average radius of the earth)

​

So yes, the closer the boy and girl get, the stronger the force, and as they collapse on the floor, the closer they can get ...

---

Happy hunting

Whoops, sorry, Abby I mistook the post as an answer to another post.

Slightly is a good word. Why would the wavelength, or spectrum, indicate that light does not jive with the two planes splitting?

quote:

---

affected by that stretching to be very significantly different from 'normal' light

---

I think the idea was that the light that was there to start with was not what we would call normal. What we see now is the affected bit.

quote:

---

any word on the biblical justification on the 12 days?

---

That was just a number we used but I could come up with some. 12 months, 12 deciples, etc.

[quote]light would be shifted out of the visible range ... physical light we have now. What about the spirit plane light? Would that obey our light spectrum ways? Since it is not here now, that might be hard to say. Some christian science folks have questioned the distant redshift interpretation. What if everything got shifted from the previous mix, so it ended up the way it is? Since we don't know much ag=bout either the other light, or the process of seperation, how could we say???! What we could say was the time would be very different.

One moves at our speed, the other takes no time to get there. Detectable? Not by man yet.

quote:

---

for light to reach here from beyond that horizon means that it is not normal compared to the light inside that horizon

---

All light in our universe would be normal. What we see would be up to thousands of years old. Spiritual universe light you would not consider normal, as it does not have your limitations.

The shortcoming as I see it with creation science models so far, is that the light could not have been made en route. Otherwise it would not have the signitures in it that show it came from the star or galaxy. This model add a seperation, so that the light wasn't made the way it is, it ended up that way after the seperation.
60 minutes left before thread closed. Unless admin gets there first.

quote:

---

I've reformatted the above for readability, and added in yellow omitted context establishing plainly that "it" refers to a small region within the universe.

---

Yes, I can see now, I think what you mean. Sorry you thought I was deliberatly trying to skew things you said. I think it goes like this. The big bang early on saw a little tiny soup like speck sized 'thing'. In this was basically what most people on earth would think of as our universe, that is, all the hubble telescope can see. But, my mistake was, was thinking that was the entire conceptual universe. There were other such soup specks all over, just out of sight. How many, we don't know, because we don't know how big the universe is. Is that about right?

quote:

---

. But you do it post after post after post, no matter how often we correct the matter;

---

I think I got it now, you were patient.

quote:

---

But to call it a "lie" is another matter entirely.

---

That's what I think it is, guess I'm not that decent. I certainly would never tell anyone otherwise, especially a child. (not you, one I met)

quote:

---

Christians believe that God is creator of the entire natural world; so learning about how it works is not removing God

---

How it works within the guidelines of how He says it is. Any thing else, I'd say is an illusion.

quote:

---

Don't take my word for it; check it out.

---

Sounds believable to me. I consider christians who believe in old ages, though as somewhat weaker brethren. Sorry that's how I see it. He that cometh to God must believe that He is. Maybe in a lot of areas they are stronger. In the area of faith in the word, sorry, there is a timeframe outlined.

quote:

---

Both Polkinghorne and Davies, like every other professional scientist working in cosmology, recognize the basic details I have been trying to explain.

---

I recognize them better now myself, but don't think they are true.

quote:

---

You don't like the accusations? That's just too bad... you've earned them in spades in the last couple of posts. I treated you with total courtesy before you started being an ass. If you can behave like a decent human being, I'll give full courtesy again in a heartbeat.

---

Yes, in all my thread reply haste, and cut and pasting, I missed the point which offended you. Doesn't change the fact that to me it's vertually the same, the sun moon and stars popped out of a soup speck. Long as I qualify that the 'universe' may be bigger than our billions of galaxies you guys think were squished up in an imaginary sphere the size of an atom.

quote:

---

The model I am describing was not invented out of thin air and imagination. It was discovered.

---

A process I think of expansion, where they take it backwards, to the speck size level, no?
I may post again, after this thread, if I can clear up some specs on this bulletproof split plane idea. You just made it before it closed. Thanks

"You still have a problem with inside age horizon light being different from outside age horizon light,"
So what do you mean? There was no interuption of the light flow. The only difference is that the light we now have is slower.

quote:

---

now you are invoking spiritual light when a previous post you say it is not visible

---

Not any longer, we can't see the spiritual stuff, no.

quote:

---

the visibility of light from beyond that horizon with no detectable difference from the visibility of light from inside that horizon

---

Ahh, I thought you might be misunderstanding something by your questions. All light is the same, in and out, in the physical universe we have here. Where the difference WAS, was before seperation, and possibly an adaptive little process as it was seperated. THEN, when we were merged with the spirit plane, the light would be unbound by time.