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
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 163 of 308 (96598)
04-01-2004 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by simple
03-31-2004 8:26 PM


Re: THE best model
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.
What do you mean? Is the suggestion here that the thread scenario allows for young or old dates?
No, it's not the suggestion, it's the fact; Arkathon admitted that the thread scenario allows for any age of the Universe, young or old, and the only reason that he has for picking 6,000 years is Biblical ... and the Bible is supposedly not part of the thread scenario. So again his "model" has no measurable impact on the Universe. In message 110 he wrote:
quote:
quote:
If it doesn't rule out other dates then it does not allow whatever date you want, as in the final analysis all ages are included,
Not within reason. But with the beginning being around 6200 years ago, I guess you can rule out then the older dates. OK I may have what you mean this time. "if exactly the same explanation can be used for any other age" So in other words, why not 62 million years. OK that is because there is good indications of the creation age, that would go with the spirit world involved. For example, a Spirit claiming to be the creator gave us the precise dates. So, what evidence would we have to come up with another date?
Of course, the question he asks at the end indicates a severe ignorance of cosmology.
I know it can be difficult to pick up in the middle of a long thread like this, but please read the thread and make an attempt to understand what's gone before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by simple, posted 03-31-2004 8:26 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by simple, posted 04-01-2004 3:41 PM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 164 of 308 (96599)
04-01-2004 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by simple
04-01-2004 1:22 AM


Re: Sylas's big 5
I believe that the whole idea here was a christian date of six thousand years.
Exactly! Arkathon started with the un-refutable (to him) assumption that the Univers is 6,000 years old, and attempted to produce a scenario in which that would be true. He didn't consider the observed evidence, he didn't consider the interrelationships of the many components of the Universe, he didn't consider anything much; any scenario that produces an answer he likes is good enough for him.
The joke is that the scenario doesn't even produce the answer he likes; his scenario is (as he has admitted) compatible with any age of the Universe!
Of course, starting with an assumption he wasn't willing to discard made his efforts unscientific immediately. Cue the rant about conventional scientists never questioning their assumptions ... even though fame. fortune, and prizes are showered on scientists who successfully question assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by simple, posted 04-01-2004 1:22 AM simple has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 190 of 308 (96996)
04-02-2004 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by simple
04-01-2004 9:31 PM


Re: was it small or not?
No one is trying to distort anything
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by simple, posted 04-01-2004 9:31 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by simple, posted 04-02-2004 2:35 PM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 290 of 308 (97453)
04-03-2004 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Melchior
04-03-2004 7:53 AM


Re: perfect harmony
When you change the speed of light, you automatically change what wavelenght a specific source sends out.
Actualy, when you change the speed of light, you change all sorts of other stuff as well, such as the fine structure constant and the strength of gravity and other important and detectable things. The speed of light is a dimensioned quantity and is therefore not fundamental, but it appears (along with other dimensioned quantities) in many fundamental dimensionless quantities that do describe our universe.
There's some pretty technical disucssion of this effect in relationship to Setterfield's "model" at Re: Flood dating discrepancies.
The hand-waving "let's change the speed of light" argument is so silly that no physicist will even listen to it. It's just as bad as perpetual-motion machines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Melchior, posted 04-03-2004 7:53 AM Melchior has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by simple, posted 04-03-2004 1:04 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 298 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 2:47 PM JonF 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