bulletproof alternate universe

The simple truth regarding the Big Bang:Scientists does not know absolutely everything without any doubt regarding absolutely everything about the development of the big bang. That is unrealistic to ask for. No one is ever infallible.However, enough is measured and tested that we can use the model for practical reasoning, and direct predictions. This is what makes the model itself useful. The model corresponds to the real world in that we can see for ourselves that what it states is correct. But it's still a model. Compare this to the models we have about electricity, which allows us to make computers and electronics. We refine our knowledge all the time, and along comes more and more useful applications of our knowledge.The model says a couple of things about the mechanisms of our universe, and we can verify or deny these based upon what we find out about the universe.So what you should do, if you want to be taken seriously, is to start with observing evidence in the real world. Or take verified evidence from astronomers, if you don't have access to Hubble (which I doubt).Then, formulate a simple and direct mechanism based on any patterns you find in the evidence. It should predict things as accurate as possible, and it should let us test things to find out if your hypothesis is true.In your case, please feel free to estimate (doesn't have to be exact at this stage) the time for, and the effects of, this merge you claim is coming. This is a good and direct way we can test it. If it happens, obviously things are going to become rather stirred up, and you'll be famous for figuring it out in advance. If it does not happen, even though your model depends on that it would, then we know your model is false.Fair enough?

I'm sorry, but saying "Other people believe this" does not affect it's credibility. You will HAVE to totally disregard people, and do your experiments regardless of them. People believe whatever they believe, and there is no reason why it would fit the real world.If you want to make a scientific model, or something close to it, you must drop the whole people believe thing because that's exactly the problem science wants to avoid.

If I understood him right, his explanation goes like this.At an undetermined time, a spiritual universe was created somehow. The spiritual universe was somehow filled with spiritual stars, spiritual light, spiritual background microwave radiation and so on.When things are in their spiritual states, they can do a lot of nice stuff. The speed of light is a lot faster, since everything is spiritual and not bound by pesky natural limits.In some way, at more or less the same time, an empty 'blanket' universe started coming closer and closer to the spiritual universe. This universe was different from the spiritual one, and contained things such as constant speed of light, relativity and other things.At a point about 6000 years in the past, this universe got close enough to the spiritual one that it started affecting it. It sort of captured it, and put a lot of limitations on the spiritual world. It hasn't as of yet collided fully, but it will do so in about 8 years.When that happens, a cosmos-wide merge will happen, and the two universes will combine into a new one, which combines the best of two worlds.It is currently possible to travel between the two universes, but only through limited means. For example, when you die you cross over fully into the spiritual universe because you are no longer bonded by your material mass. Other examples are UFOs which is when things go the other way; things from the spiritual world shines through.Did I get that more or less right? I'm not going to argue about it right now, but it helps if you provide your ideas in a coherent and simple way.

But what we can observe corresponds exactly to as if that is the way things are.The only alternative is that God wants to decieve us by creating false evidence.Doesn't seem to be much of a basis for exploring the universe to me.

So, how did the creation of the previous universe go about? Or are you just going to leave that out of the model, and push the problem back further?And what caused the split?Also, if everything we can observe comes from after the split, how can you expect to make a model of what happened before it, if there is no evidence?Plus wouldn't we still be able to observe such amazing things as millions of people suddenly changing?

But, that must mean that the speed of light before the split was not instant. Please calculate the exact speed (or the function by which it varies) for us, since it's you proposing this model.It is very important, since it would give us an exact time frame for the time between the creation of the universes to the split, and that would be part of a lot of other explanations.

You do understand that one of the basis principles of science is to remove the enormous personal bias and beliefs that people invariably has? Why do you consider this a bad thing?

Care to provide a direct link so I can see? I assume you include me in 'your' but you did not use any post-replying, so I'm not sure.

Exactly! You got it. Science is based on the fundation that human emotion and beliefs and such get in the way of actual progress. This is why computers are especially good at simulating events.When we involve feelings and desires, we are involved in something else, which is the really sweet thing called being human. It's good when it comes to listening to music, loving someone, talking to people, and such, but REALLY bad when doing things like math or cosmonology.If you base your theories on how you *want* things to be instead of how you *observe* them to be - and this goes for real scientists too - then you are damaging the scientific methods.I can understand if you feel like some scientists are overly defensive of their conclutions. If they refuse to accept new evidence, even if they can verify them, then they are just as bad as someone who doesn't accept the evidence in the first place. But you really need to change your view on what science actually is, because your current one is WAY off base.And with this, I thank all of you for a slightly amusing and educational but ultimately tiresome thread.

You do realize that the only reason scientifical people put trust in the Big Bang theory in the first place is due to the observations made?

He is using allegories. Nothing wrong with that, if you ensure that they help you visualize the model as good as possible.Preferably it would all be with math, but then you'd probably not understand any of it.

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.

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]

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]

Are you saying that we should rule out telescopes and such? Why?What's the difference between looking at something with a pair of glasses on and looking at something with a telescope before your eyes?