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?