bulletproof alternate universe

I don't know, I'd go with infinite in the spirit world. But unless we had a pretty good idea of the seperation process, how would it be perceived here?

quote:

---

If light would instantly arrive at it's destination, it would be impossible to catch it 'mid-flight' (during the separation)

---

The light of the spirit world is not the same light as here. When someone dies, goes through a tunnel, and see a light, it usually is thought of as different. Also, Me standing at a bedside, would not see this light the dead person sees. So, are we assuming here that the properties of light in our physical universe must be applied to the spititual? The thing is, in the process where we were seperated, if the combination was of both spiritual and physical, and then ended up with just a physical left, say, missing certain portions of it's original state, so that all that was left was the photons etc we now have. Almost like they took over, as the invisible was split. So rather than be caught mid flight, it could have been more like they were robbed mid flight of the spiritual. So what is arriving now, is not so much what was caught in flight, as what is left from, or replaced that which was in flight first. Yes, if we took the present stuff that travels at it's known speed, and replaced it mid flight we would have an entirely different matter.
It's a little like asking, how could light have been made before the sun and stars? Like in the day one I think it was. What kind of light was up in the sky providing the day and night? Some type of cosmic light that has since disappeared? In other words, what is light? Is it just the stuff in our physical universe? And that's all? Or is there much more to it than that? If so, what we see here could basically be all that could exist here for light, in this physical universe.
Could it have ridden on the highyway of true light,(now gone, seperated) and gotten a 'free ride' so as it would be visible after the seperation process? This would have had the light in our universe coming from the stars, sort of boosted here, or hitchhiked on the spirit light, but left on it's own after the other became split. Could it be the remains of a different light, and all that could survive in our physical dimension? Could the time that was made to affect our world have had any effect? So, then in a nutshell, the light we now see may not be the same light as the spiritual. So our light, now following the highway of light that was in place (and being now with it's finite speed in our universe), took over the highway. Looking at the incoming light, though, unless we also look at the original spirit light, and the process of splitting, as well, we can not say it took the billions of years. That would be only if there was nothing else.
OK, whats wrong with this?

quote:

---

The contempt is strictly for the deliberate distortions of the views of others, and the lack of integrity in responding to views he does not share.

---

Very indignant sounding. No one is trying to distort anything. It seems to me you said I could consider the little baby big bang thingy basically any size I want. Why are you ranting on here that this is now bad? Maybe you are sincere, but you seem yo me like a yo yo on this, back and forth.
"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." Do you have english subtitles for this? Does this little whatever not contain basically everything?
"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. Because of space expansion, even two photons separated by that small distance don't have enough time to meet which other after travelling through space for 13 billion years.Unfortunately, our current physics breaks down as we approach the singularity; so before we reach infinite density and infintesimal size we enter the unknown." Here another one by you! No one's trying to make up quote from you, fess up, this stuff you said, and more. Now you're thinking it is evil to say so?
Was there a little whatever where the universe came from in the big bang theory. I am not asking to embrace it. I'm asking so we will see how silly it is! And did you not say to get to the beginning point, you extrapolated backward? Cool down, you're as hot as a cup o soup! Your false accusations seem unlike your previous posts. I am pretty sure you said it was small. If I'm wrong, it's not on purpose or trying to invent things you said.

[quote]The existing posts explain it just fine for anyone capable of reading with a minimum of integrity. That rules you right out. ..."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? 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 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.

quote:

---

end up with a dark universe until the light reaches here

---

Assuming what? That the physical light that was left from being seperated ceased to exist? If we had a garden hose shooting out water, and it was also hooked up with a second, and third, and forth little inputs, so now we had the water, as well as some milk, and koolade, and acid, and honey , all coming out the hose together now. We shut off all the other sources, and now we have just the honey coming out. I see no need for the one getting squirted to stop getting 'wet'.
So, As the spirit world was seperated, and we were left only with the slow light we now have, how is it it needed to stop?
Even if the honey now came out a lot slower, than the water would have before, and if it would take a lot longer to get from the source. Since we already had a hose full of all liquids, the honey still comes out. Now if we measure the time it would take for the honey to theoretically get from the other end of the long hose, without realizing that it used to be different, our numbers would be off.
Did your math account for the light we know to have been formed only as a result of seperation? I must admit it is difficult to grasp this stuff.

silas--" 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."
Everything which we see was originally contained within a tiny region of that space, in conditions of unimaginable heat and density."There is a time when it was the size of a basketball, and the size of a pea, and the size of an atom. http://EvC Forum: How big are the stars? -->EvC Forum: How big are the stars? "This allows us to speak sensibly of the size of the visible universe as we extrapolate back. When it is said that the visible universe was once the size of an orange, or a pea, or an atom, what this means is that if you go back in time far enough, all world lines which intersect with any event we can see at present, originally came from within a small region.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.There is no physical edge to this small region; it is a kind or arbitrary line drawn around a portion of a possibly unbounded universe.Many people never get this. The big bang does not propose a particle or speck which exploded. It proposes a space which was expanding; a space which might be finite or infinite but in any case does not have boundaries like particles or specks. Everything which we see was originally contained within a tiny region of that space, in conditions of unimaginable heat and density."http://EvC Forum: How big are the stars? -->EvC Forum: How big are the stars? The big bang model does not, repeat does not, imply anything about a total size of the universe in this state. The big bang model admits an infinite universe, or a finite universe of any sufficiently large size. The notion of "small size" which is frequently expressed is not speaking of any "speck" or "particle"; but only of the size of the region which corresponds to the now visible universe, given the effects of relativistic expansion of space.According to big bang cosmology, if we could take an instantaneous snapshot of the very early universe, at the stages we are speaking of, we would have a seething dense soup of elementary particles; even more elementary than protons or neutrons. This is called "quark-gluon" soup. This would be a continuous soup, with no identifiable edge or particle or speck or primeval atom or anything like that which corresponds to the now visible universe. What cosmologists do is draw an imaginary sphere inside this soup, to contain all the matter and energy that will become what we now see, 13.7 billion years later.http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=2&t=128&p=5
Of course, because modern physics actually breaks down before you get to this instant, the correct answer is that we just don't know what comes before the quark-gluon soup. "

quote:

---

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.

---

OK so now what, there was one of these cup o soups over every horizon? So all was not in one, but there were millions of cups of soup? (or you don't know how many there was, since it depends how big the universe is, that you don't know?). Even if this was the case, it wouldn't matter much to me, because is not he still saying that billions of stars and galaxies, all we now can see or know about-was in this 'imaginary sphere' of tiny tiny size that none of you seem to like calling a speck?!

Ok so would saying you guys think that there were millions of small specks be so bad? Each one containing what, say a couple galaxies? So our particular speck here would have had the sun, moon, planets, and stars that we can see with the human eye? And you think this makes it a little more believable?

Ok so then as far as telescopes could see, all squished in a little space?

quote:

---

Yet again we've had a so-called Christian who believes in the Creation theory misquote someone DELIBERATELY.

---

Completely untrue. Look at the post here where his quote are posted. Let's face it, they think stars were in a little area, as big as a speck. Your accusation is false.

quote:

---

yet you have consistently insulted people who have tried to help you

---

There's a difference between insulting people, like silas has done to me calling names, or eta, and holding up the big bang theory for what it is, a joke. Once again, you are false.

quote:

---

ungrateful and downright UNCHRISTIAN behaviour

---

Ungrateful? You think I need to believe the stuff to be grateful? I would be grateful if people stopped believing in the stuff. I'm grateful people answered speck questions. (AS best they could which was only so clear). Unchristian? Soon as I disbelieve the bible, you'll likely think I'm getting religion.

quote:

---

Oh yeah, and before you have a go at me

---

You were nice early on in the thread, you're safe. Evolution and the big bang, however are not!

quote:

---

Yes. That's something we all can agree upon. That's sort of the whole point.

---

So our whole universe, at least as much as the Hubble telescope can see, was in a small tiny 'soup' the size of a speck! (regardless of how much more there may or may not be outside of this) Is that straight now?!

quote:

---

..light formed by the separation ...
... which would be the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, if anything as it would pervade the universe in that manner, and which has recently been measured at 13.7 light-years away, invalidating your assumed age.

---

The light we see now, I think was what was meant. Coming out of the hose still, but much slower than in a spiritual plane, yet in continueous flow. No?

quote:

---

difference in consistency between "watered" light and "honeyed" light

---

Is your problem then in thinking the spiritual light could not exist? (because it's so much faster) And also could it have slowed down, (at seperation) like they did in the lab recently?

quote:

---

But changing the speed of light in 'mid-flight' changes several of it's properties, such as it's freqency. Frequency is what determines what colour and such we see light as.

---

So could it have been different before, and what we have now is the changed stuff? Or could it have been slowed down, to it's present state? Or could it be all that's left that could exist in a physical universe, so it has to be limited? Could the change be what red shift really is in some cases?

You have made several posts, but I don't see where you have shown that this seperation could not have happened. Not that false accusations, and toddler news isn't fine too.

quote:

---

refuted by the nearer stars with no difference in light
try another epicycle add on processs flavour ...

---

Why would there be a nearer star difference?