A New Creationist Cosmological Model "The First Flash"

In creationist cosmology, a problem seems apparent when studying light from distant stars. If the universe was created 6000 years ago then light shouldn't be visible from distances greater than 6000 light years. As of 2008, the furthest visible light has been measured at 13,730,000,000 light years. As a result, Big Bang theorists claim that the visible universe is 13,730,000,000 years old. This is false and I'll endeavor to explain why.

First, the speed of light is calculated by a measured distance divided by time.

D/T

The "speed" that the Earth rotates or "spins" is divided by "curved time."

S/C

The "speed" an object falls is calculated by distance divided by time, times "curved time."

(D/T) x C

In String Theory, the speed of light is arbitrarily given a minimum value of 1 light second, (thanks to Einstein's energy equation being geared in seconds.) All things have spin. The smallest (or minimum) spin is called a spinor. If the minimum speed of light is multiplied by the minimum spin, the minimum value for gravity (a graviton) is described.

(D min/T min) x (S min/C min)

In my First Flash model, the minimum value for light is NOT 1 second, it's 1 day. (refer to Genesis 1:1-5) Spin is more appropriately measured in fractions or multiples of a day. When the value for spin equals or exceeds 1 the value for light will equal the value for spin.

Let me illustrate:

Lets say we observe light travel for 12 hours, (half of a day) here's what happens.

(1light day min/1 day min) x (0.5 spin/0.5 curved days) = .5 resultant LD/.5 resultant days

0.5 light days per 0.5 days
We actually observe distance by resultant distance and time by curved time.

If we observe light for one day this is what happens.

(1 light day/1 day) x (1 spin/1 curved day) = 1 resultant light day/1 resultant day

1 light day per 1 day

When spin exceeds 1 a phase transition occurs.

(1.01 LD/1.01 D) x (1.01 spin/1.01 curved days) = 1.0201 resultant LD/1.0201 resultant D
1.0201 light days per 1.01 days (acceleration begins to occur)

This effect is actually observed in nature and is coined as the "Pioneer Anomaly."

So, back to the universe age question. What is the actual travel time for light with a resultant distance of 13,730,000,000 light years? A simple short cut method works like this:

Divide the resultant light year distance by the number of rotations per year (365.25). Then find the square root.

sq rt (dist/365.25)

The answer is 6131.1248 years. The measurement was in 2008, dating the year of creation at 4124.1248 B.C. Coincidentally or not, Anstey arrived at the same conclusion of 4124 B.C.

A new component to the First Flash model reveals a significant event relating to the first Sabbath of creation. If all of the stars and galaxies were created on the fourth day, the light from the closest stars (outside the solar system) are first visible at the end of the sixth day at twilight. Light from objects furthest away can not be seen until the very end of the seventh day at twilight. Jewish tradition states that the Sabbath begins at the appearance of the first three stars and Ellen White claims that all of the stars "sang together" on the first Sabbath of creation. These points do not prove anything but are very interesting none the less.

JCS, thank you. That was fun. I love stuff like that. Although I suspect some people might object to a 4124 BC creation date. It messes up the calculations based on birthdays and major events (the flood and the exodus, in particular). At any rate, does it make sense to believe God created the stars with their light already here?

Unfortunately, I'd have to say, not really. Light contains so much information about things that if the light was "already there" the creator would have to implace false information. It's just not very realistic. As far as the date is concerned, it depends on how accurate the WMAP measurements actually are and when they were made. If I remember correctly, the 13.73 billion ly measurement was plus or minus 120 million ly. At 13.85 billion ly, the year changes to 4150.86 B.C. At 13.61 billion ly, the year 4097.27 B.C. is generated. Assuming 4004 B.C. is the accurate year, Earth's distance from the Light Horizon (on the year 2008) would have been 13,319,725,720 light years instead of the 13.73 bil. (It's still possible.)

Welcome JCS to the forum!

I do enjoy science and appreciate your explanation about light and how to calculate time versus distance. I still have to digest the equations but I think it is quite powerful that by dividing a day instead of second, that the result is quite close to todays date. Dealing with such huge numbers, it is very understandable that there's an error gap to take into account. And your result is fairly close to 4004 BC.

Are we supposing that God created everything when He created the earth? Couldn't it be possible that the creation of Gen 1 could have been only for this galaxy? Don't we think that the angels where already created before the earth was created? Isn't that what EGW is saying?

BTW. what do you suppose the light was in Gen 1:3? Quarks or Bozons(for Photon)? There wasn't any sun, nor moon, and supposively no stars at that time, so the light had to come from some type of particle as refered in Prov 8:26 as "primal dust" or "highest part of the dust".

The hebrew word for Light is H216 which means light reflecting something and it is usually from heavenly bodies(stars, moon, sun), or from an object like a lamp. So the light has to come from a source which could be as well as coming from Jehovah Himself Is 2:5, Is 60:19, 20; Ps 104:2; Rev 21:23; 22:5.

H216 derives from H215 which means to be (causative, make) luminous.

JCS, if God created the stars on the fourth day with the light already here, wouldn't that fact be evident in the light? Otherwise, if He created the stars on the fourth day and then the light began the long journey here, wouldn't it still be on its way?

Following how scripture and the spirit of prophecy describe Heaven, it seems likely that God has other created works beyond the known visible universe.

Based on what I've studied in Ezekiel 1, there are four key interconnected physical properties to the visible universe. (cyclical space, cyclical time, curved space, curved time) Above the four "creatures" and "wheels" is the "sea of glass". I believe this to be the light horizon. Above this expanse is the "throne of sapphire", Heaven.

According to Ellen White, the throne of God is the universe Heaven. If God's throne is a universe in it's self, there may be at least 24 other individual universes surrounding it. (Rev. 4:4) "Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones..." Ellen makes another interesting point in GC 677: "-suns and stars and systems, all in their appointed order circling the throne of Deity." According to the First Flash model, we exist in a rotating universe and this universe is orbiting something else beyond it. (probably Heaven)

I've heard of James Burr's galaxy conjecture before. It's an interesting idea except that it entertains contradictions in the properties of light and it contradicts Genesis 1:14-19, and 2:1-4. The reason behind Burr's galaxy conjecture is the supposed overwhelming scientific evidence that the visible universe is billions of years old. The First Flash model effectively destroys Big Bang cosmology completely. I prefer to rely on reasonable facts.

The light refered to in Gen 1:3-4 is light emitted directly from God. As to what kind light it was, very likely angular gravitational energy. (It's the reverse of E=mc*c.) Angular gravitational energy turns into matter the instant it comes into contact with anything. This energy would generate a sea of relic neutrinos like what's been observed when studying the light horizon.

"JCS, if God created the stars on the fourth day with the light already here, wouldn't that fact be evident in the light? Otherwise, if He created the stars on the fourth day and then the light began the long journey here, wouldn't it still be on its way?"

Sorry I skipped your question.

If continuous streams of light were created between the created stars and Earth, the light wouldn't have actually originated from the stars at all. Huge amounts of information can be gleaned from the properties of light. All of that information observed within light that's "already there" is nonfactual data because it relates to events that never even happened. It would be like watching a fictional movie about someone being an adult billions of years before they were actually born. I'm simply unwilling to buy into that kinda stuff.

Using the First Flash model, the rate of time for light changes with distance. Plus the mass in the universe is expanding very quickly. I should also note, that in this model, the visible universe was only 32 light days in diameter at the begining of the fourth day. An illustration would greatly improve my explaination for the properties of light in this model.

I should go ahead and try to illustrate the effects of light on the first week (according to the FF model).

(cyclical space/ cyclical time) x (curved space/ curved time)

Day 1: 1/1 x 1/1 =1 light day radius per 1 day resultant time
Day 2: 2/2 x 2/2 =4 ld r per 4d
Day 3: 3/3 x 3/3 =9 ld r per 9d
Day 4: 4/4 x 4/4 =16 ld r per 16d
Day 5: 5/5 x 5x5 =25 ld r per 25d
Day 6: 6/6 x 6x6 =36 ld r per 36d
Day 7: 7/7 x 7/7 =49 ld r per 49d
Day 8: 8/8 x 8/8 =64 ld r per 64d

The furthest stars created on the fourth day are 16 light days away from Earth. The light emmited from those stars travels the same way as the universe itself is expanding. So after the fifth day, light from the most distant stars is now 15 light days from Earth. On the sixth day, the light is now 12 light days away. By the begining of the seventh day, that light is still 7 light days out. At the end of the seventh day at twilight, the light reaches Earth (traveling 16 light days distance in 4 days time).

Would it matter if the earth, in its void and formless state (water covered rock), was created "who knows how long ago" (billions of years ago)?

I'm not sure if it would or not. My understanding of Genesis 1 is that timespace itself was created on the first day via the pressence of light from God. Matter is, in essence, squared light. Reverse engineering the question, if you fully remove all forms of radiation from matter, time stops completely and matter can not move or even be seen.

Isn't eternity itself a form of timespace as in "from everlasting to everlasting"?

Also, what about timespace in relation to the creation of life on other inhabited worlds? Were they not all created prior to the creation of this world we live on?

By the way, you also posted your first post in this thread as a new thread in the New Light forum, therefore, as it isn't good to have two posts in two different threads to respond to, which thread do you want to pursue this, as a continued discussion here, or in in the new thread? If in the new thread, then I will move all the responses to your first post here to that thread there.

JCS, what day of the week did God create water and the formless planet?

I don't think "curved space," "cyclical space," etc. are ever specified in Scripture, so it is a big stretch, at best, to try to support these ideas from Scripture.

Regarding the creation of Light vs. the Sun, Moon, and Stars, Genesis 1 gives adequate clarity here for me. The word "stars" appears on the fourth day, to my interpretation, in one of the following contexts:

1) a parenthetical note describing who had made the stars, but not necessarily confining their creation to this particular day--the two major creations of the day being the "greater light" and the "lesser light;" or
2) a reference to the planets in our solar system which we see as the brightest stars in our sky; or
3) BOTH of the above.

I agree with those who say it would be silly for God to create a stream of light to a not-yet-created star which would otherwise be too distant to be viewed anytime in the next 6000 years. However, I also disagree with the math presented here earlier which essentially increases the speed of light to the square of its known measured value. By the mathematical "shortcut" earlier presented, using the square root of the speed of light (as measured by its distance), the effective speed of light is increased from 299,792,458 m/s to:

89,875,517,873,681,764 m/s.

Here is where this new speed of light was introduced:

You'll have to show me some science that demonstrates this as a possibility before I will be accepting this.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Go ahead and ignore my other post, I should've just posted it here to begin with.

Wow! Some difficult questions here. Uh, as best as I understand, timespace in a specified universe, acts independently from timespace in other universes. I should probably define what I mean by a "universe". At the Hubble distance (13.8 billion ly) light from objects recede away faster than the speed light travels from them. This radial distance marks the edge of a visible universe. Nothing beyond that distance can be visibly seen. However, potential and kinetic energy from foreign objects outside can still have effects.

What is eternity relative to timespace? Another hard question. If three dimensional space is defined by three axes (W, X, & Y), the dimension of time is a fourth axis "Z". Eternity would define a maximum undefinable quantity of time on the Z axis. Kurt Godel defined infinity as a series of numbers that includes all other sub sets. Meaning that there can not be a series of numbers greater than infinity. This is also why there is only one God. I'm now looking at your statement from a different perspective, "from everlasting to everlasting". An infinite series of infinite periods is still an infinite period of time. I still do not know the answer to your question but I suspect that at an infinite point on the number line, everything else has an infinite value as well. (So I'm guessing the answer is yes but it will take an infinite period of time to pass before I would know for sure.)

Now considering the timespace rate of other worlds, the rate varies with things like planet mass, rotation, orbit time, etc. In other universes, the laws of physics can even change.

Answering the question of when life was created on other worlds, I definitely believe life was created elsewhere before Earth. Does that mean that all other beings were created earlier? No. Is there life in our visible universe beyond Earth? It's possible. If there are other created beings on other worlds within the visible universe, could they have been created before the week of creation? I would have to say, not likely. (Unless they continued to exist amidst God's creative work of the observable cosmos.) I don't actually know.

Since the begining of time is marked with the first day I'd say the first day. (The Bible doesn't specify.)

On Green Cochoa's I point I have a substantial number of evidences to choose from. Let's start with the very little known fact that the speed of light accelerates when it leaves Earth's surface.

Richard Mould (from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, State University of New York) has a posted article called "Acceleration of Light at Earth's Surface". The very first sentence of the article states "General relativity requires that light traveling upward or downward at earth's surface has an acceleration equal to +2g."

The next point I'd like to discuss is the Pioneer Anomoly.When the distance light travels exceeds 1 light day, a phase transition occurs. Evidence supporting this is found in the "Pioneer Anomaly." Light emitted from Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Voyager 1, and Voyager 2 blue shifted after probes had traveled significant fractions of a light day from Earth. Pioneer 10 has exceeded this distance by 3 light minutes as of October 8, 2005. If you've never heard of this you should do the research.

Another point of evidence is the distant time rate anomoly. The First Flash model predicts extreme time dilation at extreme distances. Astronomers have concluded that distant supernovae explosions experience a time rate equaling only 60% of what's thought to be normal. The vast majority of nearby superclusters (where supernova are often observed) lie within the range of 200,000,000 to 400,000,000 light years distance. These superclusters include Hydra, Pavo-Indus, Perseus-Pisces, Coma, and Hurcules. At the edge of the neighboring group of superclusters, (measuring a distance of 1,000,000,000 light years) we observe superclusters such as Horologium and Corona Borealis. According to First Flash calculations, a 60% relative time dilation rate exists between light measured 360,000,000 light years away and light measured at a distance of 1,000,000,000 light years.

Something else you may or may not know is that Big Bang theorists claim that the entire universe started expanding at 1,728x10^38 times the speed of light. I can't count to numbers that high! (So take your pick, both models claim the universe expanded faster than light.) B.G. theorists then claimed that after billions of years of deceleration, the universe started accelerating again due to the mysterious presence of dark energy. (The First Flash model claims that the universe has been gradually accelerating all along. If you compare the WMAP data from 2003 to the data in 2008, the expansion rate matches the First Flash model.

In 2003 the distance to the Light Horizon was estimated to be 13,690,000,000 light years away. Using my method, an age of 6122.19 years was calculated. In 2008 a greatly refined measurement was established at 13,730,000,000 light years. The age for this measurement was 6131.1248 years since creation. Believing this new measurement to be accurate, a corrected age and distance for 2003 resulted to be 6126.1248 years time (a difference of only four years) and 13,707,615,200 light years distance ( 17,615,200 Ly difference). This was well within their range of error of + or - 120,000,000 light years.

Studying the so called "mysteries from WMAP" it's been discovered that temperatures measured at any point of of the light horizon have virtually zero variation with any other points that are 60 degrees away from that point. If the rate of time for light remains constant, there is absolutely no way whatsoever, for the energy from that point, to effect anything else at that distance. Consider the radius of a circle, then draw a perfect triangle in the circle (the corners touching the circle). If all three angles are equal then the angles equal 60 degrees. The length of any one of the triangles is greater than the circle's radius. The circle's radius represents the distance from Earth to the light horizon. In the First Flash model, light from a point accelerates in all directions like concentric ripples in a pool. The data fits FFs predictions perfectly.

This last point is an article I've been posting on the walls at colleges.

Velocity of Light: Science or Fiction?

It's commonly quoted that light travels 186,282 miles per second. When it comes down to calculating the age of the universe however, the value for C is commonly reduced to 1. Quote from Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" p. 405: "It is a common practice in relativity theory work, to use units for which C=1." p. 434 "With more natural units with C=1, energy and mass are simply equal. However, I have explicitly exhibited the speed of light C (i.e. by not choosing space/time units so that C=1) to facilitate the translation to non-relativistic descriptions." again on p. 435, & 463.



When the value of C is reduced to 1 any multiplication or division by the same value is lost, thus C^2 =1. In doing so E=MC^2 becomes E=M * 1 * 1 or E=M. Avoiding alterations, mass actually = E/C^2 meaning we, as beings composed of matter, consist of energy existing within a framework of squared light. As a consequence of this, everything we perceive exists within the context of this squared framework including all observations of light itself. (Light is squared)



For an alternative perspective on light, suppose the entire universe is spinning at such a velocity. What effect would Earth's daily rotation have over a period of a year? (1 year * C * 365 rotations = 365 light years distance per year) [Actually 365 square LY] Using this model, how long would it take for light to travel from the Light Horizon (approximately 13,730,000,000 light years away) to Earth?

Square root (13,730,000,000 sq LY/365 sq LY) = 6133.22414 years



This time scale raises some very serious theological questions. But is this equation even sound? Basically it's stating S^2=T^2 *C^2 thus C^2=S^2/T^2. Can this be verified? Well, E=MC^2 = (M * T^2 *C^2)/ T^2 and energy is measured in joules = (Kg * Meters^2)/ Sec^2. Here is the same only simplified: (M * S^2)/ T^2. So (M *T^2 *C^2)/T^2 = (M *S^2)/T^2. Thus T^2 * C^2= S^2 meaning C^2 does in fact = S^2/T^2.

[quick key: C= velocity of light, E= energy, S= space, T= time]



This "First Flash" model proposes that (T^2 *C^2)/ T^2= S^2/ T^2 or (6133.22414y^2 * 365 sq LY)/ 6133.22414 y^2 = 13,730,000,000 sq LY/ 6133.22414 y^2

[The age of the universe is over 6000 years]



The Big Bang "Theory" proposes that (C^2= 1) thus (T^2 * C^2)/ T^2= (T^2 *1 *1)/T^2= T^2/T^2= S^2/T^2 meaning (13,730,000,000 sq LY *1^2)/ 13,730,000,000 y^2

[The age of the universe is nearly 14 billion years]

From this the question is raised, is the velocity of light a product of science or is it fiction?

I don't know exactly how "little known" this fact is, but I believe most scientists understand that light slows in our atmosphere. That is the precise reason they try so hard to measure its speed in a vacuum. In any case, I am well aware of the fact that light would accelerate as it passes through decreasingly dense atmosphere, until it finally reaches a maximal velocity in the vacuum of space. Furthermore, since light has mass, I believe it may be affected by gravitational fields and potentially accelerated thereby. Nonetheless, to accelerate it by the square of its speed would be completely beyond the realm of reasonable math.

Despite the math here, there is no "square" for the speed of light in 2g. Not even close.

Ok. I did some research. Here's what I found on Wikipedia:

From the last sentence in the quote above, we can distinguish the gravitational effects from the "Pioneer Anomaly" as being unrelated, i.e. they cannot be compounded together. Secondly, the acceleration from the "Pioneer Anomaly" is so small as to hardly be distinguishable from potential errors in calculation, or from the "noise" of the firings of the rockets which correct the spacecrafts' course.

It has been given a mathematical analog to the speed of light multiplied by the "Hubble Constant." So how much can we expect this constant to be?


Using the figure yielded by the Hubble Space Telescope, the constant amounts to 0.025% of the speed of light. Again, this is nowhere in the ballpark of squaring the speed of light!

This all seems a bit vague and theoretical. The very fact that language like "anomaly", "thought to be normal," and "model" is used indicates that this is not thoroughly established.

Something you may or may not know is that the "Big Bang" theory followed the theory of evolution, and was an attempt to remove God from the conscience. Neither do I believe in the theory of evolution, nor do I believe in a "Big Bang." This revision of the "Big Bang" theory was forced by the Hubble Telescope. In fact, the theory nearly died when the Hubble disproved so much upon which it was based. So, the scientists who have been "ad libbing" as they go, have managed to "adjust" their figures to still accommodate their pet theory. So be it. I don't trust their figures any more than I would trust their atheistic religious views. For a look at the trustworthiness of modern scientists and their math (ordinarily thought to be entirely objective and factual), one needs look no further than "ClimateGate."

I recognize that your method requires the speed of light to be squared. However, I question the validity of squaring it. It is one thing to square it as a means of calculating some other quantity, as Einstein does to calculate energy of a different unit entirely. It is a completely different matter to square the actual speed of light for the sake of measuring long distances and shortening them.


Again, why base so many figures upon the "Big Bang" theory, when said theory is a total farce to begin with? Inasmuch as the theory itself is built upon atheistic ideology which erases true facts of a Creator God from the realm of science, just as much these figures are devoid of the true facts of science. If you build your theory upon such a "broken reed," your theory cannot stand.

The Bible does not tell us one whit in terms of the actual age of the Universe. So much for the 14 billion years you may estimate. I tend to think the Universe may be an eternity older than that.

So far, I'm speaking to you in terms of the actual science. However, I can prove from the Bible itself that your figure of "6131.1248 years since creation" is incorrect--off by well over a century.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm going to concede on each of the points you've made. I strongly appreciate constructive criticism as it will help guide and direct me to find and refine possible truth. I fully intend to respond to each of your points in a timely manner, but it will take a little bit more work and time on my part to refine, expand, and clarify my prior statements.

I really do appreciate your honesty on the subject.

On the first day, then, Jesus created our plant, outer space, water, and light. He divided the light from the darkness and named them Day and Night. Is it possible to distinguish first day light from fourth day lights?

Genesis
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Thank you Mountain Man, for your comment. Sometimes I over analyze things.

"Is it possible to distinguish first day light from fourth day lights?"

Yes, we should be able to study nature itself and find a different form of light that existed earlier than the light emmited from stars. That light is detected from the light horizon. It is the earliest known visible light to our universe and it is quite different from star light. (That was a excelent question by the way.)

I'm going to now take on the lengthy task of answering Green Cochoa's last post.

First I'd like to point out that, until the day I successfully acquire my degree in Theoretical Physics, I am effectively prevented from proving the First Flash model to the scientific community unless I can find someone else with the appropriate credentials who is willing to back my own research and has the time to do the work. (that search is ongoing) So, on the question of is FF proven in academia?, not yet.

Some of the points made seem unresearched (Richard Mould's statement, relying solely on Wikipedia for research on the Pioneer Anomoly, etc) as a result I see no qualifiable reason that I should waste time refuting those points.

I did find some errors in your understanding of FF and should endeavor to clarify.

"to accelerate it by the square of its speed would be completely beyond the realm of reasonable math." FF multiplies speed of light by angular velocity. Squaring values in math has common practice relative to gravitational acceleration. The proper argument would be over the concept of gravitation effecting the speed in which light travels. Even that arguement would lack creedence due to the fact that it's the rate of time itself that varies, not light's actual speed. Does time vary with distance relative to multiple observers?, Relativity confirms it.

"Using the figure yielded by the Hubble Space Telescope, the constant amounts to 0.025% of the speed of light. Again, this is nowhere in the ballpark of squaring the speed of light!"

At a distance slightly exceeding one light day, I would not expect a result of light to be traveling at a squared speed using the FF model. You clearly didn't study my work, more skimed over it. Let's say an object travels 1.0001 light days away from Earth, according to the FF model, how fast will the light effectively travel back to Earth?

1.0001 LD/ 1.0001 D times 1.0001 CLD/ 1.0001 CD = 1.00020001 resultant light days over 1.00020001 resultant days

We measure space by resultant distance, we observe time from curved time. the answer is 1.00020001 light days per 1.0001 days

I hope this is getting my point across.

"If you build your theory upon such a "broken reed," your theory cannot stand."

I agree with the statement but taking the stance that all scientific data is broken is a horrifying error. All present day tech relies on quantifiable scientific data. This does not prevent false theories and incorrect conclusions to appear. My model doesn't build it's self upon unproven atheistic theories.

I'm going to attempt to illustrate the necessity of the First Flash model being true.

FF relies on the concept that when light travels a sufficient distance it retains an intrinsicly squared dimensional value caused from the squaring of time-space itself, as a result of cosmic expansion. The energy induced into light from cosmic expansion equals Mc^2, thus E/c^2 = M. The quatity of virtual matter created(probably neutrinos) causes timespace curvature, or in other words gravitational acceleration. At this point the physics of photogravitics takes hold.

Here's the bottom line: If light in volume has mass then the properties of electromagnetic radiation and curved timespace unify. Einstien's energy equation indicates that it does.

If you'd like to debunk General Relativity with published material, I'll gladly study it in detail. (I'm simply searching for the truth in all things.)

I will, at a later point, expand on proofs in physics that lead me to FF such as universal inertia, relative effects of universal frame dragging, and the merging of QM with GR via Max Morris's Simply Relativity.

But how is that fundamentally different from creating a star 6000 years ago that, according to current theory, looks like it is 5 billion years old?

According to FF, the rate of time of extremely distant objects is very slow. This effect has in fact been confirmed by astronomers.

Light streams and FF at first glance may seem similar, but I assure you, FF is very different. I assume your comment about stars appearing old refers to my value in resultant time. Resultant time is the product of cyclical time (time relative to light) and curved time (time relative to mass). Resultant time appears in gravitational acceleration but is never used to measure the actual passage of time. Therefore FF doesn't contain any faky information, unlike the light stream concept.

Maybe that is simply due to relativistic time dilation. Or are you saying that it's even slower than predicted by relativity?

If we are talking about relativistic effects, that does not change the speed of light in our frame of reference, does it? Isn't the invariability of "c" one of the postulates of relativity (in a vacuum, of course)? If it's being affected by Hubble expansion, wouldn't that only affect its wavelength, not its speed?

I have more questions, when I have more time. I am completely confused about how this theory explains Faster-Than-Light transmission of information.


No. What I'm referring to is your unwillingness to "buy" "nonfactual data because it relates to events that never even happened." According to current theory, the sun is about 5 billion years old, based on information gathered through observation of the light that is coming from it. Is the data we gathered from the solar spectrum "nonfactual" because it leads to the conclusion that it is 5 billion years old? Is it actually 5 billion years old? Or did God create the sun 6000 years ago, and made it look 5 billion years old? Or maybe we just don't know how to interpret the data properly?

The bottom line is that if you will reject the possibility that God can make streams of light that seem 14 billion years old to us, you must also reject the standard belief that the sun is about 5 billion years old. Maybe you do. Do you?

Hmmm.. Relativity works hand in hand with FF.
"If it's being affected by Hubble expansion, wouldn't that only affect its wavelength, not its speed?"
Even Big Bang theorists admit that the expanding universe has an accelerating effect on light, just to a lesser degree becuase FF predicts a universe expanding at a much greater rate (they ignore the quantum gravitational effects it would have with the pressence of light). FTL isn't a problem if space itself is the component that is accelerating. I've looked at my astronomy text book and there are no "speed limits" posted for the rate of time-spacial expansion.

"According to current theory, the sun is about 5 billion years old, based on information gathered through observation of the light that is coming from it."

The sun isn't 5 billion years old. Proving that point is another story. The study of stars themselves isn't really my cup of tea. (After FF has become an accepted falsifiable Proof I might look into it.)

I have kinda a lame question to ask, how do you post quoted statements in a separate blue field?

I forgot to answer Green Cochoa's question about the year conflict with 4004 B.C. Anstey also has a Biblical timeline, but it pinpointed 4124 B.C. If he's wrong then all that would mean is that astronomers didn't measure the distance from Earth to the LH accurately enough.

here's a biblical chronology with the year 4124 B.C.
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=232744002&blogId=499142592

In 2008 they claimed the distance to be 13.73 bil. ly. (+ or - 120 mil LY) Using that dist. FF calc a creation year of 4124 B.C. If 4004 B.C. is the correct year then the true dist. in 2008 would have been 13.2 bil ly. I'm not going to say that the year 4004 B.C. isn't still possible.

After studying Green Cochoa's Pioneer calculations, I decided it deserved more attention.

In an earlier post I stated that "Pioneer 10 has exceeded this distance by 3 light minutes as of October 8, 2005."

Green Cochoa responded with qoutes:

"It has been given a mathematical analog to the speed of light multiplied by the "Hubble Constant." So how much can we expect this constant to be?"

"Using the figure yielded by the Hubble Space Telescope, the constant amounts to 0.025% of the speed of light. Again, this is nowhere in the ballpark of squaring the speed of light!"

This percentage equals a resultant change in light's speed from 1 c to 1.025 c. With this value I can calculate the probe's distance from Earth as follows:

sqrt 1.025 = 1.012422837 light days distance

This equals a light distance of 1 day, 17 minutes and 53 seconds. So we are looking at 15 light minutes change of the probes distance within four years time. That equals almost 2 A.U. or an average of 1 A.U. every 2 years.

This is actually too slow, the probe should actually be moving 13 A.U. in two years time according to the online simulator. Of course the FF equation I'm using simply calculates linear distances and has not yet been unified with other variable elements like the object's mass, spin, gravitational effects of other objects, second hand effects of photogravitics relative to other gravitational feilds. (I still need to supplement Kepler's third law into FF to represent the effects of other objects) There's alot of other stuff going on in the solar system other than Earth and Pioneer 10. (this is part of the reason I need assistance with my work)

Basicly, there is even more going on, effecting Pioneer 10 than photogravitics. (FF effects by themselves, isn't quite enough to fully explain the probe's motion unless some of the data used is incorrect)

Here's an alternate site with some info on the anomaly:

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:ekzinq3lwZQJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=2000

I've made two errors in this post, first I converted the percentage incorrectly. Second, I incorrectly assumed that GC's information was from this year. (I'm not perfect.)

You seem to enjoy playing with numbers, JCS. Numbers can be fun to toy with. However, if you want to do real math, you need to follow some fairly precise rules.

In your application of the Hubble Constant, you misapplied the constant, and ended up using a constant that is 100 times larger than the real constant should be.

Here's why:

25% = 0.25
2.5% = 0.025 (The constant you chose.)
0.25% = 0.0025
0.025% = 0.00025 (The real Hubble constant.)

Basically, JCS, real science needs real math. If you are off by a factor of 100, that's a pretty sizable error. If you are off by the square of the speed of light, you have a number which only exists to look pretty on paper.

I agree with you that your numbers for going back 6124 years look pretty on paper. I do not see at all, however, how these numbers can be supported scientifically.

Nevertheless, a good imagination and some fun with numbers can always be an entertaining pastime.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yeah, I messed up on my calc. Thank you for pointing it out. That was a simple error too.

Here's a corrected value:

sqrt 1.00025 = 1.000124992 light days distance

Here's the facts I've gathered:

On Oct. 2005 Pioneer 10 was 1.002083333 light days from Earth.

Using GC's calc, at some point in time, light accelerated from a speed of 1 light day per day to 1.00025 light days per day.

Using FF, that pin points a distance of 1.000124992 light days.

According to the Pioneer 10 simulator, Pioneer 10 travels .00010404420069 light days per day.

If I subtract the 1.000124992 ld dist. from 1.002083333 ld dist measured in 2005 we can determine the distance the probe traveled. (answer: .001958341 ld)

If I then divide the answer by the probe's speed, I can determine the approximate period of time between the two measured distances. (18.82220236 days)

Based on the evidence, 19 days before Pioneer traveled 1.002083333 light days away from Earth, the light emitted from the probe accelerated to an average speed of 1.00025 light days distance per day.

You place [quote ] and [/quote ] without a space between e and ] in each one of them to get it to show as a quote.

Cosmology is one of my pet hobbies, so I hope you will indulge my exploration of this topic.


Can you explain this bit here?

Consider two points, A and B, that are separated by an initial distance, D (say, 10^7 light years). The distance between points A and B is increasing due to Hubble expansion. I am an observer at point O, which is along the path a photon would take from A to B, and equidistant to both (i.e. initially 5 x 10^6 light years from both).

If I observe a photon leaving A headed to point B, would it reach me at point O before D/(2c) has elapsed? Would I see it reach point B before D/c has elapsed?

Let's say I am at point P, which is also equidistant to A and B, but is not along the path of the photon, but at a point perpendicular to that path and sufficiently far away such that the photon's complete path can be considered perpendicular to me (imagine a very long isosceles triangle). Would I measure the time it takes the photon to get from A to B as less than D/c?

I hope I'm making sense. I'm trying to get an idea of what you mean by light being accelerated.


Does FF predict a greater expansion rate than the Big Bang even today, or only during the early stages of expansion? After the universe reaches a certain radius, wouldn't the effects of quantum gravity become negligible? (The TOE is also one of my pet hobbies.)


Does such FTL travel encompass the scenario I described above? Can expansion cause light to get from point A to B in less than D/c time?


This gets at my epistemological concern. One could say that God put the sun there and made it look much older than it really is. But one could refute that by saying that our idea of the age of the sun is based on faulty theories.

The same goes for God creating streams of light from distant stars such that they get here sooner than expected. You say that can't happen because there would be information in the photons about events that did not take place (I suppose that would be things such as the composition of the star that generated the photon, etc). But one could argue that our theories of what information the photon carries might be faulty. And as you know, it is impossible to prove a scientific theory; one can only disprove them.


I see that Daryl has taught you how to do that.

If I may ask.... What degree are you working toward? PhD? Also, what university are you attending?

I read your post late last night, asygo, after finishing a late game of StarCraft (probably not the best thing for an SDA to be doing). It'll take me a little bit of time to answer your questions. I still need to follow up with futher proofs for FF for GC.

Oh my! Lots of questions here. I'm going to go ahead and summarize asygo's questions in an over simplified manner and then try to answer them.

(1) How does FF work with GR?

(2) Why would Hubble expansion effect light's resultant speed and why?

(3) Question #1a: Would light reach O before D/2c?

(4) Question #1b: Would light reach B before D/c?

(5) Question #2: Would the observer see light reach B before D/c?

(6) Define FF's meaning of light acceleration.

(7) What are the quantum grav. effects of the expanding universe on light?

(8) What is FF's model for expansion rate?

(9) Is there a horizion for quantum gravitation?

(10) TOE theory and FF

(11) Does FTL encompass Qns 1 & 2?

(12) Can expansion cause light to travel outside of time?

(13) Problem with stellar knowledge

(14) Explaining my educational aspirations

(1.) I started FF based off of Max Morriss's work "Simply Relativity V2". SR charts a bell curve with x = rate of time and y = mass distance. SR makes the claim that rate of time slows with distance, or inversely that minimal space has an accelerated time rate. This system successfully splices GR with QM but lacks information on an actual ratio.

God inspired me to find this ratio in several places in scripture and discovered that Ellen White made referance to all of them in one sentence in her first vision in referance to light from Heaven. All of that doesn't prove anything. I've spent many years now trying to debunk this equation and as a result the model simply expanded on it's self with supplemental evidences and predictions.

Sorry, I lost my focus. The First Flash model represents reality in 8 dimensions. (cyclical space = 3D, cyclical time = 1D, curved space = 3D, curved time = 1D)To fully represent this model would require an 8D graph. I can't visualise something like that. However, if I colapse 3D space into one dimension, I'm left with only 4 axes. This generates 6 interactive 2D grids. (s by t, s by cs, s by ct, t by cs, t by ct, cs by ct) According to the model, there is a bell curve function on all six graphs. When I saw this I thought that this system couldn't jive with GR but later discovered that it actually supports it. Here are the six points:

(time : space) The ratio of time changes with distance. (energy density)

(space : curvature) Increased distance reduces curvature.

(time : rotation) Rate of time slows with acceleration.

(space : rotation) Length decreases with acceleration.

(curvature : rotation) Gravitational attraction (curvature) opposes centrifugal force. (angular momentum)

(time : curvature) Time delation caused by gravitation. (curvature)

The First Flash model is an extremely powerful equation. I just wish I wasn't the only one in the world that understood it.

(2)As the universe expands photon wavelengths stretch. (cosmological redshift) The resultant change in lights effective speed is caused by the dynamic of combining what is known about light in matter c=sqrt(E/M)and expanded light caused from expansion. If light is expanded in all directions it has volume. Light in volume has time-space curvature or gravitation. Gravitational acceleration multiplies speed by curved time. Multiply the speed of light by gravitation you get photogravitics.

(3-5) The answer to all three questions is no. If light traveled in such manner we could never see it. At the very best, light originating from creation travels at the exact same rate as the light horizon. Anything beyond the light horizon isn't visible.

(6) (Space divided by time) times (curved space divided by curved time) results as resultant space divided by resultant time. This causes a change in light's overall speed. Any change is acceleration. However, the speed that light travels in and of itself never changes.

(7)
The effects of quantum gravity are carried along with expanded light but I do believe that effect would cease beyond the light horizon.

(8) According to FF, the rate of expansion started at the speed of light. Today, it would be something like 13,738,959,030 resultant light years distance in 6133.1248 curved years time. It's alot more than what current BB theorists propose.

(9)I think I kinda covered this point in (7)

(10) I've actualy been working on a TOE theory founded on the FF model. It's an extensive topic that is still in progress so I'm going to leave it at that for now.

(11) Yes and no. I think my answers for Qns 3-5 cover the topic.

(12) Expansion isn't accelerating visible light faster than the expanding universe.

(13) On the issue of stars age, perhaps I should study into it more.

(14) There are only two forms of degrees in theoretical physics that I know of, MA and Phd. Considering a Doctoral requires a written publishable thesis, and that the student completes their own original research as well as a complete a course of study, I'm prefering toward a Masters degree. At present, I still need a Batchlers in Physics with a minor in advanced mathmatics. This Email kinda explains my situation:

This is just a self reminder of points I promised to cover. I've already dealt with "Simply Relativity" so that just leaves universal inertia and Frame Dragging. Subjects like Godel's universe, Kerr-Newman geometry, naked singularities, and "gray holes" are far too advanced for this forum (and mathmaticly very difficult for me to fully tackle without futhering my education.)

Luckily, I found some info I already worked out on an old email. Here's the excerpt:

Green Cochoa stated:



Refer to Ezekiel chapter 1 and chapter 10. These messages are encrypted symbolicly for good reason. If you lack the spiritual gift of discernment, you will not be able to decrypt these passages. If a person who is under Satan's influence hears the truth of Biblical passages, evil angels will work rapidly to twist the truth with falsehood or to simply deny it completely.

Due to the fact that Satan and his legions of fallen angels are waging a spiritual war of principalities and powers in opposition to the Creator of all, God must relay important knowledge to the remnant via encripted channels (prophetic symbolism). If God failed to do this with all information relaying knowledge to key future events, the armies of darkness would intercept and discern such knowledge and use it for evil. Satan uses the most advanced forms of counter intellegence in order to shield the Earth of God's light of truth. The lord of deception poisons all truth by adding slight amounts of falsehood. Those who taste of his corrupted fruit become corrupted themselves. Those who discover the deception without relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, also become deceived to adopt extemist beliefs. The path of salvation is narrow. Deviate slightly in any direction and your off the path. There is also the lukewarm, the ones who don't want to rock the boat and compromise to all that is wrong. These well planned lies work as a two edged sword, hacking any soul to spiritual threads that lacks faith in God for truth in all things. Only this fine line of truth in obedience to God habors a safe pathway amidst a mine field of spiritual death. Those who follow this rare path are deeply hated by anyone else not on it themseleves. This is God's two edged sword of truth. It is the only spiritual thing we can rely on that cannot be severed by Satan's deadly arsenal.

Can you point out specifically where in those chapters God talks about curved/cyclical space? Thanks.

I should provide some context on how I came about finding this. I've been trying to discover if there is actual physics related to the Sabbath. Scripture warns of disaster and utter ruin for those who fail to observe it. It even seems apparent that Joshua used cycles related to the Sabbath (at God's command) to destroy Jericho. Digging through my mathmatics dictionary I discovered that rest cycles exist in pendulums as they move in simple harmonic motion. This brought to my mind Kepler's third law and the motion of the planets. It also brought to my attention what Ellen White said about all creation circling God's throne. If our universe is indeed orbiting Heaven, and the Sabbath is the rest cycle of its simple harmonic motion, then our universe orbits the creator every 14 days (there are two rest cycles per orbit.) All of that being said, I felt inspired to study Ezekiel in the hope of finding any new insight relating to God's throne. Here's were I found what I'm talking about.

Ezekiel 1:25 "Then there came a voice from above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man."

The throne of sapphire is the throne of God. God's throne is Heaven. Heaven is a universe. Our universe orbits the throne of God. Ezekiel isn't talking about space craft or UFOs, he has been given a vision of heavenly mechanisms invisible to man. Digging deeper, chapter one describes four creatures with four wheels. (All of this is symbolic.) These creatures sped back and forth like flashes of lightning. These creatures are seen above the Earth. 1:25 "Then there was a voice from above the expanse over their heads as they stood with lowered wings." Verse 22 discribes the expanse: "Spread out above the heads of the living creatures was what looked like an expanse, sparkling like ice, and awesome." This is the "sea of glass". If our universe cycles around Heaven, what expanse exists between Earth and Heaven? The Light Horizon. If that is the case, then what are these four interconnected creatures with wheels (residing between Earth and the Light Horizon)? They have properties of rapid flight (wings), they have properties of angular motion (wheels), they behave like light (flashes of lightning). The list goes on and on and on. If someone can't see the relationship (even when its been decrypted and spelled out) they never will.

Some advice for you, if you're serious about teaching any kind of truth: you must abstain from comments like the one above. It makes the student feel stupid and makes the teacher look arrogant. It is a fast way to effectively end the transfer of knowledge.

That method might work for math and science, but it does not work at all with spiritual truths.

Sorry asygo, I didn't mean it like that. I shouldn't of said it.The thought wasn't directed at you. I get alot of flak over this stuff, and I guess that's what triggered the poor statement. I've been getting rained on daily with thoughts relating to this kinda stuff several years now (regardless of if I wanted it to or not.) As a result, whenever someone starts mocking my research I get irritated. (Again, this isn't refering to you.) I'm sorry I offended you.

My poorly worded comment was essentialy a negatively angled summation of a prior statement:



I failed to say that if something is spiritualy diserned, then the Holy Spirit will surely reveal its truth to anyone receptive to God's leading.

I believe the relationship between General Relativity and FF has relavence to the creatures with wheels represented in Ezekiel. GR has two key points: space-time and the equivalence principle. Einstein made the claim that time and space are not seporate. The principle of equivalence basicly states that gravity and acceleration are equivolent. FF reaches even further. The speed of light marks the limit of time-space. Gravitation is commonly refered to as curved time-space. According to FF, the following statements are also true:

space is equivolent to curved space
time is equivolent to curved time
time and space are not seporate
curved time and curved space are not seporate
time and curved space are not seporate
curved time and space are not seporate

When space is divided by time you have speed. (In this situation, the speed of light.) When curved space (angular displacement) is divided by curved time ("angular" time) you have angular velocity. (This describes gravity)

There's are a number of things that remain undecyphered about the four creatures. There are several key words I'd like to focus on in Ezekiel, but I am not going to speak of what they symbolize.

northern windstorm
geat cloud
fire infolding itself
brightness
color of amber
four living creatures
likeness of a man
four faces
four wings
straight feet
calf's foot
color of brass
man's hands under wings on four sides
joined wings
straight movement/no turning
face of a man (front)
face of a lion (right)
face of an ox (left)
face of an eagle (back)
wings streched upward
two wings of every one were joined
two wings covered their bodies
they went where the spirit would go
likeness of coals of fire (bright, with lightning flashing out)
likeness of lamps moving up and down among the creatures
creatures moved back and forth like a flash of lightning
one wheel on the earth by the creatures
appearance of the "wheels" AND their work
color of beryl
the four had one likeness
wheel within a wheel
rings (high and dreadful, full of eyes)
wheels lifted up with creatures
wheels "lifted up over against them"

With guidance from the Holy Spirit, God will allow any who are willing to discern the meaning of these symbols.
(yes, this is a test)

JCS, your kind and repentif filled words in seeking reconciliation is a rebuke to many of us. Thank you for caring enough to expressed these words and humbly showing us your heart and setting up an important prerequisit tone for understanding truths. Your warnings above are very sobering and true. Only through Christ can He guide us in truths and shield us from strong delusions.

Time is at hand and we need to come together to seek God's end time message and to receive the outpouring of His spirit reserve to equip us to give the last outcry in "the last end of indignation" which are fast approaching.

Thank you for warmly inviting us to study together these symbols. I've been puzzled for the past few months seeking the meaning of the 4 living creatues and I'm glad you brought these up. Also, I am quite interested to understand deeper the meaning of "light" and hopefully "darkness" from His creation work.

I was not offended. I am a (wannabe) scientist, so facts are facts, whether I like it or not. Calculus is awesome, even if Newton was a jerk and Leibniz was a liar.

I've taken enough physics classes, especially plasma physics, so that I'm used to feeling stupid. But my stupidity will not deter me from investigating a topic of interest. I just seek out the teachers that are most helpful in overcoming my ignorance. More than to physics, this applies to spiritual matters.

However, not everyone is like me. Most will flame you, then, if you're lucky, ignore you. If you have truth to share, you do not want to shoo away your students.

But something else to keep in mind. How you react under provocation will improve your credibility in spiritual matters much more than any calculations you can provide.

I need to confess something. When I was a kid I asked God to enlighten me with secret knowledge in science. I asked this because of my interest in astronomy and complete faith in the Genesis account. These two areas seemed in conflict regarding starlight. Now it seems my prayers were answered and I am of course thankful. However, I'm finding out that this knowledge carries a great weight of responsiblity. I do not deserve this critical role in the church nor do I any way merit its responsibility. I do not fulfill what is expected of a spiritual leader. For these reasons I have been pleading with God to help me find someone else who can continue with this work. I am more than willing to help in any way, I just don't want to continue this lone voice in the wilderness bit anymore. There has got to be someone else in the world with a gift of spiritual dicernment and has a handle on advanced science. I am probably THE worst spiritual witness that this world has ever seen in its entire history.

Are you aware of anybody else in the church with your kind of scientific knowledge who is, either in agreement with you, is thinking along the same line of thought as you, or are you presently the only one who thinks this way?

Personally, as a layperson in this area, I am interested in this sort of thing, but a not with the expertise to determine its validity or non-validity, therefore, I look to others with your type of expertise to respond.

I may send out a notice to all our members about this thread.

I decided to split this from another topic into its own topic and place it in the Search For Truth forum.

Due to the advanced physics revealed by the four creatures in Ezekiel 1, I've elected to not fully decypher its meaning (too dangerous). However, I went ahead and studied Ezeikel 1:27-28 (the glory of the Lord). Here's what I found.

"glowing metal" (M) times "full of fire" (E) equals

"fire" (E) times "brilliant light" (E/c^2) equals

"glory of the Lord" (E^2/c^2)

with the appearance of a radiant rainbow (curved dispersion of energy in light)

I searched the internet to discover any validity to this E^2/c^2 and found this statement from an MIT lecture:

"Transcript - Lecture 28

8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002
I'm going to talk today about energy in electromagnetic waves.

There must be energy in there, because we know that electric fields contain energy, and magnetic fields contain energy.

And you may remember that the electric field energy density is one-half epsilon zero E squared, this is now in joules per cubic meter, and the magnetic energy field density, which also has come up earlier in the course, is one over two mu zero times B squared. Again, joules per cubic meter.

Now, we -- when we deal with traveling waves, in vacuum, at any moment in time, the magnitude of B is E divided by C.

So this is also one divided by two mu zero, I can replace this by E squared divided by C squared.

But C squared is one over epsilon zero my zero.

So this is also one-half epsilon zero E squared. And when you see this, this is an absolutely amazing result, because what this tells you is that the energy density in the magnetic field of a traveling wave is exactly the same as the energy density in the electric field of an electromagnetic wave.

That's really an amazing thing, the symmetry is absolutely beautiful."

I then went on and read a sobering warning and command in chapter 2.

Chapter 2

2:1 And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee.
2:2 And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me.
2:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, [even] unto this very day.
2:4 For [they are] impudent children and stiffhearted. I do send thee unto them; and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD.
2:5 And they, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, (for they [are] a rebellious house,) yet shall know that there hath been a prophet among them.
2:6 And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns [be] with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they [be] a rebellious house.
2:7 And thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear: for they [are] most rebellious.
2:8 But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee; Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee.
2:9 And when I looked, behold, an hand [was] sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book [was] therein;
2:10 And he spread it before me; and it [was] written within and without: and [there was] written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe.

In EZ 2:8 (NIV) God is chastising the person whom the message was given like a loving father disciplining a wayward son.

"Do not rebel like that rebelious house; open your mouth and eat what I give you."

The last part means to spiritualy digest the inspiration given and to openly present it to the rebelious house. It seems very clear that God inspired this message, thousands of years ago, to reprimend me for what I said before.

I feel so ashamed.

I don't see the link between the symbols and the physics. Why are:
M = glowing metal
E = full of fire

Why multiply them? What is the significance of mass x energy?

I am assuming that in the above calculation, M = mass and E = energy because you replaced M with E/c2.

Then you quoted what you found during your search for the validity of E2/c2. But there's a problem. The E in that description is not the relativistic energy, but the the electric field. The E of E=mc2 is a scalar for the energy, while the E of E=cB is a vector for the electric field. They are two different entities.

So, while the algebra is correct, I don't see the physics.

I jumped the gun on this point.

The E^2 in the lecture is electric field intensity in newtons per coulomb or in terms of energy 1 volt/m = 1 newton/coulomb, so that 1volt = 1 joule/coulomb. PE would represent electric field density. The E in relativistic energy = total potential energy + total kinetic energy + total rest mass energy. So the two values represented by E are not the same thing(true). The Maxwell-Lorentz energy density equation does lend its self in value to calculating the equivolent energy densities measured within the magnetic field and electric field in EM radiation. I believe my finding this equation has relavence and value to understanding Ez 1:27-28 (which may or may not be true) but it also seems true to me that God permitted me to be easily led to a false conclusion (by not fully investigating my information) in order to reveal my own course in error.

On the question of symbolic meanings, first it seems obvious to me that the wording used in EZ 1 is symbolic (not literal), it's my experience that symbolism in scripture retains spiritual, temporal, and even physical meanings. Finding actual physics in scripture is a relatively new concept, even though there are verses from the Bible and statements in the Spirit of Prophecy that support it. (This still doesn't prove that my decryptions are accurate.) If Ez 1 has symbolism in physics then glowing metal that is full of fire lends its self to represent intensely heated mass. The value of M times E is what came to my mind. (Symbolism is rarely perfect in comparison to reality.) Fire stands out as a symbol of energy. The statement "and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him." seemed to represent an equivalance to the first statement. If this is the case then the brilliant light is the same as glowing metal (only represented differently for a reason.) This is the reason I expressed E/c^2. After looking at it I realized that the whole thing would equal E^2/c^2. "This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord." The glory of the Lord = E^2/c^2. If this is true I do not yet know what the significance is. This term "glory of the Lord" is found later in Eziekel and in other locations like Revelation. "Like the appearance of a rainbow..., so was the radiance around him." This appearance lends to the same meaning. "Radiance" (energy) being dispersed like light in a rainbow "around him." E^2/c^2

As I don't want this topic to fall by the wayside, I am bumping it.

Hi JCS, welcome to the forum. Have you crossed paths with SDA physicist Robert Gentry?

Over the decades he's been shunned by conventional Science, taking a brave and solitary stand with his polonium halo research, as described in his 1988 book Creation's Tiny Mystery. Gentry concludes that polonium halos ('radioactive fingerprints') in granite are strong evidence for fiat creation, and convincingly so.

Given society's accelerating descent into chaos and confusion, pursuit of degrees may not prove rewarding or even wise at this time, esp. if leading us to depend on unbelievers for direction. It's often a trying decision for those who are seeking growth. Essential knowledge comes first from the Word, our only safe foundation. May you find fruitful fellowship with those who are like-minded.

Robert & David Gentry site with articles, books & streaming video:

Earth Science Associates

I should add that my cosmological construct predicts strange occurances of instantaneous matter formation within lesser elemental masses (a byproduct effect of angular gravitational energy coming in contact with curved time-space). This would of course agree with Gentry's granite crystal halo evidence created by Polonium 218 isotopes (of which have a half life of only three minutes).

I recently found this comment and thought it seemed relevant to the FF model.

After studying December's issue of Scientific American I stumbled across an article refering to "Horava gravity". The physicist Petr Horava is working to prove his theory that a time space phase transition occurs between general relativity (which has low energy) and quantum gravity (high energy). I was truely amazed to find my concept of a dimensional phase transition occuring between quantum physics and GR to ever be published in SA, let alone by someone from Burkley. Here's the article:

If anyone is still reading from this topic I have a question. If someone relies on a cosmological model that is in agreement with scripture, would future predictions from this model qualify as prophetic time setting? Here's a second question. Can prophetic statements in scripture have a second meaning relating to events effecting the natural world?

It is my understanding that there isn't any prophetic time setting beyond 1844.

Well, what about the millenium? And what do you do with EGW writings saying Dn 12, trumpets, etc... are futur?

Those are events, but all prophetic time settings are now basically done, except for the second coming and all the events that come with it....

Do you have a link to all of this as I would love to share this with others...

I actually do not yet have a website hosting my material. Perhaps I should seriously consider doing so in the future.

I did some digging in my notes and retrieved some of my source material used for the quoted post. If your intrested here's some links + source info:

This is a link that parallels my concept of a time-space phase transition.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space

A good site for some basic info on the Pioneer Anomaly.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Pioneer_10

These three sites reveal Anstey's timeline.
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=232744002&blogId=499142592

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1913_anstey_romance.html

(Right at the Door By Larry L Ungar page 341)
http://books.google.com/books?id=AsjqlQGHsQYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Right+at+the+Door+By+Larry+L.+Ungar&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

This website expands on Jewish traditions of the Sabbath.
http://www.dhushara.com/book/torah/cardoza/rosh.htm

Here is a quote from Ellen White on the subject.

The Sabbath was hallowed at the creation. As ordained for man, it had its origin when "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy." Job 38:7. . . . {FLB 37.3}

The Biblical quote supporting the minimum value for light as one day is found in Genesis 1:5

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

On the topic of the distance to the Light Horizion (measured in March 2008) just look up WMAP.

My expanation for speed has been well defined in the book "The Facts on File Dictionary of Mathmatics". c=d/t where c is speed d is distance and t is time. "Spin" is actually angular velocity w=d(theta)/dt. d(theta) means angular displacement. The book defines dt as simply time. Due to my studies in gravitation and String Theory I've redefined it to represent "curved time". This equation "(D/T) x C" represents gravitational acceleration. In physics this is generally represented as distance/time^2. However the actual calculation doesn't realy operate that way. It is in truth speed times time or "(distance/time) times curved time." Spinors are defined as quanta of angular momentum. Twistors are imagined as massless objects having linear and angular momentum. (The linear momentum is quantified by the distance light travels in units of Planck Time thus the direct relationship between the speed of light and linear momentum.) A twister mathematicly represents a combination of angular mometum (represented by spinors) and relativistic linear momentum (quantified by the speed of light). Angular momentum is defined as the product of the moment of inertia of a body and its angular velocity. An interesting note; angular momentum is analogous to linear momentum and moment of inertia is the rotational equivalent of mass.

In the course of my study of last day events I discovered a curious physical sequence that parallels events described in the "Big Rip" theory but differing in the scale of time. Scripture and Ellen White describe strange events like the light of the stars disappearing, effects on the Sun and Moon, dramatic global earthquakes that level the mountains and destroy the islands, as well as advanced atmospheric effects on clouds and the flow of water. All of these things have a direct relationship with gravitational forces. In the First Flash model, the laws of physics are directly porportional to the relative mass and motion of the sum total visable universe. When the visable universe expands beyond what is called the Hubble distance, the edges of the visible universe begin to recede away faster than the gravitational properties of the edges can effect anything further inward within the visable universe. Under these conditions within the First Flash cosmological model, parallel effects to the Big Rip would begin to occur at a hyper accelerated rate. According to WMAP in 2008, the Light Horizon was at a distance of 13,730,000,000 light years. Using this information, FF predicts our universe to expand to the Hubble distance (13,800,000,000 light years) between 2023 and 2024. By the year 2034, FF predicts the presently visible light horizon to expand to what would be rightfully coined as a temporal horizon (13,850,000,000 light years). If the theory is sound and the data is sufficiently accurate, light from the furthest galaxies will begin to disappear in the midst of the year 2034. To the best of my understanding, when the light of the stars has darkened, we will already be in the great time of trouble. (Definitely not an event to twiddle one's thumbs and simply wait for before doing anything.) This point troubles me because I thought such an event couldn't be determined. Maybe the idea is on track but sufficiently accurate data can not be gleaned. Regardless, the remnant has precious little time left to bare fruit before probation has ended.

For those who doubt that our universe is expanding this quickly, compare WMAP's 2003 measurement of 13,690,000,000 light years to it's later measurement of 13,730,000,000 light years in 2008.

When you posted this, it made me think about what is described in Revelation about the first 4 trumpets. Could you explain some more about the "big Rip" in simple language. Have you considered the first 4 Trumpets sound as natural disasters?

Ok, I will try to convey a simple fashion some points on the "Big Rip" theory. The stability of physical laws in our universe depend on the physical conditions in which our universe exits. It's like comparing the universe to a lake reservoir full of thriving trout. (The thriving trout represent the present day consistent physical laws in which we exist as a byproduct of a stable universe.) If the dam that maintains the reservoir bursts, the stable living environment for the trout will quickly evaporate away. If the visible universe begins to "stretch apart" too quickly its "fabric" (which provides the underlining support to things like gravitation) will begin to "rip apart". In another sense, it has similarity to what happens when all the lugs fall off of a spining tire on a car. Imagine what it would be like if the gravity that holds mountains in place started to act differently than how gravity holds us to the surface of the Earth. In the "Big Rip" scenario, the effects of gravity between larger objects begin to weaken before smaller ones. First the edge of the visible universe flights away faster than light. Then the galaxies start to disapear followed by the light from nearby stars. Things start to get real serious when unstable gravitational waves start messing with the atmosphere and techonic plates. Eventually quarks and even time space itself is shreaded to nothingness.

The First Flash model predicts a highly accelerated variation of the "Big Rip" soon after the visible universe has expanded to a critical point called the Hubble Distance. My projection for that event (using FF and the LH measurement made in March of 2008) will be sometime between 2023 and 2024. Ten years later the net effects on nearby objects starts to become critical.

Looking at the first four trumpets reminds me of an idea I had been introduced to when I went to school at Castle Valley. The idea of micro and macro prophecy. Basicly, it's where prophecies have short and long time scale meanings. The Adventist church in general recognize the trumpets to represent time periods from 395 AD to 1844 (and then to the time of the New Earth for the seventh trumpet). I agree with this but I also found a parallel between the seven trumpets and the seven plagues. And why not, there is already a parallel construct established between the seven seals and the seven churches. On a micro scale, there were seven literal churches during the time of Christ. The prophetic timescale commonly used by our church follows a larger "macro" timescale. I do believe that the seven plagues/ trumpets do correspond to very severe natural disasters brought about as a direct result of the pressence of sin (or entropy/ disorder) in the universe.

Following the pattern of Revelation closely, I found that it basicly starts with the seven churches matching up with opening of the seven seals. In the seventh seal is the seven trumpets. All of this is in the perspective of the remnaint. When the stuff with the woman, dragon, and stuff with Babylon start, it seems to be an entirely different perspective of the seven trumpets. This part of the book ends with the seven plagues with a pattern akin to the seven trumpets.

With some slight exceptions in the details of the sixth and seventh trumpets, all seven seem to have connections with a "big rip" disaster. Christ's second coming at the end of the seventh trumpet would be a difficult but necessary act of mercy in death on the wicked, because the terrible effects of living in such a situation would be unnecessarly horrific and would only permit the later torturous deaths of every living thing on the Earth. Of course there is the core reason of his appearance, salvation of his sons and daughters.

If the day comes when things start to happen like I've stated, people will very likely try to find solutions and start pointing toward Sunday observance as a way to stop the progression in physical chaos. It scares me to think that my FF model could one day be perverted in such a way as to support such an event.

If my explaination was still too unrefined please let me know, I have a habit of trying to explain things by using as many details as I can instead of trying to use down to earth points. Were you needing more detail on why the Hubble distance effects our universe or possibly a simpler cause and effect explanation for a "big rip" event? This is a very difficult subject to really get a handle on let alone explain clearly but I will endeavor to try.

Thx, To be frank I couldn't read it for I'm in a crisis and have no mind. Provide any other information that would benefit others.

Dare I ask what's wrong? It seems like everyone's life right now is in disarray. As for myself, I'm struggling with being separated from my wife and kids due to spiritual conflicts and the possiblity that my wife is involved with a coworker. On top of that, the pastor at my church is trying to weed out any members who are unwilling to compromise with worldly virtues in order to increase church growth. In other words, the Montrose church is enduring the shaking as described by Ellen White.

I was recently directed to study Christopher Langan's Theory of Everything by an agnostic friend who read the book "Outliers".
Christoper Langan is considered to be the most intelligent man in the United States having an I.Q. of 210. (Meaning off the scale) After studying his well stuctured proofs evidencing the absolute scientific neccesity of God's existence, I was nearly swayed into believing in his semi-pantheistic concept of the Deity.



The reason I nearly feel for this was the numerous parallels that his CTMU model has with FF (only more clearly explained). Another fault I found was his acceptance of macro evolution. Pantheism and evolution were pathways Kellog faultered toward when he trusted intellect above scripture. At first it troubled me greatly how a man so intelligent could be fooled in this way but then I thought of how Lucifer fell. I would love to glean whatever advanced truths I could from his theory but I'm wary of any further distractions from genuine truth. Here's another quote.



This system of belief models the mind of God as an effect from reality when the truth is just the opposite.

http://www.ctmu.org/

How is this not merely an atempt at prophetic timesetting?

Seeing that sin and its effects are confined to this part of God's creation, wouldn't this "Big Rip" theory imply that evil has physically affected all of God's creation?

From my understanding of this, God only cursed this planet and nothing else, therefore, the rest of creation isn't under any curse and consequently not physically affected.

I'm assuming your comment is in referance to this statement.



It indeed does seem to fulfill the criteria for prophetic timesetting. If I disregarded the distance calculated for the Hubble distance and was unwilling to trust current measurements of the Light Horizon, I would lack sufficient data to discern the timing for such events. As far as determining future physical events via advanced study of physics, the calling of such a thing prophetic timesetting could also be misconstrued as to say that a prediction of a total solar eclipse directly over Wyoming on August 21, 2017 at 17:35 UT is also prophetic.

Perhaps the similarity between the events in Revelation and what is being physicaly calculated is reason enough that I should refrain from any further study in this area.

Perhaps I've misinterpeted scripture and SOP in regard to the future disappearance of the stars and the pasting away of the heavens and the earth. If Ellen White difines that only Earth's atmosphere passes away I will most certainly concede to it. There are other evidences in Hebrews 9:22-24 that seem to point to something corrupted in the heavens. There is alot of chaos evident in astronomy. Stars die, galaxies collide, and things like comets and asteroids ram themselves into planets. I doubt that God is the creator of chaos. If only Earth is recreated will the rest of the visible universe continue to as it does now?

I should add that sin's place of origin was with Lucifer in Heaven. In order for sin to be fully purged, all things effected by it must be cleansed.

Does anyone have any comments to line #124091?

I found an answer from Ellen White that evidences that sin has effected our universe in such a manner that it requires purification.

But the core of what you are doing here isnt determining future physical events through physics but rather you appear trying to validate your interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy through your physics theory. To make your solar eclipse analogy comparable, you should add to it that: "...prediction of a total solar eclipse directly over Wyoming on August 21, 2017 at 17:35 UT and this is the darkening of the sun mentioned in revelation 9:2."That leads me to my second concern. While I dont know much about physics, I do know enough about science to wonder wether what you are doing here acctually qualifies as "study" in any scientific sence of the word. Of course it is possible that you do have a study but have chosen not to share it on this forum. Maybe you can share your real study as well?

Your willingness to change your story on suggestions that this or that bibleverse or this or that ellen-quote might not be a perfect fit further suggests that your work really is not about physics or astronomy or even theology.

As the serious researcher I assume you are, you of course went looking for Horavas original article/articles to have a look at the math behind the SA synopsis. I have tried to look for it myself but unfortunately lack the time to distill it out of the 65 articles Horava has authored or co-authored since 2007. Could you tell us which article/s you read while researching Horavas work?

In reply to västergötland's first statement, my studies are primarly theoretical in nature. The building of theories require close examination of all evident facts. The scriptural components are not used as evident facts but do often provide leads in new areas of research. This is how my method of study on the First Flash model has been conducted for the past few years. I do concede to have looked at the future predictions in FF and attempted to pair them up with prophetic statements. (Perhaps my actions in this regard are wrong.) In my mind, the idea of the entire visible universe ripping itself apart is nothing short of a prophetic event. If you've read everything in this thread you will already know that it has been my primary focus to discern the time spacial mechanics of the visible universe in an effort to reconcile the apparent conflict of the Biblical record with the current cosmological knowledge we have today. Everything else is a side note or after thought.

On your second statement, I first came across Horava-Lifshitz gravity in an article posted in Scientific American. I was instantly intrigued and immediately sought to find the actual theory. (It isn't perfect and does in fact have some key problems.) I am assuming you are in search of the actual math behind Petr Horava's theory. If this is the case the link provided should be very helpful.

http://www.ift.uni.wroc.pl/~planckscale/lectures/1-Monday/8-Weinfurtner.pdf.

Exactly, I do tend to post things in a manner that forces readers to study my statements more closely. (with exception to trying to validate my interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy through my physics theory, this isn't my intent at all) I didn't originally believe that the entire universe would brake down at the second coming. I deduced this from comparing FF predictions with prophecy after seeing parallels.

my own quote:


The reason I said this is simple. I have faith in SOP and in SOP Ellen condems time setting of prophecy. If my actions of finding parallels between prophecy and FF predictions is an act of time setting, then I am more than willing to stop. The form of study I'm refering to in this quote is the comparison of First Flash model predictions with future biblical prophecies.

västergötland


My studies tend to be mathmatical in nature. Revealing my actual work here would probably lack any benefit and would more or less result in wasted time. On the point of my "willingness to change my story" I've never said I'm willing to ignore genuine evidence in light of possible conflicts in theology. If it is prefered that I refrain from claiming predictions in FF to have prophetic parallels, I don't mind letting others draw their own conclusions. My work with this cosmological model is physical in nature, its biblical applications are subject to theological debate. On that point, I am an open minded person. I try to not let bias sway my opinion in regard to truth. Unlike the other 98%, I neither see a glass half empty nor half full. At such a point it is simultaneously 50% water and 50% air. My point being, all true information is needed to provide a clear complete picture on any subject.

I should add, if there is a paticular area in my research that you have interest in, I am more than willing to share. If it is your desire that I divulge my work in its entirety into this thread then your wish is unrealistic. I've compiled thousands of pages of notes, graphs and calculations that have not yet even been scaned or typed into digital media. It would take me months just to type and scan everything and I kinda doubt the administrator would react very kindly if I dumped that much data onto their server. (I could be wrong though.)

Dump away, but one bit at a time.

Getting back to the ripping away of the universe.

Just how much of the universe are you referring to?

Are you referring to the ripping away of all that God created and Him starting creation all over again, or only a section of all that God created that became contaminated as a result of sin?

My reference is limited to what encompasses the "visible universe" and nothing beyond our light horizion. If I've discerned scripture and SOP correctly, the throne of God and the twenty four thrones encircling the throne of God are each individual universes separate from our own. I have nothing to prove that there actualy infinite other "universes" but it's my conjecture that there is. Talking to others who believe in FF model, some believe that the universe of Heaven will also be recreated. On this point I am unsure.

Give me time to work through it, it's alot of stuff to sort through. I'll only be able to present text on a forum unfortunately. Looking through this stuff, a vast majority of my work is shorthand and mathmatical computation so that'll take some extra time to sort out as well. Good luck making sense out of some of the math though. Alot of it is in new mathmatical branches of my own design. I spose I could convert most of it to a weaker form of Clifford Algebra. I'm starting to babel. Sorry about that.

It is my understanding that only this world was contaminated by sin and is consequently under some sort of a quarantine.

I also understand there are numerous worlds inhabited by intelligent beings who had never sinned, therefore, never came under the curse as our fallen world did, therefore, why would these worlds, etc. need to be re-created?

Exactly right. Our world is under quarantine and there are innumerable inhabited worlds which have never fallen and therefore have no need in being recreated. The question remains, do any of these unfallen worlds exist within our visible universe where comets and asteroids impact planets, stars explode, and galaxies collide? Also, why does the book of Hebrews state that the heavens will perish and that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified?

I've often heard it stated that there are four kinds of heaven in scripture. The atmosphere, our galaxy, the visible universe, and where God's throne resides. If God's throne exists within the visible universe then we have a serious problem.



With a correct understanding of the universe one realizes that there is no such thing as a single centerpoint within the visible cosmos. There is only one possiblity, our visible universe orbits a point outside of the light horizion. Physicly, this would require a universe sized object with considerably greater mass than our own. Ellen White commonly refers to Heaven as a universe. If God's throne must exist beyond the visible universe then the possiblity of inhabited worlds existing outside what can be seen can not be denied.

These are interesting questions. Certainly one would expect the unfallen worlds exist within our visible universe. Why not? Given this is the case, would have have had an impact on their worlds?

Regarding heaven, I've always assumed it's within the visible universe. I don't see why this would be a problem.

The problem is on two points made by Ellen White.

#1. All creation circles God's throne.

#2. Ellen White refers to Heaven as a Universe.

Without ignoring physics, it is wrong even to suggest that there is a single center point around which all things in the visible universe encircle within the envelope of the light horizon. The other problem is that of having a universe contained within another. I guess you could have an opening in one universe that gains passage to another but that still points to an external universe. The possibility exists that my idea is entirely wrong but at the expense of a mass of statements in scripture and SOP that evidence strong support for it. It is also at the cost of accepting bitter pills issued from Big Bang theorists and Evolutionists. My theory explains the cause of Gentry's halos and the very real data recovered from the weak nuclear decay rate of things like carbon 14 within the context of a universe created little over 6000 years ago. It also explains how quantum physics and General Relativity work together. This theory doesn't require scifi explanations like light in transit to solve the distant starlight problem. FF makes a huge multitude of scientific predictions that are later discovered to be evident facts such as the Pioneer anomoly, time retardation in distant supernova explosions, and harmonic tuning of the light horizon between any two points 60% separated. On top of all of that it predicts wonderfull spiritual insights like that all of the light from stars reached Earth over the duration of the very first Sabbath. If you give up on the idea that all of the unfallen worlds exist beyond our visible universe, (safely sheilded from any destructive effects of sin) your forced to throw away everything else too. To me, this model makes better sense than any other, perhaps do to personal bias (I hope not).

What quotes did you have in mind?

Would you separate your writing into paragraphs please? It's very difficult to read. I don't understand why heaven being in the visible universe would be a big problem. You're saying it's because of points 1 and 2 that you raised by Ellen White?

Please forgive my lack of paragraph structure.

Here is an incomplete list of some of the quotes, I'm not typing them out. There's too many.

CTr 290.6, SpTAo1b 38.3, TDG 14.4, 6BC 1088.4, 1888 1661.1, CTr 334.3, TA 198.2, 18MR 14.4, 2SAT 65.4, 2MR 16.3, 16MR2 200.2, Mar 173.3, 7ABC 460.1, SSW April 1 1895 par.4, PH 150 12.1, PC 410.1, LHU 232.3, 12 MR 412.1, PH 149 18.3, 8MR 244.2, Y1 October 17 1895 par 2, FLB 37.3, CG 519.1, 7ABC 470.1, 2SAT 84.2, EV 127.5, BLJ 326.2, AUCR June 1 1900 par. 15, GC 677-678, EW p. 15-16 41 259 277 285-288, Gen 1:1-31, 2:1-3, Ex 20:11, Ps 33:9 148:1-6, Job 22:14, Ez 1 10, Joel 2:10, 2:30, Matt 24:29-30, Luke 12:2, John 1:1-5, Hebrews 1:10-12, 9:23-24, 11:3, 2Pe 3, Rev 6:12-17, 20:11, 21:1

There are other verses and quotes, I never thought of compiling them together before.



Hmm... The universe of Heaven is, well, a UNIVERSE! Universes have light horizons. Our universe is encapsuled with a light horizon. Everything created encircles the throne of God in the heavenly universe. Our universe does not have a unique center point. If Heaven exists outside of the light horizon, our universe could very well be encircling God's throne. Please, please consider Job 22:14. "Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven."

I have in fact calculated this stuff but I felt wary of revealing it. Our star Sol rotates on it's axis once every 25 days and has a mass of 333,000 Earth masses. Earth is 93 million miles (8.3 light minutes) or 1 AU away from the sun. Earth rotates on it's axis once a day and has a mass of 6 x 10^24 kg and orbits the sun every 365.25 days. In a relative sense, the Earth also orbits the light horizion every 24 hours. Earth is 14x10^10 light years from the light horizon. The total mass of our universe is calculated to be 8.7 x 10^49 solar masses.

Based on information in scripture and SOP on the Sabbath and physical predictions from the FF model, our universe orbits Heaven once every 14 days. This is because there are two rest cycles per rotation of a compound pendulum. Descerning 2 Peter 3:8, the Universe of Heaven rotates on it's own axis once every thousand years. This being the case, it would take our universe 14,000 years to rotate one time.

Utilising all of this information, I've calculated a distance between the light horizon and the universe of Heaven to be 2.23 light days. (An interesting byproduct of this is that our universe is moving at the speed of light relative to it's orbit of Heaven.) Heaven's mass came out to 3.9 x 10^10 solar masses.

This information is highly speculative and delves into sciences presently unknown so I wouldn't take any of it too seriously.

Bottom line, our conflicting views do not effect our salvation. If the stars in the heavens do disapear, do not lose your faith in God. He will still protect us.

Acctually, I am in search for Horava's original paper. The document at your link is a presentation aid and not very useful lacking the presenter.

I am fully aware that you neither can nor will post your full data on to this forum. However, scientific work is also about distilling data into papers for others to critique. I assume you have done this. Such a paper would not be too much to ask for I think, assuming that you have already published it in a suitable paper. Anyone who successfully publishes and defends a theory of the magnitude of yours gets the nobel prize. When we get to read your publishable work, we can say that we were among the first to know about this.

Until I've acquired a degree in theoretical physisics or find someone else with a degree and willing to refine and publish my work the possibility of something as grandious as the Nobel prise is quite impossible. (there is also a large degree of politics involved as to who gets such a prize) There are others who have claimed to have a unified theory other than myself.



This isn't the case. I'm working to post what material I can on this forum. (please be patient)

As you seem to be saying that there is more than one universe, how many do you think there are?

At the minimum 24, but I suspect there may be an infinite number. (The number and relative placement of these universes would obviously effect my distance and mass calculations.) It is my belief that a universal inertial energy (at the quantum scale) will soon be detected with a resonance in harmony with the weekly sabbath. This energy will evidence the presence of a universe scale mass beyond our own universe, of which our own visible cosmos orbits. If this does happen I am most certain Satan will pervert this knowledge to bolster the upcoming Sunday law. This idea is of course completely speculative.

here's an alternate sight for Horava-Lifshitz gravity,

http://freelance-quantum-gravity.blogspot.com/2009/04/horavas-quantum-gravity.html

you might try this one too,

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache%3Ahu...y&hl=en&gl=us#3

I suppose the reason you keep refering to blogs and presentations is that you have not acctually read the original article. This is of course a speculative assumption.

Did you bother to look at the links on the first sight I gave you. There are copies of his work right there. There are also links to other papers ammending Horvara's work. What's wrong with looking at ammended copies of the original work? Are you trying to make a point about Petr's work?

Unless you already have authorization and am willing to pay for the pdf file you can not gain access to Horvara's original work. (Welcome to the real world of advanced physics.) I do not have any close connections at Berkeley and the physicists I know that do can not ethicly provide a pirated copy to me. I certainly can not "give" you something that I am prohibited from legally having direct access to my self. You need some form of physics degree, be involved in a current college physics program, or other legitimate reason to be provided access to such things. I've already outlined that I lack such a degree, and am quite far from the opportunity from gaining direct access to things like cutting edge physics papers from Berkeley.

So now my question for you is, what's your point?

If you need pointers, Horava published his work in 2009. The name of the the work is called Horava-Lifshitz gravity. You've at least pretended to already have direct access to his 65 articles written since 2007. If this is true then this quote makes me wonder if your being honest or just trying to play games.



First you claimed to know very little about physics, then you want to know which of his 65 articles is the one refered to in SA, then you complain to want the original work because what I provided wasn't "very useful." So then I provide you with a link to several amended variations of Horava's original work and I get your last statement.

I looked at everything that didnt start with "blog" in the link name.I incidentally do have access to journals found through the common channels such as Elsevier or Springer links by my university library. Further, through scholar.google.com I found that Horava's articles are published through arxiv.org which means that anyone has free access to them. I just need to know which one. This is an example of a link such as I were looking for from you: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.0009v1.pdfWhat you do need is being enrolled at a university or a college. However, you could study anything between string theory physics to the history of feminism and still have access to cutting edge physics papers. I acctually thought you either had or were studying for a BA in physics. My error. My point is to figgure out if you are "standing on the shoulders of giants" (Isaac Newton) or if you are building a straw house on a sandy shore.

Well.. With these pointers I think the first article would be one of these:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1163081
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0812/0812.4287v3.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.3775v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0902/0902.3657v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.0009v1.pdf
and that these might be useful aswell:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.0308v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.2849v3.pdf
You may notice that all of these except the very first one are free for all to read. It took me less than half an hour to find these four articles written by Horava since 2009 on this subject. Of course it would take me many years to understand them since I lack the proper education in physics and math. At any rate, your claim to have researched a new physics rings a bit more hollow now that we have established that I could in 30 minutes find the articles you claim to have based part of your work on but have apparently not even read. (Even when you cannot read the articles online, you could physically visit the local college or university library and read the journals there. Even so, I would expect you to keep proper references to any article you choose to quote, and be prepeared to share the reference with curious people.)
As I said, I know some things about research. New discoveries are built on the base of older discoveries. Even breakthrough work such as Einsteins or Newtons are not entierly new, but much of their genious is found on piecing old threads of evidence together into a new design with only some entierly new aditions. Building on old evidence requires that you are familiar with it. In todays scientific society, that familiarity comes through peer reviewed journals. Not least because new work is not considered until it has been published in such a journal. Information found through other sources may be but it may also not be good. How to research and source criticism are two main lessons learned in the process of obtaining a BA or MA. Starting with giving you the benefit of doubt, assuming that you had made these considerations but were downplaying them for the sake of other forum members, I made the questions and comments you quoted above. I now find that neither of these skills have left any large imprints on your work, at least not as presented here and even in the face of direct questions. I think this makes us both clear where we have each other.

Thank you västergötland for your comments. I am indeed an amateur when it comes to researching to newest works in the scientific community. Many of the books I keep for reference are outdated. I try to glean new material where ever I can get it. The sites you've provided is providing me with a huge wealth of information. I'm sorry for my angery outburst. Things on my side of the world are troubled at best. I do tearfully desire a degree in physics. I lack the cash and have a bit of memory trouble. (I like to write everything down that's complex and try to memorize things in general, otherwise I tend to loose memory recall or when I do focus to remember new things like persons names, places, and things I'll retain it for a few days and then start to loose all of it in what I call a memory crash. One reason why I never liked history class very much.)

A very reasonable curiousity. I am attempting to ever continue to build and refine what I have with all of the information and insparation available to me until I successfully acquire that much needed degree, or find someone else who already has one and is willing to "file off my works rough edges" and assist in expanding it into all of the relevent areas of physics.

My foundations for the proposed model are based on well proven and defined proofs, theories, and postulates presented in things like General Relativity, Kepler's laws, and Newtonian physics. I also draw truths and useful concepts from persons and things like Trigometric Relativity, Max Morris's Simply Relativity, Kurt Godel's cosmological model, Kerr-Newman Geometry, E-8 Geometry, Angular Gavitics, Photogravitics, cosmic torque, weak gravitational energy, TOE theories, quantum mechanics, Tile Method, energy equation, Extended Heim Theory, Quantum Field Theory, Minkowskian Geometry/ Lorentzian Manifold, Heim - Drooscher extension, Antidesitter space (inverse singularity), Stephen Smale's Chaos Theory, Henri Poincare conjecture, Naked Singularity, Clifford Algebra (key to E-8), Nassim Haramein's Cosmic Torque, Heim-Lorentz Force, HDB, SST, QCD, QED, EWT, and GUT / gauge theory.

Some core studies involved are cyclic time, cyclic space, curved time, curved space, temporal frequency, spacial wavelength, frame dragging, doppler effect, gravitational acceleration, moment of inertia, centrifugal force, centripedial force, mass, SNF, time spacial curvature, weight, and apparent weight.

What I have involves some rather advanced mathmatical models requiring new forms of dimensional calculus. There are mathmatical systems already in existence that would work but are too cumbersome. When broader areas are needed to be included it may be needed to follow that route.

Avoiding complex mathmatical visualization, I've recently condensed some key elements discribing parts of the First Flash model. I'll try to describe it in a visual sense.

Imagine two cones (like the cups you may see next to a water fountain.) One represents time, the other three dimensions of space. The point on the time cone represents the passage of time edging toward the past, it's center the present, and the ever broadening lip foregrounds toward future events. (This cone represents accessable time per a predetermined period that is reachable by a traveling ray of light or a neutrino for that matter.)

The point end of the spacial cone eludes to the smallest quanta of space (which is of course plack scale). The center is the nornmal scale space in which we commonly perceive things, and the broad edge marks the spacial limit to the distance that can be traveled by light relative to the passage of time in that space.

The spectrum of electromagnetic radiation representative of the time cone is on the infra red end of the spectrum and is commonly compared to as heat. The rate of time at the quantum level, is the highest possible within the bounds of the time cone.

The spectrum of "light" for the spacial cone dips into the ultra violet end. U.V. lasers are used to effectively cool objects as strange as that sounds. The area of space inter relates with Special and General Relativity.

Allign the two cones point to point and then imagine them to overlap through one another up to both cones center so that the pointed end is at the center of the end of the opposite cone and vice versa.

The ring at which both cones cross defines rotation. This is a key point in studies dealing with string theory and quantum mechanics. (For the FF model, a single rotation relative to the time space curvature of the Earth [gravitation] is one Earth rotation defining the temporal passage of one day.)

If an object is observed to move away from an observer, red shift occurs. When an object is seen to move toward an observer you get blue shift. Using our cone structure, imagine the two cones to be inseprable from the center intercross ring. When the temporal ring is "compressed" the spacial cone becomes "expanded" or stretched. This illustrates what's happening to light in red shift. The "speed of light" is never violated but with distance exceeding the cones limit, a phase transition occurs. What does occur and is commonly observed in everything in nature is that the rate of relative time varies with distance and space. (I didn't try to illustrate that point here, I might build a thought construct later to illustrate that point.) If the opposite occurs, space is compressed and time is expanded displaying blue shift.

Beyond the light horizon, the spacial "cone" transitions into time like dimensions and time becomes space like. This also happens below plank scale. This pattern is self repeating possibly creating an infinite "patch work" of infinitely varied universes. Avoiding mathmatical jargon, this displays a good chunk of the First Flash model's simpler structural aspects.

Hey västergötland,

do you remember this quote?



I looked at the links you provided me and noticed someting odd.
Do these links look familiar to you?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.3775v2.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0902/0902.3657v2.pdf

They should, not only were they provided by you, but they were also on this website link I had provided for you before hand.

http://freelance-quantum-gravity.blogspot.com/2009/04/horavas-quantum-gravity.html

The thing I am most curious about in this whole thread is the reaction from some of the other forum members who have posted here. JCS claims no formal education of relevance to the topic and what informal education he has does not cover the skills of finding readilly aviable information of relevance to his work. The physics theory is entierly new and according to JCS quite speculative. It is backed by an entierly new math which is also quite speculative according to JCS. And its main point of application as far as presented in this thread is false theology. Yet, even though all of this, some posters buy it without question and promote it as an important event in science.
Quite frankly, is this the "check in the grey matter at the door" zone?

So why didnt you quote them the first time I asked you for articles?

You claimed to lack understanding in physics but showed interest in Horava's work. You were also pretending to lack the ability to dscern which work related to the SA article. (Your methods of action and words of venom are like that of a deadly snake. Your actions do not resemble a spirit of truth.) As a benefit to you I provided a link to a website that summarized his works and the additional works for Horava gravity made by others. Instead of reading it you attack it. You're motives are quite clear. Here is what was posted on the link I had provided.



What I've learned from this is to listen to the Holy Spirit's warning next time instead of giving in to selfish pride. Yes, I was spiritualy warned before hand that your motivation in asking for information was a deception. My purpose in posting material here is to evidence what I am working on and to present a window of opportunity for others to help me with this work. If educated men in the church were more receptive to the Holy Spirit's leading, the advanced work that I've been presented with would have been taken up elsewhere. Even in my lowly circumstance I faulter into pride with what I've discovered. I do plead with God to give this work to someone else more qualified or to send someone to help me with this.

I've diligently searched (and am still searching) for anyone else with a cosmological model that utilizes GR and QM and clearly explains the distant starlight problem. FF continues to march far beyond this.

Thats true.I said I lack the time to read articles which are irrelevant for my own work. Lacking time and ability are different things.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You claims are extraordinary. Your evidence as provided are not..

Would you please expand on your premise regarding the First Flash model being a theory of false theology. There is nothing in scripture or SOP that regards FF to be false theology that I am aware of. This doesn't prevent the possibility for opponents to twist things to their favor. For anyone willing to do so, beware Revelation's warning in Rev 22:18-19.

Looking at the 28 fundamental doctrines, FF does not change anything about God, man, salvation, the church, christian life, or last things. Points of conflict have been attempted to be made in regard to creation and last day events. FF whole heartly evidences the biblical account of creation to the point of revealing lightly regarded truths regarding the Seventh day Sabbath. Dealing with last day events, I found that predictions of FF work in perfect harmony with scripture and SOP. There is only one last contension presented. This is dealing with how many universes there are and the question of where unfallen worlds reside. SOP clearly separates the visible universe from the Universe of Heaven. Putting together the facts that these other inhabited worlds are unfallen, our universe requires cleansing, the heavens will be recreated, and that astronomy evidences that the visible universe suffers chaotic events that frequently effect or destroy planets and stars evidences that these inhabited worlds are not in the same universe. If you debate this point then you are guilty of debasing the the Adventist doctrine that God is a God of love.

This whole lame duck debate started over my quote from SA. The premise was that my model relies on a phase transition of light to unify QM with GR. I discovered later that Horava does the same thing. I have no more interest on that issue.

What you and I have been debating isn't the evidence. You should go back and read this entire thread first before complaining about my lack of evidence.

You claimed that FF predicts the end of our universe and even gave a calculated date on this event. Jesus must return while there are still an earth to return to, which means you effectively put a best-before date on this event. Both denominational history and a reading of Jesus thoughts on the last days suggest that such a date cannot be calculated or known by humans. Therefore your theory leads to bad theology.

We live in this universe and our planet has not been destroyed. Volcanoes and tiny meteorites befall us occationally but there is no rule that says we have to live on the slopes of volcanoes, and I am not aware of a meteorite causing any major damage to humans. With a conventional age on earth, there have been several huge meteorites which would be of some concern, but your theory already did away with them by reducing the age of our universe.

Chaotic events which destroy planets are a bad thing if anyone or anything were to live on that planet. However, chaotic events is also what causes beauty in this universe. Without them, we would have no nebulas to admire, no clouds hunting each other on our skies, no unpredictability in our weather, no randomness in the life around us (all plants and animals looking exactly the same) etc. Remove chaos from the picture and our universe would be entierly and fully predictable even by our present degree of understanding it, indeed a the wet dream of a fundy materialist wishing to do away with God.

I se no conflict whatsoever between our God of love creating a universe like the one we happen to inhabbit. Once sin has been dealt with, may we still have cloudy days when we dry our clothes and calm days when out sailing.

And by the way, Rev 22:18-19 defends the integrity of that particular letter specifically and perhaps the integrity of the bible generally. It does not defend interpretations of either the first or the second.

Evidence is presented in articles in such form that others who are knowledgeable in the area can either corraborate it or pick it to pieces. (There is nothing that prevents you from writing an article, there is no rule which says that you have to have a degree to write one. But you should be prepeared to defend it against those who do.) Evidence is not presented in anecdotal form in faith based fora like this.

Let me tell you about Carl Poppers theory of science. It is known as falsificationism. The idea is that a hypothesis is made. Wild and fanciful is good, as great ideas often appear such to those who are unfamiliar with them. The hypothesis should also be as specific as possible. The reason for this is that a very specific theory is easier to disprove, which is a good thing. For instance, a theory which say that people in texas grow tall is much weaker than one which says that people in texas grow to 200 +- 10 cm tall. It is very difficult to disprove the first one while any result of >211 and <189 would disprove the second.

The next step is to try and think of all the different ways that the hypothesis could be proven to be false and try them. Each time you fail to prove it false despite your best attempts to do so, it gains strength. Finally really good hypothesis have been tested by the whole scientific community and noone has been able to find out a way to disprove it. It has then graduated to a theory in good standing.

I gather you have done the first step, I ask if you have begann with the second step.

I need to clarify. The dates given should in no way be thought as pinned down events. It doesn't set up a "best before date for Christ's return." Angels hold back the winds of strife, the time of trouble will be cut short, and no one but God knows the time of Christ's return. FF simply indicates that the physical laws that maintan the universe will become more and more unstable. This does not put into account the Angels efforts to hold back these effects. They are mear calculations with available data. I think you're right that I should avoid presenting such material in the future. (good point)



Sorry, for some reason I missed the point you're trying to make.



We have very different veiws on God then. An infinite God of love does not rely on disorder for beauty. Relating scripture to nature, disorder is synonymous with the pressence of sin. There are types of exploding stars that would bring death to every planet in the same galaxy. The universe model you propose would mostly harbor dead worlds and uninhabited galaxies. Such a construct sickens me.



We will be clothed with light, not fabrics that require being washed and dried.




True, and when people try add to or subtract from scripture this promise will apply to them.

I think we are starting to get in to some actual points here needing to be discussed.

The issues involving end time stuff crop up from my calculations involving the Hubble distance. This element was an addition to FF, not a core component. Our present day calculations for the Hubble distance and distances measured to the light horizon have degrees of acuracy which directly effect projected calculations. I do not require data involving the Hubble distance for the young age of the universe to be proven using FF.

My own quote:



One should pay closer attention to how I've phrased my statements here. There is absolutely nothing said here that is etched in stone. I carefully tried to make that point clear but it has still been overlooked for some reason.

The second step is compiling a complete list of ways to test whether the hypothesis is falsifiable. My answer is yes and no. I do have a hypothesis but it does continue to change and grow. I have been compiling a list of areas that FF could be tested, however, a complete list would require that I possess a complete understanding of every presently accepted proof and theory involving General Relativity, Quantum Physics, String Theory, QCD, QED, EWT, and Gauge Theory. I'd need a team of physicists nearly equal to the number of programmers needed to create Windows 7 in order to successfully compile and test a complete list. The areas that FF effects is very, very broad.

Dont worry, write down your general ideas, publish it and people will volunteer to test it. The more tests it survives, the more people will try to fail it. There is no reason to think you would have to do all this by yourself.

Of course, it does require a willingness to have strangers critique your ideas.. publicly..

I definitely want the public criticism, if somethings wrong with the model such feedback would make it evident allowing me the opportunity to correct any errors. This model needs to be right for the right reasons. The whole point to such an endeavor is to search for truth.

Due to the fact you appear to have more formal education than I in regard to general dealings with science academia, is there a book or website that you'd recommend for outlining how to properly compose and distribute such a hypothesis? I originally thought I'd need to acquire that coveted degree first. Maybe not.

I dug through my research in a very serious way to find what I need to write my published hypothesis on the First Flash Model. There are in fact several hypotheses that approach the same model from different angles. Heres a list: expanded energy equation, inverse naked singularity, hyper rip model, weak gravitational energy, cosmic torque, tile method, photogravitics, Bohr inertial field, time space field, modified energy field, special hypothesis of time spacial relativity, time spacial spin field, modified twister geometry, and the First Flash unified field. There is also 48 other possible field equations that I haven't even bothered with yet.

Under FF's unified field, all other physical theories are arranged in a circular format. (Going left to right and top to bottom in a 3 x 3 grid) the top three are Bohr inertial field (B), light field (C), and density field(D). The center two are the energy field (E) and to the right is WNF (W). Then finally at the bottom are SNF(X), EMF (Y), and EWF (Z). C is in SR, D-W are covered under Hawking's theory of decaying black holes. Z-W is QED and X-Y is QED. W-Z-Y-X is GUT, X-E-B-C-D is GR, and then finally SST attempts to cover everything except the gap between D and W. The FF unified field bridges everything.

I've decided that if it is indeed possible to publish a work without a degree, it would be easier to start with something small like my modified twistor geometry of which mearly tweaks with Roger Penrose's mathmatical model for twister space. Once that's established everything else will quickly fall into place by neccesity.

I picked out a slight error in the last post, X-Y is QCD not QED. I'm guessing no one even has a clue to what I'm talking about due to the given lack of interest.

I have come up with another way to illustrate FF in a very real world sort of way. FF claims that the rate of time decreases with distance. Studying light, of which moves at a constant, it takes less time for light to travel a mile than it does say a light year. One must subtract themselves from their own biased view of how the world works around them to realize that if the speed of light defines the time space limit to the expanding universe we live in, then the rate of time slows down with distance, and increases with a decrease in space. (This second component describes quantum phenomina.)

I just realized that this also explains the effects of entropy.

We may not have a clue in the more detailed elements as in X-Y being QCD rather than X-Y being QED, however, the concept is most interesting, which is why I am following this thread and asking questions at times.

Without going to the point of being absurdly boring, the details provided describe how different theories in physics "fit" together in my unified hypothesis.

X was SNF: strong nuclear force
Y was EMF: electromagnetic force
QCD means Quantum Chromodynamics
QED means Quantum Electro Dynamics

Here's some statements extracted from emails over the past two years relating to FF:


I am attempting to find and contact a well founded adventist with a degree in physics. My reason for this message is simply that I am developing a well rounded theory explaining the problem of distant starlight with in the context of the biblicaly young Earth. (This model relates to relative effects on spinning objects inside a naked inverse singularity. An oversimplified equation is thus: folded timespace = T squared, number of rotations = R, radial distance = D, speed of spinning singularity = C, year = yr [T squared times RCyr = D]) (equation with an Earth model is thus: 6133.22414 years squared times 365 light years = 13,730,000,000 light years [distance to to light horizon]) I need to find a physicist who is capable and willing to certify, edit, and flesh out this theory into a fully testable, scientific model. The ramifications for a testable theory are theologicly, as well as scientificly profound and global. I've contacted Amazing Facts on the subject of publishing my material. If the material is certified by a creditable physicist, scientificly testable as fact, and found suitable for publication Amazing Facts will be willing to publish and distribute. I believe this theory will (A) successfully prove the Earth, as well as all of the known universe, is little over 6000 years old, (B) actually unify the four known forces of nature, (C) unveil new, presently unknown forces, (D) prove the universe was created from nothing, rather by forces outside the frame work of timespace, (E) an infinity intelligent being outside timespace exists and created the universe in the begining of time with light, (F) by proving a literal week of creation, as evidenced in scripture, the true day of rest will be evidenced as true thereby uplifting the church through proven science (G) the SDA church would become a forerunner of a post modern scientific age, and could (H) trigger despritely awaited last day events as is predicted by E.G. White. If are interested, or know of someone else who is please let me know.

Wow, that's a lot of info for sure. Most of the the information in the attachement I'm familiar with. I have never come across that story with the frozen plane before. It will be some time before I've completed every detail on my work as it is quite expansive. I will try to summarize a basic premise and then reveal what got me on this amazing trail.

The theory is essentually that our known universe exists within what would be defined as an inverse naked singularity and that the light horizon is in fact a Cauchy horizon. Here is the key equation: D = T^2 * RS where D = radial distance between rotating object and the Cauchy horizon, T = period of time that light travels between rotating object and horizon, R = number of rotations object spins per base time unit, S = angular velocity of the inverse singularity. Here is the equation using Earth as the rotating object with the recorded distance of 13,730,000,000 light years to the light horizon: 13,730,000,000 ly = 6133.22414 y^2 * 365 ly. Naked singularities are defined to have a luminal angular velocity and Earth obviously rotates 365 times per year. Explaining the equation in more detail, singularities create folded (or squared) timespace within their inverse. Thus T^2. Second, an inverse singularity projects and collapses dimensions coreward. The perspective within seeming like the Cauchy horizon is expanding away in all directions when in fact the observer is constantly falling into a smaller dimension within. Combining this phenomina with the fact that the singularity is spinning at the speed of light creates a very strange effect on spinning objects inside. A complete 360 degree turn is relative to a complete orbit around a relatively "motionless" horizon at the speed of light. (this is a resultant of frame dragging) Multiple turns simply multiply the effect. The result is light travelling 13,730,000,000 light years distance in what appears 6133 years time. Using General Realivity, I can easily prove we do indeed exist in squared timespace. The other effect requires some serious physics. We are basicly talking about a completely new branch of physics combining gravity with light, what I call photogravitics. This is a feat that foiled Einstein for decades. There is much, much more. But I think you can glimpse where this will lead. The model predicts that if an object has traveled at least 7 light days, traveling at a fraction light speed away from Earth, its light, seen from Earth, will retain an advanced temporal rate causing a blue shift in its spectrum. This has indeed been observed from the Voyager 1 probe as it has traveled far beyond Pluto's orbit. This effect is mystifying astronomers.
Now here is what led me to this awesome equation. I've always been bothered by the distant starlight problem and finally speculated on an idea of space and time working together on a slide rule function. The rate of time for a large expanse would be slower than a small one. It seemed pretty good so I searched the internet to see if anyone else crossed the idea. I found "Simply Relativity v2" by Max Morriss. Using Einstein's General Theory, Morrisses hypothesis supported my concept without flaw. As a bonus, the hypothesis successfully emerges quantum effects within the General Relativity theory. My only missing component, to explaining problems with distant starlight, was the ratio of relativity between time rate and expanse of space. I considered that if my idea was true, then God would have surely placed it with in the Bible because the universe was indeed created by the word of God. With a quick word from my mother-in-law, who is neither an Adventist nor into physics, I was pointed the verse 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." The relative value between a day and a thousand years is 365,000. I believe the verse is prophetic and therefore symbolicly incripted. Here is my decyphered equation: [(1 * 365,000) * (1 / 365,000)] = distance to the light horizon. After deducing values in the equation I algebraicly simplified it to T^2 *365 = D. Later on I found these values enbedded within Revelation's description of the New Jerusalem. Both forms of the formula are biblcal and prophetic in nature. This fulfills E.G. White's prediction of further truth being revealed in Revelation prior to the last days. I believe this message has some connection with the seven thunders and the mystery of God, also referenced from Revelation. Well, I would suppose that's plenty to ponder over. Please feel free to ask questions and I will try to answer briefly.

Thanks for the info. I haven't contacted Dr. Walter Veith yet. He seems to be a good candidate. I'm definitely not an expert in any field. (I do enjoy searching for new Biblical and scientific knowledge whenever I can.) In reference to the verse in 2 Peter, I glazed through Strong's Exhaustive Concordance for original Greek definitions in an attempt to recover any hidden meanings. It's fairly obvious that verse 8 contains two ratios. (1 day is "with the Lord" as 365,000 days) and (365,000 days as 1day) I defined "with the Lord" as the radial distance light travels from Earth to the Light Horizon. Now I have [(1d is as 365,000d) and (365,000d as 1d)] = Dist. The word "and" can mean a copulative force, I believe it is a multiplier given the context. Combining (is with as) seemed to translate "to continue in like manner". I equated this to also be a multiplier. Now the only way 365,000 days can retain any semblance with 1 day would be to flip the value, meaning division. My view on the equation is now [(1 * 365,000) * (1/365,000)] = D Here is what the numbers mean: [(time since creation * 1000 year ratio) * (time since creation / 1000 year ratio)] = distance.
This entire chapter is very important to study in order to understand the verse's context. Here's some things I found. Peter explains the premise of the chapter in verses 1-2. To "stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us... of the Lord." There are other scriptures within the Old Testament that refer to this 365,000 ratio. Also, close attention should be given to Christ's repetitive reference to what the kingdom of Heaven is like. A special verse comes to mind in Matthew 13:11 where Christ speaks of the "mysteries the kingdom of Heaven". My point about Heaven is that I believe it may have a physical relationship to the Light Horizon. Looking further within the focused chapter, Paul states that there will be scoffers in the last days. Sounds like Big Bang theorists to me. These scoffers claim that "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." Now verses 5-7 are elemental. These people are ignorant that "by the word of God the heavens were of old." Verse 8, in its true context" is relevant toward the same topic. The meaning of the Lord's ratio is two fold. It has a relationship toward the truth of the heavens, and the truth relative to the day of the Lord. Please try to read this entire chapter being mindful of the words spoken by the prophets and our loving Savior. Something I have not yet revealed relates to Revelation's description of the New Jerusalem. Rev 21: 10 The holy Jerusalem is shown to be descending out of heaven from God. (It has a relationship to heaven) In verse 11 it is revealed that the holy city has the glory of God and "her" light like a most precious stone. Light isn't typically a solid. And most gemstones are in fact transcendental. (Meaning that time-space is denser than normal ) Another strange fact is that light in volume has gravitational effects relative to the energy it contains. All of this relates to measurements, using light, within my equation. Looking at verse 16, the city has a square base measuring 12,000 furlongs. Thinking symbolically, this measurement stands out as 12 times 1000. The number 12 jumps out to me as the 12 months in a year. 12,000 months = 1000 years. Now look at verse 17. The wall (measured by a man, that is of the angel, which also means messenger) is 144 cubits. 12 * 12 = 144. The number 12 meaning a year, this comes out to a year times a year. Putting it all together, we have an object created by transcendental light with volume, its dimensions in thousands of years squared. This value multiplied by a height measured as a year times a year. It seems fairly obvious that the golden reed measures light years given the context. My simplified equation from 2 Peter 3 was: [(time in years squared) times (365 times 1 light year)] = distance to the Light Horizon. It is one and the same. This is not a coincidence, nor is it a simple game with numbers. Please forgive the lengthy note. This stuff is difficult to condense.

I should have relayed this information to you first, I'm not going to pretend that the idea is completely flawless. It's definitely a work in progress.
This is my presently revised perspective of time spacial effects from within an inverse naked singularity.
Some key points: *I am progressively attempting to describe a singularity spinning 186,282 mps at its axis from within. (an inverse naked singularity) *The singularity exists at planck scale. *The timespace surrounding the singularity, from a 3d persective, is folded. *The properties and effects describing the inverse singularity occur mathmaticly inverse from planck scale. *The act of folding spacetime creates a series of squared space time intervals. *In agreement with its definition, a naked singularity has time like geodesics surrounding its rational surface and space like geodesics within its inverse. *Following Einstien's line of thought, singularities actually fold and collapse time in space. *Building on this line of thought, an inverse singularity (veiwed as an unmoving inversed sphere from within) projects and collapses space like geodesics coreward. *The perspective from within would generate a false sensation that the Cauchy horizon is expanding away in all directions when factualy the observer is constantly falling into a smaller scale within. *The observer would also perceive objects in space expanding away from each other.
[Strange relative effects within] *The folded spacetime can be described as being squared. *The fact that interior objects are being frame draged by the encapsuling Cauchy horizon (spining at 186,282 mps), would mean that if an internal object spun its self 360 degrees it would have effectively encircled the horizon and multiplied its angular momentum by c relative to the outside world.Now let's say an object similar to Earth orbits a larger mass (the same way as Earth to Sol) within this inverse naked singularity, and that the apparent distance from the object to the Cauchy horizon is 13,730,000 light years. How long does light actually take to reach the Earth like object from the horizon? Answer: 13,730,000,000 light years divided by 365 rotations per solar year = rate of light in folded space (37616438.36) the square root equaling 6133.22414 years. Looking at the equation from inside the box is much more difficult. We our basicly taken along for the ride, our perceived reality being heavily warped. (365 * LD^2/365) describes the quantum effects of "photogravitics". (nD/365)^2 describes time-space being squared, or General Realivity. Combined, it describes reality within an inverted universe. I didn't want to send this much stuff to look over yet but I guess it can't be helped.

Formulating my cosmological model into a mathematical form is an excellent endeavor, however the task will be quite extensive considering it will require creating an entirely new tensor system. The information I've compiled and condensed together was a net product of data from GR (regarding black holes and Einstein's energy equation), Max Relativity (called "Simply Relativity V2 by Max Morris which establishes a slide rule effect between space and time providing a framework for my own equation but it lacked the ratio of which I had actually recovered later from 2 Peter 3:8), Stephen Smale's Chaotic theory (involving the circular process of stretching, squeezing, and folding of time-space), EHT or Extended Heim Theory (an 8D poly-metric tensor expanded from Heim-Drocschers 6D Heimspace; this equation describes some of the properties of photogravitics, coined as Gravito Electromagnetism), Antidesitter space (the physical properties of inverse singularities), and as you've aptly implied the Kerr metric for frame dragging (though according to my book GRAVITATION there are at least 5 other viable geometries to choose from.)
Regarding your comment about GR and QFT, yes they severely conflict but, relative to a new temporal rate adjustment, used in Max Relativity, it seems to adequately correct it.
[Frame Dragging] I'm simply going to quote from p 1119-1120 from GRAVITATION to explain my stance on the subject: "The gyroscope is rotationally at rest relative to the inertial frames in its neighborhood. It and the local inertial frames rotate relative to the distant galaxies with the angular velocity [OMEGA] because the Earth's rotation "drags" the local inertial frames along with it. Notice that near the North and South poles the local inertial frames rotate in the same direction as the Earth does ([OMEGA] parallel to J), but near the equator they rotate in the opposite direction ([OMEGA] anti-parallel to J; compare [OMEGA] with the magnetic field of the Earth!) Although this might seem paradoxical at first, an analogy devised by Sciff makes it seem more reasonable. *Consider a rotating, solid sphere immersed in a viscous fluid. As it rotates, the sphere will drag the fluid along with it. At various points in the fluid, set down little rods, and watch how the fluid rotates them as it flows past. Near the poles the fluid will clearly rotate the rods in the same direction as the star rotates. But near the equator, because the fluid is dragged more rapidly at small radii than at large, the end of the rod closest to the sphere is dragged by the fluid more rapidly than the far end of the rod. Consequently, the rod rotates in the direction opposite to the rotation of the sphere."
Addressing your misapprehensions, the constructive criticism and direction you've provided has proven to be immensely helpful! I'm scrapping any further reference to the term "naked inverse singularity". It seemed to fit well when considering its definition of a singularity spinning on its axis with a radial velocity equal to that of light. My reference to 186,282 mps is indeed the speed of light. I used the speed of light because it remains at a constant rate in the module, unlike the rpm or the circumference which will both change over a period of time. Here is a corrected equation: (circumference divided by light seconds equals seconds per revolution) I hope this looks better. The Light Horizon is a Cauchy Horizon and exists in inverted space. What is inverted space? Here is an illustration: the inhabitants of the inverted universe measure the cosmic diameter as U/P. U= the diameter of the known universe, P= Planck length. From the perspective of the outside Macro universe, the diameter of the inverse universe appears as P/P. Using this frame work as a model, there is possibly an infinite scale of Micro and Macro Planck scale universes in existence. I know I'm going to get some flak on how I said that, but that's part of the reason I'm asking for your help. The singularity existing within the Event Horizon is the manifold in which the inverted space exists. Dimensional scaling is a word construct I generated to describe the numeric inversion of time-space. The quote: "creates a series of squared space-time intervals" is a mouth full to decrypt. I'm attempting to reference processes occurring in Antidesitter space in connection to a comment made by Stephen Hawking who first argued that close to a black hole, the extreme degree of curvature of space-time actually creates elementary particles. Matter, according to Hawking, is created out of the fabric of space-time itself. I am relating extremely curved space-time, with use of an untested and incomplete formulation, to the geometric "folding" of space-time. As this effect is ongoing, "folded" time-space (perhaps incorrectly termed squared) "intervals" (possibly more accurately called quanta) would exist and form in a series. In this manner, the series of intervals are correctly described as being "created". (We should both agree at this point that I am not an expert in this field, however I still believe that I am not clinically insane either.) I've already relented on using the naked singularity terminology because of its missing event horizon, though I'm not fully convinced that the horizon ever fully disappears. (But I am not an expert that subject either)
You've probably already guessed that a "rational surface" really means a dimensional plane with normal time-spacial coordinates verses an "irrational surface" meaning a dimensional plane with abnormally inverted time-spacial coordinates. ( I hope I'm clarifying some of this at the very least.) O.K. now the "arbitrary distance" is the measured distance from Earth to the Light Horizon. I didn't explain everything in the equation as I had attempted to keep everything short, sweet, and simple. The calculation you've generated makes absolutely no sense to me as I failed to see how it related to anything. Sorry
I will attempt to expand and more fully define the equation more fully. It's an oversimplified poly-metric tensor. The first sub-tensor ((365LD squared)/ 365) represents the photogravitic multiplier involving the frame dragging effects between the rotation of Earth, and the rotation of the entire universe. The 2nd sub tensor ((365D/ 365) squared) represents squared space-time. The combination of the sub-tensors represents a space-time tensor for a special form of inverted space and calculates the universe's radial distance from Earth to the Light Horizon. 365D in the second sub tensor represents the number of days since the creation of the visible universe, so for the model to represent the approximate present, the number of days would be something like 2,238,627 days not 365. 365 days divided by 365 equals 1 year, thus the division.
The "dragging of frames" by Earth's rotation relative to the "dragging of frames" by the Light Horizon's rotation is represented by (365 light days squared, divided by 365) equaling 365 light years. (365LD^2/365) [This stuff is biblical by the way, and I'm not kidding around either]
Now dealing with the "idea" that we exist in squared time-space, you are skeptically unconvinced. I would expect nothing less from a true physicist worth his salt. I have amassed a considerable collection of data supporting this conclusion, but the real question to me is, can I convincingly prove this to you in an elegantly short fashion? Doubtful, but I'll try anyway. First, examine the energy equation: E=MC^2. Change it to represent matter: M=E/C^2. What are we REALLY dividing energy by? The propagation speed of C= frequency times wavelength. Isn't frequency a measure of time, and wavelength a measure of space? Now we have M= E/(TS)^2. Light squared now equals time-space squared. Mass equals energy divided by time-space squared. Conclusion: we exist as matter that exists as energy divided by time-space squared. With that in mind, look at my 2nd tensor a little bit more closely, ((365D/365)^2) and compare it with M=E/(TS)^2. The sub tensor isn't dealing with the energy, and its working to define distance with time. Again, 365 days divided by 365 defines a year.
Now I'm going to describe the entire poly-metric tensor from a different angle.
1. The speed of light is a constant to all observers (moving and unmoving)
2. The rate of time slows with distance.
3. The rate of time relative to mass slows with acceleration.
If 1,2, and 3 are true then the rate of time relative to light itself (compared to accelerating mass) increases
Postulate A: Photonic time squares with distance N relative to mass
Postulate B: Nuclear time square-roots with distance N relative to light
IF A and B are true, and N=1 light year and if the photogravitic multiplier exists as 365 relative to Earth then the age of the universe can be determined using the equation:
(sqrt of R/(N*365)) R= the radial distance from Earth to the Light Horizon, N= 1 light year, 365= the photogravitic multiplier for Earth
plugging in the presently measured distance for R we get:
sqrt 13,730,000,000LY/365LY = 6133.22414 years

I'm now refrencing my work as "Weak Gravitational Energy". While including energy into the model (fashioned within the mass-energy equivalency equation) I descovered that the two subtensors were improperly balanced. Here is the modified result: (TC)^2 / C^2 * C^2 = (TC)^2
T= time since creation, C= speed of light = Time-Space, (TC)^2 = energy = radial distance from Earth to the Light Horizon divided by time since creation =21,559.07249 joules,
(TC)^2 / C^2 = E/C^2 = Mass = 21,559.07249 joules / 3.36310817x10^-39 = 6.410460622x10^-36 kilograms = 3.596005015 ev
I believe this 3.6 ev isn't coincidental with recent mass measurements for the Neutrino.
Also, its come to my attention that the Weak Gravity model will not work within the Kerr metric as my model has defined a Black Hole with spin and charge. This model will only fit within the confines of extreme Kerr-Newman geometry. (M^2=Q^2+a^2)
M= mass, Q= charge, a= angular momentum
I've discovered within the book "Gravitation" under the subject "The gravitational and electromagnetic fields of a black hole" (p 875-883) a massive wealth of information directly related to the equation I'm attempting to define. If you have the book, a quick glance is recommended. Also "Mach's principle and origin of Inertia" (p 543-549) with a primary focus on the sum of inertia. (same book)
I've ordered a book online called "Fifth Force, Neutrino Physics", If you know anything about the book or have a recommendation for better source of information please let me know.
It is now revealed to me (based on my observation that Weak Gravitional Energy utilizes all known physical forces in a united fashion) that I will not be able to complete my mathmatical model without first establishing some hypothetical "footers" strategicly aligned to successfully support the foundational weight of a possible "theory of everything".

I thought I should comment on some flaws I've since discovered with in my hypothetical TOE "footers" model. My reference to the Z boson to Electroweak force doesn't really fit perfectly. Also, the X boson has a symmerty to Strong Nuclear Force but isn't the actual force carrier. (which is of course the gluon) Additionally, my "weak gravitational energy" polytensor has been converted to dimensions incorrectly. Here is an equational construct prior to a dimensional translation: (TC)^2 / C^2 times C^2 = (TC)^2
The first subtensor relates to forces inherent within quantum physics, the second deals with GR. Based on my research, I believe that C defines 4 dimensions and that squaring C actually multiplies dimensions. (example: if C = 4D then C^2 = 4D * 4D = 16 dimensions instead of D^4 * D^4 =D^8 or 8 dimensions) Using this premise, both subtensors represent 16 dimensions multipling each other (creating a unified force composed of 256 dimensions). This gets pretty interesting when you compare the value of 256 dimensions to the 248 dimensions utilized in E8.

Your comment relative to my chart is true, as I am at a preliminary stage in testing and constructing a mathematical model. (It really isn't fit at this point to be used in any form of debate) I'm honestly not prepared in trying to prove anything with it right now. (I guess I just felt like sharing some insight on my recent efforts) The "seed" of thought that aided in generating my supposed "physical force map of everything" was that matter exists within a medium of 16 dimensions. (The complete poly-tensor equation equates to:16D * 16D=265D)
The 16 dimensions being algebraically defined by 4D * 4D = 16D. The 4D represents 3 spacial dimensions and 1 dimension of time. The sentence 4D * 4D = 16D is my dimensional unit conversion of C * C = C^2 (C^2 relating to the energy equation) [I am planning to utilize Clifford algebra in relation to E8 geometry to define a finalized 256 dimensional equation outlining the summation of all known physical forces within the context of my "weak gravitational energy equation"] Why should C represent 4 dimensions?
I think I've already ironed that one out within previous correspondence. (I know I do a very poor job of explaining things well. I'm endeavoring to improve.) If M=E/C^2 and C=4D=TS (TS meaning time-space as defined in GR) then M=E/TS^2. If this is true then TS^2 = 16 dimensions. More to the point, mass would exist within two like manner fields of energy that effect relative properties of time-space. I made a reasonable conjecture that gravity and inertia fulfill those roles. (My arrangement of forces is based on an unproven assumption that dimensional symmetry exists between all forces of nature.) O.K. so what I've done, as you have so greatly feared, is arbitrarily placed inertia and gravity left and right of C [time-space, light, whatever] I should also note that my arrangement of C, gravity, and inertia is derived from the mathematical, complex number relationship of a positive number line (light), a positive complex number line running at 45 degrees (gravity), and a complex conjugate number line running at -45 degrees (inertia). I've assigned wave properties with the positive side of the number line and particle properties to the negative side. Thus the photon is placed on the opposite side of C, with the zero coordinate at center. We now have what appears like a peace symbol or a three prong fork pointing up. The zero coordinate is at center, C is up, I is running 45 degrees up to the left, G is running 45 degrees up to the right, and Y is down. Looking at the relationship between the quantum realm and GR, as is proposed in Max Relativity, the forces of gravity and strong nuclear force (relative to space and time) are polar opposites. The force of gravity between two objects decreases if the distance is increased unlike the gluon force between quarks which actually increases with distance. Max Relativity gears time and space like two separate number lines on a slide ruler. An increase in spacial dimension decreases the relative temporal rate. Increase the temporal rate and spacial dimensions collapse. Following this premise logically places strong nuclear force on the negative end of the gravity number line and to the left of electromagnetic force (carried by the photon). My next step is placing electroweak force in the only location it could possibly go, to the right of Y.Information relating to Bohr's studies of electroweak force and inertia support the conclusion of electroweak's negative polar relationship with inertia. At this point it's easy to see why weak nuclear force fits between gravity and electromagnetism. There is also a physical relationship between gravity, weak nuclear force and electroweak force described by Hawking's theories relating to black hole radiation. This relationship has a parallel to the relative interaction of gravity, light and inertia. Gravity and electroweak force work together (in relation to weak nuclear force) like a complex number and its complex conjugate. There now remains only one gap between I and S. Considering the relationship of energy and inertia and the mathematical formula containing it (E=MC^2), the idea requires a closer look. Fold the pattern along the C vector to square light = C^2 and notice that the empty space crosses over its polar opposite negating that force completely. Now look at this, C^2 = E/M, M= E/ C^2 thus
C^2 = (E/E/C^2). Hmm, 1/C^2. That's pretty weird isn't it? (There are many more strange things tucked away within this single equation) You've gotta admit that this at least appears as though a genuine relationship exists relatively speaking. Your pint that all of this is but an analogy is absolutely true, but I'm not planning on leaving it that way. (Wow, that was a pretty long answer for one question.)
The meaning of "sub-tensor", It is simply a tensor contained within a "poly-tensor" or group of tensors. Please forgive my confusing terminology.
Hmm... "C= speed of light= Time-Space". The algebraic value "C" (commonly used in GR) is the speed of electromagnetic-field propagation equaling 2.99792x10^8 meters per second of which is of course what is commonly referred to as "the speed of light". It is also coined as the time-space constant. Stating that C= TS means that C is a time spacial unit of measure of which literally equal measures the quantity of time space in which we exist.
(TC)^2 is the value for energy from combining the two tensors together. Alright, I'll back track on this silly equation. We have an established equation E=MC^2. In today's world its kinda old and boring but still true. (Mass times light squared equals energy) means the same thing. Mass is measured in kilograms, light is measured in meters per second and energy is measured in joules. I'm making the claim that the measure of light defines the measure of space-time in which we exist, thus M*C^2=E=(E/C^2) * C^2=(E/TS^2) * TS^2=[{(E/TS^2) *TS^2}/TS^2] *(TS^2)
now compare this to ((X*TS^2)/TS^2) *(TS^2)= X * TS^2
X= time since creation
I'm claiming that multiplying the age of the universe by light squared equals the energy generated from multiplying a defined mass with light squared. Thus X= E/TS^2 and
X*TS^2= E
Yes, TC should have units of (time)(distance/time)= distance. I did the homework but felt too lazy to show it all. The mathematical process of conversion to proper units is quite lengthy. If you really have the time I'll show it to you. Yes, I also cheated you from seeing my work converting time spacial values to joules. I'm sorry, I just despise rewriting all of that stuff again. I know I think about things far beyond the outside of everyone else's box and this isn't a simple subject. If someone successfully discovers an equation (that combines all known forces in a dimensionally symmetric fashion using units of the most elemental in nature) the units of measure would be capable of being converted to ANY other form of measure.
I wish I could enroll in your classes in Southern, I dare say you've intellectually challenged me to a level no one else ever has and have the patience not to stop. If I had the degree in theoretcal physics, I doubt I'd be struggling with this subject as much as I am presently.

E/(E/C^2) does not equal 1/C^2 unless C^2=1 which it does not. The sentence E/(E/C^2) still conveys the relationship of energy relative to light when C is folded into C^2.

I discovered your relativity concept and found it to be quite impressive! When I was growing up I read the Genesis story and also loved anything relating to the universe. I quickly found a conflict with distant star light and creation. I knew that even time-space can not exist unless something beyond created it. I thus concluded that the answer was hidden within nature and scripture (the combined Word of God). A couple years ago I was speculating on the subject with my brother and deduced the posibility that time and space work together like a slide ruler. I thought of this when connecting Einstien's statement relating to an observed slow rate of time at the edge of the universe and then the strange effects in the Quantum world, such as electrons spinning 720 degrees to complete one full rotation. I searched the internet and discovered "Simply Relativity" by Max Morris. The only part missing was the ratio. I believed such an equation would be incripted somewhere within scripture and found it in 2 Peter 3. There is so much more but I can't explain it all right now. I'm trying to build my equation into a falsifiable theory. This theory could prove that light from the light horizon traveled nearly 13.73 billion light years within the passage of little over 6134 years time. After building a testable theory Amazing Facts will be willing to publish the information. I am not interested in profit but in prophecy. I can not imagine a more powerful proof of the true God to the world than this. If you're interested please let me know. I am intent in buying your book at a latter date. I've attached a file relating to a possible foundation for a quantum gravity model. (It isn't fully tested)
P.S. I arrived to a simular conclusion about the universe moving at the speed of light, my concept (reverse engineered from the equation: Time^2 times 365 light years = radial distance from Earth to the light horizon) was that the visible universe exists within the extreme Kerr-Newman geometry of a "black hole" having a charge unequal to 0 and a spin equal to the speed of light. Thus we would exist in a form of inverse time-space from an external perspective. The "light horizon" would be a "Cauchy horizon". In reference to scripture, beyond the light horizon is also God's throne of Heaven.

My theory doesn't need any black hole to explain it. But there are a few salient points:

- The center of the universe is back in time.

- There is no inflation. The universe WAS small when the black body radiation was released.

- The universe is at any given moment is an expanding three-dimensional spherical shell in a 4-dimensional space.

- The observable universe is three-dimensional, because the fourth (time) dimension is Lorentz-contracted to zero length in the direction of motion.

- The light followed a curved path from the small universe at creation. This is because the light follows the curvature of the expanding shell as it expands.

- The actual path is a spiral out from the center with a constant angle of 45 degrees to the plane tangent to the shell.

- The farther away matter is from the observer, the greater the angle between the time motion of the object and the time motion of the observer. This causes a redshift, due to both an actual increase in distance and a relativity effect from the different angle of motion. We see the light waves foreshortened in time, so they slow down.

- The change in angle of the direction of the light as it travels in the curvature of the universe causes it to be further red shifted. This is another relativity effect.

- The light finds equal curved paths from the center of the universe (back in time) to reach every location in the universe from every possible direction.

- The distance the light traveled is longer than the distance to the center of the universe (back in time). But assuming that the light traveled in straight lines (instead of curved paths) makes the universe look even larger.

- The assumption that the light traveled in straight lines also causes the illusion that the expansion of the universe is speeding up. But it is a relativity effect.

- More than half of the universe will forever be invisible to it, because we are moving away from it at a speed greater than light light speed.

Note that we also do not need a 6134 year universe. We do not know how long Adam lived before the fall. They probably did not start counting the time until after the fall, because they didn't know they needed to. Death did not exist before the fall.

Note also that, since God created space time, He is not "beyond" it, but can freely access all of it. at any location and any time simultaneously.

------

Larry Robinson


Your trigonometric system seems compatible with what I'm working on. Is your alternate method falsifiable, relative to other methods? On the subject of time, Adam's age "before the fall" sounds like altering scripture to me. Genesis 5:3-5 seems to define Adam's life quite explicitly considering verse 5 claims that ALL the days that Adam lived were 930 years. Following the presumption that Adam existed earlier than he "lived" dictates that Adam was not considered to be "alive" before that time. Investigating this hypotheses further leads me to Genesis 2:7 "And God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." This verse discredits the hypotheses unless scripture itself should be discounted which would, of course, render the point meaningless. It's my belief that truth in scripture is foundational in nature, meaning that all scriptural concepts must not reject earlier foundational concepts. If a latter concept conflicts with an earlier one then A: the latter concept is false, B: neither concepts are correctly understood, or C: scripture is not inspired by God defined as the one true god who created all things and is a god of love. I'm not debating your premise, I'm simply in search of the truth. Just out of curiosity, do you believe creation and evolution are compatible?

Considering my premise is centered on a "young age visible universe" it's probably best I part ways with my concept. On the same note, I would consider due caution with your trigonometric relativity because of similarities to my own mathematical models (the combination of "Simply Relativity", the 2nd Peter ratio, Clifford Algebra, E8 Geometry, Extreme Kerr-Newman Geometry, and my Quantum Gravity "foundational footers") as they seem to both lend agreement toward a much younger universe due to the known universe moving at relativistic speeds. I am still very interested in your book and would like to purchase one as soon as it is available.

Hi Cliff,
I read your article on multiverses and found your insight on the subject quite helpful. I was admittedly guilty of believing in the multiverse concept not realizing that its core philosophical purpose was to dethrone God from his creative work via attempting to patch up flaws within Big Bang cosmology. Growing up and living in the Adventist faith while simultaneously possessing and inexhaustible interest in all things scientific forcibly polarizes my interests with yours. On another point, I've recently started working with a couple of Adventist physicists on a topic I've been researching for nearly 20 years that may, or may not have interest to you. It involves the physics of neutrinos, E8 geometry in connection with Clifford Algebra, extreme Kerr-Newman geometry, Max Morris's "Simply Relativity", Larry Robinson's Trigonometric Relativity, and chapter 3 of 2nd Peter. (All of this leading to a very unique form of Quantum Gravity I've coined as Weak Gravitational Energy.) What the relative point may be to you is that this hypothesis, with potential to become theory, predicts that light emitted from the Light Horizon has traveled approximately 13.73 billion light years to Earth within a window of 6134 solar years due to the previously named collective force. If this hypothesis becomes theory it can be tested to be verified unlike the "Big Bang theory". Obviously this project could forcibly raise theological questions relative to the universe. Topping off the whole thing, I've very recently discovered precision symbolic parallels between my equation and religious text such as the Great Temple of Ezekiel, the previously mentioned temporal equation of God in 2nd Peter, the 144,000 as well as the measured design of the New Jerusalem in Revelation, Ellen White's first vision (primarily the relationship of God, the 144,000 in a perfect square, the New Jerusalem, and Christ's new name within a glorious star), and Ellen's chapters "A Firm Platform" plus "The Loud Cry" (look for quotes relating to light from Heaven and light from a messenger penetrating everywhere, I believe these prophetic symbols serve dual meanings) all from Early Writings. I know there's even more but I haven't had the time to look. If you're even curious please let me know. If you feel like another crazy person is trying to drive you crazy please feel free to enlighten me.
May the Holy Spirit continue to guide and direct you.

From: Goldstein, Clifford <GoldsteinC@gc.adventist.org>
Subject: RE: Appreciation for Multiverse Article
To: "trigala2@yahoo.com" <trigala2@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, April 17, 2009, 6:33 AM


Thanks but that stuff seems way, way too deep for me.
Cliff

Really? Impossible! Are you serious?
Wow, I'm just a novice. I"m literally faceted to any of your televised programs due to the materials overwhelming complexity. What you've stated is much more than a complement. Due you know any intellectual friends in the conference who may be interested in any of the concepts I've relayed? Thank you for your honest comment. If perhaps I simplified my description in one area such as God's prophetic word potentially possessing dual meanings? I'll pray about it, I'm sure the Lord will answer my query with rapid clarity as he seems to with almost everything else.

I forgot to sent this information to you. After my last email (I'm now questioning myself as to whether I should simply stop sending text as per the probable chance I've now become a pest) something inspired me, within a strange process of thought to calculate what I am now going to show you.
365 light days squared equals 365 light years
This has a curious familiarity to the biblical "day for a year" and yet seemingly nothing more. However I am confident you are more than familiar with the energy equation over simplified as E=MC^2. Rearranged we have MC^2=E. Mass can be expressed as E/C^2. We can now say that (E/C^2) * C^2=E. I need to back up to the M=E/C^2. Human beings are the presently known creatures making observations about the age of the universe using scientific properties about light, yes? We are beings composed of energy in the state of matter, unlike God's heavenly messengers (who are said to be beings of light.) Mass is energy amidst squared light. I could explain what that really means but at the possible expense of your attention. If we exist within a medium of squared light shouldn't comparable measurements with light be as such, considering the study is in relevance to beings of matter, not angels? Einstein explained quite clearly (well, he explained as clearly as he could) that the rate of the passage of time for light is very different than it is for matter (which of course curves time-space.) The conclusion is that light travels a distance of 365 light years within the passage of 365 squared days time. Except for the few who actually comprehend GR, we unknowingly exist within a squared reality. Using light for temporal measure without adjustment for our medium creates a new, and absolutely useless fubar unit. (the acronym for "fouled up beyond recognition") The evidence hides itself well due to precision effects on space-time from Earth's rotation and orbit around the Sun.

I quickly read your article. The clarity of logic in your study of equations clearly supersedes my own. There is a couple concepts I would like you to examine.
In the energy equation, mass equals energy divided by C^2. Therefore human beings exist as a form of energy amidst a field of squared light.
In regard to light, frequency (number of cycles per second (time)) times wavelength (distance wave travels in one cycle (space)) equals C. Also, 2.99792 X 10^8 meters (space) per 1 second (time) equals the speed of electromagnetic-field propagation in free space (space-time?) Do we exist within a medium of squared time-space? Considering the byproduct of matter is time-space curvature it certainly leads one to believe so.
I recently discovered that the value for 365^2 light days equals 365 light years, which seems very strange to me but the math is easily verified. Scientists routinely measure astronomical objects utilizing properties of emitted light. If we exist and experience reality within a matrix of squared light, wouldn't extrapolating travel time (in squared light) from observed light require the measured value to consist of squared units in order for the data to relate to beings composed of matter (us)?
I've attached a file describing an area of research I'm conducting on a conjecture called Weak Gravitational Energy. I've successfully tested most of the idea but that doesn't make it a hypothesis (let alone a hardened theory).
heres some websites of interest:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-toe-theory/4035-simply-relativity-v2-3.html
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/deutsch/golden.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7834215/GDimensional-Theory-Quantum-Smarandache-Paradoxes-by-LSteven-Young
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=60449&isnumber=2201
http://bio.nagaokaut.ac.jp/~matsuno/preprints/RESURREC.htm
http://www.tyler.net/hermital/book/holoprt3-2.htm
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2007-01/1169261470.Ph.r.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_force
http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/chap11.htm
http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/pioneer_velocity.html
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/pioneer.htm
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:hKlxmKKqk68J:www.aapt-doorway.org/TGRU/articles/Mould-accellight.pdf
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-force-to-reckon-with
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20....html?full=true
http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812704030/9789812704030_0294.html
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:M6-tx1Ww6cYJ:www.journaloftheoretics.com/articles/6-1/pope.pdf+%22dimensions+of+light%22+time+space&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
http://www.geocities.com/maatsociety/5Light.html
please let me know what you think,

What's been worked on doesn't qaulify for a Theory of Everything. (More along the lines of Quantum Gravity) Some of what is illustrated is speculation since it hasn't been tested mathmaticly with known data yet. The grid represents four dimensional vectors primarily due to the fact that a quantity of time-space is four dimensional. A careful study reveals that there are a total of four forms of space and four forms of time. (eight total) Using this grid permits one to convert any known force to any other. Expect to find errors in the work, simple and complex. I've been recovering most of this stuff insperationaly. The original goal was to explain problems with distant starlight. The trail has expanded far past that.

I should really start from the beginning to better explain this difficult subject. Raised Adventist, I became clearly aware of an apparent conflict with measurable data and a Genesis aged universe. Being deeply interested in advanced topics, like General Relativity, I became aware that absolutely nothing exists as it appears to be giving me the courage to believe that perhaps the conflict is purely an illusion. (I'm referring to the distant starlight problem) While speculating on the subject with my older brother an idea came to me. If the rate of time for observed object (at an infinite distance) is nearly zero and objects at the subatomic level are in constant motion, perhaps the values of space and time are geared like comparative values on a slide ruler.
I immediately started searching and found "Simply Relativity" by Max Morris with a treaty on the concept. The idea works perfectly but lacked the relative ratio formula describing the proportion of space and time. I then considered that if the idea is true, universe was created by the Word, and that all scripture is the inspired Word then this ratio exists within the Bible. If this is true, the information would most definitely be symbolically encrypted due to its importance. I mentioned my idea to my mother-in-law and she immediately blurted out "what about that verse a thousand years as a day?"
She was referring to 2 Peter 3:8. I could easily write a large set of books on that subject. The entire chapter referred to a seemingly simple ratio that actually contains an infinite degree of expanding complexity equal to Chaos Theory. I could see a strange symmetry between the energy equation and the 2 Peter ratio. The thought crossed my mind, what if this ratio is found elsewhere in scripture in different forms? The number 144,000 and the measured dimensions of the New Jerusalem both contain the ratio. I then considered the writings of Ellen White. If this subject was of any importance to the last day remnant, a relevant message should exist within Ellen's first vision. I found this; "The 144,000 were all sealed and perfectly united. On their foreheads was written, God, New Jerusalem, and a glorious star containing Jesus' new name." I've successfully found all but one, the glorious star.
I considered that this star "within physics symbolism" was a deeply hidden gem of fiery truth deeply buried within the 2 Peter ratio. I surveyed scripture and EGW "Early Writings" and came across Ezekiel, Isaiah, Revelation, and White referring to dimensions of the new temple. Ellen takes the topic further describing a "firm platform" built upon a foundation. All of this is associated with light from Heaven. When I decrypted 2 Peter 3:8 the quote "with the Lord" associated with God's location in Heaven. In the physics realm, the most extreme heaven is the Light Horizon. The equation deals with time-spacial properties of electromagnetic radiation traveling from the Light Horizon to Earth. (light from Heaven) Further information is gleaned about this "light from Heaven" in Early Writings "The Loud Cry" as follows; "The light which attend this angel penetrated everywhere." I decided it was time to stop messing around and convert the equation into values used in the energy equation. I started with: (2,238,910 days^2/365)/(365 light days/365)^2 times (365 light days/365)^2 = 13,733,473,940 light years per 6134 years. I then converted the measurements of light into meters per second, all of my measurements of time into seconds and simplified. Looking at the definition for joules, I discovered a way to convert bare measurements of distance and time into measurements of mass. example: (299,792,000 meters * 193,441,824,000 seconds)^2/193,441,824,000 seconds = 17314.50259 meters * 439820.2178 kilograms/2684.417901 seconds^3
From this I equated the energy to equal 21,559.07249 Joules. I then went back into the equation to determine mass. (6.410460622X10 ^-36 Kilograms. The scale sounded like something subatomic so I converted the mass into electron volts = 3.596005015ev. Last year the value 3.6ev has been associated by several physicists to be the average measurement for neutrinos. It is also claimed that a neutrino could penetrate a cube of lead with the dimensions of 100 light years.
After converting the equation into pure time-spacial components and studying these values carefully I coined the term Weak Gravitational Energy. Considering this, I determined that WGE describes a united effect from all forces of nature into one. This necessitated some form of foundational footers on which a theory of quantum gravitation could be supported. Looking through all of my books and materials feverishly, I discovered the relationship between Gravity, time-space, and inertia. After that, all of the other pieces quickly fell into place. The foundational footers define the structure for the "glorious star" in the physics sense.
I have a very small network of people looking at what I'm working on. Some of them have been very insightful, others not. According to Ellen White, the penetrating message of the Loud Cry will mark the end of probation on Earth and the beginning of the plagues.
I'm going to try to explain the the information on WGE I've sent you and explain what my goal is, as well as what areas I need help with to achieve that goal. First, look at the star pattern. This thing represents a form of math that presently does not exist. Its a combination of geometry, the use of conjugate complex numbers, vector summation, and trigonometric relativity. Oversimplifying, take any two vectors that are 45 degrees apart and they will represent an imaginary vector with its complex conjugate vector with a "real" axis vector between them.
Next, look at the column of values to the left. These are resultant vectors in respect to the combined vectors. Below that is a series of equations including E=MC^2. I've explained all the value except for J-R and f-v. (This is something needed and explained) At the bottom corner is the actual WGE fully explained. To the upper left I've generated some of the precursor proofs. Below that I've explained what physics areas are covered by which time/space dimension. In the center and right relates to dimensional folding. If you took the star and folded it along the CY line you would have mathematically defined the effect of C^2.
My goal is to create a falsifiable theory possibly proving that the light observed from the Light Horizon has traveled approximately 13.73 billion light years within a time period of approximately 6134 years. With this Amazing Facts will be willing to publish this scientific fact as a front against Evolution and false cosmology. I need to complete this foundation structure first. It requires the use of values comparable with those in Einstein's equation as it serves as the heart to the entire structure. All relative values must be tested, proven, and explained. The new areas of math need to be ironed out and explained. After all of this, the WGE needs further expansion and explanation. When that's completed, a barrage of methods for testing needs to be devised. Some of that work has already been accomplished due to the Voyager and Pioneer anomalies. On the outside looking in, WGE seems to predict that the universe exists within inverted dimensions described within extreme Kerr Newman geometry. If I look like a brilliant physics expert, I'm NOT. 98% of this "stuff" my mind recovered through some form of inspiration or other. (This is why I've been observed to be literally begging for help. (It feels like too much for me, and yet I will always feel a hunger for more miraculus insight.) After this, there is of course the spiritual and prophetic components to be considered. Are you up to a last day challange? Please, by all means jump right in. Perhaps I could even hand the peton over to some one else.

90 degree vectors are compared on the "star" not 45. Since I'm sending an email anyway I may as well add some additional info.
I've already reviewed over the relationship between gravity, time-space, and inertia so I thought it would be good to continue on by explaining strong nuclear force's placement. When quarks, bound together by gluons, are pulled apart the binding force of SNF increases with distance. This is in perfect opposition to gravity of which lessens its intensity with distance. When reviewing the particle/ wave duality of light, the placement for the photon becomes clear. (A solid understanding of the photoelectric effect will also rightfully place strong nuclear force between energy and the photon particle. In consideration for a model containing eight vectors, only two remain. After studying the dynamics of electroweak interactions the answer unveils its self with a deafening Duh! Electroweak serves as a real axis vector, relative to weak and electromagnetic. The final seal is presented by Stephen Hawking in his ideas relating to gravity, time-space, and radiation emitted from black holes. (TS, G, WNF, & G, WNF, EW) Hawking's ideas also delve into some of the star's "folding aspects" such as the extreme time-spacial curvature of a black hole creating particles.
The sub-vectors in red resulted from an expanded after thought. (later found to be fully supported by trigonometric relativity) Looking carefully, you will note that three dimensions of space, with one dimension of time generate a resultant vector for time-space. (this area exists on the General Relativity side of the fence) Letters B-E I refer to as wave force vectors. The other side of the fence has three dimensions of time and only one of space. (the weird realm of quantum physics) Letters W-Z are particle force vectors. Terms in "quanta" have a direct relevance to a singular spacial dimension.
Now an update; due to a query from a friend, I've found an easier method for force vector conversion. The idea may, or may not be sound. It can also be extended to encompass any value to any other. I just got lazy and stopped at 90 degrees. I haven't tried crossing dimensional vectors with force vectors yet. (I'm sure there is a simpler method than trig.)
B=E^2, sq rt C, X^4, ^4rt D C=B^2, sq rt D, E^4, ^4rt W D=C^2, sq rt W, B^4, ^4rt Z
E=X^2, sq rt B, Y^4, ^4rt C F=S^2, sq rt G, T^4, ^4rt H G=F^2, sq rt H, S^4, ^4rt I
H=G^2, sq rt I, F^4, ^4rt V I=H^2, sq rt V, G^4, ^4rt U S=T^2, sq rt F, U^4, ^4rt G
T=U^2, sq rt S, V^4, ^4rt F U=V^2, sq rt T, I^4, ^4rt S V=I^2, sq rt U, H^4, ^4rt T
W=D^2, sq rt Z, C^4, ^4rt Y X=Y^2, sq rt E, Z^4, ^4rt B Y=Z^2, sq rt X, X^W, ^4rt E
Z=W^2, sq rt Y, D^4, ^4rt X

After battling with symmetry groups, Minkowskian geometry, Clifford algebra, and trying to untangle the Kerr-Newman metric I've worn myself out. I have temporally retreated to my original work (WGE) without trying to package every little force in the universe into a single pretty box with a bow on top. I haven't been sending any new information due to the fact that I've also been quite occupied revising my original WGE equation. First, the equation didn't reveal a key point relating to inertial mass generated from Earth's daily rotation. Second, I've found parallel structure between the "mass" component of WGE and "energy in joules divided by C^2" in Einstein's equation except that I didn't square the distance at the top, and overlooked the necessity to square time in the center table. I'll try to illustrate:
Energy is commonly measured in joules. (Basically mass * distance^2 divided by time^2) Studying the guts of WGE I found that inertial mass is accounted for by the number of rotations Earth turns per the measured unit of time (preferably a year). The measure of distance was sly-fully hidden (Time^2, in years, times a square light year). A light year is equal to 365 light days. 365^2 light days (133225 square light days) equals 1^2 light year. 133225 square light days = 365 square light years. I was using the number of Earth's rotations for the sentence: 365 * 6133.22414 = 13,730,000,000 (the distance from Earth to the Light Horizon). Apparently, C^2 and inertial frame dragging work side by side like gravity and inertia do.
Anyway, here is a revised WGE though I still haven't ironed out the math for converting centripetal force into inertial mass:
Mass * C^2 = E, C= time-space E= energy in joules, oversimplified: (mass * distance^2) divided by time^2, Mass = E/C^2 thus:
(((M * D^2) / T^2) / (ts)^2 ) = (M * D^2) / T^2
If you now replace M for the number of rotations Earth turns per year(365), D for T^2 times C^2, T for the age of the universe (6133.22414 years), and C^2 for 365 square light years you will have the revised WGE.
A final note,
On the gridded pic I sent you I discovered another flaw. The foundational footers (containing all the forces of nature) "rotates" counterclockwise. This fact is revealed in the study of "i" multiplication in a complex plane. I am basically referring to a graphical representation of the mysterious i^2 = -1 equation. As a result, my equations for letters K,L,P,Q,h,i,s, and t are wrong. To my benefit, I'm guessing no one else has caught this error yet.

Hey Chris, how are things going? I have completed the WGE revision (sorry, I haven't fully translated my notes to comprehensive text yet). The foundation for the entire equation is rooted from the famous en

Apparently it didn't all fit. Here's part two.


Hey Chris, how are things going? I have completed the WGE revision (sorry, I haven't fully translated my notes to comprehensive text yet). The foundation for the entire equation is rooted from the famous energy equation. I've ironed out its simplest components and left them fully exposed for all to see. If you felt my prior work impressive then this one will really shock you. The only actual "new" component to Einstein's equation was providing the physical "root" that generates the radial distance from Earth to the light horizon. There are a multitude of "scary implications" hidden with in this thing. The new revision actually defines how much power the light horizon projects over the Earth! The inertial energy is so strong it actually counter balances the gravitational pull of Sol on the planet (from 13.73 billion ly away)! [The great secret behind planet rotation] If anyone attempted to utilize this universal power the results would probably be down right frightening.
On a softer note, I'm finding large masses of spiritual knowledge assisting my endeavor in understanding what this physics stuff has to do with end times. Here's some of what I found relating to "power".
Ex 9:16, Ecc 8:4, Ro 1:16-20, EGW Fundamentals of Christian Education p. 184-186, 375 EGW Early Writings p.258-261
In "Fundamentals" Ellen says directly that the knowledge of all sciences will serve a critical role in witnessing to the entire world just prior to Christ's return. I desperately need to finish this so others more educated than I can successfully build a lasting platform of the three angels messages on the firm foundation of God's invisible power evidenced within the very physics of nature.

liked the web page, allot of useful equations there. To answer your question, the cosmic light horizon marks the edge of the visible universe at a radial distance of 13.73 billion light years away from Earth. I've attached another pic better illustrating my newly revised WGE equation. (this time using paintbrush) I've found an excellent physics book covering nearly every area of physics I am presently working with plus allot more stuff I've never even heard of. It's called "The Road to Reality" + A complete guide to the laws of the universe + by Roger Penrose. This isn't one of those wimpy physics intro books for the masses, Penrose gets down to business and isn't afraid of explaining anything no matter how complex, and he doesn't water down complex topics either. Unlike most books, that take less than two weeks to read, I'll probably still be reading TRTR five years from now. I've decided to delay on sending my revision to Ken Caviness (at Southern) until we have worked out all the remaining errors. When this is done it will be critical that the material be illustrated in a sufficiently convincing manner that Ken will study the article carefully. (hopefully he will support it.) With Ken's support, we will have cleared a key hurtle, putting us a step closer to providing advanced scientific material to our schools that will prepare our youth for the work that directly precedes the closing scenes of Earth's history.

I've created a new visual form of algebra coined "the tile method" in an effort to better visualize the structure deeply hidden within Cosmic Torque. This new system beautifully illustrates Cosmic Torque's symmetry. I feel that this would be an excellent moment to expand on how I tested and compared WGE with the Big Bang using an expanded form of the energy equation. Cosmic Torque, as illustrated by the Tile Method, is simply (MASS * C^2) only expanded in an effort to discover its hidden physical secrets. When I imputed WGEs calculated age of the universe for time, the Photogravitics variation for C^2, and Earth's mass for M, the equation easily reduced to (M * C^2). When I tested the Big Bang model (in which measured space doesn't exist in units of squared dimension, C^2 doesn't accelerate, and T^2 has the same value of R^2) the equation bluntly fails to reduce and also states that the age of the universe to be nearly 200 quintillion years. (Uhh, like yeah right)
Beyond all of that, I searched for "cosmic torque" yesterday on the Internet and found Nassim Haramein's work on the "Resonance Project" web site. He is a self taught physicist and has a better handle on things like Kerr Newman Geometry, Dirac formalism, Minkowski space, twistor algebra, spinor calculus, and the SUn groups of the quaternionic formalism. Studying his work closely, I've discovered that his model contains the predicted "effects" resulting in my "Cosmic Torque's" cause, minus the hidden properties of measuring squared light (revealed in Photogravitics). If you want a deeper model of the universe, resultant of Cosmic Torque, Haramein is the man. Beware though, his work is tainted with false physical equalities like that C = 1 thus C^2 isn't acceleration. A couple of other things, Richard Mould on aapt-doorway.org explains the acceleration of light and John Deutsch's "Golden Ratio in the Hierarchy of Time" on bottomlayer.com are highly recommended review material. Please feel free to ask questions.

For the past two years I've been working on a physics equation containing properties that lead me to naming it as cosmic torque. Out of curiosity, I searched the web on the subject and discovered this site. It would seem as if Haramein has hammered out the physical effects resulting from the same cause I've been researching. Because of the similarities I've decided to send some information on my work relating to areas that he may not yet have examined in greater detail.

Just a quick message, I've finally went back and corrected the equations on my TOE footers illustration and simply attached it. I did discover something slightly strange though. I was fitting the comment that mass increases with acceleration into my tile method values when the thought came to my mind to study the opposite (M/C^2). The result is startling. Another quick note, I found a typo on the Tile Method illustration. E #2 is (M * T^2 * C^2)/ T^2, not C^2.
P.S. I've noted that Nassim's work is heavily slanted to new age thinking, be alert if you do chose to probe his physics models.

I am need of contacting Dr. Jason Lisle in regard to research evidencing a Genesis aged universe utilizing Einstein's General theory of Relativity while maintaining lights velocity. The evidence has the potential of becoming a falsifiable proof verses the Big Bang's unverifiable theory. The consequences for such physical proof would be world wide and would forever shake the physical foundations of mankind's universe. Einstein's energy equation evidences that we (consisting of matter or M= E/C^2) incorrectly perceive light due to matter's dimensional consistency of light squared. Without delving into greater detail, my work with "Cosmic Torque" reveals a seemingly simple equation formed from physical values that both increase and decrease without limit. (The radial distance of the visible universe = est 13.73 bill LY = age of the universe squared * 365 square light years) The resulting age of the universe is less than 6134 years. (The 365 square light years relates to the frame dragging effects of the Earth's rotation within a light horizon spinning at a relativistic speed.)
The "key ratio" found in 2 Peter 3, in tandem with the time space slide ruler effect evidenced in "Simply Relativity" lead me to this never ending journey in finding God's deeply hidden secrets in physics.
If you have his e-mail address please permit me to contact him in regard to my physical research, I am in need of professional assistance in verifying and establishing my work.

Velocity of Light: Science or Fiction?
It's commonly quoted that light travels 186,282 miles per second. When it comes down to calculating the age of the universe however, the value for C is commonly reduced to 1. Quote from Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" p. 405: "It is a common practice in relativity theory work, to use units for which C=1." p. 434 "With more natural units with C=1, energy and mass are simply equal. However, I have explicitly exhibited the speed of light C (i.e. by not choosing space/time units so that C=1) to facilitate the translation to non-relativistic descriptions." again on p. 435, & 463.
When the value of C is reduced to 1 any multiplication or division by the same value is lost, thus C^2 =1. In doing so E=MC^2 becomes E=M * 1 * 1 or E=M. Avoiding alterations, mass actually = E/C^2 meaning we, as beings composed of matter, consist of energy existing within a framework of squared light. As a consequence of this, everything we perceive exists within the context of this squared framework including all observations of light itself. (Light is squared)
For an alternative perspective on light, suppose the entire universe is spinning at such a velocity. What effect would Earth's daily rotation have over a period of a year? (1 year * C * 365 rotations = 365 light years distance per year) [Actually 365 square LY] Using this model, how long would it take for light to travel from the Light Horizon (approximately 13,730,000,000 light years away) to Earth?
Square root (13,730,000,000 sq LY/365 sq LY) = 6133.22414 years
This time scale raises some very serious theological questions. But is this equation even sound? Basically it's stating S^2=T^2 *C^2 thus C^2=S^2/T^2. Can this be verified? Well, E=MC^2 = (M * T^2 *C^2)/ T^2 and energy is measured in joules = (Kg * Meters^2)/ Sec^2. Here is the same only simplified: (M * S^2)/ T^2. So (M *T^2 *C^2)/T^2 = (M *S^2)/T^2. Thus T^2 * C^2= S^2 meaning C^2 does in fact = S^2/T^2.
[quick key: C= velocity of light, E= energy, S= space, T= time]
This "First Flash" model proposes that (T^2 *C^2)/ T^2= S^2/ T^2 or (6133.22414y^2 * 365 sq LY)/ 6133.22414 y^2 = 13,730,000,000 sq LY/ 6133.22414 y^2
[The age of the universe is over 6000 years]
The Big Bang "Theory" proposes that (C^2= 1) thus (T^2 * C^2)/ T^2= (T^2 *1 *1)/T^2= T^2/T^2= S^2/T^2 meaning (13,730,000,000 sq LY *1^2)/ 13,730,000,000 y^2
[The age of the universe is nearly 14 billion years]
From this the question is raised, is the velocity of light a product of science or is it fiction?


I've considered some additional points in fortifying my stance. You might consider studying Richard Mould's "Acceleration of Light at Earth's Surface", Max Morriss's "Simply Relativity v2" on the topic of time space ratios as a possible unification between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, Hawking's comments on extreme time-space curvature creating prarticles, and Nassim Haramein's works on "Cosmic Torque" found on theresonanceproject.org. I've already found the peices to the puzzle, it's explaining the "why" part that I routinely misrepresent. In honesty, what I've done is worked to compile many relevent physical "models" together with an extremely complex time-space ratio discovered in 2 Peter 3:8. This ratio (when fully decyphered) reveals aspects to physics impossible to see or contemplate without first knowing of its existence. The ratio also revealed that the visible universe is not billions of years old. It's taken me three years to discern the "why" aspect to its numeric values.

Heres some accessable websites containing relavent science journals.
Richard Mould's "Acceleration of Light at Earth's Surface" http://www.aapt.org/doorway/TGRU/articles/Mould-accellight.pdf
Max Morriss Simply Reativity v3: http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=813081&da=y
John Deutsch Relationship among Phenomena at a Unitary Level http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/deutsch/golden.html
The verse 2 Peter 3:8 states "But beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."
I believe this verse contains symbolism relating to physics. The Lord is the source of light as is stated in Genesis 1:3 and the Lord resides in his throne in Heaven. The oldest observable source of light in the universe is the Light Horizon. The period of a day is directly linked to Earth's rotation. Following along with this line of thought, this verse reveals a differance in the rate of time between Earth and the Light Horizon by a ratio of 1 to 365,250 over the currently measured distance of 13,730,000,000 light years. With out getting into lengthy details, this is the origin to my current equations.


I appreciate your constructive criticism, it is in fact very helpful. I am admittedly having difficulty portraying my point. I'll try to clarify and correct the erronious points you've touched on.
(1) If all em waves were observed from a dimensional perspective as straight beams, it becomes eliquently clear that the fabric of time-space consists of a squared matrix of light. All forms of radiation consist of waves.
(2) The effect on light isn't from Earth's rotation, but the relative frame dragging effects on Earth from the spinning mass of the cosmos. Qoute from Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" p. 417: "for a shell that contains enough mass, an amount on par with that contained in the entire universe, the calculations show that it doesn't matter one bit whether you think the hollow sphere is spinning around the bucket, or the bucket is spinning within the hollow sphere. Just as Mach advocated, the only thing that matters is the relative spinning motion between the two." Touching on the frequency of rotation, I actually was refering to the effective acceleration of light. A squared light year equals 133,407.5625 square light days. Divide this by 365.25 and you have 365.25 square light day "years", the distance light travels in one year.
(3) No, space squared doesn't equal time squared. (I didn't realize I made such a remark.) What I was stating was that if time "T" squared times the speed of light "C" squared equals a distance "D" squared, then the speed of light "C" squared equals the distance "D" squared divided by time "T" squared. (you can't argue with that) Yes, I am in fact refering to acceleration, i.e. the expansion rate of the cosmos.
This model is in fact geared from Kerr-Newman geometry where the visible universe consists of inverse time-space centered within the open space of a spinning singularity ring. Using this model, the light horizon is actually a Cauchy horizon.


When descerning God's word, we need to remember that it's messages are inspired by God, not men. On that note, God is all knowing and infinite. No man knows all things, especially about the creator of all. Quite honestly I find your comment about 2 Peter to be very foolish. It is well known that God's word commonly has more than one meaning. Does Genesis chapter 1 only contain spirital content? Absolutely NOT! Study the content within the entire chapter of 2 Peter 3. The chapters focus is on the connection between the creation of the universe and day of judgement. My further studies in this area tie in with Godel's spinning universe model. By combining the "First Flash" model with Godel, an effect is revealed that after a period of complete rotation of the universe (in a time span of 7000 years using the 2 Peter ratio) the universe transisions back to the begining of creation. In Mach's arguement against Godel, that our universe has rotation, light would be observed to travel in a spiral path, not a straight line. The flaw in Mach's counter claim is that all forms of radiation moves in an helicial pattern ( an electromagnetic wave). My claim is that the origin of electromagnetic force, as we observe it, originates from cosmic rotation.


My ability to discern scripture is unimpaired. I fully agree with the many points you've made about scriptural content. I do not divide scripture. Your explaination for 2 Peter 3: 8-9 is accurate. The ratio for God's patience has been stated in such a complex fashion that it begs further investigation. It isn't simply a common saying. My proposal is that this ratio of time is evidenced within the nature of God's creation. The fact that my study on the possible sources for this ratio has lead me to consider the possiblity of a spinning universe like the one proposed by Einstein's good freind Kurt Godel and that by using his model an explanation is further revealed for the recreation of the entire universe like what's described in Revelation is beyond profound! My belief in meaning for this verse will depend on physical evidence to be proven. If I succeed in that venture the outcome would be quite glorious in evidencing the creator to mankind.

I recently came across a new article by Max Morriss and thought I'd run it by you to see what you thought of it.
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?&id=1021409&dn=y
J.C.S.

I realize your core interest is molecular biology, which has very little to do with cosmology. My local conference has advised me to contact GRI in regard to my present research considering its possible support for creationism. Since we've met before I thought I'd run this topic by you. Perhaps you could steer me in the right direction for such a project. The basic concept behind "First Flash" is that time's rate varies with distance. An end result from this line of thought is that reality consists of four forms of dimension: cosmic rotation measured in cycles per year, the speed of light measured in light years per year, time measured in years per cycle, and curvature measured in years per light year. "First Flash" cosmology utilizes a rotating universe spinning at a relativistic speed. The combination of the four dimensional forms results in a formula of which resolves the "distant starlight problem" as exampled below:
[(365.25 cycles times 1 light year) times 6131.1248 years] times 6131.1248 years = 13,730,000,000 light years per 6131.1248 years time
13.73 billion ly is the presently measured distance from Earth to the Light Horizon.
This system also indicates that time's rate increases with the decrease of space, explaining the strange properties of QM. The spinning universe concept was debated before by Einstein's best freind Kurt Godel but was seemingly debunked with the problem that light would be observed to twist. I'm proposing that the very phenomina of light consisting as electromagnetic waves is a product of cosmic torque.
I am sorry to bore you with this stuff as I've probbably tried to explain too much.
thank you for your patience,

Here's a bit of a summary,
First Flash cosmological Model
It's premise: To successfully explain measured distances of distant starlight in harmony with the historical biblical account of creation.
(an attempt to scientifically solve the distant starlight problem)
The basic equation, being left somewhat unexplained, is as follows:
Speed of light (S) Rate of Time (T) Angular Frequency (A) Curvature (C)
light years per year years per 365.25 cycles 365.25 cycles per year years per light year
S= LYs per T T= years per A A= cycles per C C= years per S
S times T= distance light travels in 4D time-space
A times C= 4D multiplier within curved angular geometry
(S * T) * (A * C) = accelerated distance light travels within angular time-space curvature
thus:
(1LY * 6131.1248y) * (365.25 cycles * 6131.1248y) = 6131.1248LY * 2,239,393.333 cycles
= 13,730,000,000 light years (This is the currently measured distance to the light horizon.)
This model only works under the conditions of a universe rotating at a relativistic rate, akin to Godel's universe or the dimensionality found within the Kerr-Newman metric. The problem, as was pointed out to Kurt, was that light should be observed to twist if we existed in such a universe. It's my proposal that the effect of electromagnetic radiation's helical wave like nature is in it's self caused by the angular motion of the cosmos. Due to the fact that my studies on this particular point are ongoing, I'd like to move on toward clarifying "First Flash's" four distinct dimensionally supportive pillars.
Time is typical observed to be 1 dimensional. We observe space to exist as 3 dimensions. Time and space are considered to exist in combination as time-space. When curvature is added into the mix, a 5D geometry is created. Braking down time-space curvature into its respective dimensions we have 3D for space, 1D for time, and an unknown 5th form of dimension seemingly remaining for curvature. This is an excellent moment to focus on what gravitational acceleration really is. According to the book "Physics Demystified" Earth's acceleration is 9.8067 m/s^2 which at first glance (at least for me) appears algebraically incomplete compared to the explanation of an object falling a said distance per second then multiplying said distance by the number of seconds past after each second. This really irritated me. Driving me to algebraically present gravitational acceleration in a different manner:
((d/t) * T) * T = D
plug in the dimensions for time-space curvature into this equation you get:
((3 dimensional space/unit of time) * 1 dimension of time) * 1 temporal dimension for curvature = gravitational acceleration
The value of time for curvature results from a different ratio than that for time. We measure time in cycles. The equation for curvature relates a rate of time per distance, not cycle. From this perspective, the object's motion (independent of time's rate acceleration) isn't accelerating at all. The "First Flash" equation exposes light to time-space curvature and the effects of cosmic rotation, measured in angular frequency. Because of the universe's net frame dragging effects (relative to Earth's rotation) we are unable to differentiate time's change of rate relative to the distance traveled unless the traveling object (originating from Earth) is constantly observed as it travels a sufficient distance away to permit the light emitted from said object to blue shift due to time rate acceleration (free of the Earth's motion, compounding frame dragging effects). This effect HAS BEEN OBSERVED and is presently referred to by NASA as the Pioneer anomaly.
I'm not proposing that what's been stated is absolute proof as I am quite certain my concept still contains flaws and isn't yet complete. This, and the fact that I still lack a desperately needed degree in theoretical physics, is why I've elected to contact you with the hope you may be interested in helping me out. What's been said is in no way the entirety of my work, just a bit of sample. It's my hope that this letter presents it's message in a good light.

Here's an updated summary on the First Flash cosmological Model
It's premise: To successfully explain measured distances of distant starlight in harmony with the historical biblical account of creation.
(an attempt to scientifically solve the distant starlight problem)
The basic equation, being left somewhat unexplained, is as follows:
Speed of light (S) Rate of Time (T) Angular Frequency (A) Curvature (C)
light years per year years per 365.25 cycles 365.25 cycles per year years per light year
S= LYs per T T= years per A A= cycles per C C= years per S
S times T= distance light travels in 4D time-space
A times C= 4D multiplier within curved angular geometry
(S * T) * (A * C) = accelerated distance light travels within angular time-space curvature
thus:
(1LY * 6131.1248y) * (365.25 cycles * 6131.1248y) = 6131.1248LY * 2,239,393.333 cycles
= 13,730,000,000 light years (This is the currently measured distance to the light horizon.)
(note: reverting the Light Horizon's known distance into the First Flash equation is how the estimated cosmic age of 6131.1248 years is extrapolated)
This model only works under the conditions of a universe rotating at a relativistic rate, akin to Godel's universe or the geometry found within the Kerr-Newman metric. The problem, as was pointed out to Kurt, was that light should be observed to twist if we existed in such a universe. It's my proposal that the effect of electromagnetic radiation's helical wave like nature is in it's self caused by the angular motion of the cosmos. Due to the fact that my studies on this particular point are ongoing, I'd like to move on toward clarifying "First Flash's" four distinct dimensionally supportive pillars.
Time is typically observed to be 1 dimensional. We observe space to exist as 3 dimensions. Time and space are considered to exist in combination as time-space. When curvature is added into the mix, a 5D geometry is created. Braking down time-space curvature into its respective dimensions we have 3D for space, 1D for time, and an unknown 5th form of dimension seemingly remaining for curvature. This is an excellent moment to focus on what gravitational acceleration really is. According to the book "Physics Demystified" Earth's acceleration is 9.8067 m/s^2 which at first glance (at least for me) appears algebraically incomplete compared to the explanation of an object falling a said distance per second then multiplying said distance by the number of seconds past after each second. This really irritated me. Driving me to algebraically present gravitational acceleration in a different manner:
((d/t) * T) * T = D
plug in the dimensions for time-space curvature into this equation you get:
((3 dimensional space/unit of time) * 1 dimension of time) * 1 temporal dimension for curvature = gravitational acceleration
The value of time for curvature results from a different ratio than that for time. We measure time in cycles. The equation for curvature relates a rate of time per distance, not cycle. From this perspective, the object's motion (independent of time's rate acceleration) isn't accelerating at all. The "First Flash" equation exposes light to time-space curvature and the effects of cosmic rotation, measured in angular frequency. Because of the universe's net frame dragging effects (relative to Earth's rotation) we are unable to differentiate time's change of rate relative to the distance traveled unless the traveling object (originating from Earth) is constantly observed as it travels a sufficient distance away to permit the light emitted from said object to blue shift due to time rate acceleration (free of the Earth's motion, compounding frame dragging effects). This effect has been observed and is presently referred to by NASA as the Pioneer anomaly.

It would seem our areas of study has crossed paths. As a result, I'm finding your website incredibly useful. Here's a taste of my own personal research on the First Flash cosmological Model
It's premise: To successfully explain measured distances of distant starlight in harmony with the historical biblical account of creation.
(an attempt to scientifically solve the distant starlight problem)
The basic equation, being left somewhat unexplained, is as follows:
Speed of light (S) Rate of Time (T) Angular Frequency (A) Curvature (C)
light years per year years per 365.25 cycles 365.25 cycles per year years per light year
S= LYs per T T= years per A A= cycles per C C= years per S
S times T= distance light travels in 4D time-space
A times C= 4D multiplier within curved angular geometry
(S * T) * (A * C) = accelerated distance light travels within angular time-space curvature
thus:
(1LY * 6131.1248y) * (365.25 cycles * 6131.1248y) = 6131.1248LY * 2,239,393.333 cycles
= 13,730,000,000 light years (This is the currently measured distance to the light horizon.)
(note: reverting the Light Horizon's known distance into the First Flash equation is how the estimated cosmic age of 6131.1248 years is extrapolated)
This model only works under the conditions of a universe rotating at a relativistic rate, akin to Godel's universe or the geometry found within the Kerr-Newman metric. The problem, as was pointed out to Kurt, was that light should be observed to twist if we existed in such a universe. It's my proposal that the effect of electromagnetic radiation's helical wave like nature is in it's self caused by the angular motion of the cosmos. Due to the fact that my studies on this particular point are ongoing, I'd like to move on toward clarifying "First Flash's" four distinct dimensionally supportive pillars.
Time is typically observed to be 1 dimensional. We observe space to exist as 3 dimensions. Time and space are considered to exist in combination as time-space. When curvature is added into the mix, a 5D geometry is created. Braking down time-space curvature into its respective dimensions we have 3D for space, 1D for time, and an unknown 5th form of dimension seemingly remaining for curvature. This is an excellent moment to focus on what gravitational acceleration really is. According to the book "Physics Demystified" Earth's acceleration is 9.8067 m/s^2 which at first glance (at least for me) appears algebraically incomplete compared to the explanation of an object falling a said distance per second then multiplying said distance by the number of seconds past after each second. This really irritated me. Driving me to algebraically present gravitational acceleration in a different manner:
((d/t) * T) * T = D
plug in the dimensions for time-space curvature into this equation you get:
((3 dimensional space/unit of time) * 1 dimension of time) * 1 temporal dimension for curvature = gravitational acceleration
The value of time for curvature results from a different ratio than that for time. We measure time in cycles. The equation for curvature relates a rate of time per distance, not cycle. From this perspective, the object's motion (independent of time's rate acceleration) isn't accelerating at all. The "First Flash" equation exposes light to time-space curvature and the effects of cosmic rotation, measured in angular frequency. Because of the universe's net frame dragging effects (relative to Earth's rotation) we are unable to differentiate time's change of rate relative to the distance traveled unless the traveling object (originating from Earth) is constantly observed as it travels a sufficient distance away to permit the light emitted from said object to blue shift due to time rate acceleration (free of the Earth's motion, compounding frame dragging effects). This effect has been observed and is presently referred to by NASA as the Pioneer anomaly.

Here's some interesting points of similarity I discovered in my work and yours.
I deduced that the C^2 component of the energy equation equals time-space curvature times angular frequency squared. In your work E = MC^2 equals E = M (A * Z)^2.
A= Expansion Acceleration (same as time-space curvature/ gravitational acceleration)
Z= Orbit time (same as angular frequency)
What led me to your site was my search for any works that would aid my research on the predicted helical motion of EMR resulting from universal rotation.
Moving on to your questions,
1. The First Flash model is of my own creation. It stands for the first visible flash of light at the beginning of creation.
2. Weirdly enough, I considered comparing notes with you about orbit time and angular frequency but I instead sent the previous email describing the First Flash.
3. The Light Horizon is the earliest source of light within the visible universe. If the speed or acceleration rate can be determined, in combination with the measured distance, the age of the universe can be deduced if that light corresponds with cosmic origin. Unlike Big Bang cosmology, First Flash cosmology includes the relative effects of time-space curvature and universal rotation on observed light to accurately calculate cosmic age.

This particular study seems to reach into every foundational property of physics presently known, making things altogether even more difficult. I recently discerned the need to reduce my four ratios into unit rates in order to simplify. Here was the result:
Speed (speed of light) 1 light day per cyclic day
Time (cyclic time) 1 cyclic day per Earth rotation
Acceleration (angular frequency) 1 Earth rotation per curved day
Curvature (curved time) 1 curved day per light day
All four unit rates have a one to one ratio. When speed and time are combined the value for the time-space constant reveals itself. When acceleration and curvature and combined we have an equal result. The first two ratios represent constant rates but the second set of ratios relate to two forms of acceleration. The four ratios in combination are in fact:
C times C = C^2
This is the same C^2 value found within the popular energy equation. Those who are unwilling to look beyond the box constructed by the scientific community of the present day will never view the endless horizons outside it.
Beyond this conclusion, I started comparing FF values with SR in Minkowski geometry and discovered that the Minkowskian metric was insufficient in representing curvature (thus the need for GR). I attempted to graphically represent time-space curvature within a two dimensional projection of a three dimensional graph. After studying it closely I determined the representation was ill equipped for FF and created a four dimensional graph that in fact represents eight dimensions:
3D cyclic space (speed)
1D cyclic time (time)
3D curved space (acceleration)
1D curved time (curvature)
The First Flash model predicts a relative graphical bell curve to exist when comparing any of the four ratios. So I compared this with GR and found the following proofs:
1. Time is a ratio of changes in energy density. Time on an atom passes much faster than time at the Earth scale.
2. Distance decreases with an increase of gravitational acceleration.
3. Rate of time slows with acceleration.
4. Length decreases with acceleration.
5. Gravitational attraction (caused by mass) opposes centrifugal force (caused by angular momentum).
6. Time dilation is caused by Gravitation.
Compiling this data together reveals an eight dimensional "pit" ascribing an apparent surface to an ever expanding eight dimensional sphere. When symmetry and negative axis are deduced, a complex "flower" emerges containing a total of six individual pits each ascribing a separate sphere. I would suspect that each pit and sphere represents a separate and distinct universe and that there is an ongoing infinite pattern of cosmic creation. God is truly marvelous!

I found three errors in my last message and thought it best to point them out. The geometric shape evidenced by FF is a concave rhombic decahedron, as opposed to the octahedral form I described. On the 4D graph, "cycular" should be "cyclic". Finally, on the curved time-space pic, the green time-space bell curve is oriented incorrectly. The curved time-space coordinate should be located above the Planck zero coordinate.

I'm sending you this email to reveal a cosmological model I've created called the "First Flash". This model has the scientific potential of being tested and even proven to be true. Using laws observed in nature in tandem with observed physical data, I've laid the foundation to a possible theory evidencing the age of the visible universe to be 6132 years. I will now endeavor to explain.
dl min: minimum unit of distance (1light day)
I've coined dl as "cyclical space" and 1 light day as "relativistic space".
dt min: minimum cosmic time (1 day)
dt = cyclical time
1 day = relativistic time
Einstein arbitrarily set the minimum time unit for light as one second. Due to the seemingly universal speed of light, this minimum unit was also locked in as a maximum. This view point is slowly being unraveled by new evidence to the contrary at distances exceeding one light day. Lacking further explanation (other than the measured relationship between a light day and one rotation of Earth), God created light with the period of a day for its minimum unit of time.
dTH min: minimum angular displacement (1.158 x10^-48 rotations)
dTH = curved space
1.158 x10^-48 rotations = Planck length
ds min: minimum proper time (1.158 x10^-48 curved days)
ds = curved time
1.158 x 10^-48 curved days = Planck time
Conventional space breaks down at Planck length. Conventional time breaks down at the scale of Planck time.
The value for dl = dt and dTH = ds. If dl = or is greater than 1 and if dt = or is greater than 1 then the numeric values for dl = dTH and dt = ds.
Here are proofs for a one to one relationship at the 1 day scale.
Light travels 1 light day per day. One day passes per Earth rotation. A curved day exists per Earth rotation. A curved day passes per 1 light day. Light travels 1 light day per Earth rotation. One day passes per 1 curved day.
When the distance light travels exceeds 1 light day, a phase transition occurs. Evidence supporting this is found in the "Pioneer Anomaly." Light emitted from Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Voyager 1, and Voyager 2 blue shifted after probes had traveled significant fractions of a light day from Earth. Pioneer 10 has exceeded this distance by 3 light minutes as of October 8, 2005.
dl/dt = c: speed of light
dTH/ds = w: angular velocity
dl/dt x ds = gravitational acceleration
dl/dt x dTH = angular acceleration
dl/dt x dTH/ds = resultant distance/resultant time = angular gravitational acceleration =c^2
I will now explain the simplified light distance method.
time^2 x 365.25 = distance in light years, sq rt (distance/365.25) = time in years
In 2003 the distance to the Light Horizon was estimated to be 13,690,000,000 light years away. Using my method, an age of 6122.19 years was calculated. In 2008 a greatly refined measurement was established at 13,730,000,000 light years. The age for this measurement was 6131.1248 years since creation. Believing this new measurement to be accurate, a corrected age and distance for 2003 resulted to be 6126.1248 years time (a difference of only four years) and 13,707,615,200 light years distance ( 17,615,200 Ly difference). This was well within their range of error of + or - 120,000,000 light years.
Showing how these times and distances are actually calculated requires more in depth work as is shown.
6131.1248 years x 365.25 = 2,239,393.333 days
(2,239,393.333 LD/ 2,239,393.333 D) x (2,239,393.333 rotations/2,239,393.333 CD)=
5,014,882,500,000 resultant light days / 5,014,882,500,000 resultant days =
13,730,000,000 resultant light years / 13,730,000,000 resultant years
A quick note, we observe the universe in cosmic time in relation to resultant distance. Thus light traveled 13,730,000,000 light years in 6131.1248 years time. Big Bang theorists incorrectly refer to resultant time as cosmic time. The time period of 6131.1248 years since creation on 2008 agrees with Anstey's 4124 B.C. creation date.
Here is yet another possible confirmation. The First Flash model predicts extreme time dilation at extreme distances. Astronomers have concluded that distant supernovae explosions experience a time rate equaling only 60% of what's thought to be normal. The vast majority of nearby superclusters lie within the range of 200,000,000 to 400,000,000 light years distance. These superclusters include Hydra, Pavo-Indus, Perseus-Pisces, Coma, and Hurcules. At the edge of the neighboring group of superclusters, (measuring a distance of 1,000,000,000 light years) we observe superclusters such as Horologium and Corona Borealis. According to First Flash calculations, a 60% relative time dilation rate exists between light measured 360,000,000 light years away and light measured at a distance of 1,000,000,000 light years.
Here I've included an equation revealing how the dimensional components of the First Flash model fit within the famous matter energy equation.
M[(dl/dt) (dTH/ds)/3] = W = rest mass energy
dl/dt[(M) (dTH/ds)/3] = T = kinetic energy
dTH/ds[(M) (dl/dt)/3] = V = potential energy
W+T+V = E = total energy
(dl/dt) (dTH/ds) = angular gravitational acceleration = speed of light squared = c^2
E/c^2 = M = rest mass
E = M c^2 = mass energy equation
In order to fortify my position on the universal effects of inertia, as is required for the First Flash model to work, I've added two quotes on the subject.
(Quoted from "A Gentleman's guide to Modern Physics")
Acceleration must be acceleration relative to the center mass of the universe. Universal inertia force behaves practically as if all the masses of the universe would sit on a spherical shell within the Hubble Radius. (where the speed of expansion equals the speed of light.) Any mass inside this shell would feel the universal inertia force as if it was in a state of accelerated motion relative to the shell.
(Quoted from "The Fabric of the Cosmos")
For a shell that contains enough mass, an amount on par with that contained in the entire universe, the calculations show that it doesn't matter whether one thinks of the hollow sphere to be spinning around an object inside or that the object inside is spinning within the hollow sphere. The only thing that matters is the relative spinning motion between the two. A sufficiently massive rotating sphere is able to completely block the usual influence of the space beyond it.
On the topic of twisting force, or torque, an increasing radius increases the amount of possible torque to be exerted on the central object.
I would finally like to comment on six critical points of which the General Theory of Relativity and First Flash agree on.
time : space 1. The ratio of time changes with distance. (energy density)
space : curvature 2. Increased distance reduces curvature.
time : rotation 3. Rate of time slows with acceleration.
space : rotation 4. Length decreases with acceleration.
curvature : rotation 5. Gravitational attraction (curvature) opposes angular momentum.
time : curvature 6. Time dilation is caused by gravitation (curvature).
Comments are invited and I personally consider constructive criticism to be helpful.

In my last email I posted this statement:
"The value for dl = dt and dTH = ds. If dl = or is greater than 1 and if dt = or is greater than 1 then the numeric values for dl = dTH and dt = ds."
I meant to state that:
"The value for dl = dt and dTH = ds. If dTH = or is greater than 1 and if ds = or is greater than 1 then the numeric values for dTH = dl and ds = dt."
Hopefully that makes better sense. I pondered the accedental error I made all night and started refreshing my mind on the subject of spinors and twistors in String Theory. Then the facts started to hit me. Penrose reduces the value for c in quantum physics to 1. In quantum physics, the vector of light represents linear motion. All subatomic particles have angular motion, or "spin". The quanta for spin is the spinor. My value (dTH min/ ds min) represents a spinor. A graviton is looked apon as the quanta of twister space (of which is the combination of spin and linear motion.) In the First Flash model, [(dl min/ dt min) x (dTH min/ ds min)] equals a graviton. The differance between String Theory and the First Flash model is that the minimum value for c = 1 light day (not 1 light second) and that light phase transitions when dTH/ds equals or exceeds the value of 1.
I seriously doubt you will ever find another creationist model more profound and unifying than this one.

I'm guessing you'll have a bit of skepticism on the topic and will, above all, want to know if what I'm proposing is theologically sound. For this reason I'm going to start off by simply providing relevant quotes and references from scripture and Ellen White without narration. Then I'm going to actually dig into the subject as simply as I possible.
Genesis 1:1-5, 14-19 Genesis 2:1, 4 Psalms 11:4
AG chapter 357
"Heaven is a school; its field of study, the universe; its teacher, the Infinite One."
GC p. 678
"With undimmed vision they gaze upon the glory of creation- suns and stars and systems, all in their appointed order circling the throne of Deity."
Ev chapter 6
"There is far more being done by the universe of Heaven than we have any idea of."
Ed p. 21
"Adam and Eve were made but "little lower than angels," that they might not only discern the wonders of the visible universe, but comprehend moral responsibilities and obligations."
Ed p. 186
"A knowledge of science of all kinds is power, and it is the purpose of God that advanced science shall be taught in our schools as a preparation for the work that is to precede the closing scenes of earth's history. The truth is to go to the remotest bounds of the earth, through agents trained for the work."
Ed p. 375
"The laws obeyed by the earth reveal the fact that it is under the masterly power of an infinite God. The same principles run through the spiritual and natural world."
Ed p. 409
"The machinery of earth and heaven needs many faces to every wheel in order to see the Hand beneath the wheels, bringing perfect order from confusion."
Ed p. 536
"It is the word of God alone that gives us an authentic account of the creation of our world."
In creationist cosmology, a problem seems apparent when studying light from distant stars. If the universe was created 6000 years ago then light shouldn't be visible from distances greater than 6000 light years. As of 2008, the furthest visible light has been measured at 13,730,000,000 light years. As a result, Big Bang theorists claim that the visible universe is 13,730,000,000 years old. This is false and I'll endeavor to explain why.
First, the speed of light is calculated by a measured distance divided by time.
D/T
The "speed" that the Earth rotates or "spins" is divided by "curved time."
S/C
The "speed" an object falls is calculated by distance divided by time, times "curved time."
(D/T) x C
In String Theory, the speed of light is arbitrarily given a minimum value of 1 light second, (thanks to Einstein energy equation being geared in seconds.) All things have spin. The smallest (or minimum) spin is called a spinor. If the minimum speed of light is multiplied by the minimum spin, the minimum value for gravity is described.
(D min/T min) x (S min/C min)
In my First Flash model, the minimum value for light is NOT 1 second, it's 1 day. (refer to Genesis 1:1-5) Spin is more appropriately measured in fractions or multiples of a day. When the value for spin equals or exceeds 1 the value for light will equal the value for spin.
Let me illustrate:
Lets say we observe light travel for 12 hours, (half of a day) here's what happens.
(1light day min/1 day min) x (0.5 spin/0.5 curved days) = .5 resultant LD/.5 resultant days
0.5 light days per 0.5 days
We actually observe distance by resultant distance and time by curved time.
If we observe light for one day this is what happens.
(1 light day/1 day) x (1 spin/1 curved day) = 1 resultant light day/1 resultant day
1 light day per 1 day
When spin exceeds 1 something very interesting happens.
(1.01 LD/1.01 D) x (1.01 spin/1.01 curved days) = 1.0201 resultant LD/1.0201 resultant D
1.0201 light days per 1.01 days (acceleration begins to occur)
This effect is actually observed in nature and is coined as the "Pioneer Anomaly."
So, back to the universe age question. What does this equation do with a resultant distance of 13,730,000,000 light years? A simple short cut method works like this:
Divide the resultant light year distance by the number of rotations per year (365.25). Then find the square root.
sq rt (dist/365.25)
The answer is 6131.1248 years. The measurement was made in 2008, dating the year of creation at 4124.1248 B.C. (don't forget to add 1 for the lack of a year zero) Coincidentally or not, Anstey arrived at the same conclusion of 4124 B.C.

I've established an equation that successfully explains the temporal conflict between Big Bang cosmology and creationism. I've endeavored to find physicists before, who can assist me, with poor results. It is my sincere hope to find a way to test my cosmological model and to find a way to explain it, in a simple manner, to the masses. If you have any interest in what I'm working on, I have attempted to clearly explain the First Flash model (without excessive detail) as follows:
In creationist cosmology, a problem seems apparent when studying light from distant stars. If the universe was created 6000 years ago then light shouldn't be visible from distances greater than 6000 light years. As of 2008, the furthest visible light has been measured at 13,730,000,000 light years. As a result, Big Bang theorists claim that the visible universe is 13,730,000,000 years old. This is false and I'll endeavor to explain why.
First, the speed of light is calculated by a measured distance divided by time.
D/T
The "speed" that the Earth rotates or "spins" is divided by "curved time."
S/C
The "speed" an object falls is calculated by distance divided by time, times "curved time."
(D/T) x C
In String Theory, the speed of light is arbitrarily given a minimum value of 1 light second, (thanks to Einstein's energy equation being geared in seconds.) All things have spin. The smallest (or minimum) spin is called a spinor. If the minimum speed of light is multiplied by the minimum spin, the minimum value for gravity (a graviton) is described.
(D min/T min) x (S min/C min)
In my First Flash model, the minimum value for light is NOT 1 second, it's 1 day. (refer to Genesis 1:1-5) Spin is more appropriately measured in fractions or multiples of a day. When the value for spin equals or exceeds 1 the value for light will equal the value for spin.
Let me illustrate:
Lets say we observe light travel for 12 hours, (half of a day) here's what happens.
(1light day min/1 day min) x (0.5 spin/0.5 curved days) = .5 resultant LD/.5 resultant days
0.5 light days per 0.5 days
We actually observe distance by resultant distance and time by curved time.
If we observe light for one day this is what happens.
(1 light day/1 day) x (1 spin/1 curved day) = 1 resultant light day/1 resultant day
1 light day per 1 day
When spin exceeds 1 a phase transition occurs.
(1.01 LD/1.01 D) x (1.01 spin/1.01 curved days) = 1.0201 resultant LD/1.0201 resultant D
1.0201 light days per 1.01 days (acceleration begins to occur)
This effect is actually observed in nature and is coined as the "Pioneer Anomaly."
So, back to the universe age question. What is the actual travel time for light with a resultant distance of 13,730,000,000 light years? A simple short cut method works like this:
Divide the resultant light year distance by the number of rotations per year (365.25). Then find the square root.
sq rt (dist/365.25)
The answer is 6131.1248 years. The measurement was in 2008, dating the year of creation at 4124.1248 B.C. Coincidentally or not, Anstey arrived at the same conclusion of 4124 B.C.
A new component to the First Flash model reveals a significant event relating to the first Sabbath of creation. If all of the stars and galaxies were created on the fourth day, the light from the closest stars (outside the solar system) are first visible at the end of the sixth day at twilight. Light from objects furthest away can not be seen until the very end of the seventh day at twilight. Jewish tradition states that the Sabbath begins at the appearance of the first three stars and Ellen White claims that all of the stars "sang together" on the first Sabbath of creation. These points do not prove anything but are very interesting none the less.

I think it's fair enough to say that this is plenty of stuff to chew on for at least a little while. If at some point someone wants to see more (like västergötland) they can ask me at any time.

Looking through the mess of quotes from emails, my progression in my work with FF is evidenced. I thought it might be benificial to reveal a summary on this by listing the subject matter that came to mind and in the order that it was revealed:

- side ruler concept of time space as a possible solve for the distant starlight problem

- discovery of Max Morris's "Simply Relativity"

- discernment of the 2 Peter 3:8 time space equation

- inverse naked singularity (extreme Kerr-Newman geometry)

- photogravitics and the Extended Heim Theory

- folded/squared time space and Hawking's theory of particle creation from the extreme time space curvature of black holes

- building a polymetric tensor & expanding the energy equation

- discovery of Weak Gravitational Energy and aligning "foundational footers" for a TOE theory (16 dimensions formed from squared time space (4 x 4)

- light is the complex conjugate of gravity and inertia

- short discussion with Cliff Goldstein

- FF lends itself to a quantum gravity model, not TOE

- dimensional and force vectors expanded on in "foundational footers", Tile Method created

- Tile Method leads to discovery of "Cosmic Torque" of which parallels with Nassim Haramein's work

- "Velocity of Light" work created after studying Penrose's works.

- Inspiring rediscovery of Kurt Godel's spinning universe model

- creation of FF's 4 dimensional pillars (curved and cyclic time space)

- redefining gravity with pillars, time and space units defined

- comparing SR & GR with FF geometry

- revising twister geometry with FF

- evidence of FF in nature, evidence of the Sabbath from first visible light in FF model

This is a quick list of a few people I've been in contact with in regard to my proposed First Flash Model:

"Dr. Skeptic"
Bryan Bissell
dr. Humphreys
Clausen, Ben
Erv Taylor
dimer
gburdick
kutzner
kingman
rowland
Robert Gentry
Heavens Declare, Inc.
Ken Caviness
Ivars Fabriciuss
Roy Campbell
Christopher Plewright
bactrans
Clifford Goldstein
Larry Robinson
youngearth.org
Stephanie Vendrell
theresonanceproject.org
mdg
Ben (LLU)Clausen
Timithy Standish
AnswersinGenesis.org
Edward Boudreaux
drfaulkn
ariseinstitute.com
mart.degroot
Mark.vanAtten
jckenned
yourgrau
warmbeach
hefferln

MOD HAT ON
(asygo) I removed the email addresses for privacy. Many people do not want their contact info made public. If you must give someone else's contact info, please communicate it privately. Thank you.
MOD HAT OFF

I have a quick question for Daryl F, is there a way to post jpg pics into this thread?

I forgot to answer this.

You should be able to post them now.

If you still can't post them, let me know.

Are there any Bible references that would help substantiate any of this?

Also, are there any SOP references that would also help substantiate this?

Yes and yes. I should ask in what key area were you inquiring scriptural and SOP support for the FF model? (There is alot of stuff to choose from.)

Thank you for setting things up to support jpegs. I just need to know how to post them.

Also, I was recently impressed with the idea that there ought be similar electrical processes effected by FF as with light. I wish there was an Adventist physicist in the world that was willing to help me with this additional FF branch. (hint hint)

I am looking for Scriptural support for more than one Universe, whether two or more.

Alot of what I refered to in line # 124138 lends support to the existence of more than one universe.



I will however, endeavor to review through what I've found that's most relevent. Genesis 1:1 refers to the creation of the heavens and the Earth to have occured in the beginning of time. The rate and dimension of time and space in one universe acts with complete independance from any other. (This does not mean that physical forces external to a universe can not effect it.)

Genesis 2:1-3 summarizes that the heavens, the Earth, and everything in the heavens and Earth (which includes all of the stars mentioned in Gen 1:16) were created within the spance of the creation week. This is again stated in Ex 20:11. Psalms 33:6-9 reverberates that by the Lord's spoken word the starry host came into existence just as it is stated in Gen 1. John 1:1-3 backs the account that everything that exists has been created by God. Hebrews 11:3 states that the universe was formed at God's command.

Job 22:12-14 is key in revealing the true location of God's throne. First, notice that something obscures God from us but is not seen by God himself. Only nothingness can be invisible to God. It is a dimensionless void that separates universes. Next, look at this portion, "he walketh the circuit of heaven." then go back to an earlier quote, "Is not God in the heights of heaven?" The furthest visible heights of the heavens is the light horizon, but God isn't visible to us. This horizion is 13.73 billion light years away. combine this with the fact that God walks the circuit of the heavens. Considering that God sits in his throne in Heaven this entire scene is very strange, unless the throne of God resides beyond the light horizon. Anything outside the light horizon exists independently of our universe.

Consider the odd vision in Ezekiel 1. Starting with verse 22, notice that above the creatures is an expanse that sparkles like ice. Verse 26 refers to a throne of sapphire above the expanse. High above this throne is the Lord. The sparkling expanse is the sea of glass refered to in Revelation. I propose that the sea of glass IS the light horizon.

Joel 2:10 states that in a future event a shaking of the entire visible univese will occur. This is called the great and terrible day of the Lord. Again in verses 30-31 calamities are predicted to effect the visible universe. In Matt 24:29-30 Christ describes the same event. Take a very careful note of Hebrews 1:10-12. All that was created in the week of creation will perish. 2 Peter 3:7-10 claims that heavens and the earth will pass away and that this event will occur like a thief in the night. (also note Rev 6:12-17, 20:11-15 & 21:1)

Consider the fact that there are unfallen worlds created by God. If something has not been contaminated it is reasonable to say that it does not require purification. On this point, Hebrews 9:23-24. The heavens themselves require an act of purification. Consider the sanctuary model in it's physical sense. It is a pitched tent. Our universe has been refered to as such in Isaiah 40:22.

Revelation 4:4 states that "surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty four elders." At this point I'd like to quote something I said earlier in this thread.



Most of the remaining refrences to SOP show how Ellen White commonly calls Heaven a universe being distict and separate from our visible universe.

Hi All

I'm David Geelan, a physicist of sorts. That is to say, I did a BEd(Chem) at Avondale College in the 1980s, which was essentially a Bachelor of Science combined with an education degree. My major was chemistry and my minor was physics, so I've studied physics up to 2000 level at university. I then taught high school chemistry and physics (more physics, actually, because physics teachers are in short supply) for a number of years, and have since done a PhD in science education. So I'm by no means a PhD physicist or a working physicist, and don't want to misrepresent my expertise, but I do know my way around physics.

I'm afraid there are very serious problems and issues throughout the 'first flash' model, in all sorts of ways. It's useful as an intriguing speculation and as a way of thinking about space and time, but the gaps and misunderstandings make it simply not plausible as a cosmological model. Let me try to explain.

The current standard cosmological model suggests that the known universe is about 93 billion lightyears across, and is about 13.7 billion lightyears old. The fact that we know about stars that are farther away than the accepted age of the universe is explained by the rapid expansion of spacetime shortly after the Big Bang, and the 'red shift' of distant stars is similarly explained.

Now, for some people who have posted here, that is all OK: they believe God created the universe as a whole long before Creation Week, and that the Biblical creation week is about the creation of life on earth, or earth, or our solar system, but not the rest of the universe. (There is a wide range of possible Young Life Creationist positions, I think all of which have been represented by various posters here.)

So the problem JCS addresses - the problem of light from distant galaxies making it to earth in 6000 years - is only a problem for 'Young Universe Creationists': those who believe the entire universe was created about 6000 years ago. These are a fairly small group within Young Life Creationist groups.

That sets in place some parameters within which to address the problem: I'll start another post to address the actual physical/mathematical issues.

The physics notion of 'spin' applies to subatomic particles such as electrons, and it does not mean that the particles are actually spinning (since electrons also have a wave nature and should be thought of more as a wave function describing probabilities rather than a hard sphere spinning on its axis). 'Spin' was just a label used to describe two possible states, much like 'charm' and 'strangeness' are just labels used to explain characteristics of quarks, which are not actually charming or strange. The concept of 'spin' in this sense does not apply to large objects like planets at all, and doing so is simply a misunderstanding of the relevant physics.

'Curved time' is also not a physics concept, but seems to be one JCS has invented (I'm happy to be corrected by him). Einstein's theory of General Relativity describes spacetime as being 'curved' by masses to produce gravitational 'forces', but that is not the concept used in JCS's calculations.

The convention of treating the speed of light as 1 is simply a convention of changing units. The speed of light is about 186,000 miles per second or just under 300,000 kilometres per second: different units yield different numbers. If the unit of measurement is one lightsecond per second, the number yielded is 1. But JCS then arbitrarily decides to change the speed of light to one lightday per second, without changing the number. That is not a legitimate move. One lightday is 60x60x24=86,400 lightseconds... so he has just increased the speed of light by 86,400 times with no physical basis at all.

He then introduces the notions of spin of the earth and 'curve time', but the practical effect is to simply multiply the speed of light by itself:



By choosing the units as he has, he multiplies the speed of light by 86,400, then squares it. 86,400 squared is 7 464 960 000.

But this number, which he then somehow uses to divide the conventional age of the universe to magically come up with a number very close to 6000 years (the number of days in a year is invoked as well), is a pure 'fudge factor', an artifact either of mistakes and misunderstandings or of deliberate misdirection. It is *not* legitimate to simply change from lightseconds to lightdays without changing the number, and it is *not* legitimate to use 'spin' and 'curved space' as has been done in these calculations. That is true whether one has a creationist or any other cosmological framework. These are not issues of perspective but of honest physics and mathematics.

Bravus,

to the forum!

The points you have made here are quite valid. I attempted some months ago to provide similar input to the discussion, only to find JCS looking for ways to continue his unconventional math. As he seems so inclined, I have not had much interest in pouring further cold water on his pet ideas, despite the fact that they are unsupportable.

(If you have read the thread from the beginning, perhaps you have followed all of this.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Bravus is correct that I have a Young Universe Creation perspective. On the topic of spin. Massless objects spin can either be "right-handed" or "left-handed". My reference to spin in the First Flash model relates to physical properties uniting quantum physics with general relativity. Considering this, my use for spin transends string theory's use for the same word. The two different uses for the term shouldn't be confused. Thank you for pointing that out.

My term "curved time" is the exact same thing as angular time. This value shows up as "dt" in the equation for angular velocity.

w = d(theta)/dt

Are you still confused?



Where did you get the idea that I changed the speed of light from one light second per second to one light day per second? I'm not impressed with false arguments.



This other garbage just ticks me off. Read this entire thread and study it this time. It's obvious to me you've failed to comprehend what you've read thus far.

As soon as I manage to cool off I'll proceed to pick apart Bravus's last paragraph.

Feel free to clarify: I've read as well and as clearly as I can, but I'm very aware that I'm fallible... and, to be fair, your exposition hasn't always been a model of clarity either.

I'm not here to attack you or pick a fight with you, and I said above that I'm happy to be corrected by you. I *am* here to try to clarify and explain ideas for other readers of the forum.

I'll try to deal with the issues you've raised above one by one:

'dt' is not a quantity representing angular time, it is a mathematical expression that is part of differentiating the angular 'distance' (theta - angle in radians) with respect to time. Time in that equation is simply time.

As for changing the units of speed of light to one day, I got that from your first post, specifically these words:



If I've misinterpreted what you meant to say, please clarify, but my reading of what you meant does actually 'work' in terms of the calculations you then proceed to do.

By way of further clarification:



Any number divided by itself is 1. That means the table above reduces to:

1 x 1 = 1
1 x 1 = 1
1 x 1 = 1
1 x 1 = 1
1 x 1 = 1
1 x 1 = 1
1 x 1 = 1
......

To be fair, that's exactly what JCS' results show: 64 light days per 64 days is exactly the same thing as 1 light day per 1 day. What that does, though, is show a constant value for the speed of light, rather than an accelerating value. The speed of light now is 1 lightday per day, and according to this calculation that was the same during the days of creation.

I hope it's possible to reason together without anger and rancor. I'm trying to clarify and understand, but part of that is pointing out apparent errors and confusions. If they're only apparent - if the error is one of comprehension on my part - then please forgive me and clarify in terms I can understand.

First, I'm going to outline my approach in reillustrating the First Flash model in such a manner that the points of confusion described by Bravus can be avoided. Second, I'll go through explaining FF in clearer detail.

There seems to be problems for others understanding what I'm talking about due to topics mirroring from string theory. I can easily cover what needs discussed without any talk of spin. I suspect that Bravus is confusing fractions of a day with his strange thought that I replaced seconds with days or something.

Also, everyone's getting hung up on my terms of curved and cyclical space time. Not a problem. Instead of curved we'll stick to angular, and I'll change cyclical with linear. (Of course, by doing this, a large amount of clarity to how FF works is lost without running back to the newer terminology.)

After cataloging a battery of words like "somehow","magically", "invoked", "fudge factor", "artifact", "mistakes", "misunderstandings", "deliberate misdirection", and then stating false statements as fact I realized that the only way I'm going to successfully explain anything would be by slowly spoon feeding facts like as although I was feeding babies.

Fair enough... and I will make every effort to use more objective and less judgemental language.

My quote,



The key words of the day are "minimum" and "value." I'll let everyone try to figure it out first before explaining further.

Guess I'm not smart enough. I can't get from there to your 'square root of the received age of the universe divided by the number of days in a year' calculation for the age of the universe. I'd be delighted if you can lay it out as clearly and simply as possible rather than making us guess and figure it out.

(the received age of the universe is not the same thing as the received size of the universe, by the way)

(honestly trying to understand, not sniping)

It's probably worth noting that the units of that 'square root of the received age of the universe divided by the number of days in a year' calculation is not years, just by dimensional analysis...

Without myself getting frustrated I'll first point out John Duetsch's "Relationships Among Phenomena at a Unitary Level."

http//www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/deutsch/golden.html

Minimum values for things are explained like wavelength, distance, power, energy, time, etc etc. Planck time could be considered the "minimum value" for time.

In my quotation about light, I'm refering to linear space times linear time (which is linear time space defined by the time space cone commonly used to reveal properties in Minkowski space.)

In my construct, the minimum value for linear space time is 1 day. We exist in a composite of angular and linear time space. The minimum value for angular time space is planck space divided by planck time. If the tangible time space in which we exist is the multiple of linear time space times angular time space you still have units of measure less than 1 day's distance or time.

I'll stop, let the complaints be said, then continue explaining.

JCS,

You said you are a "Young Universe Creationist," right? Exactly how "young" do you believe our universe to be? Do you have scripture in support of this position?

(I'll let Bravus handle the math--as he's far more qualified than I am on that point. My interest is more in keeping with comparing all things to the scriptures.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Planck time is on the order of 10^-44 seconds, while a day is on the order of 10^5 seconds. Yet you seem to be adding the terms for linear and angular space together and treating them as the same units.

(edit: i.e. if you're setting 1 day as your minimum time unit, then it should be 1 unit and planck time (for the angular motion) should be on the order of 10^-49 units...)

Anyway, let me turn it around: rather than you doling out enigmatic bits and pieces and me responding, how about I wait until you describe the whole scheme as clearly and simply as possible? Then I can comment on the totality, rather than on half-understood fragments.

I'm completely open to the idea that I've simply not understood your scheme properly. But as the proposer of a non-standard cosmology, it's incumbent on *you* to explain it clearly so that others can understand.

Yes, yes. I agree it's up to me to clearly explain my non-standard cosmological model. Do to its complexity, and my inability to clearly convey my model to you thus far using great detail I will continue working slowly to explain the smaller points first. (like compiling postulates to support a theorem in geometry.)

It's nice to see Green Cochoa here to keep me on the straight and narrow. The process of explaining things does help me crystalize things though it can certainly be unnerving.



This is an older question. Here are some older answers.





Anstey's chronology coincides with what is revealed on this site:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=232744002&blogId=499142592

JCS,

Darwin is quoted as saying his own theory would fail if a part of it failed.


Do you have any similar testable criterion for your theory?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This quote was refered to and questioned earlier by Bravus:



You have discovered that the resultant values do in fact all equal one. One point of information missed was that the first value, (let's say 3/3) represents 3 linear light days distance divided by 3 linear days time. The first value is a linear time space value. The passage of time (as mankind perceives it) is measured by angular time. The second values represent angular space divided by angular time.

Does that clarify anything?

The answer is in fact yes. I touched on this topic earlier today on another forum in facebook.



If I remember correctly, we debated over the Pioneer anomaly before. Here's an even better site for information:

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/pioneer.htm

This was one of the original sites I used to research the anomaly.

Yes, we had some discussion on that anomaly already. Seeing as I don't have a probe...

How much confidence do you place in the resulting number of years, and to what do you apply them? the earth? the universe? Do you believe that God created Adam and Eve 6131 years ago, as your figure suggests? Would this be a "testable criterion?"

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm going to be honest, this intellectual boxing match is starting to make me feel dizzy. (Not to say I've lost, just that it's very taxing mentally.)

Yes, I am still working to simplify my work for further constructive criticism.

There are other possible ways to test FF, I just haven't bothered yet to compile them. My confidence in the resulting years in my model is equal to my faith in the accuracy of WMAP's measured distance to the light horizon. (There is a degree of error.)

JCS,

There was a fair bit of confidence on William Miller's part surrounding the dates of the "Second Coming." As we know, the second or third date set was finally accurate...but the event was not. How do you know, even if you can prove the 6131 years in terms of math, what they apply to, or are you even making a specific application of this time? Is it just a general approximation? Applicable to the entire universe?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The date calculated by FF (using WMAP's measurement) happens to coincide with Anstey's date. If the distance measured in 2008 was significantly off, or if the true expansion rate of the universe (based off of the changing distance to the light horizon) doesn't match up with FF's calculations, then the creation date would change as well. If at least two accurate measurements are made at different times and the calculated distances compared to the times the measurements were made heavily conflict with FF then the model is empiricly wrong. Thus far every WMAP measurement made (of which was considered sufficently accurate by the scientific community) coincides with the FF model.

The calculation is fairly straight forward. Acquire the distance. Divide by the number of days in a year. Find the square root. So, let's say a measurement was made this year with a distance of 14.8 billion light years. That comes out to 6365.547239 years ago. If a second measurement was made at the same time next year with a result of 14.8046504 billion light years that would perfectly match FFs prediction. Of course if such measurements happened they would then conflict with Anstey's creation date. The First Flash model works independently of nonphysical sources just as it should.

Good questions. I do appreciate you asking. The begining date in FF refers to a time space starting point in which all energy in the universe (including matter) started expanding apart at the speed of light. As time past the relative expansion rate increased. It is a precision mathmatical process calculating the begining of our universes expansion from a single point.

I am not surprised at all the degree of flak I receive over this work. In many ways its like when others claimed the Earth was a sphere or that the Earth orbits the Sun. I haven't acquired a physics degree so therefore I must be too stupid to figure out something on such a grand scale. I use a unique metric of my own design and have my own array of glossary terms therefore it must all be nonsense. Right?

Maybe I should simply give up on the whole thing. I can't gain any progress till I've found a physicist who can support me anyway. If it's God's will that this stuff is figured out then someone will with or without my aid. I've already lost my family over this annoyance to the world. Perhaps I should cut my losses now.

I did say I was starting to feel a bit taxed didn't I.

Not really, no. If the units of the left term is light days/days (distance/time - the units don't actually matter, it could be lightyears per year or lightseconds per second) that's fine, but it just reduces to 1 lightday per day, which is the current speed of light.

If the units of the second term are radians/days (i.e. rotational motion over time (I have to admit I still struggle with the notion of 'angular time' as a unit)), then that term should be (n)2π/(n) in each case, which reduces to 2π. I guess unless the angular unit is complete rotations, in which case it's 'rotations/days', which gives one rotation per day for the earth - also constant.

Now, there are dimensional problems in multiplying one number in lightdays per day (a linear velocity term) by another number in rotations per day (an angular velocity term), but even more than that, if we allow all of these calculations...

(just clarifying, I was not at all critiquing the math in these calculations above)

If we allow all these calculations, it all comes down to a speed of light of one lightday per day, which is the same speed of light used in standard cosmology. Under those terms, light would take 13.7 billion years to travel 13.7 billion lightyears, not 6000 years.

So accepting your calculations on this point does not actually predict or describe a younger universe.

(again, it could still be that I don't understand properly)

It made me wonder how the terms would differ if you had an unmoving viewing point at about Earth's distance from the sun, so that the daily rotation of the earth was not an issue. So you could be completely stationary within the reference frame of the rest of the universe. Would the 'rotation of the earth' term vanish from the equation?

Ugh. This model is in essense, a representation of the effective squaring of time space caused by a universe that is both expanding and rotating. Yes, if you have say 5 light days distance divided by 5 days time you have a speed equal to that of light. I'm apparently not representing how this model works in a correct fashion, otherwise, I would've expected that we would have moved on to something else. Linear space time relates to inertia. Angular space time relates to centrpetal force. The combination of the two causes an effect that is difficult to reveal yet has dramatic implications in regard to the changing temporal rate that light has with distance.

Multiply 5 linear light days by 5 rotational light days and you end up with 25 "resultant" light days. (Resultant distances are what you and I actually measure in regard to light.) This is part of the reason for my special terms. I'm not fully convinced that "curved space" is exactly the same as "angular space".

You get what I'm trying to say right?

If we perceive time by angular time and measure space from resultant space an apparent acceleration of light does occur. But the overall reality is that light's resultant distance per resultant time never exceeds that of c. We only think we exist with the same rules of time as light, this is purely illusionary.

I think I should recap on this whole thing. There are basicly six components here:

rotational space
rotational time
linear space
linear time
resultant space
resultant time

We measure distances with resultant space.
We measure time with rotational time.
Rotational space relates to spacial effects from frame dragging.
Linear space is space independent of time spacial curvature.
Linear time is a temporal rate independent of ts curvature.
Resultant time is the temporal rate of light independent of mass.

Feeling obtuse, but still... Is your notion then that the earth is stationary and the entire universe is rotating around the earth once each day? I realise that that is relative and relates to reference frame, but that's the only way I can make sense of the daily rotation influencing the speed of light throughout the universe.

This is an old quote. There may be some points that I have modified on since.



Yeah, there's definitely some stuff in this quote that I later rectified.

I should add that this model is geared SOULLY from our perspective of light on Earth. The values for time and space are different depending on where you are. It is in effect, a special theory that is not yet generalized. I presently lack the "smarts" to create a general form of FF. The one I've got is already pushing my witts to the limit.

A question I still have, which some of what I read of what you said kind of hinges on age of the universe, maybe I can summarize it by this:

Regarding the text which about the earth being without form and void with water over it before creation, what was the earth spinning in?

An interesting question. Let me look closer at the verse for a second.



It's established that time space has already been brought into existence in the first sentence unless that is an introductive precursor statement. It's my understanding that the glory of God is or has angular gravitational energy. AGE for short is the inverse of the energy equation. when this form of energy comes into contact with anything it converts into mass.

Another key area I should point out is Stephen Hawking's arguement that extreme time space curvature actually creates elementary particles out of the fabric of time space itself. One other principle concept is that the mear presence of light induces energy into time space. This energy, from another standpoint, is an increase in time spacial rate for mass. It's fair to say that God is the source of light. If you subtract all energy from a point in space, time effectively stops at that point.

This still leaves the question, where does the fabric of time space come from? According to the FF model, the fabric of time space is created from combining AGE with frame dragging. To do this God would mearly need to move about a single defined point. Only God can define a point amidst a void of complete nothingness.

Sorry, I know I haven't answered your question yet. (I'm basicly brain storming out loud.) God defines what all things are even when they do not yet exist. I suspect that God spun around the Earth verses the unexisting Earth spinning in something itself. Of course it all breaks down to relative motion. If a relative motion is observed between a nonexistent point and the creator of all things, which is orbiting which or is it an equal balance?

An infinite God, with an infinite source of energy, contacting "anything" just converted into infinite mass....

So much for God speaking things into existence?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tell me how sound (in the normal sense) travels in vacuum and I'll refine my conjecture.

God does speak things into existence, but probably not in a way mandkind can understand.

Actually, you've made a good point that I overlooked. In Genesis 1:3-4 God spoke light into existence. The origin of light is God's spoken word. John 1:1-5 explains the relationship between light and the word even more. The Word is Jesus Christ. I don't fully understand the dynamics to this.

Maybe I summarized my question too briefly. The idea was like, what went bang rather than relative motion of spin. But, if you define the sentence of the earth being without form and void with water over it to be non-existent and only exists in God's mind, I see it as calling into question other things stated there. I read it as the earth was already in existence before the creation act in Genesis. You then wouldn't need formulas to make it match 6000 years. Because, likewise, one could say the 6-10K years left out much time and were only in God's mind and really were much longer.

I do agree that God's act of creation may be of such we cannot understand, but if we base our beliefs on the Bible, it says the earth existed before. It also speaks of other worlds. I believe Ellen White talks about the beings on other planets. Were they created before or after our earth?

Bravus quote:


I've researched this idea purported by BB that the universe rapidly expanded (at what I'd call ludicrous speed) shortly after the "bang". There is nothing to prove this, only massive batteries of theoretical math that nearly leads into realms of pure philosophy. For any one into physics who like to know the clear cut truth about things, the explanations for the first seconds are quite uncomfortable and nebulous.

BB has yet to explain the existance for what caused the bang without saying it came from something else already there. I concur that in the first instant in time, within a period of planck time, a massive quatity of energy was introduced into a single point. (but by God, not "substantial quantum energy fluctuations")

Cosmologists will openly admit that current theories are powerless to describe these massive random fluctuations until quantum mechanics and general relativity have been fully bridged. FF does bridge the two, but it does not support the ghostly random flux energy philosophy nor the idea of a rapidly changing gravitational field that randomly warped space and time.

GUT theories go on to claim the force of gravity splintered, or froze out, from the "super force" first. Soon after, strong force "froze out". The energy from all of this is claimed to be responsible for inflation. (Am I the only one that sees how stupid this stuff is?) They continue on explaining that spontaneously created matter and antimatter particles started reverting back into energy (from collisons). Things finally cooled off enough for EM and EW forces to freeze out.

When you starting digging deep enough into this, one realizes that BB starts out instantly expanding to a massive area, hits the breaks for billions of years, then starts accelerating due to the fudged principle of pesky dark matter. The fact that the universe is accelerating was a very difficult pill to swallow for Big Bang theorists.

Though FF isn't mathmatically pounded out yet to the precision I'd like it to be, it deals with all of the observed data mentioned without reverting to fudging the facts like dark matter, and mysterious energy fluxes. FF doesn't revert to a "Star Trek" warp field on steroids to explain how we can see the visible universe at its present size either.

My take is that the Earth existed but not in a manner that we could comprehend well. For human beings, the presence of time space must exist or we effectively cease to exist. (This doesn't mean that there are not other forms of existence.) Genesis refers to earth being without form and void in the begining (of time). Form relates to dimensional form. A void is a vacuum containing nothing. At the begining of time Earth was therefore a dimensionless vacuum containing nothing, but it still existed.

With the formulas and such one should consider the true nature of God. He is independent of space or time, knows everything from the begining to the end, and is a perfect God of love. His work of creation should reflect his character from all angles. If God simply stated creation into being without accordance to the natural laws he created to maintain order in this universe, the creation act looses meaning and fails to reveal God's perfect character.

Ellen does indeed refer to other inhabited worlds. I beleive scripture and SOP support the existence of other universes independant of our own visible universe including the "heavenly universe" as Ellen calls it, where God's throne resides.

I should add that our "visible universe" as defined by cosmology, is composed of a finite but growing area. When Ellen made referance to everything as the universe, she defined it to have infinite area. The boundary of the light horizon can not be considered the limit to God's total creation.



This is a bit of conjecture, but considering Ellen's wording with realms makes me consider the possibility that there are an infinite number of "visible universes" within a "realm", and then there are also an infinite number of "realms" composing the "entire universe".

There are some other questions or areas of study I haven't touched on yet so I'm going to list what I need to cover and then come back to it. (promise)

FF and red shift

FF and inflation

dimensional properties of light

the expanded energy equation and the tile method

finally, going through and explaining FF in clearer detail

Good work asking the relevant questions Bravus.

This may be side tracking from my planned course of action but I recently came across several pdfs in my physics notes from last year that explains Nassim Haramein's theory of cosmic torque. One component of his theory deals with a very complex relationship between the quanta of spin and the rotation of relativistic objects like planets and galaxies. It is with thanks to his work that I was lead into seeing key relationships between the properties of light, spinors, twistors, and gravitons in string theory with things like gravitation, inertia, centripetal force, frame dragging, cosmic torque, and the motions of astronomic objects of general relativity.

I've included what I'd refer to as a light synopsis describing the relationship between spin and rotation.

Well, I was wondering about verses such as the following:

Then there is the "bottomless pit" part of Revelation 20 and does that relate?

Don't get me wrong. I agree that there are other things at work which we do not understand. I'm just calling into question as to what Genesis 1 says. I believe these are relevant questions. Maybe an example would help demonstrate.

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
The earth didn't actually exist as we understand existing and the waters didn't cover it as we understand water covering things.
God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
It wasn't light and darkness as we understand as light and darkness.
So the evening and the morning were the first day.
It wasn't evening and morning as we understand evening and morning.
And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
It wasn't dry land and waters as we understand dry land and waters.


Well, you can extrapolate from there. Evolutionists would love it. It would discredit the seven day creation, and call into question the whole Genesis story. Also, since other parts use the same terminology of without form and void, or reference Genesis, it would call into question the rest of the Bible.

When the Bible says, the earth was, should we take it as the earth was or the earth wasn't? When the Bible's purpose is for our salvation, should we take it as a commentary and explanation of things that existed before or apart from us and our involvement? Maybe there are other dimensions. We don't see the angels except by special revelation or pulling of the curtain apart. Maybe God used spin for creation. Most everything from the very big to the very small involves spin. Spin seems to be an inherent property. Maybe time exists only in our minds. But to try and manipulate things to fit the whole universe within 6000 years, I'm not sure is wise nor necessary.

Both you and I know that I do not agree with the last three sumations however, the process of logic in your statement is eloquently clear. I should not take such a weak stance with scriptural statements that are very clear.

My own quote:


It would be better if I simply stated that Genesis 1 says that in the begining of time earth lacked dimension or mass and was absent of the pressence of electromagnetic energy.

There's no remaining ambiguity left in this statement.

I should ask then, what's left as far as elements of existence? There's no matter, energy, or even spacial dimension. All there is here is a starting point of time itself.

This is an excellent biblical quote. Jeremiah 4 is of course a future prophecy regarding the great day of the Lord. It evidences a sequince of events so profound that it seems impossible to those without faith.

In the soon coming day of the Lord, all things will be shaken and in a very sudden manner that will catch off guard all but those faithfully prepared. Due to issues of dating future events, I will refrain from using FF to reflect on such things.

JCS,

Genesis 1:2 does not line up with what you have just stated. Before God began Creation Week, by speaking those famous words "Let there be light," God tells us of matter that was already in existence.

God never created water or land in any of the seven days of that week. They were there already.

God asks the land to "appear" out from under the waters where it had been hidden, and to become "dry," but does not once say "Let there be land!" God shapes the waters into seas, but never says "Let there be water!" This is because those elements pre-existed Creation Week.

When the earth was "empty" and "void," this is because from God's perspective, it is a zero without any life. There was never life on this planet before Creation Week. To God, such a place is as empty as the wastelands of Jupiter or Mars.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Jesus is the Word, the Word of all Creation. Without His work here, this place was but emptiness. In the same way, we are also empty without Jesus in our lives.

An empty, lifeless earth was as much "void" as the Pharisees who did not have Christ's abiding presence in their hearts. Of them, Jesus said: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead [men's] bones, and of all uncleanness."

In order to have but "dead bones" inside, and be like a sepulchre on the outside, one must be rather empty inside. God is here, through Creation Week, teaching us lessons beyond our history.

"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

We may exist (for a time) without God, but without Him we have no life and are just as "empty" and "void" as was this earth before Creation Week.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'll cover all of the points stated, but first let's look at Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This verse is a summary for the entire chapter including verse two. There is not such a thing as before the beginning of time. Such statements reveal faulty comprehension regarding the linear aspects of temporal physics.

If a reel of thread is used to represent time, how much time exists before its begining?

If you have a second reel, it exists independently of the first unless the two are united. The time of the begining of the earth is synonymous with the beginning of creation.

JCS, according to Genesis 1, what did God define as heaven what did He define as earth?

You seem to be refering to verse 3, not 2. The light separated light from darkness. Perhaps I should ask your opinion in regard to Earth's present condition. Does the Earth have form and mass? Of course it does. Has it always had form and weight? If your answer is yes then you defy God's word and there is no light in you.




God's first act with the formless empty earth wasn't light, it was his Spirit moving over the surface of the waters. If you go back to my physics conjecture you'll see that God's creation of light in the presence of an unformed earth is sufficent to alter its form.

You are indeed correct in stating that the earth was composed of matter before verse 6. God's works to conform this matter (brought into form in verse 3 from the pressence of light) into the sky, land, and sea in verses 6-9.

The last comment in the selected quote sounds like nonsense to me.

Would you please expand the detail in your question. If I tried to answer this I'd simply state that God defined heaven what was created heaven and earth what was created earth.

In watching the trend of this forum, I perceive a pattern of thought that conflicts with the foundation in my purpose for FF. FF reveals how the manifold of time space expanded to compose what is known as the visible universe. It does not define the method in which God created matter in the universe.

My attempt to discern on such things is pure speculation.

Due to suspicion and impatience I've decided to guess at kland's true question. The idea is kicked around by many that only the Earth and it's atmosphere was created in the first week of Genesis. Some even try to use 2 Samuel 18:9 to back this up.

Unfortunately for this view point, Genesis 1:14 very clearly dispels this. The idea that only our galaxy was created in that window of time requires a broader study of scripture, SOP, and the book of nature to dispel. If anyone has the second view, just let me know and I'll go through the points of why I can not agree.

In support of serious scriptural study, I've compiled a list of texts refering to heaven and earth.



My personal take on Genesis 1:1 is the creation of time space is "heaven" and that matter is "earth". That doesn't mean I'm right though.

I was not referring to verse three. I was referring to verse 2. Here's the breakdown...you said this:



But the Bible says this:


Therefore:

Whereas God says the earth already had water, you say there was "no matter."
Whereas God says the earth had depth, you say there was no "spatial dimension."

I know which words I will trust...and as for there being no light in me, JCS, that's a comment which was unnecessary and reflects more upon your study than upon me. I'm not the one defying the Bible here.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

My quote:


light= electromagnetic radiation

"darkness was upon the face of the deep"

dimension= form

empty space= void

"and the earth was without form and void"

your quote:


You've missrepresented my statement. I'm saying that at the beginning of time verses before the beginning (as is stated in Gen 1:1) matter (earth) was without dimension (form) and empty (void).

There was an absence of electromagnetic energy (darkness)amidst the surface of water.

There is absolutely nothing you can find in scripture or SOP that supports this idea that God relied on pre existant matter (existing before the beginning) to create.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 1:1-5

Following your doctrine to it's end conclusion would specify that the Earth existed before Jesus Christ. I really don't think you want to go there with this.

I think these last posts illustrate why physicists dont generally use scripture to define what results their scientific endeavours may and may not produce..

JCS,

The first chapter of Genesis spells out in no uncertain terms the existence of matter before "Creation Week." Let's take a closer look.

Genesis 1:1 -- Most scholars believe this is a summary statement for the passage to follow. It gives us the overview before it happens. The "beginning" it speaks of most probably is an allusion to all seven days of Creation. It is possible, however, for it to also refer to the elements of earth itself, in which case the introduction is continued in the next verse. Either of these views is possible, reasonable, and acceptable in my book.

In verse 2, however, we have some statements regarding the existence of both depth (dimension, right?) and water. This is very definitely an introduction to the state of the world before God began making something of it. Naturally, God is the source of all creation, and even the water present before He began had been created by Him--we simply are not told when. Jesus created everything. The waters did not exist before Him. But when was Jesus created? Never? Ok....since Jesus has always been, that leaves a significant amount of time in which the waters may have been created prior to Creation Week.

In verse 3, God begins Creation Week by saying "Let there be light." While that is the only thing created during that first day, take note of something else...evenings and mornings. We are told that with the mere introduction of light, we already have both evening and morning. This is highly significant.

Consider the fable (Aesop's?) of the sun and the cave. Each invites the other to experience his realm. But when the sun goes into the cave to see what darkness was like, there was no darkness in the cave, since the sun's light had filled it. Light pervades and goes everywhere.

If this earth were but "empty space" on the first day of creation, there could be no such thing as evening and morning only "mornings." The light would invade all the available space and leave no darkness at all. Yet God calls the darkness "Night!" The darkness could only exist in a shadow. Shadows do not exist in a void of empty space which has just been lit.

Day 2 could never have begun with darkness had there not already been something here. There is no light in the Universe that flashes on/off to make our days and nights. It is only by rotation of the earth that these periods of light and darkness exist, while the light itself is steady, directional, and constant.

In fact, every day of creation week is defined in the same way. This points decidedly to the fact that there was a rotating orb of mass here already. According to verse 2, that mass included water.

God never needed to create water or land during Creation Week. He only needed to give them defined boundaries of separation into "Earth" (dry land) and "Sea."

God says "Let the waters be gathered together" instead of saying "Let there be water!" God also says "let the dry land appear" instead of saying "let there be land!" Why "dry?" There can be only one reason for this adjective. It was previously wet (hidden under the water, and therefore not visible, which is why God causes it to appear above the water).

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

What happened on the 4th day interests me greatly in relation to this thread:

Note especially verse 16 which says He made the sun, as the greater light, the moons, as the lesser light. He then says that He also made the stars.

What is this verse telling us about the existence of the sun, the moon, and even the stars prior to the fourth day of creation?

[content removed as requested by the poster]

This is Genesis chapter one from the Hebrew interlinear Bible:



Take a closer look at the fourth day and you'll realize that this "and the stars also" business wasn't originaly there. It was incorrectly added amidst translation.



When one reads scripture in the original Hebrew, it's like reading a completely different book in many ways. I've now included you into a very small group of Christians in the world, now being aware of critical errors within English translations of the Holy Word.

This verse actually states that the lesser light ruled the night and the stars, nothing more. God's act of creating the stars was in verse 14.

Skeptical? Check out this link.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf

According to my understanding, the light created in verse 3 isn't the Sun, Moon, or even the stars. The only light in the heavens remaining is what comes from the light horizon. Verse 14 gives the first referance to the stars with possible inclusion to other objects. (The motions of the planets, comets, or asteroids cannot be used to determine seasons or years but possibly for days and signs.)

In verse 16, God creates two more heavenly lights. The Sun is the greater light. The Moon may, or may not be what is the lesser light. (This is based on some elements found in the original Hebrew that I will not discuss here.) The greater light ruled the day, the lesser light ruled the night and the stars.

I think this "where and when" issue of the earth has run its course. (thankfully) This was really nothing but a distraction from the true focus of this tread and had no bearing on the FF model in any way, shape, or form.

In an earlier list, I had composed a series of areas needing discussion.



Unknown to many, there is actualy more than one form of red shift. One cause is from an object moving away from the observer. (the Doppler effect) This effect only reveals effects of motion away from the observer, not around. If the radial distance remains constant, no effect is observed.

There is also what is called cosmological redshift of which represents the effects of expanding time space on light. To illustrate this one could draw a wave pattern on an uninflated ballon and then observe the change in the waves from blowing it up.

A key point relating to cosmological redshift is the cosmological horizon. This marks an observable boundry in time of which coincides with the light horizon. In accordance with the FF model, this temporal distance (of 13.73 bill ly) represents the visible universe's total "resultant time" (being 13.73 bill years.) I should reflect on the point that resultant time isn't the actual period of time past. It's cyclical time multiplied by rotational time. The slide ruler balance between space and time in FF gears time's "observered" rate of passage at the cosmological horizon to zero. In effect, if we could see an object like an apple falling from a tree at that distance, it would appear to be floating in space as if frozen in time.

I should carefully point out that this is a relativistic phenomenon, meaning, time isn't really flowing at that rate at the cosmological horizon. It only appears in this manner to us. This effect is in fact observable in astronomy but is of course disregarded as an odd effect possibly caused by dark matter or some temporary effect evidenced in the early stages of the universe's expansion.

A third form of redshift is gravitational. This is caused by the relativistic fact that time runs slower in gravitational fields. FF carefully intertwines the calculated effects of all three forms of red shift, leading to it's conclusion in regard to the true properies of time space in our universe.

In summary, the Doppler effect reveals the reativistic properties of time and space on light. Cosmological redshift evidences the temporal effects our universe's motion and expansion has. Finally, studying gravitational red shift enlightens one on how matter has hidden effects that alter light's temporal rate.

For some odd reason, astronomy endeavors to keep these proven effects separate as if only one of these properties can exist at one time.

Slipping back to some older discussions, I had forgotten that the concept of "curved time" and "curved space" wasn't even my own unique creation. On page 101-102 in Nick Herbert's book "Faster than Light" he explains how Einstein's GR REQUIRES curved space and curved time. Curved space-time is called "Riemannnian Geometry". My First Flash model mearly combines this confusing geometry with linear space-time defined by the internal unchanging space-time rate of light itself.

Of course, Riemannian Geometry is heavily discussed in common physics books like "Time Space Matter", and Wheeler's "Gravitation". The realization that there are two groups of physical laws (one dealing with linear motion, the other with angular) is even adressed in Gibson's Dictionary of Mathmatics.

After carefully analyzing the equations for things like speed, gravitational acceleration, moment of inertia, mass, angular frequency, centripetal force, angular displacement, and frame dragging (all within the context of Lorentz transformations) I discovered a secret relationship existing between linear and curved space-time physics.

These two forms of space-time composite together like values in the x and y dimensions (of geometry) multiply to define an area.

The two values would not always be equal, but when referancing visible light within our visible universe it is essential. If the value for curved space-time was greater the effect would equal what happens to light within black holes.

If a beam of light traveling toward Earth had a lesser value of curved space-time, the beam would never quite reach our eyes. (much like the light beyond the light horizon)

Linear and curved space-time must work together in concert or the light being effected cannot remain visible within the context of our universe.

Refering back to what Stephen Hawking said, extreme time space curvature creates matter. Matter is thus created by the folding of time space itself. Curiously, the energy equation has a similar component. Mass times (speed of light squared) equals the total sum of rest mass energy, kinetic energy, and potential energy.

The speed of light is used as a yard stick to define time space and yet GR defines reality to exist within curved time space. Both statements are true however, the common act of separating these truths (verses working them together) is not correct.

The physical properties of matter within space are gravitation and inertia. When one aligns inertia (or intrinsic energy) with it's complex conjugate gravitation, time space defined by light (the null line) is defined. We literaly exist in squared time space.

I'll try to verbaly illustrate this. Imagine a square piece of glass. The edges of the glass represent reality as we can see it. If a beam of light could be fired from one corner of the square, to the opposite we would see light traveling only along the edge.

Let's say this square has the dimension of one light second squared. We would see light travel one light second in one second. The diagonal legth of the square isn't really that length. It would be the square root of 1^2 plus 1^2 or 1.414213562. This is part of the reason why it is physicaly immpossible for matter to travel the same speed as light.

It may at first seem as though I started talking about an entirely different subject but this material is in fact foundational to FF. There are many, many different perspective ways in revealing FF through physics but they are all quite complex in nature.

Another layer to the square glass illustration is light's wave like nature. Light is a constant alternation between electric and magnetic fields. To correctly illustrate this (and to reveal some of the reasons for light's strange properties) imagine a second square piece of glass with the dimensions of 1.414213562 light seconds by 1.414213562 light seconds. This second piece is setting verticly along its edge while the original piece is oriented horizontally. This smaller square bisects the horizontal center of the larger (its corners are centered along the larger square's vertical sides).

Now imagine a vertical wave pattern starting at the left side of the larger square. The wave moves up to the top and then down to the bottom repeatively until it finally reaches the other side. Along the horizontal square's edge we would only see a series of dots. When we try to see quanta of light it has a particle nature. When we study light's overall properties, it's more like a wave. The areas above and below the horizontal plane represent linear time space of which can not be seen by material beings like ourselves.

Returning back to the point. Reality, from our perspective, is from the same perspective as matter. Matter's physical reality consists of folded time space caused by extreme time space curvature. Light is arguably free of mass. When light comes in contact with a gravitational field (originating from mass) it's time space begins to curve.

Linear time space isn't natural to us. We are not native to it. As a result, our observations of physics lead us to believe that the time space determining how light travels is the same as curved time space as explained in GR. Yet, when we deal with hands on physics, linear and angular laws are parallel but uniquely different. Breaking it down further, these laws illustrate the strange relationship between inertia and gravity.

The reality in which we exist is a composite. The bare dimensions of existence are, for the most part, invisible to us. It's kind of like looking at the surface edge of water in an aquarium instead of seeing the vast ocean. The fact that this scientific construct reveals that our visible universe is little over six thousand years old can not be construed as coincidence with scripture.

That's probably more than enough info on the dimensions of light for now.

The next topic is even more complex in nature but I'm going to try to summarize instead of going into complete detail. There is what I call the tile method and the expanded energy equation. I should start with the expanded equation.

With an enormous amount of work, I've expanded the components of the famous E=M^2.

C^2= (space/time)^2
mass= total energy/(s/t)^2
total energy= M*S^2/T^2

It's very difficult to verbaly describe the tile method. Instead, I'll simply list some of the discoveries made using it.

time^2 = radius^2 * C^2
photogravitics = C^2= E/M
weak gravitational energy = ((T^2 * C^2)/T^2 * C^2)C^2
radius^2 = T^2*C^2
moment of inertia = M*T^2*C^2
E=(M*R^2)/T^2
frame dragging =R^2/R^2=1 or (T^2*C^2)/(T^2*C^2)

Using the Tile Method, several key properties can be equated.

weak gravitational energy = photogravitics * frame dragging
cosmic torque = weak gravitational energy * mass

Another expansion on the energy equation is as follows:

(M((dl/dt)*(2pi*r/ds)/3)+(dl/dt((M*2pi*r)/ds/3)+(2pi*r/ds((M*dl)/dt/3)= E= M* dl/dt *(2pi*r)/ds

or

W+T+V=E=M*C^2

W= rest mass energy
T= kinetic energy
V= potential energy
C^2= speed of light times curved angular frequency
dl= distance between two points
dt= time interval between two points (cosmic time)
ds= proper time
2pi * r= rotation

(dl/dt)*(2pi*r/ds)= C^2

This older equation was later rectified as cyclical time space times curved time space equals weak gravitational energy.

I think Green Cochoa brought out a good point. God never created water. He only moved around what was already there.

I was thinking of the following:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
...
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

You seem to present it can be either of two views.
How about only life on earth was created during the first week of Genesis?
This not only matches what science tells us about the age of the universe and earth being older than 6,000 years, but it also fits what the Bible tells us. In the beginning (of our history, life on earth, time as it relates to us), the earth already was.

I don't believe GC was saying what you suggest.
God created matter. It just wasn't at the time you suggest at Creation week. He only arranged and created life upon preexisting matter He had created previously. At which time He created this matter (earth, universe) is not specified nor does it concern the purpose of the Bible.

Was it that He made the luminaries or He made the luminaries to rule the day and to rule the night and the stars? Which would mean this is where I would also disagree with GC.
Also:
I have in mind He set the earth to spinning. However, everything seems to naturally spin. So maybe at the right speed or the right tilt?

This isn't to say that some of your ideas about the speed of light, etc. do not have merit. You have probably seen people show how 2+2=5. Everything they say is true and you wonder how it could be wrong. However, when you go over it, they start out with a first premise which is not true, but most miss. You started out saying, "If the universe was created 6000 years ago". I have not found that to be supported Biblically. Evolutionists ridicule creationists who think that and therefore reject everything they say. Creationists once believed in a geocentric universe. That idea is not supported Biblically either.

On the issue of "did the earth or water exist before the week of creation?" Genesis 1:2 proves this just as much as it disproves it. I understand why modern creationists want to conform to statements made by the scientific community. If FF is tested to be true it will be a total revolution in science. Therefore it seems unlikely that anyone is going to simply agree with this concept.

Here's the issue I have with GC. My stance is that the beginning of the heavens and the earth is the beginning of creation week. Biblicaly, all of the evidence is on my side of the fence.

Notice Genesis 2:4

"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,"

Exodus 20:11

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

2 Peter 3:4,5 explains that earth's condition of standing out of the water and in the water describes the earth's initial creation.

A key point in verse 5 reference's mans intentual ignorance in this regard. Then in verse 8, Peter asks his beloved not to be ignorant of something. 2 Peter 3:8 does reflect on God's patience but it also defines a complex algebraic ratio of temporal rate relative to God's location (beyond the light horizon). This rate is at the very heart of FF.

Satan has falsely inspired many to incorrectly discern this text to mean that biblical days were vast periods of time. This isn't true, and it doesn't correspond with what the complete verse says.

Ellen White clearly defines what you and GC claim as false.



Thus far in our country, we have the freedom of religion. If you wish to believe the Earth existed before the week of creation, fine. If you want to be a true SDA who looks upon scripture and SOP as foundational truth, you are in dire conflict. I would rather you reject this belief while holding to the Adventist faith or reject the faith completely. You are luke warm.

The first part of Genesis 1:16 answers this question without a hitch.

"And God made two great lights;"



I guess you're suggesting that FF is like saying 2+2=5. If one would but study my work you'll find that the time periods described by science coincide with the "resultant" time periods in FF. It is simply a different form of temporal passage. An accurate form of physics that combines GR with QM will be anything but simple 1st grader addition. All of the TOE theories, united models, and quantum gravity concepts require higher dimensions. Of all of these, mine is the simplest and yet also the most beautiful in nature.

FF requires only eight dimensions to unite GR with QM. Only eight! (curved and linear time space) The hottest idea out there right now is E8 (with 248 dimensions.) There is also a component to FF involving rapid temporal rates with spaces at the quantum scale. When the universe was first created, it existed at the quantum scale. (FF and BB argee on this point) All of the issues with carbon dating and so forth are fully dealt with.

Another point, of which you've seemingly missed, is that FF simply unites two fully accepted physics principles that the scienitific community foolishly thought were the same thing due to the extreme similarity. (the linear time space defining properties of light and curved time space defining gravitation) There is no 2+2=5 stuff going on here.

I should point out that there is plenty of it found in modern astronomy text books. On page 8 of "The Cosmic Perspective" states "The farther away we look in distance the further back we look in time. This fact allows us to see what parts of the universe looked like in the distant past. For example, if we look at a galaxy that is 1 billion light-years away, its light has taken 1 billion years to reach us -which means we are seeing it as it looked 1 billion years ago."

Even in BB this is a lie. The amount of time-space in the universe constantly increases as the universe expands. As a result, the time distance ratio between an object and the observer is in constant change. Consider how much more so this would be on light emmitted 13.73 billion light years away.

When one adds in GR into the mix, elements relating to temporal rates and distance become even more profound. If you go back and study SR and GR with the thought that gravity is seemingly identical but different than inertia and that properties of time-space with light is seemingly identical but different than gravitation, you'll soon learn that FF is actually the union of SR with GR.

Reflecting back on the 2+2=5 analogy, a more accurate account of BB vs FF on creation is this. BB's logic works like this, if 2+2=4 and 2x2=4 then 3x3 must equal 6.

BB uses a simple stupid answer to solve a complex problem.

The silly cop outs used by modern Christians today to explain the apparent conflict between scientific data and the scriptural account will have no necesity when FF is fully fortified.

(Stop relying on weak crutches to support your faith.)

Ignoring those who dont agree with you is no way to move forward for someone who wishes to gain recognision among his or her peers..

K, good point vaster. I willingly concede to your point. What is your recommendation in regard to GC's nonbiblical stance?

I admit I should have stated this quote differently:



My adjusted statement would have been "many modern Christians today". This is in reference to how many try to say that the creation wasn't just a week or that things existed billions of years before the creation week.

My recomendation is that you adopt a more humble attitude, and consider that since it is founded in the grammar of a language that has only survived as a liturgical language for more than the last 3000 years or so, that Greenie might be right and you be wrong, or even that the correct reading might be one neither of you have adopted.

I do lack humility on occasion. Comparing scripture with scripture and relying on SOP as is the stance of the SDA church in accordance to the 28 fundimental beliefs, Greenie's stand point remains in error.

The fact that uniting Einstien's Special theory of Relativity (regarding aspects of time-space relative to light) with General Relativity (regarding properies of time-space relative to curvature) generates a cosmological model supporting a 6000 year old universe should evidence the possibility that the clear unaltered text of Genesis may actually be fact.

I don't know, but saying something was moving over the surfaces of the waters before God said, "Let there be", does sound to me that it is intended to have already been in existence at that point in time. (Though I do agree, time may be undefined at that point, but I don't see how any could say it wasn't "before" "Let there be".

Much to the criticism of evolutionists, that does not describe me. I hold the Bible first, and then try to conform science to the Bible. But, "conform" is probably not the correct word as much as observe that science does match the Bible.

And I agree, the beginning of the heavens and the earth is the beginning of creation week.

But, I noticed you did not address God's definition of heaven and earth. To me, it was important that you address it. Maybe you accidentally skipped it rather than avoided it? Of particular interest is 2 Peter 3:7 speaking of the heavens and earth being reserved for fire.
I'm not sure. She says world. Could be world as created life groaning. However she does say this earth and tens of thousands. Would that be science's definition of "earth" or God's definition of earth? Perhaps you'd like to expand on this from her writings. But, this world or earth being about 6,000 years old doesn't seem to match, which if I understood what you wrote correctly, 4,000?

I'm not sure that was a wisely made statement.
Again, perhaps you could shed some light with further expansion from Ellen White on the age of the physical earth versus created life. Or somewhere else in the Bible. Genesis 1 does not support anything other than when life was created. Which again, is what the Bible involves itself with.

Actually:
he-shall-become luminaries in·atmosphere-of the·heavens to·to-cseparate-of between the·day and· between the·night and·they-become for·signs and·for·appointments and·for·days and·years

Doesn't say "when". Actually speaks of separating and becoming signs.

What weak crutches? Relying on what the Bible says?
Evolutionists have accused me of the same thing.

In comparing scripture with scripture, experience shows that you will always prioritise some verses above others, even while others may do the oposite view. This all being founded in what you bring to the bible, which understandings you start out with. It does not make either of you less sincere, but it does make both of you biased. Recognising ones own bias is one step forward IMO.

If you are relying on Ellens writings as a final arbiter on scripture, you are even there showing that your reading is biased, since you will only be able to proceed through ignoring her own repeated statements saying her work should not be used in such a way.

As for the 28th beliefs, I was not aware they had been adopted as a creed..

If I made a typo saying 4000 years I stand corrected. This isn't my stance on the event of creation. If your regarding my statement of 4124 B.C. then your math is flawed. The time between 4124 BC and 2010 AD is actually more than 6000 years time.

I am admittedly loosing interest in discussing trivial contensions. The idea that earth or water or whatever existed before the beginning of creation week is fully dispeled with in Exodus 20:11. I agree to disagree with you on this subject. I need say nothing more of this.

If you have a superior cosmological model I'd love to hear it. Dr. Russell Humphrey is thus far the only physicist out there with a Genesis aged Universe model that attempts to use solid physics. I take issue with his model becuase it relies on some very strange ideas like that a white hole exists near the Earth to explain the distant starlight problem.

Instead of fearing genuine science, my model embraces it.

I'm starting to see the armies of stawmen building. Dispel of this. Prove your own points. I need not argue with myself to make facts evident.

The context of my own statement reveals that the "crutches" do not have anything to do with relying on scripture. A person uses crutches when he lacks faith in the strength of his own legs to walk. The man's legs represent your faith in scripture as it is stated. The use of crutches would indicate a lack of faith requiring a weak alternative for support of your faith.

Your greater faith in the studies of men has injured your legs. The strange modifications in meaning in scripture serves for crutches. I falsely assumed such a clear analogy would be easily comprehended.

What is your end conclusion in regard to this exscript?

Studying the recent comments made by vaster and kland seem to reveal an intent to "flame" as its called in internet lingo. Is this the common manner to which Adventists peers revert to when they are in conflict with another's point of view?

The heavens and the earth discribed in 2 Peter 3:7 are the same heavens and earth mentioned in Genesis chapters 1 & 2, Exodus 20:11, Joel 2:10, Revelation 14:7, 20:11, and 21:1.

The entire visible universe created in Genesis will be recreated as is described in Revelation. The universe of Heaven is not part of the visible universe according to Ellen White. If the sea of glass is the light horizon, scripture confirms this.

Guess it is me standing corrected. I remembered it wrong. I didn't remember the B.C. So, your calculations would fit in.

Not so. It says He made the heaven, the earth, and the seas and everything in them.
What is God's definitions of those terms?

You seem quick to jump to conclusions and accuse others of things before they are determined. I am, of course, biased regarding me, but I think Vaster gave good advice and see no need for you to lump him with me. I am only disagreeing with one of your base assumptions. There was no intent to insult you. Obviously you know quite a bit more than I do on some topics. There's no need to get upset when someone disagrees with you. If I am wrong, merely point out how. But I have yet to see how God's definition of heaven and earth is wrong. You assume heaven and earth means one thing. The same as I once assumed by listening to others repeat things. I assume heaven and earth means another. If you think it's trivial, I can't do much about that. I don't see it a trivial thing to question when most of what you are saying is based upon whether the universe existed or not before creation time of life on this earth. Is it not proper for others to question and verify if the base assumption is correct?

Oh, I agree. But do you disagree with God's definition of what he defined as heaven, earth, and sea?

I guess with my growing lack of tact and an apparent communication gap there may be more to each others view points than either one of us presently realize. We both concur that all things that truely exist were created by God. (To justify this statement, sin must be viewed as the antithesis of order and that perfect order is creation.) The issue breaks down to when?

You've correctly pointed out that Gen 1:2 fails to state the words "and God made the earth and the waters". For matter to justifiably exist (water is a form of matter as it is composed of hydrogen and oxygen atoms of which retain gravitational mass) it must exist within a frame work of both temporal and spacial dimensions.

This would effectively be defined as a beginning point. Genesis 1:1 seems to summarize this event. If you take a careful study of the Hebrew word eh'-rets (index #776) in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, it's meaning is "to be firm". This is the word that was translated to earth in Gen 1:2. It really isn't the planet Earth that we're talking about, it's the existence of protons and neutrons. (Of course this point can be debated day and night until God settles the dispute for us.)

All of these points still do not solve the dispute of whether the beginning of the heavens and the earth occured at the start of the week of creation or before. I thought that the refences given clarified on that point but I guess everything is debatable to the Nth extreme. Why is this a point of contension?

It has to do with the age of matter as is calculated in science. For the most part, I believe that science's calculations in regard to nuclear decay rates are in fact accurate. It is slowly becoming revealed in cutting edge physics that time has a much different rate at the quantum scale.

Ignoring the FF model, this at first glance means absolutely nothing. However, consider how both FF and BB start out with a universe that is in the quantum mechanical scale of area. The point suddenly becomes the heart of the matter. (no pun intended)

This point evidences another massive problem for the massive time periods proposed by BB. (Remember, the form of time flow in QM isn't what we rely on at the macro scale.) This mechanism freely explains why matter is so aged by nuclear decay rates within a very short period of time and is in fact quite fundimental that it be as such.

It is my suspicion that the reason for our conflict of understanding is caused by the lack of understanding of the FF model. If there is a superior physical model to explain the observed data that remains in harmony with the Bible and SOP I'd love to see it.

Huh? No, that isn't so. My take on the meaning of heaven in Genesis 1 is the area in which objects move. More to the point: the literal fabric of time-space itself.

I've already defined earth as the literal composition of matter i.e. protons and neutrons. (In this modern age of physics perhaps it would be superior to say time-space knots or maybe quarks, leptons, and bosons.)

JCS


kland


Are you for real? The ball is in your court. It's time I start to hear some solid proofs supporting this proposed theory of time-space and matter existing before the seven day week of creation (within the visible universe). Feel free to use scripture, Strong's concordance, the Hebrew & Greek interlinear Bible, SOP, and the 28 fundamental beliefs. I will openly study your statements without personal bias.

My interest is in the truth regardless of the expense. Many years ago I disconnected from the Adventist faith and started over from scratch. I did this because I was raised SDA and noticed that everyone who is raised in a manner has a bias towards it. I wanted to discover the truth for truth's sake, and NOTHING ELSE. I desperately tried to visualize the atheist view point regarding the Big Bang.

Physicly, the consept doesn't work. So then I followed a logical process to find the true faith of which would evidence it's self in mankind's earliest recorded history. (Yes, I was still desperately trying to distance myself from Adventism.) I discovered that the Genesis story is recorded in Sumerian cuniform tablets of which pointed to the Sabbath.

The only people who observed the Sabbath were the Israelites. The Israelite prophets pointed to Christ. The New Testament then pointed to Ellen White's work. I considered other churches like the Seventh Day Baptists but they lacked the spirit of phophecy. I commenced in testing Ellen White. She is not only a prophet but a spiritual leader as well making her an apostle.

Going back to the issue of Genesis, if I were to accept this belief of matter to exist (within the visible universe) before the week of creation as fundimental Adventist doctrine, it would force me to reject the church due to my fundimental system regarding following foundational truths.

Maybe this is where there is some misunderstanding. I took you to mean planet earth. But you say the literal composition. Which I don't see any real difference relating to time of creation.

I guess I'm having a hard time to start hearing about FF seriously until you can get me past what the Bible says. See, I take the Bible first. I have pointed out scriptures which contradicted what you are saying about planet earth existing before Genesis 1 (At least what I think you are saying ). That is Genesis 1:8,10 where God defines what heaven and earth is.

To me, God is not defining planet earth. You just said you are not defining planet earth. So, I am confused.

dual use. Could mean either, meaning non-conclusive for any individual verse.
Of interest, He set the lights in the firmament what he called heaven. Would that be what Adam would see and understand and for many centuries people believed about the heaven and canopy, and pillars, or the heaven as we know it? People say the sun is up in the sky. They don't really mean the sun has moved, nor do they mean anything to do with the universe. They point up. They see the sun. It moves across the sky. The same "sky" they breathe.

Earth has varying meanings and used many times. I see, from a search of the word, it being used for what people see tangible - dry land.

Now so that you don't misunderstand, I am not saying this means the earth did exist way before or couldn't be created at nearly the same time. What I am saying is Genesis 1 does not support it being created during creation week as outlined in the verses. Planet earth could exist before or it may not (meaning it existed only slightly before). I'm just saying Genesis 1 does not address it. In fact, it strongly indicates planet earth, (not in it's current form, or shortly after God rearranged it) existed before God said "Let there be". It may have existed seconds before or it may have existed 4.5 billion years before. I don't know. Genesis 1 doesn't say.

I have been watching as science finds out that the long ages that once thought existed are having some problems being supported. Most recently I have read with amusement where these pre-humans or whatever they choose to call them are existing way before they thought. Then there is the eye of octopuses. Everything seems to be run together or started at the same point. Another recent thing I saw was about canyons in the ocean. How'd they get there. Maybe they weren't the typical canyons?

Anyway, who knows how old the planet earth really is. Opinion almost seems to change daily. The only point I'm addressing is whether Genesis says the earth, planet earth, terrafirma, was created during the first verses. God's act of separating the waters, and creating dry, may have affected the internal properties of the rock.

Perhaps a question is what is the definition of time. God may have created time, and did as we know it as far as sunlight ruling the days is concerned. This could very well fit within parts of your model. I'm not saying give up on your model, just make sure base assumptions are correct. Or necessary.

Foundational truths? I am not aware of Adventist doctrines which say planet earth is around 6,000 years old. And except for the Ellen White quote, which I commented on, maybe you could present something else from her.

The Bible does not say the earth is 6,000 years old. Rocks and fossils do not say the earth is billions or millions of years old. They both present evidence. Some conclude, therefore the earth must be 6000 years old. Others conclude it must be 4 billion. Both are conclusions. I agree that from the Bible, studying the recorded genealogy, life appears to be less than 10,000 years old. Assuming it means the planet earth, involves assumptions from Genesis. Now, maybe there is something else in the Bible, or something else from White that would cause me to change my mind.

I see nothing here that discredits the Bible, Ellen White, nor the foundations of the church. Many do believe, because they have been biased from people repeating others, that planet earth is 6000 years old. Reading the comments from the commentary suggests to me it may more likely be closer to 7,000. SDA commentary. Many repeat that vegetables weren't permitted as food until Cain. I have yet to see it supported from the Bible or White. It is important to me to not make the Bible say what it doesn't. That doesn't mean it's not true -- it's just not in the Bible. Kind of like who did Cain marry? The Bible doesn't say his wife came from Adam. We can assume so. It also doesn't say Adam and Eve had sex. Other than knowing each other three times. We can assume.

Shall we assume planet earth was created 6,000 years ago? Maybe. The Bible doesn't say. Should the assumption be held as high as the just mentioned things. I don't think so.

Does your model give support for the assumption? Perhaps so. All I'm saying is the Bible indicates planet earth with it's waters existed before. Don't know how far before. Or in what dimension. Maybe in the same as the other worlds as brought up. But if so, then, as far as the Bible addressing us is concerned, the earth did exist before Genesis - with water.

(Perhaps of relevance you could speak of these other worlds being in a different dimension and whether they exist from our viewpoint? I say they do. This could be a key point?)

I don't know if this conveys my thoughts correctly. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

OK, I think everything you've stated are excelent points. The discussion returns to whether my model is antibiblical. Studying your view points carefully, the stance that FF conflicts with the Bible is unproven. It may also be stated that one can not fully prove that everything in FF is fully proven with the holy word either.

If FF becomes an accepted theory, it would most definitely pave a road evidencing truth to the physical claims made by Genesis. The First Flash model does not distract from scripture. If it is tested to be true it may actually work to support it. As far as where the water and earth came from in Genesis 1:2 FF makes no claims. FF deals with how the fabric of time-space (composing the visible universe) expanded to it's present form.

What I've said in regard to how the Earth was created is purely conjecture and does not serve any part of the FF model. My arguement regarding preexistant matter is purely theological in nature. When I said the ball is in your court I meant it. I want to hear some hard facts on this subject. I want to know the truth.

Studying your last post futher, I've determined that my original understanding of your view doesn't match up with your actual one. I still do not fully understand what your view point is.

To simplify and to clarify my own I'll state the following. Based off of the Bible and SOP I conclude that the heavens and the earth were created in the week of creation. The heavens define the fabric of time-space composing the visible universe. The earth is all of the time-space knots composing "matter" within the visible universe. The week of creation occured over a duration of seven complete Earth rotations relative to the pressence of God in Heaven. A single Earth rotation relative to Heaven is equal to one complete Earth rotation relative to our star Sol (the Sun in other words).

Though Genesis 1:2 doesn't clearly define when earth and water were created, other passages of scripture define that #1 God created all things in the beginning, #2 that the heavens and the earth were created in the beginning, and #3 that the heavens and the earth were created in the week of creation. Deductive reasoning indicates from this that all created things were created in the week of creation.

This is an oversimplification, but I feel reasonably safe to say that Scripture supports that all of the visible universe was created within the week of creation. I feel very uneasy with anyone's claims that attempt to dispute this.

I'm already expecting some hot water over this. An evening and morning can not be defined without the Earth moving relative to a second object. If the light refered to in Genesis 1:3 is literaly light, it isn't the Sun. Verse 16 refers to a greater light created on the fourth day to rule the day. This can only be the Sun. If the light in verse 3 isn't the Sun (verse 16), the moon (the lesser light in verse 16), or the stars (verse 14), it only leaves the light from the light horizon of which scientificly marks the beginning of the universe. If this light originates from God in Heaven and reflects off of the sea of glass, and if the sea of glass is the light horizon, then Earth's motion could only be determined relative to the presence of God in Heaven.

I know there are alot of ifs in my hypothesis, but nothing else seems to make any sense.

The idea that the light horizon served as Earth's only source of light for four days seems really odd unil one considers how close it was to Earth at that time using FF. (0-16 light days away) Considering how luminous this horizon was, 16 light days distance was plenty close.

And I'd agree with that. Excepting we have different definitions of heavens and earth. I'm going with what God called them. I just heard an Adventist Pastor speaking about the universe saying that God created it at some point, we just don't know exactly when. And although your model makes some assumptions, I have not said your model is anti-biblical, but that one of your assumptions is not found in the Bible. Don't you think parts of your model could be correct while your assumption that the universe was created 6,000 years ago may be incorrect? What if William Miller said our whole foundation is based upon the Lord returning in October and if I reject that I have to reject the faith. His calculations were correct, but His assumption of what the sanctuary was incorrect. He continued and came to a much better understanding.

I'm not so sure about that. And I'm not talking about the earth moving relative to the Sun, I followed what you meant there. And not that I'm clinging to belief one way or another, but there are some issues with evening and morning and then the sun either not being created or as I say, not "ruling" till day four (read more below). In studying the character of God, that His law is really His character, it would not be out of line to conclude that the Sabbath, the seventh day as we know it, was not some arbitrary spontaneous thing created during creation week or just because the earth had a certain spin rate, but that there has always existed a Sabbath. That it is part of who God is -- His nature. Therefore, would it not follow that he set up our earth to match His character? He created plants and animals and it was perfect. Would He not put the correct spin, besides the correct tilt and everything else, so that it matches His character? So, I would reword your statement to say that creation occurred over a duration of seven God-days and part of that creation was to rotate the earth to match it. So it's kind of what you said, but a little different.

I did a search and could not find where all things were created in the beginning.
Not knowing what verse you had in mind, but one could be
All things were created by Him. Nothing about the beginning or when.
Another is:

Which could mean His works were from the beginning of the world, or it could mean known from the beginning of the world.
Looking at other versions:

Ac 15:18 (NKJV) "Known to God from eternity are all His works.
Not quite saying the same thing here.

Ac 15:18 (ASV) Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old.
Ac 15:18 (MKJV) All His works are known to God from eternity.
Ac 15:18 (RSV) says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.'
And these are quite different than saying He created all things from the beginning of the world.


Maybe you have other verses which I could not find? See, as Vaster says, I may be blinded by my biasness and cannot find what you have in mind.

Where was God during creation? Unless you are leaving God in heaven and Jesus doing the creation? But then, Jesus is the Lamb, the Light.

I have in mind, Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

A question would be, what is the evening and morning. Did God leave or dim? I think it has something to do with the seven days and the Sabbath, but can't say I understand it.

http://letsfocusonlife.com/?p=2358

This link enlightened me as to why this pre creation week stuff is so wide spread. It's creping into our schools!

Tis was the one key verse being refered to. (there are others)

John 1:1-3



The Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. Therefore God was in the beginning. Since God was in the beginning and all things were made by him there is no such thing as before the beginning. God did not create before the beginning because God was in the beginning.

God's existence outside of time can not be referanced with time. The beginning marks the beginning of time. You can not measure a quantity of something if there is no measurable portion of it to measure. God created time. To say something existed before the beginning would be a fallacy. It would demote "the beginning" to "the second beginning" of which is not a beginning at all making the book of Genesis a lie. If something was created independent of time it would not even have a beginning point until time was created. This is why John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word" instead of "before the beginning was the Word."

If you believe the earth and water existed independent of time, it opens up a new can of worms. I could attempt to justify it by speculating that it was remnaint material from a separate universe or that for some reason it was created frozen outside any temporal flow. My first question is, what would justify believing such a thing if it isn't spelled out as foundational truth and isn't even scientificly necessary?

My second question is, if either of these ideas were true, would it really change the statement of "all things being created in the week of creation" from truth to falsehood? The passage of time in our visible universe is soully measured within it's own time-space. If something beyond this universe appeared within it, that moment effectively marks the beginning of the foreign object's existence in this universe.

It seems very foolish to me that we are arguing over this point unless you think there was a temporal beginning before the week of creation (when time had measure). If this is what you believe, I can not agree with you by any means.

This speaks of Satan, who from the beginning was a liar and murderer, represented by Barabbas. What does "beginning" mean?


What does "end of time" mean in the above quote?


What does "in the beginning" mean in the above?

Who is "the beginning and the end" here? Did He have a beginning? Will He end?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It was a nice try, really. Genesis 1 clearly refers to the beginning of all things. DA 738, DA 745, and FLB 71 do not. (which is a "no duh") The last quote coincides with my own quote.



I altered this quote because God is because he is. He was not created.

You didn't answer my questions.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Looking back, I can in fact use your quotes to illustrate my point regarding pre beginnings.



If someone claimed that Barabbas was a liar and a murderer before he existed their claim would demote this quote to a lie.



If someone stated that Christ's prayer took in sinners before the beginning of the world it would demote this quote to a lie.



If someone claimed that the witnessing of the nature of sin before the beginning would have brought fear to the angels, this would devalidate the temporal structure of this quote.



If someone wanted to change this quote to "before the beginning" it would completely alter the verse's meaning. In fact, to support the preexistant Earth idea, this verse would by necessity, have to say "before the beginning" in order that it not conflict with the proposed theory.

I will concede that the English language is messy enough (in regard to complex subjects like temporal physics) that a statement can have multiple meanings (regarding points in time).

Consider the angels who were created independently of the visible universe. From their perspective in regard to a sequence of events, they existed "before" our universe was created. If one were to use our passage of time to measure how long the angels existed before "the beginning" it wouldn't work. Only when measuring time from an external perspective could time periods be measured earlier.

Since the creation story is in temporal referance to this universe alone, it can not state of things elsewhere.

If one were to try to support the pre beginnig idea using this it would just revert back to what I quoted before:



Ellen mentions of God's plan for salvation and the existence of the angels before the beginning. If the Earth did too why would she intentually hide this information from us?

Maybe she didn't say such a thing because it's a crafty lie developed by Satan himself to destroy the validity of the Sabbath.

There is no fault in the quote. It is the interpretation.

1) It is not talking about Barabbas.
2) If it were talking about Barabbas, his "beginning" is when? Conception? Birth? The point in time when he learns to lie?

You see, this interpretation has problems. I gave you a different interpretation in my earlier post, and was asking the question about that one, not this. I want to know how you answer the time question when applied to Satan, not Barabbas. Ellen White has said Barabbas represented Satan, and from there on, made statements in regard to the latter.


Apparently, you have not noticed some real gems from the Bible and Mrs. White that would help you to better understand this statement. (See Rev. 13:8)


You are not understanding the quote, for whatever reason. Mrs. White is saying that when Lucifer first sinned, while in heaven, before sin ever came to this earth, before Lucifer was ever cast out of Heaven, before the grand Creation Week of this world had ever begun...at THAT POINT, the universe would not have understood had God wiped out Lucifer. When God does finally do so, they will.


I gave no explanation. I only asked a question. You are still not answering it. However, you do seem to understand that it might conflict with your theory. What will you do if you find that the Bible does conflict with your theory? I hope you will not opt to re-interpret the Bible as "allegorical" or "fiction" as those who believe in long-age geology/evolution of species have done with "creation." Let the Bible be true, and all else be falsehood, wherever the twain conflict.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

JCS,

It's a simple question. What does "beginning" mean in this statement by Mrs. White: "In making this choice they accepted him who from the beginning was a liar and a murderer."

If the "beginning" is the moment of Creation, that same creation which spawned our world and all that is in it, then you must necessarily accept that God created Satan as a sinner. He was a "liar" "from the beginning."

Blaming this on messy English? I think you need to rethink some of your interpretations. Like it or not, we are dealing with some Hebrew and Greek here in addition to English. (Gen. 1:1 & John 1:1)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This conflict of thought originated with the debate between "creatio ex nihilo" and "ex nihilo nihil fit." (the debate of as to whether all things came from nothing or that all things have always been)

This wiki link touches on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

The pre existant Earth idea is highly reminiscent of the pagan primordial chaos beliefs that fit within the glove of "ex nihilo nihil fit."

Words reference meanings are defined by context. Study the context, glean the reference meaning. I'm not here to assist in the opposition's homework.

Instead of being condescending, why not simply reveal your personal view point on the subject.

Your first quote, look at the context.

Your second statement evidences poor logic. This commonly happens when one is in an agitated state. Satan wasn't created in the week of creation nor was he created when the visible universe was. Creation and existence do not mean the exact same thing. God existed in the beginning yet he was not created. Satan existed in the beginning of creation, was originaly created as Lucifer, but his creation was still independent of the beginning refered to in Genesis 1.

I see that you would very much like to use this to twist the facts. Twisting facts is an art form created by the great adversary who is also the father of lies. Neither scripture nor SOP say that the earth existed before the week of creation.

Interpretations of Greek and Hebrew are in fact clearer than English. This is becuase our language is a composite of many. Hebrew and Greek are older languages and are as a result, less convoluded.

I'm still waiting to hear some concrete proofs for this pre creation earth stuff.

I believe John was talking about the beginning as it relates to man. The beginning of man. He's talking about creation. Creation of man. You think differently?

Hmm... Good point. I haven't thought of it like that. I should study this chapter further and get back to you on that.

How would that work with "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made"?

Any futher discussions regarding "when was the earth really created?" I'm directing to another thread. This topic is nothing but a distraction from the topics I care to discuss here.

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forum...amp;#Post124805

I've decided to look at this issue (that has now become a debating match) from another angle.

Only the First Flash model successfully accounts for scientific anomolies such as the Pioneer anomoly, the rift between QM and GR, conflicting time rate of distant supernova, and (most importantly) why the spherical harmonics of the cosmic microwave background have nearly zero temperature fluctuations between angles at or greater than 60 degrees. This last point indicates that light accelerates with distance.

This lack of fluctuations in the CMB at 60 degrees or greater shouldn't be possible according to the present understanding of how light travels. The maximum distance light should be able to travel in 13.73 billion years (according to modern astronomy text books) is 13.73 billion light years.

This is the currently measured distance from Earth to the light horizon. It is effectively the radius to a sphere representing the edge of our universe. The distance between two points 60 degrees apart on the surface of a sphere is always greater than the sphere's radius.

All of this indicates that these other Genesis interpretations (claiming that the universe is over ten thousand years old)are wrong. It also indicates that all of the variations of the Big Bang Theory are also wrong as far as our universe's age.

With all of the dicey arguments basicly saying that it isn't possible to correctly discern scripture I say, compare it to the hard evidence revealed in God's book of nature. If one wants to put down FF, they should ask themselves first why their own pet beliefs fail to match up with the evidence in the Bible and in nature.

Something that might be worth pondering..
http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_wolfram_computing_a_theory_of_everything.html

All I can say is "WOW!". I am not effeminate in any way, but this video nearly made me cry.

Thank you for sharing this.

I just inputted my expanded energy equation on Wolfram Alpha. After waiting 6 or 7 seconds (expecting the thing to lock up or show an error message) it spits out 2abc/3 +c(ab/3)=d

abc= cosmic torque
c= curved time space
ab= mass times linear time space
d= total energy

I am VERY impressed with this program.

Thanks again vaster, I'm probably going to be using Wolfram alot more and be spending significantly less time here. (sorry)

Visualizing the math for actual physical properties, this result reveals two sources for cosmic torque. (Another universe)

I love it, I love it! This great stuff.

Wow!

I should explain a little bit more about my expanded energy equation. The E in E=mc^2 is total rest mass, kinetic, and potential energy or W+T+V=E. The First Flash Model expands c^2 to linear time-space times curved time-space. I found a relationship between these that led to my expanded equation.

rest mass energy | rest mass
kinetic energy | linear time-space
potential energy | curved time-space

Using studies from solid geometry, I found the algebraic relationship between A,B,C, and a,b,c, in A+B+C=a*b*c.

Here's the basic result:

a((b*c)/3)+b((a*c)/3)+c((a*b)/3)=d=a*b*c

Elements like frame dragging, comic torque, moment of inertia, weak gravitational energy, photogravitics, and angular gravitational energy are illustrated by their basic physical components in the Tile Method (of which I can not easily textually illustrate here).

Anyway, after imputing this equation into Wolfram Alpha, I gleaned a result I didn't expect.

2abc/3 +c(ab/3)=d

Mathematical confirmation of a second universe.

The division of 3 is a component from adding the three averaged values of energy forms. It must be present to properly equate the total energy in the system.

The tile method defines four hierarchies of energy. The highest is cosmic torque of which is represented here as abc.

The c(ab/3) beautifully illustrates how gravitation, mass, and the energy in light dynamically work together relative to the interactions of cosmic torque. The division of three is there for the same reason as explained before.

(b) is linear time-space. (the SR metric for light)
(a) is the total rest mass. (defined by the energy equation)
(c) is of course curved time-space. (the GR metric involving gravitation)

Due to the fact that mass curves time-space we have a wonderful dynamic shown by this c(ab/3).

With all of this explained it still leaves the 2 x cosmic torque.

Cosmic torque is only created by the angular rotation of a universe body. Our universe is known. A second universe remains missing from the picture.

As everyone already knows, I had already believed this but for different reasons. For me personally, this is a eureka moment.

(same thing you posted again in slightly different form above)

Now, either you're using the same pronumerals to represent different variables in this equation, or else it reduces as follows:

2abc/3 + c(ab/3) = 2abc/3 + abc/3 = 3abc/3 = abc

... which is what you derived above. The two terms completely disappear (assuming the same letter means the same thing each time, and with certain assumptions about where brackets could be added to clarify.

Not attacking, trying to understand.

So, c(ab/3)=abc/3

The part where two sources of cosmic torque interact accounts for two thirds of the total energy. Intresting. That must be kinetic energy + potential energy.

The c(ab/3) must represent the total rest mass energy within our universe which also equals 1/3 of cosmic torque.



Yes, that is the nature of the beast with Einstien's energy equation. Some of the most important information completely disappears once the equation is simplified. It goes against what is commonly taught in algebra class. The idea is hammered into our minds to simplify, causing everyone to ignore the mathmatical beauty hidden within perfectly balanced equations.

Think of it like what happens when matter and antimatter cancel each other out becoming a blaze of gamma rays and so forth. The event can be reversed to reveal the cause mathematicly. But it would remain fully hidden if the properties are simplified too much.

This post jumps away from my previous statement, but I think it's an important comment to make.

I was searching the net for a program that can create concentric circles with radial distances that square per circle number when I crossed paths with a topic on the inverse square law.

This law is observed by many if not all natural physical waves. Things like gravity, light, sound, radiation, and luminosity. My mathematics dictionary defines it as "A physical law in which an effect varies inversely as the square of the distance from the source producing the effect."

Studying light, the area it radiates squares by the radius. The First Flash model involves the resultant distance light travels, being squared by cyclical time. An why not. General Relativity defines time as a dimension on equal footing with the three known dimensions of space.

If all other radiating wave phenomina obey the inverse square law, shouldn't the speed of light itself obey it as well? In my search I discovered yet another explorer for truth in physics right on my coattails with this idea and connecting it with the Pioneer Anomoly.

http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/new_physics1.html

If this fellow fully explores this idea to it's end conclusion (and happens to be an atheist) he's in for a shock.

I should quickly state that I do not agree with everything on this site, just some interesting parallels.

Sorry, but a quick question on your above link concerning hydrogen atoms. Do hydrogen atoms rise in a vacuum within a gravitational field?

I started reading the link but it bothered me I couldn't find where it addressed that question. As in, I've always been told that the reason hydrogen balloons fall backward when suddenly stopping a car is because the other atoms are heaver (denser) and they fall forward. So that is what I'm thinking of is all heaver atoms displace hydrogen in a gravitational field. Am I missing some explanation on the link?

You're correct: hydrogen balloons rise in air due to buoyancy: the air is more dense than the hydrogen, so the air sinks and forces the hydrogen upward. Same happens to individual hydrogen molecules, we just can't see it happening. Hydrogen does not have anti-gravity, so if we just had a hydrogen balloon, or a hydrogen molecule, in a chamber that was otherwise a complete vacuum, it would fall (toward the centre of the planet or the nearest massive object).

Hmm... I missed that point. I referanced the link due to his points on the relationship between the inverse square law and the Pioneer anomoly.

This issue with hydrogen and inertia seems a bit odd. The effect described shouldn't have anything to do with Earth's gravitational field.

This is the common explanation. (I tend to agree with it.)



If the site I refered to says that this is an effect resultant of gravitation then I would protest that their idea is fringing on crack pot science verses solid physics. I should have read the site more thoroughly.

The inverse square law applies to 'intensity' type quantities (electric, magnetic and gravitational field strength, light intensity and so on). It is a consequence of fairly simple 3D reasoning.

Say you have a particular light source: let's use the sun. It puts out a particular amount of light in every direction: the same amount. Now, imagine the solar energy that lands on a 1 square mile area of the earth's surface. The earth is at about 93 million miles from the sun. One square mile receives 4 billion kilowatt-hours of solar energy in a year.

That square mile can be imagined as one square mile in a sphere that totally surrounds the sun at a distance of 93 million miles. Knowing that the surface area of a sphere is given by 4πr^2 we find that the total surface area of that sphere is about 1.1 x 10^17 square miles (on the order of 100 quadrillion...). The total annual energy output of the sun is then found by multiplying that number by the 4 billion kilowatt-hours for each square mile, and yields a mind-boggling 4.3 x10^26 kWh/year.

Now, here's the crux of the matter. If we imagine that same sphere at half the distance from the sun, and given that the surface area of the sphere is related to the square of the radius, the surface area would be 1/4 as large. The same total energy would be being output by the sun, but the sphere over which it was spread would be smaller. So (there are a couple of ways to think about it that amount to the same thing), either you would have 4 billion kWh/year over 1/4 the area (1/4 of a square mile), or you would have 4 times as much (16 kWh/year) passing through each square mile.

The argument for doubling the distance from the sun is the same, and shows that at double the earth's orbit (Mars is a bit further than that, but not much) there would be 1/4 as much energy passing through each square mile of the sphere (and therefore falling on a square mile of the planet). This is part of the explanation for why Mars is so much colder than Earth.

And that's the inverse square law: double the distance (2x), divide the intensity by 4 (the square of 2). Triple the distance, divide it by 9 (the square of 3), and so on.

But speed is not an intensity quantity. It is not shared out over the surface of the sphere. Imagine a billion motorbikes, speeding outward away from the sun at 100 mph. As you move further out, the bikes will spread out away from one another, so there'll be fewer bikes per unit of area: the 'intensity' of the bikes will decrease, in accordance with the inverse square law. But their *speed* will not be effected: they will still be travelling at 100 mph, just farther apart.

Hope this is helpful.

Bravus:


True. I do sense that you're making a counter point. Speed should not be used even when it aids one's mind visually on this subject. In light of this, Bravus has correctly pointed out that the following quote is improperly stated:



Instead of "speed of light" it would be far more accurate to say "light's rate of time", as truely weird as that sounds.

Ok, yeah, that is clearer and makes sense. It's in line with General Relativity, the idea that time changes as one moves away from large masses.

Looking back at one of my physics books I found this silly statement:



It's no wonder I confused the two. Perhaps I should avoid using books like "Physics Demystified" for study aids. I doubt the writer was expecting someone to use such a book to aid in properly unifying laws in Special Relativity with General Relativity.

I sourced some very core fundamentals (that were simplified) from this book to visualize more complex concepts that would build on them. Trying to visualize something more complicated than GR, SR, and QM combined using a hybrid polytensor math without simplifing is too much for my mind to handle.

I may be mathematicly lazy like Einstien was, but I prefer to leave all of that precision math for the true egg heads out there.

This reminds me of something I wanted to point out about the expanded energy equation.

First we have the E=mc^2

I expanded c^2 to be d/t * D/T
d= linear space
t= linear time
D= curved space
T= curved time

E also =W+K+V

W= rest mass energy
K= kinetic energy
V= potential energy

Something I never showed here was that m (rest mass)can be defined as X/a.

X= remaining mass
a= inverse average time = 1/sqrt(t*T)

This is derived from the nuclear decay rate equation m/M*A= decay rate.

M= total mass
A= average time = sqrt(t*T)

another layer to this is (M^2*A)-m/MA=X

I can only include this into the equation if I have E/A.

Getting back to the point. If I ever cared to try, I could probably fit every form of field equation in to this energy equation right now. Chances are, however, that if I did try it wouldn't come out quite right due to my rusty algebraic skills.

I guess I neglected to show the left side of the equation.

W=X/a(((d/t)*(D/T))/3)
K=d/t(((X/a)*(D/T))/3)
V=D/T(((X/a)*(d/t))/3)

I still find it dumbfounding that algebra and precision math apparently are optional knowledge when trying to revolutionize modern physics.

Think of it as a rough draft. A good writer will go through serveral rough drafts before writing the final draft. It's also like how a movie director uses screenplays and scripts to aid in creating a film. There's alot of work involved with this.

As per your statement of not using Algebra, not so. The work presented proves that. I never said that algebra and precision math are optional. I do use advanced forms of math like Clifford Algebra and Kerr-Newman geometry when I have to.

After some indepth physics reading I realised another geometric parallel. Einstien's work showed that energy/matter density curves time-space. The First Flash model in tandem with the expanded energy equation shows that the temporal density of light/energy curves resultant time-space. I think I said that right.

Einstein dreamed of unifying the fields of gravitation, light, matter, and nuclear force together. I've already illustrated that the expanded energy equation may be able to do it. This is not enough. With the expanded knowledge of particles like quarks, bosons, and leptons, I would need to add all of the field equations describing these things as well. The biggest problem is coming up with a common value system for all the values. (like getting a large group of children to get along without fighting with each other.)

Anyone who thinks this is a simple task doesn't know what they're talking about. I have all of the field equations for gravitation, inertia, light, and some of the nuclear field equations like half life, weak nulear force, strong nuclear force, electro weak, and then there's stuff like EWT, QED.

I also need to expand on Hawking's theory of decaying black holes (to fill the gap between gravitation and weak nuclear force) and polish off my work with what I call the Bohr Inertial field describing inertia relative to SR and energy. There's tons of work needing to be done and tested before FF can go from model to Quantum Gravitation to a unified theory, finally reaching what's called TOE (theory of everything).

By my self this will never happen. (Way too much work involved)

Another off subject topic:

I recently skimmed through a book online called "Prophet's Manual, (fractal supersymmetry of double helix)" by Daniel Srsa.

Don't let the name of the book fool you. It has absolutely nothing to do with prophecy, and it isn't a bunch of new age garbage either.

I take it back, there is some weird 2012 goofyness in this. Oh well.

Daniel's work here is (nearly) pure physics with a slight push toward a strange idea interrelating DNA geometry with time spacial physics. I don't believe in the DNA time-space stuff but who knows.

Anyway, this guy has brought out several key concepts to FF except that he blazed over the dimensional dynamics of gravitational acceleration too quicky and ended up basicly stating that it's linear time-space times curved time-space instead of linear time-space times curved time. (If I'm understanding his work correctly.)

here's some stuff I found in his book:


I found this book so intriguing that I may have to hunt down a copy even though I do not agree with all of his conclusions.

Some good news! A friend of mine has crossed paths with a retired physicist from Los Alamos who has shown some interest in my work and I've discovered a fellow Adventist with a strong academic background in physics, General Relativity, and nuclear physics who understands the foundational laws governing how my First Flash model works (seemingly even better than I do). I was explaining to him my FF concept and this guy would repeatedly interupt to finish what I was saying.

This is the first time I've met someone that could truly comprehend my work. I know that somewhere along the way, there will most assuredly be needing to be corrections made and have no problem with that. (accuracy is the essence of true science)

JCS,

Invite this SDA to register here and, once approved, to then join in on this thread.

He is already part of the thread here. But I would like to maintain his anonymity.

An anonymous physicist will vouch for your theory?

Quite honestly vaster, I couldn't care less if you believed me or not.

An anonymous physicist is willing to look at my model. (It shouldn't yet be coined as a "theory".)

I haven't asked him if he want's to be mentioned here.

I did ask for some pointers on publishing a science article and was told that I will not be able to publish anything pesonally without credantials. He also recommended that I study how to properly write an article or take classes. He then warned of the high probability of my losing credit for the model to whoever has the needed credantials and is willing to help me publish it.

I actually do not mind that possibility, I just want to get it published. This fellow Adventist didn't seem terribly intrested in working on FF due to the fact that his background is mostly medical and biochemistry. He does understand FF and even pointed out his personal belief that the seven Earth day sabbath cycle is a unique cycle for Earth and that my FF model actually reflects this point. Studying his explaination very carefully, I couldn't dispel his point.

It has also been suggested that I try to contact one of Gentry's sons or Carl Baugh for assistance with FF. Even though my freind doesn't seem to have an in depth interest in working on a physics equation modeling cosmology, he is willing to continue occasionally critiquing my work.

So this person is not to vouch for FF. I misunderstod that. ...

Haven't had alot of success contacting Carl Baugh. I did manage to contact some of his freinds.

One of my own friends suggested I write a book to popularize my cosmological model. (Not a very cheap idea there.) I might try it anyway. There's enough raw data relating to FF to write several books.

I just became aware of a new measurement of the light horizon's distance of which was made February of this year.

The new measurement calculated a distance of 13.75 billion light years +/- 120 million.

FFs projection for 2010 was 13.74 billion light years. (well within the degree of error magin)

Here is a complete list for data attributed to 2003, 2008, & 2010.

----------------------------------------------------------------
2003
- 13.57 bill ly (6095.3 y)
[13.69 bill ly] (6122.2 y)
{13.71 bill ly} (6128.1 y)
+ 13.81 bill ly (6149 y)

2008
- 13.61 bill ly (6104.3 y)
{[13.73 bill ly]} (6131.1 y)
+ 13.85 bill ly (6157.9 y)

2010
- 13.63 bill ly (6108.8 y)
{13.74 bill ly} (6133.1 y)
[13.75 bill ly] (6135.6 y)
+ 13.87 bill ly (6162.3 y)
----------------------------------------------------------------
- is lowest value & + is the highest possible value
{} is FFs predicted value
[] is WMAP's measured value
the numbers to the right are FF's calculated universe ages using The distances listed on the same line.

The age calculated on this line has a typo. Instead of 6128.1 y it should say 6126.1 y.

If all of the +,-, and [] ages are adjusted for 2010 and averaged, 6132.611111 years is the result. Considering the fact that FF's predicted value is 6133.1, it's very close indeed. (less than half a years difference)

Because the WMAP measurements were made at different times of the year, a difference of + or - 1 year is in fact expected.

I recently sent this email to Carl Baugh (founder and director of the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas).



Hopefully, I'll get a positive response back.

If anyone is interested, I have a group called G.A.U. (meaning Genesis Aged Universe) on Facebook with pics and links related to the First Flash Model.

Hopefully this link will help:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11...3.3998276578..1

Could you post the distance calculations for the comming 10-15 years.

Sure, did you want numbers for each of those years? (2020-2025)

Year (years after creation) (distance from light horizon in LY)
2020 6143.1248...............13,783,798,040
2021 6144.1248...............13,788,285,960
2022 6145.1248...............13,792,774,600
2023 6146.1248...............13,797,263,980
2024 6147.1248...............13,801,754,090
2025 6148.1248...............13,806,244,930

here are four other years of interest:
2035 6158.1248...............13,851,193,510
2037 6160.1248...............13,860,191,990
2877 7000.1248...............17,897,888,170
3037 7160.1248...............18,725,413,160

I've been pounding away at my newly refined "Inverse Square Law of Relative Time" and am excited to reveal a rather simplified equation derived from it.

In inverse square laws, there is a source point for the field, the value of which disperses as the field sphericaly expands away from the source.

In this new law, the "radius" represents the value for the passage of linear time. The "source" is E/M (total energy divided by total mass). The surface area projecting away is resultant space calculated by multipling linear space by curved space.

There are in fact two radial axis radiating away from the source, 90 degrees separated. The second axial dimension of time is curved time. When linear time-space is multiplied by curved time-space, the result is C^2 (which of course equals E/M.)

The focus of inverse square laws is the intensity value "I". For this equation, I represents the relative temporal rate for resultant space.

Here is the equation calculating this value:

L= linear space
G= curved space
T= linear time
S= curved time
P= pi
I= relative temporal rate

I=[(L x G)/4P]/T x S

This equation is so clear and obvious I have trouble understanding why this wasn't established within the scientific community fifty years ago. When this field equation is proven, the Big Bang Theory will die.

How can Evolution hope to survive in a 6134 year old universe?

Here is a link to a pic illustrating how this inverse square law of relative time works. (on my Facebook group called G.A.U.)

http://www.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=113712938640104&view=user#!/photo.php?pid=75561&op=1&o=user&view=user&subj=113712938640104&aid=-1&oid=113712938640104&id=100000966480453

I've changed the pic. Here is the updated link.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113712938640104&ref=search&sid=100000966480453.3998276578..1#!/photo.php?pid=75940&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=113712938640104&aid=-1&id=100000966480453

The last step in reducing my inverse square equation isn't correct.

Original equation:

[([(L/T)*(G/S)]/[4P*(T*S)])/(T*S)]

correct reduction:

(G*L)/[(4P)*(S^3)*(T^3)]

I recently discovered a wonderful book called "THE GREATEST STANDING ERRORS IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS" by Miles Mathis.

http://milesmathis.com/

I strongly recomend this site. I actually found evidence supporting my First Flash model and my new inverse square law in his book.

This is a link to a newly updated pic I've added to the G.A.U. group.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=79...100000966480453

I've started on a new page in developing a unified field theory.

In FF, c^2 involves the speed of light "c" as a description for velocity and a second component equal to it in the form of angular velocity "w".

Quanta of light (or electromagnetic radiation) is known as photons "Y". Photons are emitted when electron orbitals are disturbed.

Looking for the parallel particle to photons, I noticed an interesting effect observed in weak nuclear interactions. When a neutron is effected by a W boson, one of the down quarks changes to an up, turning the neutron into a proton, electron, and a neutrino.

There is a parallel between electrons and neutrinos. Following FFs concept of particle parallelism between velocity and angular velocity, there should be some form of long distance boson involving angular velocity (or spin) that is emitted when neutrinos are disturbed.

There are five types of bosons; the photon (em radiation), Z boson (elecroweak), W boson (weak nuclear), gluons (strong nuclear), and the theoretical Higgs boson (gravitation).

In the weak interaction, all of these particles are accounted for except for three; photons, Z bosons, and the Higgs. I am looking for the parallel particle to the photon, so that leaves the Z boson and the Higgs. This particle of force would effect long distances (just as light does) but with a curved geometry as per the fact that it involves angular velocity.

The Z boson mediates weak reactions with a range of only 10^-18 meter. Wrong force and wrong range of force. The theoretical Higgs particle transmits the force of gravitation (of which is time-space curvature) and has a range effecting the entire visible universe. This is definitely the one.

Regrouping on this quantum physical model, photons are the linear parallel to the angular Higgs bosons, and electrons are parallel to neutrinos. If this is all true then when a neutrino's path is disturbed, Higgs particles are resultantly emitted.

I just found this document that was put together last year as an attempt to explain the Pioneer anomaly.

http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0910/0910.3244v1.pdf

I've been preaching the idea that Earth's rotation has a hand in the retarded temporal rate of light observed on Earth from outside objects for years. Now NASA confirms it.

How long will it be before my entire model is independently confirmed by someone else?

I'm still researching on this neutrino / higgs boson idea. (extremely complicated stuff)

Thus far I've been taking allot of notes on stuff like Cooper pairs, BEC, phonons, Higg's condensate, gluon collisions, beta decay, and double decay.

I will likely adjust my model, as far as the mechanism between neutrinos and the Higgs.

There seems to be a complex chain of events between the appearance of a neutrino and the Higgs imbuing mass to other particles.

One key point is degrees of freedom. Bosons with mass has 3 degrees of freedom, unlike massless photons of which are limited to only two. A second key point is that a short ranged force also indicates a presence of mass.

Back to the complex chain, a neutrino / antineutrino collision creates Z bosons that quickly decay into one of three things depending on energy: back to a neutrino pair, charged leptons, or a quark pair.

Part of my conjecture is that protons and neutrons are constantly beta + or beta - decaying, meaning protons change into neutrons and back again (each time releasing either an electron and a neutrino or their antiparticles.) B- is from a W boson, B+ is from energy.

When a neutron beta- decays from a W boson, it becomes a proton, electron, and a neutrino. When a proton beta+ decays from energy, it becomes a neutron, positron, and an antineutrino.

So, what we've got so far is quark trios constantly beaming neutrinos and antineutrinos that collide creating Z bosons that can decay back into a neutrino pair again. Obviously these collisions would occur in greater frequency when matter is closer together than apart.

The interesting thing with Z bosons is that they have a very large mass, 91 Gev. There is also what's called the MSW effect that matter has on neutrinos when they pass near electrons.

I suspect that there is an exchange of curved time-space quanta with linear time-space quanta when neutrinos interact with electrons.

Thanks for the link. I haven't had time to read very much, but some I picked out were most fascinating. I looked at the rainbow and the double slit experiment. I vaguely recall the explanation of the past of light bouncing around in the raindrop to give the color and it never made sense to me. Which is probably why I dismissed it and accepted it as a must be so story. The double slit was another one that bothered me and even a few months ago was thinking about it and wondering if an individual could duplicate the experiment. His explanation seems more far fetched than the rainbow, but he was rather convincing. I never understood if he carried out the experiment on a reflective wall by implication or if he only suggested it be carried out.

Glancing at the other topics are disturbing to me. It seems there are a number of things that everyone repeats but which are not necessarily true. This has been an eye opening experience to me that assumptions should not be assumed. Kind of makes the global warming believers more silly than ever with their science by vote and not really that but only reading it in the media.

Here's a wake up call. FF predicts that light from the heavens will start to disappear. (the most distant objects first) I've found multiple sources indicating that the most distant visible galaxies have started to disappear as they cross the cosmic horizon. (Also the original count for dwarf galaxies has started to drop off since the measurement made in 1996) Combine this with the building evidence that the universe's rate of expansion is accelerating plus FF's evidence of how quickly this acceleration really is, we end up looking at an extremely serious situation approaching.

Be forewarned.

Due to overwhelming insistence by contacted theoretical physicists, I've started to convert my First Flash model into an eight dimensional metric tensor. This matrix will allow physicists to test my mathematical notion that the resultant rate of time of light changes with distance, relative to the combined dimensions of linear and curved time-space.

I hope this goes well.

Seeing that God is ultimately in control of everything, what kind of a serious situation is approaching?

If my understanding of prophecy is correct, when the light of the heavens disappears the time of probation will have already ended. The serious situation is that that time is very near. The other physical effects are clearly described in scripture itself.

I do not know exactly when this will happen due to the fact that there are unknown variables regarding how quickly this effect is accelerating toward us. The calculation involves (A) knowing when the light horizon reached the cosmic horizon, (B) knowing when dwarf galaxies first reached the cosmic horizon, (C) calculating our visible universe's resultant acceleration toward this effect(of which was first emitted when dwarf galaxies started crossing the cosmic horizon), (D) calculating the effect's acceleration rate towards Earth, (E) and finally using all of this information to calculate when this effect will actually reach Earth.

I do not know what the values for C or D is thus I can not determine the true value for E. If the light horizon reached the cosmic horizon in 1844, and dwarf galaxies started disappearing in 2008, the total acceleration multiplier will range between 15 and 16. If it were 17 it would've already reached Earth this year. At 16 the year 2025 comes up. 15 would indicate the year 2037 with a very strange age of 6161.6 years for the visible universe.

A value of 14 is too slow as it completely fails to work with the available data that light from dwarf galaxies started to diminish in 2008 thus the estimated time before the light of the heavens disappears is in between 2025 and 2037. (Unless of course the acceleration multiplier isn't a whole number value which would be very strange.)

I am speculating that there is a connection with this astronomical effect and Christ's work of cleansing "heavenly things."

How does the Black Hole scenario and Orion fit into all of this?

Black holes have an "event horizon" which doesn't factor into what I'm talking about.

The "cosmic horizon"(also known as the particle horizon) is the maximum distance from which particles could have traveled to the observer in the age of the universe. It represents the boundary between the observable and the unobservable regions of the universe.

The "light horizon" marks the edge of the visible universe.

I'm assuming your question about Orion is related to Ellen White's reference to the open space in Orion. If I am correct that God's throne is in a neighboring universe "Heaven", the effects described earlier would be caused by a collision of expansion between the two eight dimensional time-spacial spheres (universes).

If both "universes" have angular momentum and electrical charge, an effect similar to a "worm hole" may occur between the two. It is my speculation that this dimensional "opening" is what we will observe in Orion. A careful study of Revelation 19:17 reveals an angel standing IN the sun after Christ's second coming. I suspect that the opening in Orion will also project directly through the Sun to Earth.

If this is the case, there is only one possible time in the year for such an event which would coincidentally be the exact same time of year as when the investigative judgment started, late October.

I just found this very interesting quote from Ellen White on the "angel standing in the sun". This angel is Christ himself.

I found a new insight on the First Flash model. I've been working on a metric tensor for the model and as a result, I've been plotting out coordinate points. As I was doing this I noticed an oddity between day 0 and day one. Without this oddity, a perfect identity matrix results.

Expanding on this, I started plotting out linear, curved, and resultant graphs. What I discovered is that the First Flash model is a perfect identity matrix. The problem is that when we measure the speed of light over distances less than a light day, we do not correctly measure light's path between two points. We simply calculate the speed based upon the time variable between two points. Like a car on a curvy road, calculating speed based only on the shortest distance between the points and the time expended will result in an incorrect answer.

Doing this, light appears to have a constant, never changing resultant speed relative to curved time space curvature. (But this isn't the genuine truth. Considering this and considering that my model relies on scientists larger measurements to be the correct resultant distances for light, I deduced that there must be two entirely different methods of measure depending on distance, and that at a light day's distance the two methods would start to conflict.

The conflict is evidenced in the Pioneer anomaly. The second form of measure is redshift. Here's how it works. Subtract a rest wavelength from the observed wavelength and then divide this by the rest wavelength and you get your red shift value. Multiply this value by the speed of light and you have velocity. To calculate distance, divide the velocity by Hubble's constant which is typically 70 kilometers per second per megaparsec. I say typically because the Hubble constant is really a fudge factor.

Anyway, I put this little equation into Wolfram Alpha and it simplified to (speed of light/Hubble's constant times observed wavelength/rest wavelength) - Hubble's constant = distance.

My equation is (linear space/linear time times curved space/curved time)= resultant distance.

The speed of light is linear space/linear time. Curved time-space has a proportional relationship with observed wavelength/rest wavelength.

I wish I could show my graph here, I'll just have to put a new pic in my G.A.U. group in Facebook.

I've succeeded in braking this down further. Observed wavelength - rest wavelength = curved space. Hubble's constant times rest wavelength = curved time. Therefore:

(L space/L time) * [(O wave-R wave)/(H * R wave)]= resultant dist.

If I can just get ONE theoretical physicist to support my work now, the rain of the Big Bang Theory is OVER!

An interesting little note on my resultant time-space graph. The resulting spiral shape fulfills the criteria for what is called a "normal Archimedean spiral" (also known as the arithmetic spiral.)

I hope someone is actually studying what's being posted here. Look at Revelation 16:12. This is the sixth bowl of wrath is on the Euphrates river, causing it to be "dried up".

The Euphrates river is a symbol of something. Look at the beginning of chapter 15 (of which first introduces the seven plagues) and you will notice that the topic originates as a sign from heaven.

There is indeed a heavenly symbol for the Euphrates river. Can you guess what it is? The Milky Way, our galaxy. If anyone wants to wait until the light from our galaxy starts disappearing like smoke before you're willing to believe my dire warning, you will have been six plagues too late in preparing for the latter rain.

When the sixth plague hits, nearby light from the stars will disappear completely. Light from distant objects have already started disappearing in 2008. The heavenly sanctuary is being cleansed. Now is the time to prepare the way for Jesus' coming.

JCS, I came across the following in GC pg. 676:
This sounds like light which isn't light. In thinking about what you are saying, could there be different types of light along with different speeds? If we assume that all creation (meaning creation as it relates to us on earth ) has been affected by sin, that the moon and the sun are not as bright as they were, that even our solar system may have been affected due to the proximity of sin, could we assume that further away is less affected and that perhaps light from distant objects could be relatively untainted by sin and therefore that light exhibits different characteristics? Assuming that our sin-tainted eyes can see some spectrum from that light, could that light travel faster than light we know about?

Do you think anything like that could come into play with your model?



Regarding stars disappearing, is there something about them in scientific journals I can read? I bet that would cause wide concern and can't be blamed on global warming. Or BP.

"could there be different types of light along with different speeds?"

Most certainly. If I'm right, the glory emanating from God is angular gravitational energy that can actually tunnel through dimensionless voids.

"could we assume that further away is less affected and that perhaps light from distant objects could be relatively untainted by sin and therefore that light exhibits different characteristics?"

Interesting, it's possible.

"could that light travel faster than light we know about?"

Well, the trick to the First Flash model is "resultant acceleration" caused by matrixing together linear and curved dimensions. Beyond this, it is difficult for me to speculate on what is unknown. Considering the infinite creativity of the creator, it would be foolish of me to limit God on this. There is talk in theoretical circles of things like tachyons and Cerenkov radiation that have superluminal velocities.

By the way, Cerenkov radiation was in fact detected by a Russian physicist in 1934. It has an analog to a sonic boom when comparing light to sound. Thus one would expect a tachyon that is traveling faster than light to emit Cerekov radiation.

There are two principle ways that radiation can effectively travel between two points over a measured period of time faster than the "speed of light". Dimensionally short cutting areas of space, and by a change in temporal frequency.

Bottom line, I do not know.

"Do you think anything like that could come into play with your model?"

It's very possible. It's been my objective to utilize only proven facts as definitive proofs to the model, but I do avidly study theoretical concepts in an effort to find new leads. Using these leads, I then search for evidences supporting or disproving these new concepts. I'll search to see what I can find on this.

I did find this interesting topic:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=faster-than-light-electric-currents-2010-06-18

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0399

"Regarding stars disappearing, is there something about them in scientific journals I can read?"

Yes there is. The disappearing objects are visible galaxies furthest away from us. One should take note, this information is carefully handled by the scientific community to project alternate viewpoints from the same data. Basically, one count of distant objects was made and then a second count, later on, resulting with a smaller number. There are a million and one ways to distort and alter the perceptions and meaning to this data including blatant deception.

This article touches on some of the key points:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1998MNRAS.296..585F/0000585.000.html

I'm working to sort out the best journals on this subject. There are several overlapping studies with data relating to disappearing light from distant objects. As far as finding simple magazine articles, there are even more to sort from.

this journal reveals some more data on the subject though it is difficult to glean:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2003MNRAS.342L..47B

A simple internet search for disappearing galaxies brings up several alternate non journal topics.

I found this article to be very interesting.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/01/scientist-says.html

The reason I find it interesting is because of a concept I have relating to the four living creatures in Ezekiel and Revelation. My concept is that these four living creatures represent the four dimensional properties that govern the visible universe; linear time, linear space, curved time, curved space.

In Revelation 15:7, one of these creatures gives the seven angels the seven vials of wrath. Thinking in line with what the First Flash model predicts as far as a rapidly expanding universe, the one dimension that begins to destabilize near the end is curved time.

The link points to a similar account.

Here are some additional links relating to disappearing galaxies:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995MNRAS.274..832P

This site is apparently Islamic and yet it seems to reveal many physical principles of the First Flash model. (Note: one should always be cautious of false religious systems so as to avoid deception.)

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_effective.htm

After looking carefully,I discovered a new component to the First Flash model on this web site. Apparently the Quran also has texts with day/thousand year equations. On this site, someone cleverly discovered that if you calculate the distance the Moon travels in kilometers, as it orbits the Earth, and divide this by the number of seconds per day, you obtain the speed of light.

This adds an entirely new layer to my model. Another interesting element to this is that when I switch the 1000 year value in my original 2 Peter 3:8 equation, the result will equal 1.

I'll try to illustrate. In this new light equation, 1000 years = 12,000 months = 25,831,348,035.086 km of which the Moon travels in that time.

A sidereal day = 86,164.0906 sec. The dist/time= 299,792.49 km/sec. (A very excellent approximate to the speed of light.) Considering the possibility of measurement error, it's close enough.

My 2 Peter 3:8 equation is:

(day * 1000 years) * (day/1000 years)= day^2

The day value is for time passed. If years are used, the answer must be multiplied by 365.25

When all of these values are transitioned with the one's for light, the answer = 1.

Of course, this is basic algebra.

If A/B=C, then C * B/A = 1.

If I had looked more closely when comparing my old 2 Peter 3:8 equation with my more refined "First Flash" equation, I could've discovered the relationship between 1000 years and linear space relative to the speed of light myself. I doubt that I would've ever considered the motion of the Moon even though it really is a required element when trying to calculate frame drag.

Most fascinating. I haven't read all on the links yet and probably will only be able to comprehend the abstract and conclusion as I am afraid most will be wasted on me, but I had no idea. Looks like this would be making the headlines.

Except for the obvious part of them teaching everyone in school about the big bang and the universe is expanding and this would contradict it, do you see any other reason why they would attempt to cover this up? Is a stable universe, everything has preceded at the same rate forever, really detrimental to evolution or anti-God? Or should time slowing give them cause to not admit it? Just trying to understand possible motivations.

"do you see any other reason why they would attempt to cover this up?"

When someone has an incorrect mind set, it's easy for them to draw false conclusions from gathered data or decide that the change in measured data reveals an error in how the data was retrieved.

On the point of errors, I noticed an error of my own.



For some reason my mind thought that this change was effectively C * B/A when in actuality it reduces to A * B * C.

I'm apparently mentally distracted due to personal concerns.

For why data is interpreted or ignored as error, Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

I'll have to read it some time.

I did find a rarely mentioned theory explaining how the light of galaxies could disappear instead of simply red shifting.
(please refer to pages 181-184)

http://books.google.com/books?id=jL9reHG...alaxies&f=false

It's very difficult to find Hoyle's theory on the internet for some "unknown reason."

JCS, looking at those links have almost convinced me you might be onto something. I had no idea there was an issue with light disappearing and quite fascinating reading about how they're trying to make the models fit. Maybe I'm biased from reading your ideas, but some parts look more blatant than trying to fit evolution into assumed ideas. I must say, it does lend support to your idea that the whole universe was created at creation, but I am not convinced yet. Just that the light may not be the same type of light we currently see, and if it was, it may not be billions and billions of years old.

I know that the way I've presented my model makes it seem like my stance is that everything was created on the week of creation, but I actually believe that only our visible universe was created at that time. Purely speculating, I'd say that our visible universe only accounts for 1/infinity of the total universe.

I've been carrying on some interesting discussions on an Islamic physics forum called "Speed of Light" hoping I may be able to successfully witness the gospel to someone who is earnestly searching for the truth.

http://www.speed-light.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=46

http://www.speed-light.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=20

I'm trying to understand how you came to your formula.

I'll assume there's a reason to multiply the days in the first part, and maybe multiply that by the second part, but why divide the days? I probably don't have the knowledge here, but even when you listed the
(day * 1000 years) * (day/1000 years)= day^2
and
If A/B=C, then C * B/A = 1

it struck me as if you were defining 1. Which, I agree is useful, but how did you come to the formula?

Which maybe it should be:
(day / 1000 years) * (1000 years / day)

Well, first I was inspired with the idea that time and space operate together like a slide ruler as a possible explanation to the distant starlight problem. After coming up with this idea I searched the internet and found a cosmological model called "Simply Relativity" that actually does this but still lacked the time-space ratio. With faith, I found what I thought to be the equation in 2 Peter 3:8 and feverishly worked to decrypt it.



Notice that this entire chapter relates to how God created the universe. This is not an easy message to make sense out of. Rather than explaining everything about how I figured this equation out, I'm going to cut to the chase.

To be with the Lord would be where he is. I used the WMAP time measurement of the light horizon for this. In 2008 that measurement was 13.73 billion years. In days that is 5.0148825 x 10^12.

The equation is:

(time in days times the number of days in 1000 years)times (the number of days in 1000 years dividing time in days)= time in days with the Lord

or:

(2,239,393.333 days * 365,250)*(2,239,393.333 days/365,250)= 5.0148825 x 10^12 days

5.0148825 x 10^12 days is 2,239,393.333 days squared.

Divide 5.0148825 x 10^12 days by 365.25 and you have 13,730,000,000 resultant years. (the time measurement of WMAP for 2008)

If you divide the 2,239,393.333 days by 365.25 you get 6131.124791 years, the time since creation according to Martin Anstey.

Why does this work, and what is really going on? The time in days is linear time. Time with the Lord is linear time squared. There are, as a result, to forms of days, and two forms of years. (linear and squared) Linear days divided by 365.25, gives you your value in linear years.

Linear days squared equals squared days. Divide this value by 365.25 and you get squared years. Seems strange at first, but this is basic math.

Now the why behind this entire mess. Look at the energy equation. E=mc^2. The speed of light is Relativity's yardstick for time-space. Notice that energy in relation to matter, our yardstick is squared. Now look at the equation for gravitational acceleration. Distance/time * time. What I discovered is that it's (linear space/ linear time) * curved time. Einstein himself describes masses effect on time-space as curvature.

The complete equation is actually (linear space/ linear time) * (curved space/ curved time). I've recently confirmed this equation to exist in the red shift equation, used to calculate the the WMAP measurements. Using Wolfram Alpha, I simplified the redshift equation to:

Speed of light * [(observed wavelength - rest wavelength)/(Hubble constant * rest wavelength)]= distance

Just found an excellent site that clearly explains a great deal of theoretical physics. One should of course read such material with great caution, knowing that it is heavily corrupted by man's false assumptions in regard to the true origin of the universe. Some of the key information on this site discusses naked singularites and the Kerr Newman metric.

http://universe-review.ca/R15-17-relativity.htm

As per request, I've compiled the physical evidence for the First Flash model without use of Ellen White's writings or scripture. This way, science can be used to sway souls receptive to physical facts back to scripture.

Just found this scientific journal. (wish I could read it all)
The premise that time and the speed of light are directly effected by the rate of rotation of a turning platform is at the heart of my First Flash model.



http://www.springerlink.com/content/1352972752160576/

For those who deeply argued in opposition to my equation, this is just another solid proof in my own favor. After looking at this site carefully, I found a key word "Sagnac effect" and looked it up.

"The Sagnac effect is the electromagnetic counterpart of the mechanics of rotation."

This is some VERY interesting stuff here. I do not know why I've never heard of this effect before.

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

How do you know it is solid proof of your thesis when you can only read the abstract?

You are quite right. I'll rephrase that.

This is a potential solid proof.

Found the complete article, and here it is:

http://www.anti-relativity.com/Selleri_Sagnac_Paradox.pdf

There is an excellent book too:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_PGrlCLkkIgC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=%22time+on+a+rotating+platform%22&source=bl&ots=TLLcyRrC5l&sig=d81msXvWyqYjStCS5B7hZiLP92g&hl=en&ei=14I0TIT4E8T8nAf4gc3WAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22time%20on%20a%20rotating%20platform%22&f=false

So, did your original assessment of it stand to the whole context?

Yes, I believe so.

Also, there is a group called the 4th Day Alliance that is now working to assist me in publishing a formal physics paper on my First Flash cosmological model.

I've been studying the mathematics to the Archimedean spiral and discovered a method for calculating the spiral's length called the "Clackson scroll formula." According to this formula, the following equation will determine the cross sectional area.

A=pi * s^2n^2 or r^2 * pi=A

s=the spacing between turns
n=the number of turns
A=the cross sectional area
s*n=r radius

Relating this to my own First Flash equation, "A" would be the value for resultant time and "n" is obviously the number of days. What "s" represents in my model is of yet unknown. So I proceeded to compare the two equations and noticed that conversion value for days per year has a similarity with diameter and pi, but I needed to convert this to the value of pi.

To do this, I first multiplied 365.25 by pi = 1147.466717, thus 1147.466717/365.25=pi. This number is my rate of conversion for linear days^2. My original equation is:

(linear days)^2 x 365.25=resultant years

I have now changed it to:

[(linear days)^2/1147.466717] x pi = resultant years

But this is incomplete, since the Clackson's formula is:
n^2 * s^2 * pi = A

To convert 1147.466717 into the value for "s", I first square rooted it and then inverted the value so that the squared number times linear days squared equals the original.

sqrt 1147.466717=33.8742781

33.8742781 inverted is 1/33.8742781 or .02952092431

So the result equation becomes:

linear days^2 * 0.02952092431 light days^2 * pi = resultant years

Which matches up with:

n^2 * s^2 * pi = A

In order to test this, I'll try the 2008 WMAP measurement.
13,730,000,000 resultant years/pi=4,370,394,737
4,370,394,737/(0.02952092431 light days)^2=5,014,882,502,000
sqrt 5,014,882,502,000=2,239,393.333
2,239,393.333/365.25=6131.1248 linear years

So that seems to work. Now I just need to find if there is any scientific evidence supporting this 0.02952092431 light day spacing and what this spacing actually is. Whatever it is, it contains the value for pi and the ratio for the number of days per year.

I just recently put several of the different forms of my equation into Wolfram Alpha (for comparison). I was startled to discover that resultant time=mass and resultant space=energy.

I should correct that, mass is proportional to resultant time and energy is proportional to resultant space. Such a simple concept could possibly explain the dark matter problem.

I never saw it before. Amazing

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=A%3Dl*s%3Dc^2%3Dr^2*pi%3D%28s*n%29^2*pi%3DE%2Fm%3D%28d*o%29%2F%28t*n%29

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=l*s%3Dc^2%3Dr^2*pi%3D%28s*n%29^2*pi%3DE%2Fm%3D%28d*o%29%2F%28t*n%29%3D%28d*b-w%29%2F%28t*h*w%29

Just found this website, apparently I'm not the only one who knows that c^2 = space^2/time^2.

http://www.structureofexistence.com/Chapter03.html



If this truth is evident through the use of basic algebra in accordance to genuine logic, why does nearly every physicist I speak with fight tooth and nail to disprove it?

Ha! Check this out. Secret to the rest of the world, in cutting edge science it is already common knowledge that light has a combination of linear and angular momentum and that light can in fact be manipulated into "orbital angular momentum" or OAM. Meaning that photons can be made to orbit matter in a plasma state.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/90/4/45001/fulltext

All of this works in agreement with the First Flash model and yet every physicist that has evaluated my work, attacks the concept of c^2 representing a composite angular and linear time-space.

I wonder what else remains hidden from the general population?

Ah yes, here is another site:



The value "w" means angular velocity. Here is the site:
http://www.wbabin.net/saraiva/saraiva223.pdf

Just found this link that expands on "OAM", and goes on to describe the very strange properties of a unique form of light called Bessel photons. Bessel photons travel in a parabolic-cylindrical path. Sounds impossible, but this stuff is very real.

http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0903/0903.0819v3.pdf

Notice this quote:



I imagine allot this sounds like Greek but try to focus on the point where these special photons exhibit a motion of linear momentum times angular momentum. This paper was composed May 20th, 2009. Science is starting to catch up with my theoretical work.

I've been looking at an older book, "Superstrings and the Theory of Everything" in addition to a much newer book called "The Road to Reality" and am coming to the realization that Roger Penrose's Twistor theory represents my First Flash model at the quantum scale. With only two "modifications" does Twistor Theory morph into my own model.

#1) Penrose explains that the net effect of a group of spinors would represent a spinor field. The combined effect of a group of twistors (at the scale of the entire Earth) and Twistor Theory is now represented at the same macro scale as FF.

#2) Twistors represent the combined quanta of "null rays" and spinors at equal footing. Null rays represent the linear momentum of light's speed as explained in Special Relativity, spinors are quanta of angular momentum of which governs processes existing in quantum mechanics. The interesting point here is that Special Relativity dictates that the speed of light works as the foundational yardstick for relativistic time-space. In order for spinors to be on equal footing with light, there must exist a form of curved time-space as well. When linear and angular momentum are combined on equal footing, a Archimedean spiral results. (consider the fact that light actually expands away in a sphere) There really is no mystery here due to the fact that the General theory of Relativity has already confirmed the existence of curved time-space.

I can see at this point, someone wanting to debate that curved time-space is simply distorted time-space that can not be combined with linear time-space because it is one and the same. On this point I would strongly urge you to consider the information on Bessel photons (a form of light that moves in a parabolic path due to linear momentum times angular momentum) as is explained on the following site:

http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/PS_ca ... 0819v3.pdf

I would like to edit my second point as:

"#1) Penrose explains that the net effect of a group of spinors would represent a spinor field. The combined effect of a group of twistors (at the scale of the entire Earth) would represent Twistor Theory at the same macro scale as FF."

I've just recently sent an email to Roger Penrose (who created "twistor theory") in regard to my "First Flash model" in relation to his twistor theory. Penrose is in fact a theist, meaning he believes that only one true God exists, but has not settled on any religion. I do not know of any other man more qualified to carry forward the work I've started. May the Holy Spirit work deeply upon his heart in order to lead him to greater truths that extend far beyond the physical in nature.