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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another expansion on the energy equation is as follows:

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice Genesis 2:4

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

Exodus 20:11

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

"And God made two great lights;"



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I admit I should have stated this quote differently:



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