Yes and yes. I should ask in what key area were you inquiring scriptural and SOP support for the FF model? (There is alot of stuff to choose from.)

Thank you for setting things up to support jpegs. I just need to know how to post them.

Also, I was recently impressed with the idea that there ought be similar electrical processes effected by FF as with light. I wish there was an Adventist physicist in the world that was willing to help me with this additional FF branch. (hint hint)

I am looking for Scriptural support for more than one Universe, whether two or more.

Alot of what I refered to in line # 124138 lends support to the existence of more than one universe.



I will however, endeavor to review through what I've found that's most relevent. Genesis 1:1 refers to the creation of the heavens and the Earth to have occured in the beginning of time. The rate and dimension of time and space in one universe acts with complete independance from any other. (This does not mean that physical forces external to a universe can not effect it.)

Genesis 2:1-3 summarizes that the heavens, the Earth, and everything in the heavens and Earth (which includes all of the stars mentioned in Gen 1:16) were created within the spance of the creation week. This is again stated in Ex 20:11. Psalms 33:6-9 reverberates that by the Lord's spoken word the starry host came into existence just as it is stated in Gen 1. John 1:1-3 backs the account that everything that exists has been created by God. Hebrews 11:3 states that the universe was formed at God's command.

Job 22:12-14 is key in revealing the true location of God's throne. First, notice that something obscures God from us but is not seen by God himself. Only nothingness can be invisible to God. It is a dimensionless void that separates universes. Next, look at this portion, "he walketh the circuit of heaven." then go back to an earlier quote, "Is not God in the heights of heaven?" The furthest visible heights of the heavens is the light horizon, but God isn't visible to us. This horizion is 13.73 billion light years away. combine this with the fact that God walks the circuit of the heavens. Considering that God sits in his throne in Heaven this entire scene is very strange, unless the throne of God resides beyond the light horizon. Anything outside the light horizon exists independently of our universe.

Consider the odd vision in Ezekiel 1. Starting with verse 22, notice that above the creatures is an expanse that sparkles like ice. Verse 26 refers to a throne of sapphire above the expanse. High above this throne is the Lord. The sparkling expanse is the sea of glass refered to in Revelation. I propose that the sea of glass IS the light horizon.

Joel 2:10 states that in a future event a shaking of the entire visible univese will occur. This is called the great and terrible day of the Lord. Again in verses 30-31 calamities are predicted to effect the visible universe. In Matt 24:29-30 Christ describes the same event. Take a very careful note of Hebrews 1:10-12. All that was created in the week of creation will perish. 2 Peter 3:7-10 claims that heavens and the earth will pass away and that this event will occur like a thief in the night. (also note Rev 6:12-17, 20:11-15 & 21:1)

Consider the fact that there are unfallen worlds created by God. If something has not been contaminated it is reasonable to say that it does not require purification. On this point, Hebrews 9:23-24. The heavens themselves require an act of purification. Consider the sanctuary model in it's physical sense. It is a pitched tent. Our universe has been refered to as such in Isaiah 40:22.

Revelation 4:4 states that "surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty four elders." At this point I'd like to quote something I said earlier in this thread.



Most of the remaining refrences to SOP show how Ellen White commonly calls Heaven a universe being distict and separate from our visible universe.

Hi All

I'm David Geelan, a physicist of sorts. That is to say, I did a BEd(Chem) at Avondale College in the 1980s, which was essentially a Bachelor of Science combined with an education degree. My major was chemistry and my minor was physics, so I've studied physics up to 2000 level at university. I then taught high school chemistry and physics (more physics, actually, because physics teachers are in short supply) for a number of years, and have since done a PhD in science education. So I'm by no means a PhD physicist or a working physicist, and don't want to misrepresent my expertise, but I do know my way around physics.

I'm afraid there are very serious problems and issues throughout the 'first flash' model, in all sorts of ways. It's useful as an intriguing speculation and as a way of thinking about space and time, but the gaps and misunderstandings make it simply not plausible as a cosmological model. Let me try to explain.

The current standard cosmological model suggests that the known universe is about 93 billion lightyears across, and is about 13.7 billion lightyears old. The fact that we know about stars that are farther away than the accepted age of the universe is explained by the rapid expansion of spacetime shortly after the Big Bang, and the 'red shift' of distant stars is similarly explained.

Now, for some people who have posted here, that is all OK: they believe God created the universe as a whole long before Creation Week, and that the Biblical creation week is about the creation of life on earth, or earth, or our solar system, but not the rest of the universe. (There is a wide range of possible Young Life Creationist positions, I think all of which have been represented by various posters here.)

So the problem JCS addresses - the problem of light from distant galaxies making it to earth in 6000 years - is only a problem for 'Young Universe Creationists': those who believe the entire universe was created about 6000 years ago. These are a fairly small group within Young Life Creationist groups.

That sets in place some parameters within which to address the problem: I'll start another post to address the actual physical/mathematical issues.

The physics notion of 'spin' applies to subatomic particles such as electrons, and it does not mean that the particles are actually spinning (since electrons also have a wave nature and should be thought of more as a wave function describing probabilities rather than a hard sphere spinning on its axis). 'Spin' was just a label used to describe two possible states, much like 'charm' and 'strangeness' are just labels used to explain characteristics of quarks, which are not actually charming or strange. The concept of 'spin' in this sense does not apply to large objects like planets at all, and doing so is simply a misunderstanding of the relevant physics.

'Curved time' is also not a physics concept, but seems to be one JCS has invented (I'm happy to be corrected by him). Einstein's theory of General Relativity describes spacetime as being 'curved' by masses to produce gravitational 'forces', but that is not the concept used in JCS's calculations.

The convention of treating the speed of light as 1 is simply a convention of changing units. The speed of light is about 186,000 miles per second or just under 300,000 kilometres per second: different units yield different numbers. If the unit of measurement is one lightsecond per second, the number yielded is 1. But JCS then arbitrarily decides to change the speed of light to one lightday per second, without changing the number. That is not a legitimate move. One lightday is 60x60x24=86,400 lightseconds... so he has just increased the speed of light by 86,400 times with no physical basis at all.

He then introduces the notions of spin of the earth and 'curve time', but the practical effect is to simply multiply the speed of light by itself:



By choosing the units as he has, he multiplies the speed of light by 86,400, then squares it. 86,400 squared is 7 464 960 000.

But this number, which he then somehow uses to divide the conventional age of the universe to magically come up with a number very close to 6000 years (the number of days in a year is invoked as well), is a pure 'fudge factor', an artifact either of mistakes and misunderstandings or of deliberate misdirection. It is *not* legitimate to simply change from lightseconds to lightdays without changing the number, and it is *not* legitimate to use 'spin' and 'curved space' as has been done in these calculations. That is true whether one has a creationist or any other cosmological framework. These are not issues of perspective but of honest physics and mathematics.

Bravus,

to the forum!

The points you have made here are quite valid. I attempted some months ago to provide similar input to the discussion, only to find JCS looking for ways to continue his unconventional math. As he seems so inclined, I have not had much interest in pouring further cold water on his pet ideas, despite the fact that they are unsupportable.

(If you have read the thread from the beginning, perhaps you have followed all of this.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Bravus is correct that I have a Young Universe Creation perspective. On the topic of spin. Massless objects spin can either be "right-handed" or "left-handed". My reference to spin in the First Flash model relates to physical properties uniting quantum physics with general relativity. Considering this, my use for spin transends string theory's use for the same word. The two different uses for the term shouldn't be confused. Thank you for pointing that out.

My term "curved time" is the exact same thing as angular time. This value shows up as "dt" in the equation for angular velocity.

w = d(theta)/dt

Are you still confused?



Where did you get the idea that I changed the speed of light from one light second per second to one light day per second? I'm not impressed with false arguments.



This other garbage just ticks me off. Read this entire thread and study it this time. It's obvious to me you've failed to comprehend what you've read thus far.

As soon as I manage to cool off I'll proceed to pick apart Bravus's last paragraph.

Feel free to clarify: I've read as well and as clearly as I can, but I'm very aware that I'm fallible... and, to be fair, your exposition hasn't always been a model of clarity either.

I'm not here to attack you or pick a fight with you, and I said above that I'm happy to be corrected by you. I *am* here to try to clarify and explain ideas for other readers of the forum.

I'll try to deal with the issues you've raised above one by one:

'dt' is not a quantity representing angular time, it is a mathematical expression that is part of differentiating the angular 'distance' (theta - angle in radians) with respect to time. Time in that equation is simply time.

As for changing the units of speed of light to one day, I got that from your first post, specifically these words:



If I've misinterpreted what you meant to say, please clarify, but my reading of what you meant does actually 'work' in terms of the calculations you then proceed to do.

By way of further clarification:



Any number divided by itself is 1. That means the table above reduces to:

1 x 1 = 1
1 x 1 = 1
1 x 1 = 1
1 x 1 = 1
1 x 1 = 1
1 x 1 = 1
1 x 1 = 1
......

To be fair, that's exactly what JCS' results show: 64 light days per 64 days is exactly the same thing as 1 light day per 1 day. What that does, though, is show a constant value for the speed of light, rather than an accelerating value. The speed of light now is 1 lightday per day, and according to this calculation that was the same during the days of creation.

I hope it's possible to reason together without anger and rancor. I'm trying to clarify and understand, but part of that is pointing out apparent errors and confusions. If they're only apparent - if the error is one of comprehension on my part - then please forgive me and clarify in terms I can understand.