|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: bulletproof alternate universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It explains a 6200 year old creation, despite the present physical time distance! It leaves science pretty well intact! This does not logically follow from any of the previous concept and in fact contradicts the "So that, the cosmos would reflect that. In other words it really is billions of our light years away!" statement due to the lenght of time required for the light to get here in order to be seen. It certainly does not explain a 4.55 billion year old earth and 3.5 billion year old life. {{edit fixes title reference ...}} [This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 03-26-2004] we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
alas poor Yorick. I knew him, Horatio.
my bad. [This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 03-26-2004] we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Woman in front of Mona Lisa at the Louvre
(new yawk accent) "I've seen reproductions that are better than this!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Still doesn't work
Before the moment of separation with no time, light travel would be instantaneous. At the moment of separation time starts and suddenly there is a velocity problem, the universe would be dark until new light reached earth from each star according to its distance. And I have yet to see how this in any exclusive way "explains a 6200 year old creation" -- particularly as it equally explains any age you want, including a 13.7 billion year old universe that would be consistent with the observed radiation from stars, galaxies and background cosmic microwave radiation -- without the light problem. Further it doesn't explain the solid evidence here on earth for an age well in excess of 6200 years just from annual rings and layers. (see Age Correlations and an Old Earth for more on this). we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
or her view was clouded by preconceived perceptions of what it should be.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
the total lack of understanding would be on your part as much as anyone elses ... and
it still doesn't get the light from there to here once time starts myths are like that. fantasy is like that. science is not like that. reality is not like that. enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Maybe someone thinks it is impossible for the speed to be affected. Maybe someone thinks the billions of light years figure into things, and that the big bang would not allow it?
Show how this is an effect predicted by the invisible universe and exactly how it operates. A lot of "what ifs" scattered into the dark in shotgun format hoping mightily that one might find a target. As noted by NoseyNed -- please go to Age Correlations and an Old Earth -- it shows how the minimum age of the earth is orders of magnetude greater than your belief (567,700 years minimum) based on rock solid evidence. Consider your concept invalidated until you answer that thread on the age of the earth. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
arkathon --
I'll try to make this simple yet succinct. You state:
It explains a 6200 year old creation, despite the present physical time distance! please explain how it
If you cannot do the first then this concept can be used to simulate any desired age of the cosmos without discrimination. This amounts to mental masturbation and is useless for any purpose. If you cannot do the second then your concept is obviously in error and needs to be discarded as invalidated. If you cannot do the third then your concept is obviously in error and needs to be discarded as invalidated. Please consider the concept both useless and invalidated until you show otherwise. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
please explain how it...rules out any other age from last Tuesday to over 13.7 billion years ago.
Because time would have been ... a combination of both sets of laws.
If you cannot do the first then this concept can be used to simulate any desired age of the cosmos without discrimination. This amounts to mental masturbation and is useless for any purpose. (please explain how it...) explains how light gets here from even just 1 million light years away when it can only have traveled 6200 light years (0.62%)
See above answer, where ... the seperated state it could be interesting.
If you cannot do the second then your concept is obviously in error and needs to be discarded as invalidated. (please explain how it...) explains the observed rock solid evidence for an earth at least 567,700
It is with some relish that I wait for the cosmos to be conceeded, so I can have a look at that.
If you cannot do the third then your concept is obviously in error and needs to be discarded as invalidated. Please consider the concept both useless and invalidated until you show otherwise. In actuality, your ommision of the unseen 'wife' of the physical universe, and insistance on 'going it alone' without her, is much more in the category you mentioned! Perhaps if you put your hand to something else besides reaching out for the other half, you might be happy to realize it is very useful, and valid. This is just more fake mystical fantasy of the most infantile kind. Enjoy your little fantasy world. The men with the white coats are your friends ... honest ... we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You seem hardly able to ask a good question,
You can't answer the ones I asked, so how good they are is irrelevant. The fact remains that they are three direct challenges to your concept, and unanswered they make your concept useless. This fact seems to escape the cognitive centers within (I assume) your skull. There are a few possiblities for how that could be. Richard Dawkins once said "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." He goes on to show that ignorance is the least problematical of these as it can be easily cured through education. Stupidity, insanity (including delusions) and wickedness are not, or at least not as easily, remedied. The errors in your thinking have been pointed out to you by others as well, so you cannot be ignorant of the problems that have been raised that invalidate your fantasy cosmology concept ... we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You still have not explained how it
The first means it is fantasyThe second means it is invalid The third means it is invalid we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
phrase the rules out part. Do you mean the coexisting invisible to us universe that has so great an effect needs to rule out a bunch of ages you can come up with? If so, gimme a ferinstance.
You were given two "ferinstances" to rule out -- last tuesday and 13.7 billion years ago. You claim it shows the universe is only 6200 years old. How does it explain 6200 years old if exactly the same explanation can be used for any other age (which is currently the case).
How light gets here from afar? Easy, it travels at a known, measured speed, so from the million ly you exampled, it would take of course a million years, here in the physical universe. You thought that was a stumper?
Therefore light that we are seeing that comes from over 6200 light-years away proves that the universe is older than 6200 years. Thank you for admitting that your concept is invalid. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
How does it explain 6200 years old if exactly the same explanation can be used for any other age think I see your point. It is not that it rules out dates, really, as much as it allows for the young creation date. Therefore light that we are seeing that comes from over 6200 light-years away proves that the universe is older than 6200 years. Before the seperation, the far away stars, were likely still there... Therefore, no time was a limiting factor then. After seperation, say the next week, the same star you could have traveled to, would take now maybe a billion years! (light was not the same as it is in a physical only universe) So any light we saw then, would NOW be limited to laws and forces, and time, that is needed here in the physical universe. In other words, it would seem, light probably doesn't change speed (much at least?) in our physical universe. The change only comes as the universes merge. ... Does this explain it? Stage 1: instantaneous light and physical travel through the great depths of time and space from one end of the cosmos to the other, distances that agree totally with all known distances of objects today. Agreed? Stage 2: the separation. Instantaneous travel of all things immediately ceases, the universe goes black as all light must now travel at the currently known speed of light (approximately 299,800,000 m/s), all light before the instant has already reached it's targets, new light has not arrived yet. It will take over 8 minutes for light to reach the earth from the sun (the distance is roughly one AU or approximately 149,600,000,000 meters ... and {149,600 /299.8} = 499 seconds). Eight minutes of total dark that I'm sure you can fit into your fantasy interpretation. Stage 3: light now takes the slow boat from china, or in this case Alpha Centauri, the third brightest star (actually a triple star system) and 4.3 light-years away ... so it takes 4.3 years for light to reach us. Okay so far eh? Now to our problem star, 1 million light years away, that we currently see easily with standard equipment. For us to see the light it must have been traveling for 1 million years and not be limited to your 6200 year period. A complete contradiction that invalidates the concept. And we haven't even gotten to the furthest observed limits of the universe at 13.7 billion light years away. The universe is at least 13.7 billion years old in order for that light to reach here and be observed. Nor have we gotten to the verifiable age of the earth exceeding 6200 years easily. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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,
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? Actually this is precisely the point I have been making with my third test of your concept. A good place to start on this issue is the rock solid evidence for an earth at least 567,700 years old by direct counting of annual layers (see Age Correlations and an Old Earth). Layers that show patterns of climate that are repeated in several different layering systems from several diverse locations on the planet. I suspect your failure to answer this question is in direct proportion to your ability to answer the question, but I can wait for confirmation.
Stage 2: the separation. Instantaneous travel of all things immediately ceases, the universe goes black as ... all light before the instant has already reached it's targets, new light has not arrived yet.
No the universe doesn't go black! The path and stream of light was already in place and started operating at it's physical universe rate as the seperation took place. As you can see the rest of your stages become inapplicable. Obviously the concept is contradicted by it's own conditions and is invalidated, not just by your lack of argument on my three tests, but by the inescapable logical failures inherent in the concept. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Sounds good to me.
He has now gotten to the point of changing his concept to accomodate the problems of inescapable logical failures inherent within the original concept. A tacit admission of the failure of the concept, and a typical "move the goalpost" tactic. My work here is done ... we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024