bulletproof alternate universe

Actually we have been over this about 50 times and you just don't seem to understand that there is no way to account for the light from the far reaches getting to be visible in a 6200 year old universe without being affected. Go back and read from the beginning and you will find this issue raised again and again. YOUR hose metaphor didn't solve it, your "process" didn't solve it, nothing has solved it yet.There is no light left over from before the separation because it was instantaneous -- it's already done travelling, in fact it finished 6200 years ago, if your concept is to be trusted.Do we ghost light now?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

light is not a stringas soon as the separation occurred there was a gap caused by the difference in speed -- the highway metaphor (again)the express lane speed is instantaneous
the feeder lane is 3e8 m/sat the separation (6200 years ago by the AC version) light switched from the express lane to the feeder laneall light that had been in the express lane was already at destinationall light in the feeder lane now took time to get therea period of darkness ensues ... the light trickles in, first from the sun, then Alpha Centauri, then more distant stars ... but not possible yet from further than 6200 light years away.contradiction between concept and fact = invalidation of concept.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

then you need to re-read your analogy, for that is what it says.

Maybe we should illustrate this with numbers. When you change the speed of light, you automatically change what wavelenght a specific source sends out.It follows a very simple formula. wavelenght = speed of light / frequencyFor example, if we start with a lamp that sends out light at a constant frequency of 6.6*10^14ish Hertz.Normally, this corresponds to light with a wavelengt of 300000000/(6.6*10^14) = 454 nanometer. This is a rather nice deep blue light.If we suddenly increase the speed of light by even, say +50%, we get.A new light with a new wavelenght of 450000000/(6.6*10^14) = 682 nanometer. This is a rather nice bright red light.So the same source starts producing light with a different wavelenght. Note that the light already produced can't change it's wavelenght in mid-flight because that would require serious screwups both in energy conservation and the location of the beam.It would be required that the spiritual stars were made up of different atoms in order to give off a different frequency, and then somehow change into normal atoms during the shift. Unless you have a testable model for such radical changes, I suggest you drop it.

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.

Almost. The basic underlying model is not of many soup specks all over.It is just soup. There are no specks. It is not divided up in any way. It is just a universe, filled with quark-gluon soup; and it was expanding.Over time, the universe has continued to expand and thin out, until we now have a universe mostly filled with empty space and background radiation; with occasional clumps of matter we call galaxies.The universe looks the same in every direction, though as we look at the most distant galaxies we are looking back in time; so in fact (surprising as it may seem) we see expansion over billions of years by direct observation.This results in one of the puzzles of modern cosmology, called the "horizon problem". The most distant galaxies we see by looking in opposite directions are so far apart that they cannot ever have been in contact with each other according to simplest extrapolations of expanding space. Suppose we see galaxy "A" ten billion light years away in the northern sky, and galaxy "B" ten billion years away in the southern sky. Both these galaxies are in the region of the universe which is visible to us. We are also in the region of the universe visible to "A", and also in the region of the universe visible to "B". But "A" is not in the region that is visible to "B".This illustrates the nature of a horizon. There is no edge marking a horizon; it is just an indication of how far you can see.It is the same in the very early universe. What we can see was once contained in a small region; and what "A" can see was also contained in a small region. These regions overlap. That is why it is misleading to call them "specks" of soup.The following picture tries to illustrate the wording above. On the left is a picture of a very dense "soupy" universe of unknown size. In the middle, and on the right, the same universe is shown after it has expanded, and then expanded some more. On the right, the three red circles show what is visible from three different galaxies. On the left, the smaller circles contain everything which has subsequently expanded into the larger circles on the right.Note that we don't know the total size of the universe, and we can't be sure about what it is like far beyond our particular horizon of visibility. This is indicated by the question marks in the diagram.Parsimony and the so-called "horizon problem" are excellent indications that the universe continues far beyond the range of our vision in much the same form as we can see; but that extrapolation cannot be applied indefinitely. In the end, we just don't know what we lies beyond our vision.Note that this model is not proposing a primeval atom, or an initial speck. It proposes a thick quark-gluon soup which is expanding. This simple picture omits many more complex details, but it is a good initial guide to how scientists see the early universe.Bear in mind that although you are welcome to believe or not believe what you like, any model you come up with that is intended to be an explanation for any observed phenomena; and in particular the observed phenomena which lead to the discoveries of cosmology, is not going to work, because you don't know enough about the data. Neither do I, for that matter; but then I'm not trying to invent new models to explain evidence before I've made the effort required to understand the evidence. Developing a scientific theory capable of matching all the pertinent observations is not easy.I'll leave it at that for now... Cheers -- Sylas[This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-03-2004]

quote:

---

It would be required that the spiritual stars were made up of different atoms in order to give off a different frequency, and then somehow change into normal atoms during the shift

---

That's easy. The complete universe stars, of course being different than our physical u. atoms, since they we not our material, would naturally give off a different frequency. And the whole purpose of the shift was to transform them into what we would call now 'normal' atoms. As far as knowing exactly how He did it, hey we're not God. Main thing is that it did get done.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes a big change indeed from what you can't see, to what we have now. Certainly, the gravity must be different in a spiritual universe!I am pretty sure the other side had some changes then as well, in their universe. Apparently it is not somehow complete now. When it merges again, it will be complete.

But you said that the spiritual universe would explain what we see today as having been formed by the exact same mechanisms as we can currently observe.Hence, if things were radically different in the spiritual universe, we'd notice because we'd see too much messed up stuff out in the universe.You will have to give us something substantial instead of saying "It magically was done exactly the way I wanted it to be. Isn't it convinient." because that's a totally useless way to deal with the problem.

quote:

---

Almost. The basic underlying model is not of many soup specks all over. It is just soup

---

Speck sized soup!

quote:

---

The universe looks the same in every direction, though as we look at the most distant galaxies we are looking back in time;

---

Yes, how much real time is the big question.

quote:

---

The most distant galaxies we see by looking in opposite directions are so far apart that they cannot ever have been in contact with each other according to simplest extrapolations of expanding space.

---

Maybe they were'nt. That would be simple.

quote:

---

It is the same in the very early universe. What we can see was once contained in a small region;

---

At least we can bank on this!

quote:

---

In the end, we just don't know what we lies beyond our vision.

---

A lot of details about the other side are known, even though we can't yet see it.

quote:

---

Note that this model is not proposing a primeval atom, or an initial speck. It proposes a thick quark-gluon soup which is expanding.

---

I really see no difference! Unless you are talking about the whole theory, and concerned with such distinctions. I tried to break it gently to you, but all maybe most, or at least many people care about is stars coming from a little area. It don't matter to me if something I could barely see, straining my eyes, that was to expand out into galaxies was a thick soup, a cheese, a pepper speck, or coffee, or anything else. I don't believe the theory. My one and only concern with the theory is that people really thought this little thing more or less created (or expanded into) most of our known universe. I don't care where they think it came from, although you say they admit they don't know. I don't care how big they can dream it may have gotten. (that's philosphical speculation). All I care is the point our universe was supposedly a little speck of soup. Like I say, calling it a speck is fine with me at that point, because no one on earth would have been able to look at it, and tell the difference! Stop getting offended people at the little thick soup being called a speck! The main thing is you think almost everything came from it!

quote:

---

Developing a scientific theory capable of matching all the pertinent observations is not easy.

---

Ha.

No, not speck sized soup. This has been explained time and time and time again, and you are still failing to describe the model correctly. How can you possibly make a coherent criticism or response to stuff that you refuse to learn about?The size of the soup is not known. It might even be infinite in size.The thing that has small size is a region within the soup. Not the soup itself. Not a speck in the soup; the quark-gluon soup is very smooth and homogenous. The soup itself is the universe; and we don't know how big that is. About 13 billion years for the most distant galaxies. There has been tremendous progress in observational cosmology in the last decade, particularly with the use of space based observatories. This is likely to continue for some time to come; with a number of new instruments coming on-line.There has been a rush of new observations of very distant objects in the last year or two. These have given further solid confirmation to the predictions of big bang cosmology, and also contribute to finer details of our understanding of the universe.Here is a fabulous image from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, from Astronomy Picture of the Day on March 9 this year. The image required an exposure time of about a million seconds. The link gives more details of the new developments in this area, now confirmed by a number of observatories. That is indeed a possibility; but it does not answer the real question why are they so alike? It is a good question, but at this stage you don't need to worry about it.It is usual in science that as you answer research questions, new areas of investigation and question show up. To a novice, there seems nothing surprising about galaxies looking much the same in different directions. That's fine; don't worry about it then. If you don't care about the details, that's fine. Just don't pretend that you will be able to make a credible criticism or alternative of a model you don't care to understand.I realise you don't believe in any of this. I've also noted that your only objection or basis for disbelief is that you think it is insane. That is, you don't have a reason as such for rejecting modern physics, other than personal incredulity.That's fine too. your choice.But if we are breaking bad news gently to each other, you might want to note that most people are willing to relax about things they don't fully understand, and are willing to accept that just maybe if every working scientist is agreed on a basic underlying model, then just maybe there is a good reason for that; even if we don't understand it as yet. And further bad news if you think you can figure out a new alternative model which is more sensible than the foundations used by the whole active scientific community, even while persistently disclaiming any interest in making an effort to get your descriptions of the scientific models accurate, then you're going to have to get used to people calling you an imbecile.Cheers -- SylasComing up to the magic 300...[This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-03-2004]

Applying the (13.7 billion/6200) of distance observed divided by assumed age of universe means the factor is 2.2 million ... which should take the light well outside the visible range.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and the energy given off as light drops from infinite speed to a finite speed even if it is 3e8 m/s) is ....infinite?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

still no comment at all on the Hindu Model ....in harmony with the concept
in harmony with the observations
in harmony with the theoriesenjoy one last post?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

The thing that has small size is a region within the soup.

---

OK, so we have a "region" as big as a speck, so a billion people lining up, to take turns looking at it with a magnifying glass wouldn't see any difference between the rgion and a speck of the same size. The region of the speck! Has a nice ring to it!

quote:

---

The size of the soup is not known. It might even be infinite in size.

---

So in effect, it doesn't matter, cause what matters is all our galaxies supposedly came from this tiny speck sized region!

quote:

---

About 13 billion years for the most distant galaxies.

---

Yes, if we preferred to travel 12th class, and ride light out there at it's speed of travel.

quote:

---

the real question why are they so alike?

---

Why would God make them so different?

quote:

---

If you don't care about the details, that's fine. Just don't pretend that you will be able to make a credible criticism or alternative of a model you don't care to understand.

---

That's where you guys come in. Now I can speak authoritivly of the little region in the soup from which most of our known universe sprang! The rest of the model, I don't need to critizize much. It's the silly part I like.

quote:

---

That is, you don't have a reason as such for rejecting modern physics, other than personal incredulity.

---

'Personal incredulity' based on the very word of God Himself. Also millions of witnesses to it's power. You (evolutionist thinkers in general) then have no reason for rejecting ghosts, angels, and a spirit world, other than 'personal incredulity'.

quote:

---

every working scientist is agreed on a basic underlying model, then just maybe there is a good reason for that

---

They are all wrong, because the time is off.

quote:

---

while persistently disclaiming any interest in making an effort to get your descriptions of the scientific models accurate

---

Getting them accurate is good, Getting them to agree with timeframes that are wrong, is bad. When science can say the spirit world exists, then maybe they can tell me I got something a little off. Meanwhile, they are virtually deaf, dumb, and blind to it! So, why would I care who they call imbeciles! A spititual world existing, with the bible's creator in it, would, one way or the other utterly destroy your time estimates. So either one of these things is the real answer. I'm with Him on this one!