Evidence is presented in articles in such form that others who are knowledgeable in the area can either corraborate it or pick it to pieces. (There is nothing that prevents you from writing an article, there is no rule which says that you have to have a degree to write one. But you should be prepeared to defend it against those who do.) Evidence is not presented in anecdotal form in faith based fora like this.

Let me tell you about Carl Poppers theory of science. It is known as falsificationism. The idea is that a hypothesis is made. Wild and fanciful is good, as great ideas often appear such to those who are unfamiliar with them. The hypothesis should also be as specific as possible. The reason for this is that a very specific theory is easier to disprove, which is a good thing. For instance, a theory which say that people in texas grow tall is much weaker than one which says that people in texas grow to 200 +- 10 cm tall. It is very difficult to disprove the first one while any result of >211 and <189 would disprove the second.

The next step is to try and think of all the different ways that the hypothesis could be proven to be false and try them. Each time you fail to prove it false despite your best attempts to do so, it gains strength. Finally really good hypothesis have been tested by the whole scientific community and noone has been able to find out a way to disprove it. It has then graduated to a theory in good standing.

I gather you have done the first step, I ask if you have begann with the second step.

I need to clarify. The dates given should in no way be thought as pinned down events. It doesn't set up a "best before date for Christ's return." Angels hold back the winds of strife, the time of trouble will be cut short, and no one but God knows the time of Christ's return. FF simply indicates that the physical laws that maintan the universe will become more and more unstable. This does not put into account the Angels efforts to hold back these effects. They are mear calculations with available data. I think you're right that I should avoid presenting such material in the future. (good point)



Sorry, for some reason I missed the point you're trying to make.



We have very different veiws on God then. An infinite God of love does not rely on disorder for beauty. Relating scripture to nature, disorder is synonymous with the pressence of sin. There are types of exploding stars that would bring death to every planet in the same galaxy. The universe model you propose would mostly harbor dead worlds and uninhabited galaxies. Such a construct sickens me.



We will be clothed with light, not fabrics that require being washed and dried.




True, and when people try add to or subtract from scripture this promise will apply to them.

I think we are starting to get in to some actual points here needing to be discussed.

The issues involving end time stuff crop up from my calculations involving the Hubble distance. This element was an addition to FF, not a core component. Our present day calculations for the Hubble distance and distances measured to the light horizon have degrees of acuracy which directly effect projected calculations. I do not require data involving the Hubble distance for the young age of the universe to be proven using FF.

My own quote:



One should pay closer attention to how I've phrased my statements here. There is absolutely nothing said here that is etched in stone. I carefully tried to make that point clear but it has still been overlooked for some reason.

The second step is compiling a complete list of ways to test whether the hypothesis is falsifiable. My answer is yes and no. I do have a hypothesis but it does continue to change and grow. I have been compiling a list of areas that FF could be tested, however, a complete list would require that I possess a complete understanding of every presently accepted proof and theory involving General Relativity, Quantum Physics, String Theory, QCD, QED, EWT, and Gauge Theory. I'd need a team of physicists nearly equal to the number of programmers needed to create Windows 7 in order to successfully compile and test a complete list. The areas that FF effects is very, very broad.

Dont worry, write down your general ideas, publish it and people will volunteer to test it. The more tests it survives, the more people will try to fail it. There is no reason to think you would have to do all this by yourself.

Of course, it does require a willingness to have strangers critique your ideas.. publicly..

I definitely want the public criticism, if somethings wrong with the model such feedback would make it evident allowing me the opportunity to correct any errors. This model needs to be right for the right reasons. The whole point to such an endeavor is to search for truth.

Due to the fact you appear to have more formal education than I in regard to general dealings with science academia, is there a book or website that you'd recommend for outlining how to properly compose and distribute such a hypothesis? I originally thought I'd need to acquire that coveted degree first. Maybe not.

I dug through my research in a very serious way to find what I need to write my published hypothesis on the First Flash Model. There are in fact several hypotheses that approach the same model from different angles. Heres a list: expanded energy equation, inverse naked singularity, hyper rip model, weak gravitational energy, cosmic torque, tile method, photogravitics, Bohr inertial field, time space field, modified energy field, special hypothesis of time spacial relativity, time spacial spin field, modified twister geometry, and the First Flash unified field. There is also 48 other possible field equations that I haven't even bothered with yet.

Under FF's unified field, all other physical theories are arranged in a circular format. (Going left to right and top to bottom in a 3 x 3 grid) the top three are Bohr inertial field (B), light field (C), and density field(D). The center two are the energy field (E) and to the right is WNF (W). Then finally at the bottom are SNF(X), EMF (Y), and EWF (Z). C is in SR, D-W are covered under Hawking's theory of decaying black holes. Z-W is QED and X-Y is QED. W-Z-Y-X is GUT, X-E-B-C-D is GR, and then finally SST attempts to cover everything except the gap between D and W. The FF unified field bridges everything.

I've decided that if it is indeed possible to publish a work without a degree, it would be easier to start with something small like my modified twistor geometry of which mearly tweaks with Roger Penrose's mathmatical model for twister space. Once that's established everything else will quickly fall into place by neccesity.

I picked out a slight error in the last post, X-Y is QCD not QED. I'm guessing no one even has a clue to what I'm talking about due to the given lack of interest.

I have come up with another way to illustrate FF in a very real world sort of way. FF claims that the rate of time decreases with distance. Studying light, of which moves at a constant, it takes less time for light to travel a mile than it does say a light year. One must subtract themselves from their own biased view of how the world works around them to realize that if the speed of light defines the time space limit to the expanding universe we live in, then the rate of time slows down with distance, and increases with a decrease in space. (This second component describes quantum phenomina.)

I just realized that this also explains the effects of entropy.

We may not have a clue in the more detailed elements as in X-Y being QCD rather than X-Y being QED, however, the concept is most interesting, which is why I am following this thread and asking questions at times.