(August 27, 2016 at 6:35 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I r smrt 2.

(August 28, 2016 at 3:17 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(August 27, 2016 at 6:52 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: The later quote is from the University of Oregon physics department, not me.

And you  agreed with it enough to repost it.
Also shows how those guys from the  University of Oregon physics department ate biased in their thought.

(August 27, 2016 at 6:46 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: @Those Who Kudo Rythym – Personally, I find it very closed-minded to think that the only two options that explain someone rejecting atheism are dishonesty or mental illness. Again this goes back to the pretense that atheists have a monopoly on logic and reason. I find it hard to believe that some of the AF members I respect would applaud this kind of intolerance.

(August 25, 2016 at 7:14 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: I have a very difficult time with this still.  I wish I had some advice for you.  In all honesty, the thought frequently keeps me awake at night.  I think maybe it just takes time to emotionally process the realization, and perhaps it takes longer for some than for others.

(August 27, 2016 at 6:34 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(August 27, 2016 at 5:36 pm)robvalue Wrote: Where is the falsifiability in all this?

What is a non-designed reality like, and how do you know this?

---

If you've read any of the model I present in other threads, you'd know it is very specifically geometrically designed and is a deterministic metaversal model. Every universe is the same quantum expression  (spatial waveform) of the same original ( solid particle) unity.  The are created in different spaces at different times in regular pattern (ABC sphere stack that is infinite horizontally and finite vertically as a traveling wave form creating planes of universes behind it) and they develop "as they will".

No appeal to random universe creation out of a magical quantum bulk needed.  No special pleading to magical "God made it that way just because"  needed. In fact it blows both the Many Worlds theory and intelligent design argument completely out of the water.

The falsifiability comes in where it makes very specific geometric predictions on the structure of internal universal phenomenon and metaversal constants that are the same for all universes in the model. In an ABC sphere pack (and other maximum density arrangements) the spheres take up ~74.05% of the space vs the space between the sphere (see the Kepler conjecture). This predicts a maximum expansive constant (dark energy) of on each of these universes of ~74%

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries...energy.php

We do know this: Since space is everywhere, this dark energy force is everywhere, and its effects increase as space expands. In contrast, gravity's force is stronger when things are close together and weaker when they are far apart. Because gravity is weakening with the expansion of space, dark energy now makes up over 2/3 of all the energy in the universe.

It sounds rather strange that we have no firm idea about what makes up 74% of the universe. It's as though we had explored all the land on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an ocean. But now that we've caught sight of the waves, we want to know what this huge, strange, powerful entity really is.



Later on in the model, the internal geometry divides for 6 individual space-time regions of which our region (which patterns for the lightest type of quarks) is only one. This affects the original 74%. 74.05 divided by 6 equals ~ 12.34.  That takes out the influence of our region which leaves 61.71 influence from the other 5 regions, a lower DE constant. The creation of matter in this model is a quantum tunneling "white hole" like event that erupts across the space of all 6 regions simultaneously and these are the cores of galaxies. This is also like a pressure equalization event and settles out near the mean between the upper and lower DE limits. It would settle somewhere just above the mean as the fabric of space-time closes back together behind the white hole event.

The mean between 74.05 and 61.71 is 67.88....less that .5% below modern/revised estimates of 68.3% DE expansive constant.

The arrangement of the 6 spaces geometrically predict 3 density levels of quarks and their anti-quarks. As in the standard model of particle generation.

The first internal simultaneous geometry of space-time in a universe is derived from the spatial relationships an extant infinite has with itself. No matter if it's hyper dense quark matter, or limitless Limburger cheese, or an undefined quantum nothing the same relationships exist: All around itself equally in all directions, at the center of itself everywhere, and equally distributed as a field.
This quantizes into a sphere around a point (much smaller solid sphere) with a tensor field in equilibrium between them.

If this is the vibrational "macro-container" that is the universe, it predicts the behavior and micro-structure of the atom.  They are the internal waves this shape container of the universe predicts. Here's how: The quantum tunneling event referred to above is the inversion point of the universal waveform into micro particle expression. Inverting the universal sphere/field/point "holon" yields a larger spherical component at the center with a much smaller point like particle flying around in a probability field creating a discrete border condition. Atoms are stable and ordered because the universe is stable and ordered.


The shape of our region of space time unfolded by this model is a rings torus and predicts a negative or saddle shaped curvature of space-time.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news...dle-shaped

The geometry of the universe is "open" or negatively curved like a saddle, according to a new model proposed by researchers in Europe who have studied anomalies in the cosmic microwave background radiation. The anomalies were first detected by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) in 2004 and were confirmed earlier this year by the European Space Agency's Planck space mission.

A torus in motion around our bubble of observability (observable universe) would cause a hemispherical divide of the CMB as on side is traveling towards you giving stronger readings and one side is traveling away giving weaker readings.  If there is also six fold internal division of universe spaces, there might be remnants on the CMB of both these features.


http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/i...opsided/2/


And now a little something on the consideration of these things from the University of Oregon Physics department. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html

Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy since we do not currently have a complete theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of Nature at the moment of Creation. In addition, there is no possibility of linking observation or experimentation of early Universe physics to our theories (i.e. it's not possible to `build' another Universe). Our theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic grounds, plus their power of prediction to later times, rather than an appeal to empirical results. This is a very difference way of doing science from previous centuries of research.

---