Christian Perspective

[Time Phantom]

The observable universe is just a fraction of the entire universe however they are both 13.7 bln yrs old (since they were created during the same Big Bang).

I am sorry I don't understand what you mean theologically however physics wise this is garbage.

I agree that the visible universe is but a fraction of the entire universe. (probably something like 1/infinity)

I agree that prophetic messages are not physics equations (or as you say physics wise to be "garbage"), however the equation I've gleaned from 2 Peter 3:8 is nothing of the sort. While working to understand this cosmological model, I discovered that it made predictions of the effects observed in the Pioneer anomaly before I even knew anything about the Pioneer anomaly.

That being said, this equation isn't garbage. If the light from the heavens begins to disappear like smoke due to the universe ripping itself apart within the next 25 years don't forget that I told you so.

I'm really not surprised by your reaction due to the fact that we have conflicting view points. (Mine being that of the unpopular literal Genesis aged universe.)

Perhaps I should simply concede that I like your speed of light equation and say no more. I truly believe that the one true God has inspired you to find this equation in Sura 32:5. May God continue to lead you in truth.

[Time Phantom]

Raef:

Who told you that the distance to the edge of the observable universe is 13.7 bln light years? This is false. The universe is 13.7 bln years old, however in any direction we look we see objects 47 bln light years away, that is, light should have needed 47 bln years to reach us. So you might ask how could light travel 47 bln light years in just 13.7 bln years? Well this is just a consequence of the expansion of the universe: Light gets dragged away from us. See: http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_li ... ective.htm

Second, your units will never lead to light years (a distance). It will always lead to time squared (hr^2 or sec^2...).

Looking back at what was said, I've discovered that I need to correct some elements to my model. What I've been working on shouldn't have anything with distances yet. 2 Peter 3:8 only talks about relative temporal rates and the WMAP calculations only calculate the estimated age of the universe. Also, I haven't been following the rules of units in my explanations like I should. 2 Peter 3:8 focuses on days as the base unit of measure. So I'm going to make these corrections now.

Let's start out by assuming that Martin Anstey got it right when he calculated the year of creation to be 4124 BC, how many years ago would that be from this year, 2010? Something like 6133 years yes? This will be our linear time measurement in years. This needs to be converted to our base unit, days.

6133 x 365.25 = 2,240,078.25

Okay, we have our linear time measurement in days. Now, let's look at my interpreted equation from 2 Peter 3:8.

(# of days times 365,250) times (# of days/365,250)="resultant time"= (# of days)^2

Put in our linear time in days into the value for the number of days and you get:

(2,240,078.25 * 365,250) * (2,240,078.25/365,250)= 5,017,950,566,000 "resultant days" = 5,017,950,566,000 linear days^2

To find the resultant time in years, this number must be divided by 365.25.

5,017,950,566,000/365.25=13,738,399,910 resultant years
Now, WMAP's calculation for the age of the universe this year was 13,750,000,000 years plus or minus 120,000,000. The 2 Peter equation is well within that margin. My First Flash model equation simplifies this to:

(linear time in days) * (curved time in days)=resultant time in days

The day year conversion element can be shortcutted like this:

[(linear time in years) * (curved time in years)] * 365.25= resultant time in years

According to the First Flash model, linear and curved time share the same numeric value.

[Raef Fanous]

Let's take it one step at a time with the units:

The number of days in your equation is: 6133 yrs x 365.25 days/yr = 2,240,078.25 days.

Your equation now becomes: (2,240,078.25 days * 365.250 days/yr) * (2,240,078.25 days /365.250 days/yr)= 5,017,950,566,000 days^2.

But now you say "To find the resultant time in years, this number must be divided by 365.25"; well no you missed the unit, that is, it should be 365.25 days/yr. So your equation becomes:

5,017,950,566,000 days^2/365.25 days/yr = 13,738,399,910 yr-day.

You are back were you started.

[Time Phantom]

Let's take it one step at a time with the units:

The number of days in your equation is: 6133 yrs x 365.25 days/yr = 2,240,078.25 days.

Your equation now becomes: (2,240,078.25 days * 365.250 days/yr) * (2,240,078.25 days /365.250 days/yr)= 5,017,950,566,000 days^2.

But now you say "To find the resultant time in years, this number must be divided by 365.25"; well no you missed the unit, that is, it should be 365.25 days/yr. So your equation becomes:

5,017,950,566,000 days^2/365.25 days/yr = 13,738,399,910 yr-day.

You are back were you started.

I should correct you on "Your equation now becomes: (2,240,078.25 days * 365.250 days/yr) * (2,240,078.25 days /365.250 days/yr)= 5,017,950,566,000 days^2."

It's not 365.250, it's 365,250. (It's not three hundred sixty five point two five, it's three hundred sixty five thousand, two hundred fifty. Huge difference there.)

Looking at your last statement, your getting closer to discovering the root to what is actually going on. Look at Einstein's energy equation and you'll notice the c^2. We exist in squared time-space. Look at the equation for gravitational acceleration. (n meters per second per second) meaning, after 1 seconds it falls at n/s, and 2n/s after 2 seconds. I discovered that gravitational acceleration actually = (linear space/linear time) * curved time.

There are six basic forms of dimension: linear space, linear time, curved space, curved time, resultant space, and resultant time. Resultant space is linear space times curved space. Resultant time is linear time times curved time.

We are dealing with more than one form of time here.

5,017,950,566,000 days^2/365.25 days/yr = 13,738,399,910 yr-day.

Thus this would actually be 5,017,950,566,000 "resultant days"/365.25 resultant days per resultant year = 13,738,399,910 resultant years.

Try not to confuse linear time with resultant time.

[Time Phantom]

I hope this illustration will help clear up some of the confusion.

I just thought of something interesting, 19.11151485 linear days, times 19.11151485 = 1 linear year. Investigating this, I discovered that the Baha'i Faith has 19 months of 19 days (each given a name after an attribute of God.) I am definitely not a Baha'i, but it's interesting anyway.

I also just discovered that there is an orbital relationship between Mercury and Venus. 10 Mercury orbits occur over the same time that Venus orbits the Sun 4 times. 19.1 days. Makes me wonder if it's actually 19.11151485 days.

[Raef Fanous]

We are dealing with more than one form of time here.

Well in physics there are no extra time dimensions however there are extra spatial dimensions. See: M-Theory

[Time Phantom]

Due to the fact that my cosmological model is theoretical, it presently remains unproven. However, as far as temporal dimensions, sometimes the laws of physics need to be rewritten in light of newly discovered data.

(Consider the unexplained retarded temporal rate of distant nova and pulsars.)

Actually, considering the fact that Special Relativity deals with time-space and General Relativity deals with curved time-space, I respectfully disagree with the statement that there is only one form of the dimension of time.

Comparing what is accepted physically, there are six key points in which Special & General Relativity agree with my model.

time:space (1) The ratio of time changes with distance. (energy density)
space:curvature (2) Increased distance reduces curvature. (gravitation)
time:rotation (3) Rate of time slows with acceleration. (rotation)
space:rotation (4) Length decreases with acceleration. (rotation)
curvature:rotation (5) Gravitational attraction (curvature) opposes centrifugal force. (angular momentum)
time:curvature (6) Time dilation caused by gravitation. (curvature)

[Time Phantom]

I've been looking at an older book, "Superstrings and the Theory of Everything" in addition to a much newer book called "The Road to Reality" and am coming to the realization that Roger Penrose's Twistor theory represents my First Flash model at the quantum scale. With only two "modifications" does Twistor Theory morph into my own model.

#1) Penrose explains that the net effect of a group of spinors would represent a spinor field. With a combined effect of a group of twistors (at the scale of the entire Earth), Twistor Theory is now represented at the same macro scale as FF.

#2) Twistors represent the combined quanta of "null rays" and spinors at equal footing. Null rays represent the linear momentum of light's speed as explained in Special Relativity, spinors are quanta of angular momentum of which governs processes existing in quantum mechanics. The interesting point here is that Special Relativity dictates that the speed of light works as the foundational yardstick for relativistic time-space. In order for spinors to be on equal footing with light, there must exist a form of curved time-space as well. When linear and angular momentum are combined on equal footing, an Archimedean spiral results. (consider the fact that light actually expands away in a sphere) There really is no mystery here due to the fact that the General theory of Relativity has already confirmed the existence of curved time-space.

I can see at this point, someone wanting to debate that curved time-space is simply distorted time-space that can not be combined with linear time-space because it is one and the same. On this point I would strongly urge you to consider the information on Bessel photons (a form of light that moves in a parabolic path due to linear momentum times angular momentum) as is explained on the following site:

http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/PS_ca ... 0819v3.pdf