Thank you västergötland for your comments. I am indeed an amateur when it comes to researching to newest works in the scientific community. Many of the books I keep for reference are outdated. I try to glean new material where ever I can get it. The sites you've provided is providing me with a huge wealth of information. I'm sorry for my angery outburst. Things on my side of the world are troubled at best. I do tearfully desire a degree in physics. I lack the cash and have a bit of memory trouble. (I like to write everything down that's complex and try to memorize things in general, otherwise I tend to loose memory recall or when I do focus to remember new things like persons names, places, and things I'll retain it for a few days and then start to loose all of it in what I call a memory crash. One reason why I never liked history class very much.)

A very reasonable curiousity. I am attempting to ever continue to build and refine what I have with all of the information and insparation available to me until I successfully acquire that much needed degree, or find someone else who already has one and is willing to "file off my works rough edges" and assist in expanding it into all of the relevent areas of physics.

My foundations for the proposed model are based on well proven and defined proofs, theories, and postulates presented in things like General Relativity, Kepler's laws, and Newtonian physics. I also draw truths and useful concepts from persons and things like Trigometric Relativity, Max Morris's Simply Relativity, Kurt Godel's cosmological model, Kerr-Newman Geometry, E-8 Geometry, Angular Gavitics, Photogravitics, cosmic torque, weak gravitational energy, TOE theories, quantum mechanics, Tile Method, energy equation, Extended Heim Theory, Quantum Field Theory, Minkowskian Geometry/ Lorentzian Manifold, Heim - Drooscher extension, Antidesitter space (inverse singularity), Stephen Smale's Chaos Theory, Henri Poincare conjecture, Naked Singularity, Clifford Algebra (key to E-8), Nassim Haramein's Cosmic Torque, Heim-Lorentz Force, HDB, SST, QCD, QED, EWT, and GUT / gauge theory.

Some core studies involved are cyclic time, cyclic space, curved time, curved space, temporal frequency, spacial wavelength, frame dragging, doppler effect, gravitational acceleration, moment of inertia, centrifugal force, centripedial force, mass, SNF, time spacial curvature, weight, and apparent weight.

What I have involves some rather advanced mathmatical models requiring new forms of dimensional calculus. There are mathmatical systems already in existence that would work but are too cumbersome. When broader areas are needed to be included it may be needed to follow that route.

Avoiding complex mathmatical visualization, I've recently condensed some key elements discribing parts of the First Flash model. I'll try to describe it in a visual sense.

Imagine two cones (like the cups you may see next to a water fountain.) One represents time, the other three dimensions of space. The point on the time cone represents the passage of time edging toward the past, it's center the present, and the ever broadening lip foregrounds toward future events. (This cone represents accessable time per a predetermined period that is reachable by a traveling ray of light or a neutrino for that matter.)

The point end of the spacial cone eludes to the smallest quanta of space (which is of course plack scale). The center is the nornmal scale space in which we commonly perceive things, and the broad edge marks the spacial limit to the distance that can be traveled by light relative to the passage of time in that space.

The spectrum of electromagnetic radiation representative of the time cone is on the infra red end of the spectrum and is commonly compared to as heat. The rate of time at the quantum level, is the highest possible within the bounds of the time cone.

The spectrum of "light" for the spacial cone dips into the ultra violet end. U.V. lasers are used to effectively cool objects as strange as that sounds. The area of space inter relates with Special and General Relativity.

Allign the two cones point to point and then imagine them to overlap through one another up to both cones center so that the pointed end is at the center of the end of the opposite cone and vice versa.

The ring at which both cones cross defines rotation. This is a key point in studies dealing with string theory and quantum mechanics. (For the FF model, a single rotation relative to the time space curvature of the Earth [gravitation] is one Earth rotation defining the temporal passage of one day.)

If an object is observed to move away from an observer, red shift occurs. When an object is seen to move toward an observer you get blue shift. Using our cone structure, imagine the two cones to be inseprable from the center intercross ring. When the temporal ring is "compressed" the spacial cone becomes "expanded" or stretched. This illustrates what's happening to light in red shift. The "speed of light" is never violated but with distance exceeding the cones limit, a phase transition occurs. What does occur and is commonly observed in everything in nature is that the rate of relative time varies with distance and space. (I didn't try to illustrate that point here, I might build a thought construct later to illustrate that point.) If the opposite occurs, space is compressed and time is expanded displaying blue shift.

Beyond the light horizon, the spacial "cone" transitions into time like dimensions and time becomes space like. This also happens below plank scale. This pattern is self repeating possibly creating an infinite "patch work" of infinitely varied universes. Avoiding mathmatical jargon, this displays a good chunk of the First Flash model's simpler structural aspects.

Hey västergötland,

do you remember this quote?



I looked at the links you provided me and noticed someting odd.
Do these links look familiar to you?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.3775v2.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0902/0902.3657v2.pdf

They should, not only were they provided by you, but they were also on this website link I had provided for you before hand.

http://freelance-quantum-gravity.blogspot.com/2009/04/horavas-quantum-gravity.html

The thing I am most curious about in this whole thread is the reaction from some of the other forum members who have posted here. JCS claims no formal education of relevance to the topic and what informal education he has does not cover the skills of finding readilly aviable information of relevance to his work. The physics theory is entierly new and according to JCS quite speculative. It is backed by an entierly new math which is also quite speculative according to JCS. And its main point of application as far as presented in this thread is false theology. Yet, even though all of this, some posters buy it without question and promote it as an important event in science.
Quite frankly, is this the "check in the grey matter at the door" zone?

So why didnt you quote them the first time I asked you for articles?

You claimed to lack understanding in physics but showed interest in Horava's work. You were also pretending to lack the ability to dscern which work related to the SA article. (Your methods of action and words of venom are like that of a deadly snake. Your actions do not resemble a spirit of truth.) As a benefit to you I provided a link to a website that summarized his works and the additional works for Horava gravity made by others. Instead of reading it you attack it. You're motives are quite clear. Here is what was posted on the link I had provided.



What I've learned from this is to listen to the Holy Spirit's warning next time instead of giving in to selfish pride. Yes, I was spiritualy warned before hand that your motivation in asking for information was a deception. My purpose in posting material here is to evidence what I am working on and to present a window of opportunity for others to help me with this work. If educated men in the church were more receptive to the Holy Spirit's leading, the advanced work that I've been presented with would have been taken up elsewhere. Even in my lowly circumstance I faulter into pride with what I've discovered. I do plead with God to give this work to someone else more qualified or to send someone to help me with this.

I've diligently searched (and am still searching) for anyone else with a cosmological model that utilizes GR and QM and clearly explains the distant starlight problem. FF continues to march far beyond this.

Thats true.I said I lack the time to read articles which are irrelevant for my own work. Lacking time and ability are different things.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You claims are extraordinary. Your evidence as provided are not..

Would you please expand on your premise regarding the First Flash model being a theory of false theology. There is nothing in scripture or SOP that regards FF to be false theology that I am aware of. This doesn't prevent the possibility for opponents to twist things to their favor. For anyone willing to do so, beware Revelation's warning in Rev 22:18-19.

Looking at the 28 fundamental doctrines, FF does not change anything about God, man, salvation, the church, christian life, or last things. Points of conflict have been attempted to be made in regard to creation and last day events. FF whole heartly evidences the biblical account of creation to the point of revealing lightly regarded truths regarding the Seventh day Sabbath. Dealing with last day events, I found that predictions of FF work in perfect harmony with scripture and SOP. There is only one last contension presented. This is dealing with how many universes there are and the question of where unfallen worlds reside. SOP clearly separates the visible universe from the Universe of Heaven. Putting together the facts that these other inhabited worlds are unfallen, our universe requires cleansing, the heavens will be recreated, and that astronomy evidences that the visible universe suffers chaotic events that frequently effect or destroy planets and stars evidences that these inhabited worlds are not in the same universe. If you debate this point then you are guilty of debasing the the Adventist doctrine that God is a God of love.

This whole lame duck debate started over my quote from SA. The premise was that my model relies on a phase transition of light to unify QM with GR. I discovered later that Horava does the same thing. I have no more interest on that issue.

What you and I have been debating isn't the evidence. You should go back and read this entire thread first before complaining about my lack of evidence.

You claimed that FF predicts the end of our universe and even gave a calculated date on this event. Jesus must return while there are still an earth to return to, which means you effectively put a best-before date on this event. Both denominational history and a reading of Jesus thoughts on the last days suggest that such a date cannot be calculated or known by humans. Therefore your theory leads to bad theology.

We live in this universe and our planet has not been destroyed. Volcanoes and tiny meteorites befall us occationally but there is no rule that says we have to live on the slopes of volcanoes, and I am not aware of a meteorite causing any major damage to humans. With a conventional age on earth, there have been several huge meteorites which would be of some concern, but your theory already did away with them by reducing the age of our universe.

Chaotic events which destroy planets are a bad thing if anyone or anything were to live on that planet. However, chaotic events is also what causes beauty in this universe. Without them, we would have no nebulas to admire, no clouds hunting each other on our skies, no unpredictability in our weather, no randomness in the life around us (all plants and animals looking exactly the same) etc. Remove chaos from the picture and our universe would be entierly and fully predictable even by our present degree of understanding it, indeed a the wet dream of a fundy materialist wishing to do away with God.

I se no conflict whatsoever between our God of love creating a universe like the one we happen to inhabbit. Once sin has been dealt with, may we still have cloudy days when we dry our clothes and calm days when out sailing.

And by the way, Rev 22:18-19 defends the integrity of that particular letter specifically and perhaps the integrity of the bible generally. It does not defend interpretations of either the first or the second.