First, I'm going to outline my approach in reillustrating the First Flash model in such a manner that the points of confusion described by Bravus can be avoided. Second, I'll go through explaining FF in clearer detail.

There seems to be problems for others understanding what I'm talking about due to topics mirroring from string theory. I can easily cover what needs discussed without any talk of spin. I suspect that Bravus is confusing fractions of a day with his strange thought that I replaced seconds with days or something.

Also, everyone's getting hung up on my terms of curved and cyclical space time. Not a problem. Instead of curved we'll stick to angular, and I'll change cyclical with linear. (Of course, by doing this, a large amount of clarity to how FF works is lost without running back to the newer terminology.)

After cataloging a battery of words like "somehow","magically", "invoked", "fudge factor", "artifact", "mistakes", "misunderstandings", "deliberate misdirection", and then stating false statements as fact I realized that the only way I'm going to successfully explain anything would be by slowly spoon feeding facts like as although I was feeding babies.

Fair enough... and I will make every effort to use more objective and less judgemental language.

My quote,



The key words of the day are "minimum" and "value." I'll let everyone try to figure it out first before explaining further.

Guess I'm not smart enough. I can't get from there to your 'square root of the received age of the universe divided by the number of days in a year' calculation for the age of the universe. I'd be delighted if you can lay it out as clearly and simply as possible rather than making us guess and figure it out.

(the received age of the universe is not the same thing as the received size of the universe, by the way)

(honestly trying to understand, not sniping)

It's probably worth noting that the units of that 'square root of the received age of the universe divided by the number of days in a year' calculation is not years, just by dimensional analysis...

Without myself getting frustrated I'll first point out John Duetsch's "Relationships Among Phenomena at a Unitary Level."

http//www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/deutsch/golden.html

Minimum values for things are explained like wavelength, distance, power, energy, time, etc etc. Planck time could be considered the "minimum value" for time.

In my quotation about light, I'm refering to linear space times linear time (which is linear time space defined by the time space cone commonly used to reveal properties in Minkowski space.)

In my construct, the minimum value for linear space time is 1 day. We exist in a composite of angular and linear time space. The minimum value for angular time space is planck space divided by planck time. If the tangible time space in which we exist is the multiple of linear time space times angular time space you still have units of measure less than 1 day's distance or time.

I'll stop, let the complaints be said, then continue explaining.

JCS,

You said you are a "Young Universe Creationist," right? Exactly how "young" do you believe our universe to be? Do you have scripture in support of this position?

(I'll let Bravus handle the math--as he's far more qualified than I am on that point. My interest is more in keeping with comparing all things to the scriptures.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Planck time is on the order of 10^-44 seconds, while a day is on the order of 10^5 seconds. Yet you seem to be adding the terms for linear and angular space together and treating them as the same units.

(edit: i.e. if you're setting 1 day as your minimum time unit, then it should be 1 unit and planck time (for the angular motion) should be on the order of 10^-49 units...)

Anyway, let me turn it around: rather than you doling out enigmatic bits and pieces and me responding, how about I wait until you describe the whole scheme as clearly and simply as possible? Then I can comment on the totality, rather than on half-understood fragments.

I'm completely open to the idea that I've simply not understood your scheme properly. But as the proposer of a non-standard cosmology, it's incumbent on *you* to explain it clearly so that others can understand.