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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this is getting my point across.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Green Cochoa responded with qoutes:

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

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

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

sqrt 1.025 = 1.012422837 light days distance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's why:

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

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

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

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

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

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

Here's a corrected value:

sqrt 1.00025 = 1.000124992 light days distance

Here's the facts I've gathered:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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