Yes, yes. I agree it's up to me to clearly explain my non-standard cosmological model. Do to its complexity, and my inability to clearly convey my model to you thus far using great detail I will continue working slowly to explain the smaller points first. (like compiling postulates to support a theorem in geometry.)

It's nice to see Green Cochoa here to keep me on the straight and narrow. The process of explaining things does help me crystalize things though it can certainly be unnerving.



This is an older question. Here are some older answers.





Anstey's chronology coincides with what is revealed on this site:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=232744002&blogId=499142592

JCS,

Darwin is quoted as saying his own theory would fail if a part of it failed.


Do you have any similar testable criterion for your theory?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This quote was refered to and questioned earlier by Bravus:



You have discovered that the resultant values do in fact all equal one. One point of information missed was that the first value, (let's say 3/3) represents 3 linear light days distance divided by 3 linear days time. The first value is a linear time space value. The passage of time (as mankind perceives it) is measured by angular time. The second values represent angular space divided by angular time.

Does that clarify anything?

The answer is in fact yes. I touched on this topic earlier today on another forum in facebook.



If I remember correctly, we debated over the Pioneer anomaly before. Here's an even better site for information:

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/pioneer.htm

This was one of the original sites I used to research the anomaly.

Yes, we had some discussion on that anomaly already. Seeing as I don't have a probe...

How much confidence do you place in the resulting number of years, and to what do you apply them? the earth? the universe? Do you believe that God created Adam and Eve 6131 years ago, as your figure suggests? Would this be a "testable criterion?"

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm going to be honest, this intellectual boxing match is starting to make me feel dizzy. (Not to say I've lost, just that it's very taxing mentally.)

Yes, I am still working to simplify my work for further constructive criticism.

There are other possible ways to test FF, I just haven't bothered yet to compile them. My confidence in the resulting years in my model is equal to my faith in the accuracy of WMAP's measured distance to the light horizon. (There is a degree of error.)

JCS,

There was a fair bit of confidence on William Miller's part surrounding the dates of the "Second Coming." As we know, the second or third date set was finally accurate...but the event was not. How do you know, even if you can prove the 6131 years in terms of math, what they apply to, or are you even making a specific application of this time? Is it just a general approximation? Applicable to the entire universe?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The date calculated by FF (using WMAP's measurement) happens to coincide with Anstey's date. If the distance measured in 2008 was significantly off, or if the true expansion rate of the universe (based off of the changing distance to the light horizon) doesn't match up with FF's calculations, then the creation date would change as well. If at least two accurate measurements are made at different times and the calculated distances compared to the times the measurements were made heavily conflict with FF then the model is empiricly wrong. Thus far every WMAP measurement made (of which was considered sufficently accurate by the scientific community) coincides with the FF model.

The calculation is fairly straight forward. Acquire the distance. Divide by the number of days in a year. Find the square root. So, let's say a measurement was made this year with a distance of 14.8 billion light years. That comes out to 6365.547239 years ago. If a second measurement was made at the same time next year with a result of 14.8046504 billion light years that would perfectly match FFs prediction. Of course if such measurements happened they would then conflict with Anstey's creation date. The First Flash model works independently of nonphysical sources just as it should.

Good questions. I do appreciate you asking. The begining date in FF refers to a time space starting point in which all energy in the universe (including matter) started expanding apart at the speed of light. As time past the relative expansion rate increased. It is a precision mathmatical process calculating the begining of our universes expansion from a single point.

I am not surprised at all the degree of flak I receive over this work. In many ways its like when others claimed the Earth was a sphere or that the Earth orbits the Sun. I haven't acquired a physics degree so therefore I must be too stupid to figure out something on such a grand scale. I use a unique metric of my own design and have my own array of glossary terms therefore it must all be nonsense. Right?

Maybe I should simply give up on the whole thing. I can't gain any progress till I've found a physicist who can support me anyway. If it's God's will that this stuff is figured out then someone will with or without my aid. I've already lost my family over this annoyance to the world. Perhaps I should cut my losses now.

I did say I was starting to feel a bit taxed didn't I.