bulletproof alternate universe

quote:

---

In short, nobodies out to bite you so there is no need to bite back.

---

Then why is, for example Eta's rude posts ignored, and my thread threatened with closure, and insulted?

quote:

---

The point of the first part of genesis is that he created it all. How he laid it out, through what mechanism of time -- parrallel universes or seperations or variable speeds of light was not specified in any clear language

---

He used some six days, marked into mornings and evenings for the hard of hearing. Then, the years since the first man existed, are clearly told as well. No mystery, really. Taking other known things, like a spirit world, the time frame, and what science actually does know, I came up with a concept that accomadates both. Without denying the bible timeframe, or anything else, or even science, if you can correct it, or disprove it, go ahead.

quote:

---

You really threw the first stone on this one by saying that your theory was absolutely correct and irrefutable from the get go.

---

Woah! hold your horses. I said I thought it was bulletproof to science. And hold it out for attack. My own personal veiws have little to do with it. If it knocks the time out of big bangers, I like it. If not, but something is unbiblical, or truly unscientific, I'll dump it.

quote:

---

"If you think science can disprove religion then I think you know less about science than I know about religion".

---

Cute quote, as long as one does not take it to mean you know so much about religion, you can swallow lies about how God made it how and when He said!

quote:

---

It's just not possible to prove god in a scientific way because god is a concept not somthing that can be measured

---

I wasn't measuring the Almighty for a suit. I was measuring Him against His Own words. And what I was trying to prove was that the billions of years just ain't neccesarily so! God I already know about.

quote:

---

It is my conviction that god meant for us to figure these things out with the tools and insturments that he gave us the minds to create.

---

OK so start figuring! Don't forget to figure in what He already said.

I have liberally reformatted arkathon's post in this quote. The text is unchanged; the reformatting makes it more readable, but no more sensible. Text in yellow added by me. On the radiation; the extract indicates that all alternative explanations of the CMB are discredited. That means, for the glacially slow amongst us, that there have been extensive observations and measurements and tests to consider any possible alternatives for the CMB. All (and I do mean all) the alternatives are disproved.Arkathon's "allowance" of a few thousand years is bizarre; innocent of the faintest comprehension of what is involved. CMB radiation is from outside the galaxy, so it is already more than several thousand years old before you even get started. The measured expansion -- and I do mean measured, in such things as super nova light curves from distant galaxies -- can only possibly have taken billions of years at observed expansion rates. The directly observed expansion in galactic red shifts is for objects up to about ten billion light years away.Right now direct observation is looking ten billion light years into the past. The only extrapolation involved takes a directly observed 10 billion years of expansion and extends it 30% or so to the singularity at 13.7 billion years ago. If the CMB is evidence for expansion — and it most certainly is — then the CMB is a greatly stretched view of the big bang from about 13.4 billion years ago, a mere 300,000 years after the singularity.It is as if an archaeologist studied the remains of ancient civilizations, and formed a theory about political or social trends from that data. Arkathon's response corresponds to conceding the force of the data, but only allowing it to be extrapolated back over last week.On the abundances of light isotopes, and the question of what else it might be a match for, the answer is "nothing". There is no process known which can produce the isotopes in question, other than the thick soup of compressed protons and neutrons in the early universe. One can, of course, make up fantasies from nothing; like the Deuterium fairy. But scientifically speaking, there simply is no alternative method on the table, and no credible prospect for surprising unknown processes which might make Deuterium.The final two comments from arkathon, on ages of stars and on relativity, are merely gibberish. He just does not understand what he is talking about here. That is not an insult; no one should be expected to understand new and complicated areas of science right off the bat. Where arkathon is different from a normal student learning about such things is where he claims to be "batting 100", or the implication that he has made any coherent criticism at all of the big bang -- still incorrectly described as a "speck". The only criticism has been that arkathon won't believe it. There is not even at attempt to make any actual criticism or objection. He just doesn't believe it, and in his mind that somehow "out guns" all the rest of the information he's been given.I know this is pointless and frustrating to other people who don't think arkathon is worth engaging. I don't mind; it is clear arkathon is, in his correct condition, quite incapable of making any progress on understanding these things. And there is no great issue of refuting him; he could only possibly be persuasive to folks already in the same stake of ignorance and denial. But if you sit back and relax, it is all a rather mind blowing psychological spectacle.Cheers — Sylas Edited to refine comments on CBE and expansion.[This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-31-2004]

quote:

---

there have been
extensive observations and measurements and tests to consider any possible
alternatives for the CMB. All (and I do mean all) the alternatives are disproved.

---

All? I don't think they were looking for this guys devided universe.

quote:

---

CMB radiation is from outside the galaxy, so it is
already more than several thousand years old before you even get started. measured, in such things as super nova light
curves from distant galaxies -- can only possibly have taken billions of years at
observed expansion rates. The directly observed expansion in galactic red shifts is for
objects up to about ten billion light years away.

---

More than several thousand years as measured in a present situation, but you have not said why akcathons spirit universe was not possible exactly. After all, the claim is that it was a split off of some kind, and the time only came to be after.

quote:

---

On the abundances of light isotopes, and the question of what else it might be a match
for, the answer is "nothing". There is no process known which can produce the
isotopes in question,

---

No known process, but ark never said it was a known process from the current knowledge which only extends to the physical universe. Even I can see that much.

quote:

---

on ages of stars and on relativity, are merely
gibberish. He just does not understand what he is talking about here

---

Would we assume you do, but can or will not explain it?

quote:

---

implication that he has made any
coherent criticism at all of the big bang

---

" 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." -could he have been using some of your material?

quote:

---

still incorrectly described as a "speck".

---

Is a speck effectively smaller than you like? When something is that small, you could hardly tell if it has edges, or is a soup.

quote:

---

it is clear arkathon is, in his correct condition, quite incapable of
making any progress on understanding these things.

---

So far though you don't seem to comprehend his point, I think, unless I'm missing something, that the spiritual universe he thinks we split off from, had no physical limits, and therefore our normal physics would not apply.

Arkathon? how do we know that is what God said, How does anyone know if God spoke? You were not there when Moses supposedly heard God in the burning bush. What if that is a story. There are lots of people who dont believe this, does it make them wrong just because you happen to believe it is so?
Whos to say that the entire bible is nothing more than a collection of Ancient Jewish and Christian mythology? Every culture has it's own creation storys what invalidates they'res and makes yours the correct one? Conjure all you want on split universes and ad hoc speculation... I can say I have god in my hand right now, prove me wrong. Descartes came up with this same argument centurys ago The Demon mind Control argument although a good one is just as ridculous today as it probably was then. If your theory makes sense to you and keeps your faith from evaporating more power to you but It is not even plausible no more than me saying I created the universe last night on a whim. Prove me wrong. *edit to correct spelling[This message has been edited by 1.61803, 03-31-2004]

quote:

---

It is not even plausible no more than me saying I created the universe last night on
a whim. Proove me wrong.

---

I was here two days also two nights ago. You are wrong. I am not the only one. This does not address how your unprovable little cosmic orgin would be better than his. At least his has some small feature you can almost touch. Namely the association with a spiritual plane, which is widely accepted. Also some measure of correspondance to the christian creation of the bible. I have not seen any indication yet that your claim on laws of physics fits any better than his.

I inserted all your memorys and created the Earth as it is last night, fossils and bible intact. I even had time to watch Law & Order.. again prove I am wrong.

quote:

---

I inserted all your memorys and created the Earth as it is last night, fossils and bible
intact. I even had time to watch Law & Order.. again prove I am wrong.

---

Your turn first. I already successfully did it once. Give us some good reason based in science that this split could not have happened. For many years it has been the speed of light, and things we know that have been used against religious scientific attempts. Does this mean we can not use any of these things in this case?

You did not prove me wrong yet.....the fact that you believe you where here 2 nights ago are implanted memories. Face it your unable to debunk my claims. This is a creationsist ploy I am using how does it feel? My model is just as valid as Arkathons. I stand by it. Unless you can refute me shut your pie hole.

You can't prove that.An omnipotent being could create the entire universe yesterday, including you and everything, including your false memories of being here two days ago, and with appropriate false memories in everybody, and with appropriate false indications of age in the Earth and the entier universe.Only if we assume that either there is no such being or that being does not interfere with the universe at a whim can we make any claims about what exists, does not exist, has ever existed, or will ever exist.Arkathon's ideas are an omnipotent being (or equivalent) interering with the universe at a whim, in a totally un-detectable way. They are outside of the realm of science because he has crafted them so we can never tell whether they are true or not by examining evidence. His ideas may be true (although I doubt that), but they'll never be part of science unless and until they are testable.Most Christians, including most creationists, reject ideas such as Arkathon's because they require painting God as deliberately deceiving us about the age of the Universe, and because they are obviously unscientific and will never be taught in reputable schools as science.Science isn't everything. I often wonder if people like Arkathon are looking for the imprimature of science because their faith is so weak that they need outside validation.

"Arkathon's ideas are an omnipotent being (or equivalent) interering with the universe at a whim, in a totally un-detectable way."
I suppose you do not see the irony here. The so called speck that the thread also spoke of isn't detectable, and didn't even have a whim. Also God never interfered, He created the whole thing, and is quite detectable if we want to detect Him. And as far as arcathons splitting proposal, how would we say it was less detectable than the whimpering explosionless so called bang?

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?

As has been pointed out many times, "speck" is incorrect. But it is detectable by its effects. (Don't go down the "direct observation only" road, you won't like the results). How do you know? Do you tell God what He does and does not do? Do you think that God is not powerful enough to interfere in a way you wouldn't detect?Answer: you assume he has not interfered. Your terminology reveals that you don't know enough about the BB to criticise. Are you Arkathon under another name?But the answer to your question is that Arkathon's "splitting proposal", as he has said many times, has no measurable effect on our universe that differs from any other proposals, and he has denied attempts by others to propose a measurable difference it might make. Wherereas the BB theory makes many predictions about measurable effects, which are different from the predictions made by other theories, and none of which are falsified and many of which are measured to be true. Sylas hit the high points of these predictions in message 108 (there are others).If you wish us to evaluate Arkathon's ideas as science, please supply a list of predictions about things we can measure today that will give one result if Arkathon's ideas are true and will give another result if Arkathon's ideas are false. He's refused to give even one item, and I think that his ideas are formulated so nobody can come up with such an item. Prove me wrong?

Only because he says so and you want to believe that on faith.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}}}

quote:

---

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?

quote:

---

(the collision is spread out thus avoiding the inflation part of the current
BB model),

---

But in the proposed idea here, expansion would be acceptable I think was said.

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't think I can do much of that. It does occur to me that if I was a hindu and the idea could stand up to science, I might find it attractive. The main force I think, unless mistaken, for the creation and a young earth is christian science. The idea here seems to explain how the christian scriptures would be harmonious with science.

quote:

---

and he has denied attempts by others to propose a measurable difference it
might make.

---

I missed this, how did he do that?

quote:

---

As has been pointed out many times, "speck" is incorrect.

---

Sylas did allow for any size we would like on that. Do you have something against that?

quote:

---

But the answer to your question is that Arkathon's "splitting proposal", as he has said
many times, has no measurable effect on our universe that differs from any other
proposals,

---

So it is not bad because it is unsound, but because it goes along with the holy bible?