Dear Sir Roger Penrose,

In the course of my study on twistor space I stopped to ponder over two unique concepts that have lead me to discover some startling conclusions.

1. What is the collective effect from a field of twistors at a scale of the Earth?

2. If null rays are on equal footing with spinors when combined to form twistors, and null rays represent linear timespace, then spinors would represent curved time-space.

This combination of a constant linear speed with a constant angular velocity results in an Arcamedean spiral. This result would seem to represent a form of "resultant time-space". Using this model at Earth's scale, each Earth rotation would represent spin and a light day's distance would represent the equivalent distance light travels within that period. Considering the resulting spiral, a constant spacing of a light day exists between each winding (possibly representing the constant observed speed of light due to a disregard of light's actual path as it expands in the form of a sphere from it's point of origin.)

In my consideration to the possibility that this "twistor field equation" may work as a simple representation of quantum gravitation at a cosmic scale, I've compared it to the commonly used cosmological red shift equation.

twistor field: c * w

simplified redshift equation: c * (observed wavelength - rest wavelength)/(Hubble constant * rest wavelength)

If these equations are equivalent, then curved time-space can be defined by: (observed wavelength - rest wavelength)/(Hubble constant * rest wavelength) . Since the WMAP calculations for our visible universe's age use the redshift equation, I decided to test the "twistor field equation" with WMAP's calculations.

WMAP calculations:

[year] [calculated age of the visible universe]
2003 13,690,000,000 years +/- 120,000,000 years
2008 13,730,000,000 years +/- 120,000,000 years
2010 13,750,000,000 years +/- 120,000,000 years

twistor field calculations using WMAP's 2008 measurement as a basis for resultant time
[yr][resultant yrs]x365.25=[resultant dys]sqrt=[linear dys]/365.25=[linear yrs][creation yr]
03 13,710,000,000 years 5.0075775x10^12 2,237,761.717 6126 4124 B.C.
08 13,730,000,000 years 5.0148825x10^12 2,239,393.717 6131 4124 B.C.
10 13,740,000,000 years 5.018535x10^12 2,240,208.696 6133 4124 B.C.

Encountering this extreme oddity, I considered how I could go about disproving this equation. With careful study, I discovered that this "twistor field equation" predicts significant temporal retardation of light when observed from great distances. Objects like pulsars would work quite well to test this prediction. Most pulsars are observed in superclusters like Hydra, Pavo-Indus, Perseus-Pisces, Coma and Hercules at an average distance of 360,000,000 light years. The most distant observed pulsars have been found in superclusters like Horologium and Corona Borealis at an average distance of 1,000,000,000 light years. According to this equation, a 60% relative temporal retardation rate should exist between such distances relative to Earth. Astronomical data confirms this to actually be true.

Due to the relationship this material has with the twistor theory, I thought it to be an honorable consideration to share what I've found with you. It is well known that you are one of the finest (if not the very elite) of mathematicians in the world today. In light of this, what I've presented is quite humble at best. Please feel free to be honest and direct with your constructive criticism on what I've shared. Thank you greatly for your time.

Sincerely,
John C. Sanders

I mentioned a while ago that our small group (basically my wife and I, and one other couple who both have science training) have been studying the Test of Faith materials from the UK. They are produced by the Templeton Foundation, which funds religion-related projects, and basically look at the relationship between science and religion.

They're very good, obtainable at most Christian bookstores (at least here) and well worth watching.

Their claim is that science and fait are not actually in conflict. I actually agree with that, and think we could do a lot more if we abandoned the conflict metaphors and moved on to looking for commonalties and shared interests.

I have to say, though, that they make conditions uniquely easy for themselves, by the forms of 'science' and 'faith' they choose... That is, the Christian faith they describe is completely happy to say that the universe began with a Big Bang, about 14 billion years ago, and that life arose through evolutionary processes, probably with some divine tinkering (intelligent design). In other words, they take out most of the hard bits and sticking points.

Now, that position is not unlike my own (non)position in some ways - looking at the evidence and looking at Scripture.

But I don't necessarily agree that they've proved their case of 'no conflict', given the way they've set it up.

Any reflections and reactions are very welcome.

Interesting. I believe that true science and true religion are in perfect harmony which other. I also believe that we, as finite beings, lack the infinite wisdom and intelligence necessary to fully discern true science or true religion. The only possible way to be led by truth would be to place complete faith in what is inspired by God first, above all other things.

That being said, I do agree with the standard model on two points. 1. That the universe expanded from a singularity at an exponentially accelerated rate. 2. WMAP's cosmic redshift calculations derived from CBR data is accurate.

What I disagree with is this idea that inflation ever stopped and that the universe's age was 13.5 billion years old in 1999, only to change to 13.69 (2003) 13.73 (2008) and most recently 13.75 in 2010. These changes in time only make sense from a resultant stand point. (similar to what happens when two vectors are combined into a resultant vector.)

The end result here is that I actually place greater faith in WMAP's results than the physicists involved with making them because of their faith in the standard model. I believe that many Christians today give in to the standard model and evolution due to greater faith in the scientific community than the plainly stated words of scripture.

The truth on creation starts to become blurred only after one places greater faith in the "experts" for determining the true meaning of the holy word. Everything breaks down to what one is willing to put greater faith into.

For me, I pick wanting logical consistency to wanting magic. I quite enjoy living in my godless world because that means I can rationally trust in the scientific method. As soon as you insert some physics-defying being, you lose the ability to actually trust in empirical methods and results. I can no longer imagine perfect experiments that I can preform n times and get the same outcome n times (science is about repeatability, after all). As long as there is some god-like being that can interact in our world, she has the ability to come down and stick her invisible hands in front of my detectors as many times as she would like without me knowing about it. Adding in magic results in absolute chaos! I'd have to pick a new career, because no laws of physics could rationally exist!

I've just recently sent an email to Roger Penrose (who created "twistor theory") in regard to my "First Flash model" in relation to his twistor theory. Penrose is in fact a theist, meaning he believes that only one true God exists, but has not settled on any religion. I do not know of any other man more qualified to carry forward the work I've started. May the Holy Spirit work deeply upon his heart in order to lead him to greater truths that extend far beyond the physical in nature.