cosmological theories

Current widespread theories compete for center stage: explaining, or attempting to explain, how our universe came into being.

6-Day Creationism: Many fundamentalist Christians interpret Genesis literally. God created Earth in six days and rested on the seventh. They argue all fossils were created quite recently and we have a stilted view of biology and time-scales. 'Geologic time' does not exist in this scenario and so we must believe, or accept on faith, that God created all substance and life on Earth just as Genesis describes. The earth is around 7000 years old in this framework. Biblical creationists can give you an exact date for creation. They also claim our DNA is degrading; Adam and Eve were created perfectly but through sin, they have exposed themselves to God's wrath and radiation. After being pushed out of the Garden, we're now exposed: our sin, our folly, our rejection of God's authority,.. - all these tell our dismal state: we need to be saved by Jesus. Only with the blood of Christ can we be saved. His sacrifice cleansed us and so we will be the chosen to survive the (true) holocaust to come. Armageddon is near..

Counterargument: many galaxies are billions of light-years away from us; it has taken billions of years for their light to reach us; why would God create a universe so absurd? It makes no sense. If God created Earth in six days, He also created those distant galaxies in six days. And those photons in flight toward us in six days. He would have to create all instantly just for us = a human-centric perspective. It's absurd. All creation was not made for us. And Jesus cannot save us from ourselves. Only we can save us from ourselves. Fundamental Christianity absolves humanity from accountability - it's Weak, despicable, and just plain Wrong. Paul created Christ. Jesus was Humble and wanted us to find God without ego. Jesus was nothing about retribution or punishment; Jesus was about forgiveness and Love. Fundamental Creationism is endorsed by those who hunger for punishment: for humanity, for our sins, for our 'original sin', for disobeying God, for not respecting His authority,.. These Creationists focus on sin and retribution - not salvation and forgiveness. They're controlled by Satan.

Sir Roger Penrose: proposes our universe goes through cycles of expansion and .. expansion. He proposes our universe will eventually die out converting all into energy/photons. These photons 'need' matter to tell time. Scale does not matter. That dying expanding universe becomes the seed of another. And another. And another. Forever. So we simply exist in one of these instances of perpetual expansion: cycles of big bangs - mediated by 'photon death'.

Counterargument: his view of black holes is interesting since he ascribes no significance toward them. But his notion of time and scale are essentially incorrect. Time does not need matter to pass and scale is preserved between expansions in his scheme. Scale is preserved and each successive expansion has a smaller minimum scale. This does not jive with reality. Gravity would overcome all other forces due to the size of each successive universe with respect to minimum scale. Essentially, qualities of spacetime/time are constant in this scenario as scale is. But enlarging each successive universe / big bang only forces the minimum scale to get smaller and smaller (relative to the size of each expanding universe). This equates with the force of gravity getting stronger and stronger .. True, electromagnetism gets stronger and stronger to counterbalance the force of gravity. But at some point, atoms, chemistry, life,.. become impossible because gravity forces all matter to join singularities. Life depends on weak gravity and strong electromagnetism. Preserving the relationship between elasticity and impedance but changing the length scale's relationship to universal size causes an imbalance between size and forces. Forces become too strong. Chemistry and life bearing chemicals become impossible. Gravity becomes too strong and life becomes impossible. The chances we live in a cycle before 'gravity overcomes' is unlikely. Penrose's scheme is highly unlikely. Note: parts of this argument are incorrect. Qualities of spacetime and scale are preserved through each successive expansion; there's nothing to imply they would change. Gravity would not grow stronger - only the minimum scale and universal size would grow further apart. And, energy would be more and more spread out. i see no incentive for a next explosion to occur. Our universe would end in 'photon death' with no continuation. It's possible and perhaps our eventual fate but .. Penrose's scheme appears impossible nonetheless.

Cyclic Big Bang: some years ago, i had subscribed to this scenario. It seemed to make sense from the big bang perspective. A big collapse, a big bang (rebound), a big collapse,.. Forever. It has intuitive appeal.

Counterargument: our universe appears to be accelerating in expansion. If our universe keeps expanding as is, there's no room for collapse - any kind of collapse. Our universe appears to be a 'one time deal'. One shot; one expansion; one accelerating explosion. This precludes a cyclic big bang.. One caveat proposes a built-in slowing mechanism for acceleration but nothing indicates this process. A 'final' issue is: what started the cycle process itself? Nothing is proposed to initiate cycles. Presumably, the cycles have been operating forever.. Cyclic big bang = weak model.

Inflation: specifically, a different kind of physics operated before the Planck-time of the big bang.

Counterargument: the central issue here is described by the phrase: a different kind of physics. Essentially, they're tailoring the parameters to fit the observed CMB. This is equivalent to changing a numerical model to fit weather observations. Nothing is truly predicted. They're trying to force the inflation model to match measurements. This is at best descriptive science. Nothing seriously wrong - just not predictive science. Anyone with rudimentary modeling skills can perform this action. True, there are some relatively sophisticated interaction effects but essentially, this is 'after the fact' description. "The cat followed the mouse home." A little bit more sophisticated than that, but essentially the same.. The core issue, beyond cat-and-mouse descriptive science, is that convention was given 'the big bang' which seemed to explain Hubble expansion, but did not explain things before Planck-time. Inflation theorists are trying to play catch-up 'after the fact' - attempting to explain how the universe arrived to Planck-time constrained by the big bang super-scenario. Nothing classical/normal can explain how a singularity exploded in 4D spacetime without appeal to some kind of divinity. Ergo, inflation. It's an adhoc mystical hand-waving with no correspondence to reality. Inflation was convention's 'first best guess' how our universe arrived at Planck-time without God. Totally unrealistic.

Brane collision: string theory proposes this scenario.

Counterargument: the 'only' drawback is that seven extra spatial dimensions are required, at least. This feature will never be tested or observed. Theorists admit this. To me, we don't need to analyze any further. String theory is compelling but rejects itself exactly because of the unreality of multiple dimensions. Again, the symmetry of the proposed geometry of spacetime is intriguing but.. Pretty pictures do not make reality. Any dimensions beyond 5D spacetime require automatic rejection. Finally, they do not address what created opposing branes in the first place. There seems to be always, within convention, this missing element.

As mentioned in the previous essay, the process of elimination, in science, is equivalent to 'proof by contradiction' in mathematics. If we exclude all reasonable competing explanations but one, we're left with no other choice: that one explanation. i understand and appreciate how science has historically pulled away from religions and God. Science and religion should have nothing to do with each other. But if we exclude all reasonable explanations that don't depend on God, if we can find critical fault in each proposal invalidating them as above, if those are valid criticisms, then we have only one choice: accept God as part of creation.

If spacelet theory has any basis, that elementary particles and photons are spacetime wavelets, if electromagnetism is actually mediated by real charged antiphotons not virtual phantom photons as convention proposes, if curvature, whether spacetime or simply time, is a central feature of our universe including the concept of balanced curvature, if spacetime/time has elasticity and impedance, if we live in a causal deterministic universe, then God becomes the only explanation as Prime Cause.

Life sciences have been able to develop the theory of evolution without God, but physics cannot seem to propose reasonable cosmological theories without God. All theories above have huge gaps in them without some kind of Prime Cause. A reader asked in another essay: what created God? Good question.. i suggested we ask God.

Darling? What came before You?

..i'll let you know if She answers.. ;)

One final note: perhaps the strongest evidence for God's 'signature' in creation is the fact we observe the expansion rate of our universe as accelerating. Our universe appears to be expanding faster and faster. This, by itself, implies our universe is a 'one shot deal'. There's no mechanism, in the deterministic framework outlined above, that could slow it down, other than an 'act of God' .. Some people have looked for 'signatures of God' elsewhere: perhaps inexplicable patterns in the CMB is one, another signature could be breakdown of 'normal' physics before Planck-time,.. If we find no evidence for gravitational waves, this could be another indicator.. The photon itself is a possible indicator of God: imagine a creature than can only move by turning itself inside-out or perhaps an animal that can only move by changing sex from male to female and back again.. This is a macroscopic view of photons - they are truly bizarre 'creatures' .. In the past, i've written that our brains and dolphin sonar are biological signatures of God but.. Perhaps we can best see God in works of art such as Michelangelo or Mozart .. When i see images or hear music from them, i usually begin to cry: how could a human being create such beauty without inspiration?

Which brings me to one last point .. My times in Thailand are when i developed features of the Other Model outlined above. After, and during, i was in awe of the simplicity and elegance of it. i cannot take credit (as i wrote previously): elements of the Other Model were truly inspired.. Without that inspiration, the Other Model would simply not exist. What is the source of inspiration? Human genius? i'm not that bright.. Perhaps God is the source of human inspiration .. If She's quiet now, perhaps Humility is important after all.. ;)

..Nope, nothing,.. Nothing but a blazing fire in my heart telling me She's always there and always will be there..