Crossing paths with a great variety of opinions regarding origins, a repeating question constantly directs its self my way; "is the First Flash model legitimate or is it a fallacy?"

To answer that, lets first look at F.F.s foundational claim where light travels in two forms of velocity having a product equaling light's vacuum speed squared. Why should this property be considered significant? It goes back to the principle of the speed of light being constant, a property indicated from the Michelson-Morley experiment. The results of this experiment led to Einstein's time-space concept in the Special Theory of Relativity.

This concept stakes the claim that properties of space and time are relative to the observer while the speed of light is always observed to remain constant. Combining S.R.'s time-space dynamic with General Relativity's view of gravitation being time-space curvature deepened the picture even further.

This combination reveals how the energy of mass must contain a principle effect that curves (or squares) time-space fabric. The thread of choice for studying time-space is of course the speed of light. We result with the mass energy equation welding a c^2 multiplier of relativistic mass to equate the total energy contained within a system of matter.

But... what if c^2 actually derives from multiplying two distinct forms of light velocity? This finding would require a refinement of definition for gravitation. Instead of squaring the time-space "yardstick" called the speed of light, the effect of gravitation would instead result from multiplication of two light velocity forms.

Such a conclusion would mean that time-space comes in two flavors that interact creating gravitation. The physical ramifications from such a conclusion are quite profound.


The next layer to F.F. is the actual dynamics for these two time-space flavors, one being linear and the other angular. Modern physics actually does support my notion of two different velocities of light (phase velocity "V" equaling wavelength/period and group velocity "U" equaling space/time) having either linear or angular properties and having the product between them equaling c^2. Coincidence? Fat chance! If these two velocities represent two time-space varieties, then six forms of time-space interactions would exist; space-time, space-wavelength, space-period, wavelength-period, wavelength-time, and time-period. All of these interactions are observed as relativistic properties like time dilation and length contraction. The driving conclusion here, is that matter's angular motion and the linear distances traveled by light from matter combine to transform properties of observed space-time.

Such a dynamic would define a very precise ratio effecting both measurements of time in very small processes and rates of massive time dilation at enormous distances. I have been actively researching and confirming these effects in things like the Pioneer Anomaly, the Time Warp Anomaly, the Horizon Anomaly, and WMAP's changing age anomaly. I've also looked at nuclear decay rates finding supportive evidence there as well.

A bottom line conclusion, when combining this equation with verifiable scientific data, is that our visible universe is little over 6000 years old. False interpretations of data leading to the contrary are actually EXPECTED to occur as well. Since this work exposes principles effecting everything in the universe, it is unlikely that I will ever find an argument used to support an older universe (other than any possible proofs effecting time-space itself) to be in any way persuasive.

Upon answering the question; "Is FF a fact or a fallacy?", the foundation for FF is a solid one. Going from quanta of dimensions to observed reality does leave room for fine tuning and adjustments, but not within the standard model's arena demanding for 13-14 billion years.

I perceive that current physics needs to adopt the premise of linear and angular time-space dimensions for QM and GR to be unified. The 6135 year age of the cosmos is, for the most part, a result evidenced from accepting this feature. I would surmise FF to be better described as being factual verses being in error.

How do these new findings fit with your model, John?

http://www.pulse.me/ap/7a4f895812764c04a2afda89eb42b7f1?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

(genuinely interested question, not challenge)

Thank you for posting this, Bravus. This is just the kind of stuff I heavily search for.

On one side, this article looks promising for my work (relative to changes in age calculation dates), but it also hints at a changing rate even for measuring of the changing age. Using F.F.s formula with the 13,800,000,000 year value would change the creation date from 4124 B.C. to 4134 B.C., assuming the reassigned constants remain the same and that this new measurement is superior to previous ones.

If there are changes in even F.F.s formula rate, it would raise concerns in my mind on just how much sooner a "big rip" condition would occur, otherwise questions on a correct creation date crop up, along with whether or not the F.F. concept is even correct. Considering that there still lacks any other model even predicting accelerating age changes, this finding at least hints that F.F. is in the right direction, but it may also hint that further refinements to the model are needed.

Sorry for the lack of recent posts, as I've started teaching a high school physics class and have been rather busy putting together a 3-D topographical map of Castle Valley and Moab, Utah. The display enclosure itself is eight feet tall and has a 12 foot radius. The map itself has a 10 foot radius and varies from 0 to 30 inches tall (every inch equals 300 feet elevation with a starting elevation of 4000 feet at the Colorado River.) I've also been asked to update the local water protection plan, and I have little knowledge on how to go about doing that, so I'm relying heavily on intuition, I.Q., and swift deductive learning. This water protection stuff is a lot more complex than replying to an IRS audit. Yuck.

I hope to have some new First Flash model updates soon.

That sounds fascinating- the 3-D map of Moab. I have been to Moab before. I just remember the landscape as... hostile.

:)

I found this link today on the vacuum speed of light possibly being variable. What I found most interesting was the admission to the possibility that light's speed may actually obey an inverse square law, relative to distance traveled. Though the magnitude of change suggested is minimal, this is a massive first step for physics pointing in the same direction as my cosmological model.

The speed of light may not be constant.

I've recently experienced a bit of a brain storm after presenting a Brian Greene video on "What is Space?" to my high school physics class.

The brain storm started as the topic of Einstein's cosmological constant and dark energy came up. The video spoke of Einstein's idea for a counter gravitational force needed in order to perfectly balance expansion in the universe. Then they skipped ahead into how the universe isn't static, but is accelerating in expansion rate (needing dark energy to account for it.)

First, gravitation is just a word defining malleable properties of time-space relative to the presence of mass-energy. Second, a precise counter balance for these properties requires a precise counter balance of time-space itself. Thirdly, for a counterbalance of time-space to cause expansion acceleration would require this second invisible set of dimensions to unveil itself as normal time-space as the universe expands.

Everything these people are talking about and discussing directly intersects with properties defined by my model. I really need a team of well educated, YEC minded physicists to aid in hammering this out. We as Seventh Day Adventists could really change the world with this.

After watching this video, I realized some further refinement to my theory was in order:

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NnMIhxWRGNw[/video]

It expresses the "E=Mc^2" and "E=Pc" equations together as

"E^2=((Mc^2)^2)+(pc)^2"

Basically "E" is the hypotenuse of a right triangle with sides A and B being Einstein's and de Broglie's equations. That's fine except that I had found that these two equations are fundamentally the same stuff. This seemed very anomalous to me for quite some time, so I broke it all down to the simplest possible meanings.

I ended up with the idea that light has "linear mass = m" and matter has "curved mass = M".

Let's correct some values dealing with light first.

E=Mc^2 is E=MUV and E=pc is E=pV, where p=mU thus we get E=mUV.

So let's say we have a single quanta of momentum and no mass.

M will = 0 and p = mU, with pV=1. Both U and V will be equal to c. Therefore;

MUV = 0 * c^2 =0

and

pV = mUV = 1/c^2 * c^2 =1V =

Now let's see what happens with zero momentum and a single quanta of mass;

MUV = 1 * 1/infinity * infinity =1

and

pV = mUV = 0 * 1/infinity * infinity =0

I now need a fuller description for m and M in terms of V and U to account for m and M change in values.

I came up with;

M=(V-U)/V

and;

m=1/V^2

Here's what happens with zero mass and one for momentum;

MUV= (c-c)/c* c^2 =0


mUV = 1/c^2 * c^2 =1

Now 1 mass and zero momentum;

MUV = (inf^2 -1)/inf^2 * 1/inf * inf=(infinity^2 -1)/infinity^2

and

pV = mUV = 1/inf^2 * 1/inf * inf = 1/infinity^2

Not exactly one and zero values, but immensely close.

What would all of that mean if correct? It would mean that the quality called mass is simply a geometry of dimension and that the momentum of light is simply a change in this geometry.

Perhaps matter could be interchangeable with light by simply altering matter's time-space geometry. Such a discovery would seriously transform everything we currently perceive about the physical universe.

I tried tweaking with the equations for m and M so that they have common bases;

m= 1/V^2
M= (V^2-UV)/V^2

What does all of that mean dimension wise?

V=wavelength/period or l/T

U=space/time or s/t

m=1/(l/T)^2

M=((l/T)^2 - ((ls)/(Tt)))/(l/T)^2 or (V^2-c^2)/V^2

Untangling a single quanta of mass into light momentum looks to be rather complicated.

I've made some further developments on this. The value in text books for rest mass is E/c^2. The FF model corrects this to E/UV.

This newer development defines curved mass quanta as M=(UV-U^2)/UV.

In this instance E=UV-U^2.

The text book value for photon rest mass is hf/c^2 because the energy of a photon equals hf. A refinement of this becomes hf/UV.

The newly developed definition for linear mass quanta is 1/V^2.

So then 1/V^2 ~~ hf/UV = m

Does this work?

We start with m*U*V=E and replace m with 1/V^2

1/V^2 * U * V = E

hf = E, so 1/V^2 * U * V = hf

Let's switch 1/V^2 back to m;

m * U * V = hf

Divide both sides by UV;

m = hf/UV

Another thing I recently accomplished is refining quanta definitions for linear mass energy and curved mass energy;

curved = ((V^2 * U) - (U^2 * V))/V
linear = U/V

These two equations seem to reveal some very special forms of geometric symmetry. I'll look into it more, time permitting.

I have some more precise equations for linear and curved mass quanta now.

((UV-1)/(UV-1)*(UV)) * UV = mUV So that m=(UV-1)/((UV-1)*(UV))

and

(V-U) * (V-U)^-1 * UV = MUV Where M=(V-U) * (V-U)^-1

With these equations the quantum energy values reduce to exactly 1 or 0.

The idea is to create a dynamic (in pure group and phase velocity terms) between mass and momentum showing how these velocities work as fundamental dimensional components to matter and light.

From this, one can delve further into the eight dimensions represented by group and phase velocity.

The quantum values that I'm presenting would exist far below currently detectable particles, but it's a starting point.

All of the "stuff" that's bigger in quantity would be represented in net values of these two forms of fluctuating quantum energies.

It would be the dynamics of these fluctuations in larger particles that would be so difficult to define. On that scape, ideas from string theory might be gleanable, even though string theory is built off of several false premises.

I'm already super excited to see a simulation of the universe built from these values in tandem to the First Flash model equation. There's enough there now to represent mass, momentum, electromagnetism, gravitation, the quantum realm, and time-space expansion.

Details involving weak and strong nuclear forces would be the details defining "bigger particles" that I haven't dealt with and would likely never finish myself. Way too complicated. I may come up with some averaging schemes, but not a concise equation.

A friend asked me to put together some prophetic stuff that I had talked with them about. The details are lengthy but some of the elements to these prophetic concepts did arrive from details existing within my physics model. Because of this I'm posting a link of this hypothetical time-line here. I will say that I do reserve some doubt concerning whether or not events will actually transpire in this exact manner.

I noticed some errors and made some revisions.

Yep, more corrections.

I've just figured out that my alignment idea with Orion is not correct. The constellation isn't closest to being eclipsed by the Sun till June 21st at noon.

Cool! Astrology, numerology, AND Bible prophecy all in one neat graph! These are important steps towards being taken seriously by the scientific community.

In hindsight, listing Bible prophecy and numerology separately seems a bit redundant.

Reaction achieved. Well, first off my forum thread isn't focused on addressing the scientific community (that's for upcoming scientific journal posts), and second; where are you getting astrology and numerology?

The concept of the Sun eclipsing Orion, relative to Earth was a conjecture of prophecy from Ellen White as she spoke of Christ going through the opening in the Orion Nebula. My conjecture involved a stellar Einstein-Rosen bridge between our Sun and God's throne being seen to follow a vector going through the constellation of Orion. It's not based on solid facts; just elements of prophetic nature.

I won't be posting these ideas in a scientific journal, no worries there. The only real connection between this time chart and my model is the "Big Rip" conditions caused from a universe model having an exponential expansion rate.

I appreciate your concern though, Igakusei.

The idea of wormholes between stars isn't exclusively mine, I've only applied the idea to prophetic situations described by Ellen White and the book of Revelation.

http://io9.com/5777715/stellar-wormholes-could-link-together-stars-through-tunnels-of-phantom-matter

Now, on the claim I'm dabbling with astrology, there's nothing uniquely special about the constellation of Orion other than E.G.W.s claim that Christ will journey through that location sometime in the near future. As far as my idea of the Sun eclipsing Orion, relative to Earth, it's just a conjecture conceiving of a straight pathway through the Sun.

The stellar wormhole idea is missing only one ingredient; phantom matter. Given the condition stated in Revelation 19:17, the presence of an angel within a star may be the answer.

I know that there are people reading this who doubt the existence of such beings. Well, given that I have personally endured physical paralysis and physical abuse from a fallen angel over a three year time period, I have no doubt to express.

Regarding the existence of God and the likelihood he would inspire encrypted information within scripture, I've witnessed events proving this to myself as well beyond doubt. Even so, this doesn't prove any of my ideas regarding prophecy.

So, with all of that stated, how does numerology come into this? Please feel free to explain.

There's one last point, Igakuei, that I'd like to express. Having ideas pertaining to biblical prophecies does not exclude me from potentially aiding the scientific community in further development/refinement in mankind's quest to advance physics. If you disagree then please explain your position relative to Isaac Newton's works on prophecy in Daniel and Revelation.