From: John Sanders [mailto:trigala2@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:29 PM
To: esa@halos.com
Subject: [SPAM] New theory to explain distant starlight

My name is John Sanders and I am a current member of the SDA church in Grand Junction CO. 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. 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 possibly (A) prove the Earth, as well as all of the known universe, is little over 6000 years old, (B) unify the four known forces of nature, (C) unveil new, presently unknown forces, (D) prove the universe was created from nothing, but rather by forces outside the frame work of timespace, (E) evidence an infinitely intelligent being outside timespace exists and created the universe in the begining of time with light, (F) prove a literal week of creation, as evidenced in scripture, (the true day of rest would be evidenced as true thereby uplifting the church through proven science) (G) cause the SDA church to 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.

From: Robert Gentry <esa@halos.com>
To: John Sanders <trigala2@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 4:30:29 PM
Subject: RE: [SPAM] New theory to explain distant starlight

Dear friend, Let me suggest you first take a look at what I have done.
See www.halos.com and www.orionfdn.org, especially the three DVDs which are streamed on the halos website.
Blessings, Bob Gentry

From: John Sanders [mailto:trigala2@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:06 PM
To: Robert Gentry
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] New theory to explain distant starlight

I have indeed been studing your work a number of years. It's quite impressive. Best of luck with your current lawsuit. Question: was your response an encripted reply of interest, rejection, or simply a quick note of relative information?

RE: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] New theory to explain distant starlightWednesday, February 4, 2009 5:40 PM
From: "Robert Gentry" <esa@halos.com>View contact detailsTo: "'John Sanders'" <trigala2@yahoo.com>Just a quick note of relative information. Right now I just do not have time to do anything but pursue my one research.
Blessings, Bob Gentry

Time Dilation with distance.

As has long been established, light coming from objects at ever greater distance are ever more red shifted. If we could see a clock through a telescope at that great distance would it also show time dilation?

The answer is yes - the frequency of the beam of light is a clock and it has slowed.

Put another way, if a distant source emits a beam of monochromatic light for one second, then it must take more than one second for us to observe that beam as the beam still consists of the same number of pulses but they are now spread out further.

If a space colleague were to send a message from a great distance in space then we would expect to hear the voices lowered (slowed) and the message would take longer than if it were emitted locally.

That means observed motion at great distances must be in slow motion relative to us - galaxies will appear to spin slower than they actually are, events will appear to be spread further apart in time and so on.

In fact at a redshift of 4 we would expect things to take four times as long, so a billion years at that distance would take four billion years locally.

Just how thoroughly has this time dilation been taken into consideration when, say, the motion of galaxies is considered? If it was left out altogether then, for instance, ever more red shifted galaxies would require an ever bigger dark matter halo to explain their motion.


--
Kind Regards
Robert Karl Stonjek

Splitting Time from Space—New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime
Buzz about a quantum gravity theory that sends space and time back to their Newtonian roots
By Zeeya Merali
Was Newton right and Einstein wrong? It seems that unzipping the fabric of spacetime and harking back to 19th-century notions of time could lead to a theory of quantum gravity.
Physicists have struggled to marry quantum mechanics with gravity for decades. In contrast, the other forces of nature have obediently fallen into line. For instance, the electromagnetic force can be described quantum-mechanically by the motion of photons. Try and work out the gravitational force between two objects in terms of a quantum graviton, however, and you quickly run into trouble—the answer to every calculation is infinity. But now Petr HoYava, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, thinks he understands the problem. It’s all, he says, a matter of time.
More specifically, the problem is the way that time is tied up with space in Einstein’s theory of gravity: general relativity. Einstein famously overturned the Newtonian notion that time is absolute—steadily ticking away in the background. Instead he argued that time is another dimension, woven together with space to form a malleable fabric that is distorted by matter. The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two conceptions of time don’t gel.
The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies, such as those found in the early universe where quantum gravity rules. “I’m going back to Newton’s idea that time and space are not equivalent,” HoYava says. At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework, and the fabric of spacetime restitches, he explains.
HoYava likens this emergence to the way some exotic substances change phase. For instance, at low temperatures liquid helium’s properties change dramatically, becoming a “superfluid” that can overcome friction. In fact, he has co-opted the mathematics of exotic phase transitions to build his theory of gravity. So far it seems to be working: the infinities that plague other theories of quantum gravity have been tamed, and the theory spits out a well-behaved graviton. It also seems to match with computer simulations of quantum gravity.
HoYava’s theory has been generating excitement since he proposed it in January, and physicists met to discuss it at a meeting in November at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario. In particular, physicists have been checking if the model correctly describes the universe we see today. General relativity scored a knockout blow when Einstein predicted the motion of Mercury with greater accuracy than Newton’s theory of gravity could.
Can HoYYava gravity claim the same success? The first tentative answers coming in say “yes.” Francisco Lobo, now at the University of Lisbon, and his colleagues have found a good match with the movement of planets.
Others have made even bolder claims for HoYava gravity, especially when it comes to explaining cosmic conundrums such as the singularity of the big bang, where the laws of physics break down. If HoYava gravity is true, argues cosmologist Robert Brandenberger of McGill University in a paper published in the August Physical Review D, then the universe didn’t bang—it bounced. “A universe filled with matter will contract down to a small—but finite—size and then bounce out again, giving us the expanding cosmos we see today,” he says. Brandenberger’s calculations show that ripples produced by the bounce match those already detected by satellites measuring the cosmic microwave background, and he is now looking for signatures that could distinguish the bounce from the big bang scenario.
HoYava gravity may also create the “illusion of dark matter,” says cosmologist Shinji Mukohyama of Tokyo University. In the September Physical Review D, he explains that in certain circumstances HoYava’s graviton fluctuates as it interacts with normal matter, making gravity pull a bit more strongly than expected in general relativity. The effect could make galaxies appear to contain more matter than can be seen. If that’s not enough, cosmologist Mu-In Park of Chonbuk National University in South Korea believes that HoYava gravity may also be behind the accelerated expansion of the universe, currently attributed to a mysterious dark energy. One of the leading explanations for its origin is that empty space contains some intrinsic energy that pushes the universe outward. This intrinsic energy cannot be accounted for by general relativity but pops naturally out of the equations of HoYava gravity, according to Park.
HoYava’s theory, however, is far from perfect. Diego Blas, a quantum gravity researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL) in Lausanne has found a “hidden sickness” in the theory when double-checking calculations for the solar system. Most physicists examined ideal cases, assuming, for instance, that Earth and the sun are spheres, Blas explains: “We checked the more realistic case, where the sun is almost a sphere, but not quite.” General relativity pretty much gives the same answer in both the scenarios. But in HoYava gravity, the realistic case gives a wildly different result.
Along with Sergei M. Sibiryakov, also at EPFL, and Oriol Pujolas of CERN near Geneva, Blas has reformulated HoYava gravity to bring it back into line with general relativity. Sibiryakov presented the group’s model in September at a meeting in Talloires, France.
HoYava welcomes the modifications. “When I proposed this, I didn’t claim I had the final theory,” he says. “I want other people to examine it and improve it.”
Gia Dvali, a quantum gravity expert at CERN, remains cautious. A few years ago he tried a similar trick, breaking apart space and time in an attempt to explain dark energy. But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light.
“My intuition is that any such models will have unwanted side effects,” Dvali thinks. “But if they find a version that doesn’t, then that theory must be taken very seriously.”

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

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