The problem with atheism.

[Spendulus]

That doesn't mean you can move energy/matter from one space to another. If I create that lead sphere and take it into the vacuum of space, I didn't destroy energy, air, or photons inside it, I just let them espace into the surrounding areas. Also, if you say that there is no such thing as nothing, that would mean the energy of the universe is infinite, and that either the universe has existed for ever, or that light travels faster than the speed of light. So that no matter how far you go, you will always have energy and matter. But we know that's now true. We know that the universe was created 13.8 billion years ago, and we know that light travels at a limited speed, so we know that there is absolutely nothing farther than 13.8 billion light years away. There is a limit boundary to the universe, and if you travel faster than the speed of light to get past that boundary, eventually you will get to a space where no matter, energy, light, or universe exists.....

That's pretty well stated to express the concept (which exists actually in math, not in words) but let me point out one thing.

You won't get to a space where 'no matter, energy, light, or universe exists'.  That implies movement and dimensionality, and where it is not, it simply is not. 

Cosmology does not embrace infinity.  Has not for some time...

[1714687854]

1714687854

[1714687854]

1714687854

[1714687854]

1714687854

[semaforo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

  An interesting read for possible alternatives or additions to the big bang model. I think this perspective is certainly useful to understand galaxy formation.

   As for DMT, direct of experience of extrasensory reality does leave the empirical worldview in the dust.

[Rassah]

It seems you have it figured out.  Your soul escapes into the surrounding areas when it is freed from your body. 

If by "soul" you mean "infrared light," then sure, but then that soul is pretty much worthless and meaningless too.

And yes, the energy of the universe is infinite, it has existed for ever and always will exist.

Sorry, not according to all the evidence we have, and there's tons of it.

Consciousness interacts instantaneously no matter the distance, shall I find the quantum experiment explaining it?

You mean "quantum" quantum? Or "new age bullshit" quantum? Because even quantum theory doesn't break the speed of light.

Matter is present in this reality, when you die you experience a brief period of absence from matter, aka infinite love aka god.

Speaking from experience? Can you test this theory to verify it?

If there's a space where no energy or universe exists, how is there space? 

Because "space" is "nothing." There is nothing out there far away. Or more specifically, there isn't anything at all out there far away. Again, space doesn't "exist." It's just an area of that nothing that you claim can't exist, which we separate using our own abstract boudnaries (such as the outer shell of a lead sphere, or the limit beyond which light and energy has not traveled yet.)

Nothing in the sense of emptiness, darkness etc, yes, but you (your consciousness) is still there.

Ah, but I am not there. I am not inside the hypothetical lead sphere, and no one is in the space outside our universe's expansion. So there is still nothing there.

And please do not refute psychedelic experience as false or drug induced until you've experienced it for yourself.

Do you need to experience a car crash to know what it is like, what damage would result from it, and whether it will kill you? Or is sticking a couple of crash test dummies into a test car, crashing it, and observing and analyziing everything from the outside enough? I posit the second one is sufficient. Likewise, I don't need to take drugs to know that the chemicals some druggie takes affects his brain in some specific way, and fucks up their head with hallucinations. There's plenty of scientific experiments tracking all the effects from the outside already. We know we can dream and imagine stuff. Using drugs to do it doesn't change it from being just dreams and imagination. Sorry.

Infinity is a hard concept to grasp.

For you, maybe...

Try thinking beyond the grand illusions of time and space.  Imagine you're a single point, a single point doesn't have anything outside of it but everything inside.

Thinking this way would greatly oversimplify reality...

[Rassah]

I'm sorry, but I have to point out that the idea that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old is fraught with so many problems that I can't believe it's still asserted by scientists. 

On a somewhat similar note, I also find it funny that the 'Big Bang,' a theory with a name seemingly created by a Neanderthal, is where the explanatory buck stops.

I'd (nearly) stake my life on a bet that in the (probably) not-so-distant future we're going to be looking at the Big Bang in the same context as the flat earth theory.

Flat earth was fairly easy to disprove: just keep traveling, and you'll go beyond the horizon, or built a tower tall enough, and you can see farther, even over the flat ocean. I'd love to see the problems you mention regarding the big bang. I'd also like to hear an alternative explanation to the fact that the universe is expanding, and at a decelerating rate, which also includes all the considerations for time, space, speed, and gravity, and how they play on each other (the farther you go back in time, the closer everything is, the stronger the gravity, and the slower the time moves, so essentially, you can't go back in time without time itself slowing down more and more). So far everything we have observed in the universe keeps confirming this theory.

[dank]

It seems you have it figured out.  Your soul escapes into the surrounding areas when it is freed from your body. 

If by "soul" you mean "infrared light," then sure, but then that soul is pretty much worthless and meaningless too.

And yes, the energy of the universe is infinite, it has existed for ever and always will exist.

Sorry, not according to all the evidence we have, and there's tons of it.

Consciousness interacts instantaneously no matter the distance, shall I find the quantum experiment explaining it?

You mean "quantum" quantum? Or "new age bullshit" quantum? Because even quantum theory doesn't break the speed of light.

Matter is present in this reality, when you die you experience a brief period of absence from matter, aka infinite love aka god.

Speaking from experience? Can you test this theory to verify it?

If there's a space where no energy or universe exists, how is there space? 

Because "space" is "nothing." There is nothing out there far away. Or more specifically, there isn't anything at all out there far away. Again, space doesn't "exist." It's just an area of that nothing that you claim can't exist, which we separate using our own abstract boudnaries (such as the outer shell of a lead sphere, or the limit beyond which light and energy has not traveled yet.)

Nothing in the sense of emptiness, darkness etc, yes, but you (your consciousness) is still there.

Ah, but I am not there. I am not inside the hypothetical lead sphere, and no one is in the space outside our universe's expansion. So there is still nothing there.

And please do not refute psychedelic experience as false or drug induced until you've experienced it for yourself.

Do you need to experience a car crash to know what it is like, what damage would result from it, and whether it will kill you? Or is sticking a couple of crash test dummies into a test car, crashing it, and observing and analyziing everything from the outside enough? I posit the second one is sufficient. Likewise, I don't need to take drugs to know that the chemicals some druggie takes affects his brain in some specific way, and fucks up their head with hallucinations. There's plenty of scientific experiments tracking all the effects from the outside already. We know we can dream and imagine stuff. Using drugs to do it doesn't change it from being just dreams and imagination. Sorry.

Infinity is a hard concept to grasp.

For you, maybe...

Try thinking beyond the grand illusions of time and space.  Imagine you're a single point, a single point doesn't have anything outside of it but everything inside.

Thinking this way would greatly oversimplify reality...

If by "soul" you mean "infrared light," then sure, but then that soul is pretty much worthless and meaningless too.

You are conscious aren't you, not simply a robot?  You have a lapse of time between thought don't you?  You are a conscious being with a soul, whatever you want to call that.

Sorry, not according to all the evidence we have, and there's tons of it.

Our failure to channel this infinite energy does not mean it doesn't exist.  The universe is consciousness.  Consciousness is infinite, including powerful.

You mean "quantum" quantum? Or "new age bullshit" quantum? Because even quantum theory doesn't break the speed of light

I cannot find it now, I saw it years ago.  It was quantum.

Speaking from experience? Can you test this theory to verify it?

Yes, I have already killed my ego to the point I entered the 8th-10th dimension, absent of time and space, absorbed completely in a infinitely loving ball of light.

Because "space" is "nothing." There is nothing out there far away. Or more specifically, there isn't anything at all out there far away. Again, space doesn't "exist." It's just an area of that nothing that you claim can't exist, which we separate using our own abstract boudnaries (such as the outer shell of a lead sphere, or the limit beyond which light and energy has not traveled yet.)

But there's still something there.  Even if there appears to be nothing, everything is taking place in the same spot.

Ah, but I am not there. I am not inside the hypothetical lead sphere, and no one is in the space outside our universe's expansion. So there is still nothing there.

But you are everywhere, consciousness.  Are you proposing we are the center of the universe then?  Our reality of the universe is the only one?

Do you need to experience a car crash to know what it is like, what damage would result from it, and whether it will kill you? Or is sticking a couple of crash test dummies into a test car, crashing it, and observing and analyziing everything from the outside enough? I posit the second one is sufficient. Likewise, I don't need to take drugs to know that the chemicals some druggie takes affects his brain in some specific way, and fucks up their head with hallucinations. There's plenty of scientific experiments tracking all the effects from the outside already. We know we can dream and imagine stuff. Using drugs to do it doesn't change it from being just dreams and imagination. Sorry.

If you could give a test dummy LSD and measure the cognitive effects, I'd say that'd work.  But unfortunately, shifting dimensions is an art only one can experience themselves.  I could draw you a beautiful picture, but it would not match the true energy waves of the higher dimensions.  It's simply something one must experience to comprehend the nature of.

Just dreams and imagination?  Do you know what life is?  A dream.  Think about it, you fall asleep and you enter other dreams, other real realities and you come back to this one because you chose to live a life.  How do you know you didn't wake up in one of your dreams and remember something from this life as if it was a dream?

Just by dreams, one can easily fathom that we are multidimensional beings, not robot meat bodies.

For you, maybe...

I understand everything my friend.  The beginning, the end, the cycles and the transitions.  I've lived forever, I am not new to the game of life.

Thinking this way would greatly oversimplify reality...

Reality is the simplest thing there is once you understand it.  Once you accept it you begin to understand it.  Once you stop doubting it you begin to believe.  Once you understand, you are it.

[Rassah]

If by "soul" you mean "infrared light," then sure, but then that soul is pretty much worthless and meaningless too.

You are conscious aren't you, not simply a robot?  You have a lapse of time between thought don't you?  You are a conscious being with a soul, whatever you want to call that.

I'm no different from a clock, a robot, or a computer. Same mechanism bound by physics, just a tad (a lot) more complicated and a bit more aware of my surroundings. So, by extention, a clock and a robot would have to have a soul, too. In which case, why would I give a crap about something so trivial and abundant?

Sorry, not according to all the evidence we have, and there's tons of it.

Our failure to channel this infinite energy does not mean it doesn't exist.  The universe is consciousness.  Consciousness is infinite, including powerful.

Didn't you quote some laws about entropy and energy not being able to be created or destroyed earlier? Those same laws state that there can't be infinite energy. And, as we now know, the universe is not full of infinite energy. It's actually not even a "something out of nothing." There is just as much antimater in our universe as there is matter, both of which was created during the big bang, and if you were to take everything that exists in the universe and sum it all up, you would get exactly 0. All matter will get canceled by antimater. This was a hypothesis, or at most a fairly well supported theory, until we started up the Large Hadron Colider. When we did that, and started to monitor the results, we actually found many instances of tiny big bangs happening, where matter and antimater seemingly popped into existance out of nothing, proving once and for all that something (a +1 and a -1) can come out of nothing, as long as the sum of it was still nothing (0). And it also only confirmed the fact that there is no infinite energy. There is only a limited about of +1, which is offset by an exact amount of -1.

You mean "quantum" quantum? Or "new age bullshit" quantum? Because even quantum theory doesn't break the speed of light

I cannot find it now, I saw it years ago.  It was quantum.

Are you sure it wasn't just some fancy-word gobledegook? About two or three decades ago things were "atomic." Before then things were "space age." Before then they were "electonic" or "electromagnetic." People latch on to new fancy terminology, and make shit up with those words just to sound smart, despite their claims still being made up shit.

Speaking from experience? Can you test this theory to verify it?

Yes, I have already killed my ego to the point I entered the 8th-10th dimension, absent of time and space, absorbed completely in a infinitely loving ball of light.

Your ego is just your brain's neural network. Do you mean that you killed off a bunch of your brain cells? I think we can sort of guess that already. Have you ever actually stopped your brain, and your body, from functioning? Tons of other people have (accidental and induced comas). How come their experiences are all exactly the same, which is that they were not aware of anything during that time?

Because "space" is "nothing." There is nothing out there far away. Or more specifically, there isn't anything at all out there far away. Again, space doesn't "exist." It's just an area of that nothing that you claim can't exist, which we separate using our own abstract boudnaries (such as the outer shell of a lead sphere, or the limit beyond which light and energy has not traveled yet.)

But there's still something there.  Even if there appears to be nothing, everything is taking place in the same spot.

What is taking place outside of that spot?

Ah, but I am not there. I am not inside the hypothetical lead sphere, and no one is in the space outside our universe's expansion. So there is still nothing there.

But you are everywhere, consciousness.  Are you proposing we are the center of the universe then?  Our reality of the universe is the only one?

Our reality of the universe is the only one we are experiencing, but the universe is existing everywhere with and without us. If we are everywhere through consciousness, are you proposing that your consciousness can break the fundamental rule of physics that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? If not, how did your coonsciouness reach the far parts of the universe in just the time since you were born?

If you could give a test dummy LSD and measure the cognitive effects, I'd say that'd work.  But unfortunately, shifting dimensions is an art only one can experience themselves.

No need for a dummy. An idiot would suffice. Give the drug to a willing test subject, and watch his brain patters and changed in brain chemistry. That gives a pretty good picture of what happens, and why.
Humans had 250,000 years of your types of claims, and to prove any of the stuff you are talking about. Still waiting for proof.

Think about it, you fall asleep and you enter other dreams, other real realities and you come back to this one because you chose to live a life.  How do you know you didn't wake up in one of your dreams and remember something from this life as if it was a dream?

I know because I am still sane. Because I didn't take drugs, and because I can still tell what is real and what is not. My brain still works as designed by nature. When something is completely broken, it often can't even tell that it's broken, because they very things that tell that thing that it is broken are themselves broken.
And FYI, we understand dreams pretty well too. In layman's terms, your brain's long-term memory centers convert things from short-term as fast as they can, often slapping things one on top of the other, and dreams are basically your brain performing a defrag function on your memories, in order to organize all those network pathways I mentioned more efficiently. That's why dreams are often about recent experiences, why they can sometimes seem to f'ed up, and why lack of sleep for a long time can literally drive someone insane (I *almost* minored in psychology, dropping it with only two classes to go)

For you, maybe...

I understand everything my friend.  The beginning, the end, the cycles and the transitions.  I've lived forever, I am not new to the game of life.

It's just too bad that there's no way for you to prove it, by, say, telling something about some history past that can be verified,  or explaining some conncept of astrophysics that can actually be verified when tested (so far your claims have actually been contrary to tested and confirmed astrophysics concepts)

[Rassah]

I fully expect that we will have to deal with extreme discrimination against thins like sentient custom-designed species (chimeras/furries) and artificial intelligence, possibly even within my lifetime. The arguments will be that, since they are not humans, and are not god's chosen subjects, they obviously have no souls, so it's ok to enslave or kill them. Religious fundamentalists and conservatives have to hate something...

[the joint]

I'm sorry, but I have to point out that the idea that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old is fraught with so many problems that I can't believe it's still asserted by scientists. 

On a somewhat similar note, I also find it funny that the 'Big Bang,' a theory with a name seemingly created by a Neanderthal, is where the explanatory buck stops.

I'd (nearly) stake my life on a bet that in the (probably) not-so-distant future we're going to be looking at the Big Bang in the same context as the flat earth theory.

Flat earth was fairly easy to disprove: just keep traveling, and you'll go beyond the horizon, or built a tower tall enough, and you can see farther, even over the flat ocean. I'd love to see the problems you mention regarding the big bang. I'd also like to hear an alternative explanation to the fact that the universe is expanding, and at a decelerating rate, which also includes all the considerations for time, space, speed, and gravity, and how they play on each other (the farther you go back in time, the closer everything is, the stronger the gravity, and the slower the time moves, so essentially, you can't go back in time without time itself slowing down more and more). So far everything we have observed in the universe keeps confirming this theory.

I don't have a problem with the big bang insofar as it explains the expanding Universe, but I have a problem with the purported age of the Universe.

Take your measuring devices near the event horizon of a black hole, look out, and then tell me what the age of the Universe is.  The age of the Universe has been determined upon math, based upon empirical data collected from a relational area of space with unique spatial properties that determine the evidence.  Simply put, you see what you see because of where you are.  Go somewhere else, you might see something different.  If I travel at the speed of light while you remain stationary, we 'age' differently.  Does the age of the Universe therefore change because we aged differently, or does it remain the same?  The answer is "yes."  You need to re-evaluate your idea of time and age.

[dank]

I'm no different from a clock, a robot, or a computer. Same mechanism bound by physics, just a tad (a lot) more complicated and a bit more aware of my surroundings. So, by extention, a clock and a robot would have to have a soul, too. In which case, why would I give a crap about something so trivial and abundant?

You are the creator.  You are the universe, you are all.  The clock is you, as is the robot, created by you.

Didn't you quote some laws about entropy and energy not being able to be created or destroyed earlier? Those same laws state that there can't be infinite energy. And, as we now know, the universe is not full of infinite energy. It's actually not even a "something out of nothing." There is just as much antimater in our universe as there is matter, both of which was created during the big bang, and if you were to take everything that exists in the universe and sum it all up, you would get exactly 0. All matter will get canceled by antimater. This was a hypothesis, or at most a fairly well supported theory, until we started up the Large Hadron Colider. When we did that, and started to monitor the results, we actually found many instances of tiny big bangs happening, where matter and antimater seemingly popped into existance out of nothing, proving once and for all that something (a +1 and a -1) can come out of nothing, as long as the sum of it was still nothing (0). And it also only confirmed the fact that there is no infinite energy. There is only a limited about of +1, which is offset by an exact amount of -1.

What exactly does it say about infinite energy?  The universe is infinite, there is infinite energy to be taken from the universe.  Stare into the sun.  What happens?

I have experienced infinite love first hand, it is a real phenomenon that is truly empowering to the mind.

Are you sure it wasn't just some fancy-word gobledegook? About two or three decades ago things were "atomic." Before then things were "space age." Before then they were "electonic" or "electromagnetic." People latch on to new fancy terminology, and make shit up with those words just to sound smart, despite their claims still being made up shit.

I don't know what it was but it was explaining how consciousness reacts instantaneously, faster than light.

Your ego is just your brain's neural network. Do you mean that you killed off a bunch of your brain cells? I think we can sort of guess that already. Have you ever actually stopped your brain, and your body, from functioning? Tons of other people have (accidental and induced comas). How come their experiences are all exactly the same, which is that they were not aware of anything during that time

Your ego is your human senses.  Fear and everything that stems from it.  In the absence of ego, one is absent of the physical plane and fully indwells to be one with the spiritual plane.  In the state, you know everything because you are everything.  It's keeping it with you, the trick.

I don't know about comas, I've never had one.  I have, however, heard of people having similar near death experiences.  Maybe not everybody will perceive the highest dimension upon death.  Some simply stay or perceive darkness.  I had a dream I was shot the other night, three times, and everything turned black upon the last shot to the head.  I perceived nothing but I recall perceiving it as I still existed.

What is taking place outside of that spot?

Everything is inside that spot.

Our reality of the universe is the only one we are experiencing, but the universe is existing everywhere with and without us. If we are everywhere through consciousness, are you proposing that your consciousness can break the fundamental rule of physics that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? If not, how did your coonsciouness reach the far parts of the universe in just the time since you were born?

We are everywhere because we are all.  Space is created by us, an elaborate illusion.  This is how higher levels of life can teleport/warp to anywhere, because you create your reality.

No need for a dummy. An idiot would suffice. Give the drug to a willing test subject, and watch his brain patters and changed in brain chemistry. That gives a pretty good picture of what happens, and why.
Humans had 250,000 years of your types of claims, and to prove any of the stuff you are talking about. Still waiting for proof.

Do not be so quick to judge the effects of psychedelics.  Brain change != brain damage.  Many prophets found their knowledge through psychedelic transcendence.  Listen to the musical influences that used LSD such as Jimi Hendrix and the Beatles.  They have something in common, good vibes, love and soul.  Positivity.  It stems from within but is truly amplified in the presence of an ego deteriorating drug like LSD or mushrooms.  Notice the similarities between Jesus and I.

I know because I am still sane. Because I didn't take drugs, and because I can still tell what is real and what is not. My brain still works as designed by nature. When something is completely broken, it often can't even tell that it's broken, because they very things that tell that thing that it is broken are themselves broken.
And FYI, we understand dreams pretty well too. In layman's terms, your brain's long-term memory centers convert things from short-term as fast as they can, often slapping things one on top of the other, and dreams are basically your brain performing a defrag function on your memories, in order to organize all those network pathways I mentioned more efficiently. That's why dreams are often about recent experiences, why they can sometimes seem to f'ed up, and why lack of sleep for a long time can literally drive someone insane (I *almost* minored in psychology, dropping it with only two classes to go)

Still sane?  Can you be saner?  I became way more sane after finding peace, understanding/god with LSD.  It increases your senses and puts you in tune to the frequencies of the body, earth and universe.

I'd like to think dreams are heaven, for I have achieved things only doable in the realms of higher dimensions.  I have learned to take flight, multiple times.  I have jumped over the city of Raleigh in my beamer, jumped over a semitruck on a motorcycle, I have touched someone physically and I have fallen in love with someone in my dreams.  It all seems very real, too real of an experience for me to call fake.

It's just too bad that there's no way for you to prove it, by, say, telling something about some history past that can be verified,  or explaining some conncept of astrophysics that can actually be verified when tested (so far your claims have actually been contrary to tested and confirmed astrophysics concepts)

Ah, but there is.  When I fly at the music festival, there will be plenty proof for the egodeath to stay with humanity.  And that's why I gotta do it, because people need proof to believe.

[dank]

Jimi believes in me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4oGncCmCRM

[Rassah]

I don't have a problem with the big bang insofar as it explains the expanding Universe, but I have a problem with the purported age of the Universe.

Take your measuring devices near the event horizon of a black hole, look out, and then tell me what the age of the Universe is.  The age of the Universe has been determined upon math, based upon empirical data collected from a relational area of space with unique spatial properties that determine the evidence.  Simply put, you see what you see because of where you are.  Go somewhere else, you might see something different.  If I travel at the speed of light while you remain stationary, we 'age' differently.  Does the age of the Universe therefore change because we aged differently, or does it remain the same?  The answer is "yes."  You need to re-evaluate your idea of time and age.

Are you actually claiming that you are smart enough to realize that this should be taken into account, and astrophysicists were too dumb to take effects of relativity, gravity, speed, and time dialation into account when calculating the age of the universe?
(Yes, you can calculate time near the event horizoon, since you can calculate the mass of the black hole you are orbiting, and adjust for time dialatioon from the nearby gravity well using well established relativity functions).

[Rassah]

The universe is infinite, there is infinite energy to be taken from the universe.

You can claim the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it fact. The universe is not infinite, and neither is energy. I'm not stating this, this is actual fact supported by actual evidence.

Stare into the sun.  What happens?

Uh, you prove to your eye doctor that you are an idiot?

I don't know what it was but it was explaining how consciousness reacts instantaneously, faster than light.

If consciousness reacts faster than light, then it would react, or more, or do whatever it does, slower that anything else in the world. Time slows as you approach the speed of light. Coonsciousness "reacting" at the speed of light would make it react backwards.

[the joint]

I don't have a problem with the big bang insofar as it explains the expanding Universe, but I have a problem with the purported age of the Universe.

Take your measuring devices near the event horizon of a black hole, look out, and then tell me what the age of the Universe is.  The age of the Universe has been determined upon math, based upon empirical data collected from a relational area of space with unique spatial properties that determine the evidence.  Simply put, you see what you see because of where you are.  Go somewhere else, you might see something different.  If I travel at the speed of light while you remain stationary, we 'age' differently.  Does the age of the Universe therefore change because we aged differently, or does it remain the same?  The answer is "yes."  You need to re-evaluate your idea of time and age.

Are you actually claiming that you are smart enough to realize that this should be taken into account, and astrophysicists were too dumb to take effects of relativity, gravity, speed, and time dialation into account when calculating the age of the universe?
(Yes, you can calculate time near the event horizoon, since you can calculate the mass of the black hole you are orbiting, and adjust for time dialatioon from the nearby gravity well using well established relativity functions).

No, I know they take this into account, but that doesn't really mean anything if they continue to ignore the problem this creates.

So, you've reached a determination of the static age of the Universe when various objects contained within that Universe age differently.  

Let's assume I'm moving at some velocity V ad that this causes my experience of 1 second to be (relatively) twice the length of a second that is experienced by you.  Now assume I move at this velocity for a billion years. I have thus relatively aged only 500 million years compared to your 1 billion.  Are you saying that after this, the Universe is still some 13.8 billion years old relative to both of us?

[Rassah]

No, I know they take this into account, but that doesn't really mean anything if they continue to ignore the problem this creates.

So are you claiming you understand the problem this creates, and they didn't, and didn't account for it?

So, you've reached a determination of the static age of the Universe when various objects contained within that Universe age differently.  

Let's assume I'm moving at some velocity V ad that this causes my experience of 1 second to be (relatively) twice the length of a second that is experienced by you.  Now assume I move at this velocity for a billion years. I have thus relatively aged only 500 million years compared to your 1 billion.  Are you saying that after this, the Universe is still some 13.8 billion years old relative to both of us?

No. You would calculate the age of the universe relative to your timeline, and I would calculate it relative to my timeline. We calculated the age of the universe relative to earth's timeline, based on all the movements, accelerations, and decelerations of things we see out there. The age of the universe would be slightly different if we were calculating it from Mars, not the least of which due to the "year" on Mars being different than the year on Earth.

[the joint]

No, I know they take this into account, but that doesn't really mean anything if they continue to ignore the problem this creates.

So are you claiming you understand the problem this creates, and they didn't, and didn't account for it?

So, you've reached a determination of the static age of the Universe when various objects contained within that Universe age differently.  

Let's assume I'm moving at some velocity V ad that this causes my experience of 1 second to be (relatively) twice the length of a second that is experienced by you.  Now assume I move at this velocity for a billion years. I have thus relatively aged only 500 million years compared to your 1 billion.  Are you saying that after this, the Universe is still some 13.8 billion years old relative to both of us?

No. You would calculate the age of the universe relative to your timeline, and I would calculate it relative to my timeline. We calculated the age of the universe relative to earth's timeline, based on all the movements, accelerations, and decelerations of things we see out there. The age of the universe would be slightly different if we were calculating it from Mars, not the least of which due to the "year" on Mars being different than the year on Earth.

So...where do you disagree with me then?  I agree with these statements.  The whole purpose of my suggestion to take measurements from the event horizon of a black hole is because one would age at a significantly different rate there.

[Rassah]

If you and someone else are at different points on a number line, and you calculate that 0 is 6 numbers away,n while someone else calculates that 0 is 15 numbers away, the 0 is still at the same exact spot. So our calculations of the age of the universe may be earth-centric, but it still tells us when the universe popped into existence. So I'm not sure why you have a problem with the age.

[anonymous_acc]

The main problem of atheism is infinity of reality which humanity  not yet discovery, and probably never might.

It is about techno-fascism. I'm still do not understand, Is they discovery Higgs boson on the collider. What will be the next? Casion, paragon, marathon, lipuqion.... + 10 zeros after comma. Might it ever end? It looks like absolute infinity.

The same picture with the space. There are billions of galaxies. Probably, quadrillions of universes like this one. Septillion of worlds of the next dimension, etc...  

Humanity will not ever reach any of that borders. There will not ever appear any mathematically precise evidence of nonexistence of God, because God is absolute power of whole.

But New York Times Says:

God is dead.

[the joint]

If you and someone else are at different points on a number line, and you calculate that 0 is 6 numbers away,n while someone else calculates that 0 is 15 numbers away, the 0 is still at the same exact spot. So our calculations of the age of the universe may be earth-centric, but it still tells us when the universe popped into existence. So I'm not sure why you have a problem with the age.

Because the way things age is absolutely mind-fucking!  And then to go ahead and tack a number to it that is presented as concrete does a complete injustice to the utility that can be gained by looking at the forest instead of the trees, or at basically any valid consideration outside a prima facie worldview.

[Vod]

You can not convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe.

— Carl Sagan

[Rassah]

I don't have a problem with the big bang insofar as it explains the expanding Universe, but I have a problem with the purported age of the Universe.

Take your measuring devices near the event horizon of a black hole, look out, and then tell me what the age of the Universe is.  The age of the Universe has been determined upon math, based upon empirical data collected from a relational area of space with unique spatial properties that determine the evidence.  Simply put, you see what you see because of where you are.  Go somewhere else, you might see something different.  If I travel at the speed of light while you remain stationary, we 'age' differently.  Does the age of the Universe therefore change because we aged differently, or does it remain the same?  The answer is "yes."  You need to re-evaluate your idea of time and age.

Are you actually claiming that you are smart enough to realize that this should be taken into account, and astrophysicists were too dumb to take effects of relativity, gravity, speed, and time dialation into account when calculating the age of the universe?
(Yes, you can calculate time near the event horizoon, since you can calculate the mass of the black hole you are orbiting, and adjust for time dialatioon from the nearby gravity well using well established relativity functions).

Surely there's an XKCD strip outlining the absurd content-stripping that occurs between stage 1 when the scientists do their experiments, and stage 5 when the junk press gets hold of the news?

They probably never did claim that the universe 'is' 13.x billion years old.
The scientists almost certainly tacked some qualifiers into their abstracts, like: from our frame of reference on Earth, the most distant parts of the universe that we've managed to observe, appear to be 13.x billion light years away. Or maybe they tried to explain that the 'age' might be a constant, and that in a billion years time it will still appear only 13 billion years old?

I think they just observed that the universe is expanding, calculated the speed at which everything is moving away from everything else, and figured out how long it would have had to move to get to where it is at if it started expanding from a starting point. Like the "Train A left the station traveling at 100km an hour" problem, except taking into account the effects on gravity on the acceleration and time.