Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   bulletproof alternate universe
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 271 of 308 (97391)
04-03-2004 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by simple
04-02-2004 10:11 PM


sloppy set up IYAM
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.
In other words ... no. Here you are basing a correction to your original concept in the hope of alleviating a severe problem with it and you have (a) no observational basis for it (b) no faith basis for it and (c) do not know what it is while (d) it does not solve the problem anyway ...
Time to lose the process ...

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by simple, posted 04-02-2004 10:11 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by simple, posted 04-03-2004 12:35 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 272 of 308 (97392)
04-03-2004 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by simple
04-02-2004 10:09 PM


lights out on the highway
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.
you think the idea was ... ?
you have an age horizon in your concept whether you recognize it or not -- the limit beyond which light cannot have travelled in the time since the separation occured, 6200 lt-yrs according to your first posts on this concept.
for light to reach here from beyond that horizon means that it is not normal compared to the light inside that horizon, no matter how you cut it, that dog don't hunt

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by simple, posted 04-02-2004 10:09 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by simple, posted 04-03-2004 12:31 AM RAZD has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 308 (97393)
04-03-2004 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by RAZD
04-02-2004 11:58 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2004 11:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 1:18 AM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 308 (97394)
04-03-2004 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by RAZD
04-03-2004 12:23 AM


Re: lights out on the highway
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 12:23 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 1:17 AM simple has replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5259 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 275 of 308 (97396)
04-03-2004 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by simple
04-02-2004 1:38 PM


Re: was it small or not?
arkathon writes:
Sylas writes:
The existing posts explain it just fine for anyone capable of reading with a minimum of integrity. That rules you right out. ...
"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"
So it was small, and did contain all this stuff (basically all matter in universe) you mentioned?
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. It is not the whole universe, and it does not contain all the matter in the universe.
You do this repeatedly, arkathon. You take a sentence using the pronoun "it", remove the immediately preceding context which plainly states what "it" means, and then comment as if "it" means the universe, and as if I am saying that the universe was small.
I don't mind such a mistake from someone who is honestly confused and trying to understand. But you do it post after post after post, no matter how often we correct the matter; and then have the gall to make insulting remarks about inconsistency or a need for subtitles.
I have never said that the universe is a certain size; I have said plainly and repeatedly that we don't know the size of the universe, either now or at any other time.
The "it" in the bit you quoted is explicit in the words you always omit. "It" is a region within the universe. Not a speck. Not a particle. Not the whole universe. And most definitely not containing all matter in the universe.
We can't even see the entire universe; just like a sailor on a ship cannot see the entire ocean. On the ocean, and also in the universe, the limit of what we can see is not a plainly identifiable "thing"; but a region of space out to a certain distance... the distance to a horizon of visibility.
All the stuff in the universe -- including what we see and also what is too far away to be seen -- used to be much closer together. The universe used to be very compressed, rather than as spread out as it is now. In fact, the universe (of unknown size, possibly even infinite size) used to be so compressed that everything we currently see could fit into a small region.
To imagine that small region, do not think of a speck. That is wrong, and leads to some common errors in understanding of cosmology. Think of an entire universe (of unknown size) filled everywhere with extremely dense matter. The region is just a small slice of the whole universe, with nothing to make that region distinguished from the rest.
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 have again crossed the basic lines of elementary decency.
You may refuse to accept modern cosmology; that is your choice. But to call it a "lie" is another matter entirely. Such judgements, given without the slightest justification, are ugly and contemptible.
You are wrong that this rules out God's creation. Christians believe that God is creator of the entire natural world; so learning about how it works is not removing God. It may conflict with your notion of how God managed the creation, but it does not conflict with the notion that God is creator of the entire natural universe.
A couple of interesting sources on this matter are the physicists Paul Davies, and John Polkinghorne.
Davies is at the cutting edge of modern cosmology. He is also something of a philosopher. He is not a conventional theist; but he does see in the workings of the natural world -- especially the fundamental forces which show up in this early universe I have been discussing -- indications of a some kind of grand design. His considerations of this matter lead to him winning the 1995 Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion.
Polkinghorne is prestigious particle physicist, and a theologically traditional Christian. His scientific work, amongst other things, contributed to the discovery of the quark. He left professional science to become an Anglican priest, and continues to write extensively on the interaction of science and religion. He won the Templeton Prize in 2002.
Like the Nobel Prize, the Templeton Prize is established by a wealthy philanthropist. It was set up specifically because the founder, John Marks Templeton, felt that the Nobel prizes overlooked religion.
Both Polkinghorne and Davies, like every other professional scientist working in cosmology, recognize the basic details I have been trying to explain. Don't take my word for it; check it out. That will require you to seek out a few books and actually learn something. You are not obligated to believe what you read; but if you are going to call scientists liars and madmen, you are ethically obligated to make a much more serious effort to understand what they are saying.
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.
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.
I don't expect you to buy the whole story; you are welcome to your own view of the universe.
A couple of posts ago you showed some indications of willingness to try and understand the views used in science -- even if you could not accept it. You have apparently slammed the door on that possibility again. Suit yourself.
The model I am describing was not invented out of thin air and imagination. It was discovered. The amazement that you express by rejecting the models as insane, is an amazement shared by scientists who made the discoveries and continue to push the boundaries of our knowledge of this amazing universe.
Sylas
PS. AbbyLeever... could you consider writing fewer posts, but more carefully? Endless sequences of back to back posts are not very helpful. I've also made this a suggestion for including in forum guidelines, Message 1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by simple, posted 04-02-2004 1:38 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by simple, posted 04-03-2004 12:58 AM Sylas has replied
 Message 279 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 1:12 AM Sylas has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 308 (97397)
04-03-2004 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by RAZD
04-03-2004 12:17 AM


Re: sloppy set up IYAM
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 12:17 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 1:08 AM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 308 (97402)
04-03-2004 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Sylas
04-03-2004 12:35 AM


Re: was it small or not?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Sylas, posted 04-03-2004 12:35 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Sylas, posted 04-03-2004 10:18 AM simple has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 278 of 308 (97406)
04-03-2004 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by simple
04-03-2004 12:35 AM


Re: sloppy set up IYAM
Otherwise it would not have the signitures in it that show it came from the star or galaxy.
You still have a problem with inside age horizon light being different from outside age horizon light, so in effect this does not solve your problems in trying to fit a 13.7 billion year old universe into a 6200 year old {myth \ story \ belief \ faith}.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by simple, posted 04-03-2004 12:35 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by simple, posted 04-03-2004 1:13 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 279 of 308 (97407)
04-03-2004 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Sylas
04-03-2004 12:35 AM


posting request
saw it, sorry for the inconvenience. wilco.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Sylas, posted 04-03-2004 12:35 AM Sylas has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 308 (97408)
04-03-2004 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by RAZD
04-03-2004 1:08 AM


Re: perfect harmony
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 1:08 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by sidelined, posted 04-03-2004 1:23 AM simple has not replied
 Message 287 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 1:49 AM simple has not replied
 Message 289 by Melchior, posted 04-03-2004 7:53 AM simple has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 281 of 308 (97409)
04-03-2004 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by simple
04-03-2004 12:31 AM


Re: lights out on the highway
now you are invoking spiritual light when a previous post you say it is not visible.
the horizon is caused by the speed of light and your assumed age of the universe. the visibility of light from beyond that horizon with no detectable difference from the visibility of light from inside that horizon says, in effect, that the horizon does not exist, that the age of the universe is not less than the observed age of 13.7 billion years.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by simple, posted 04-03-2004 12:31 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by simple, posted 04-03-2004 1:23 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 282 of 308 (97410)
04-03-2004 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by simple
04-03-2004 12:27 AM


Re: spectral light
if it is not detectable it is not a useable concept. it adds no information, it changes nothing about the problems with the detectable light.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by simple, posted 04-03-2004 12:27 AM simple has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 283 of 308 (97411)
04-03-2004 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by simple
04-03-2004 1:13 AM


Re: perfect harmony
arkathon
The only difference is that the light we now have is slower.
I assume you have some method of calculating the amount by which light has slowed down over time?

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by simple, posted 04-03-2004 1:13 AM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 308 (97412)
04-03-2004 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by RAZD
04-03-2004 1:17 AM


Re: lights out on the highway
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 1:17 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by simple, posted 04-03-2004 1:42 AM simple has not replied
 Message 286 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 1:43 AM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 308 (97413)
04-03-2004 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by simple
04-03-2004 1:23 AM


thread closed
Made it thru the thread with this one! There could be something to it. Watch out world, I'm almost a big bang whiz, ready to poke more accurate fun at it. tks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by simple, posted 04-03-2004 1:23 AM simple has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024