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 foss ils were created quite recently and w e have a stilted view of biology and time-scales. 'G eologic time' does not exis t in t his 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 creationist s 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 als o creat ed thos e distant galaxies in six days. A nd thos e 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. O nly we can save us from ourselves . Fundamental Christianit y absolves humanity from accountability - it's Weak, des picable, 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: p roposes 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 matt er. That dying expanding universe becomes t he seed of another. A nd anot her. 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/t ime are cons tant in this s cenario 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, electromagnetis m gets s tronger and st ronger to count erbalance t he force of gravity. But at some point,atoms , chemistry, life,.. become imposs ible 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 t oo 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. G ravity would not grow s tronger - only t he minimum scale and univers al s ize 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: s ome 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. I t has intuitive appeal. Counterargument: our universe appears to be accelerating in expansion. If our univers e keeps expanding as is, t here's no room for collapse - any kind of collapse. O ur univers e appears to be a 'one time deal'. O ne shot; one expansion; one accelerating explos ion. 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 des cribed by the phrase: a different kind of physics . Essentially, they're tailoring the parameters to fit the observed CM B. This is equivalent to changing a numerical model to fit weather observations. N othing is t ruly predicted. T hey'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 'aft er the fact' description. "The cat follow ed the mouse home." A lit tle bit more sophisticated than that, but essentially the same..The core issue, beyond cat-and-mouse descriptive science, is that convent ion was given 't he big bang' which seemed to explain Hubble expansion, but did not explain things before Planck-time. Inflation t heorists 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 w it hout God. T otally unrealis tic. Brane collision: s tring theory propos es this scenario. Counterargument: the 'only' drawback is that seven ext ra spatial dimensions are required, at leas t. This feature will never be test ed or observed. Theorist s admit t his . To me, we don't need t o analyze any further. S ring theory is compelling but reject s itself exactly becaus e of t he unreality t of multiple dimensions. Again, the symmetry of the proposed geometry of spacetime is intriguing but.. Pretty pictures do not make reality. Any dimensions beyond D spacetime require aut omatic 5 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, t e process of elimination, in science, is equivalent to 'proof h 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 t hose are valid crit icisms, then we have only one choice: accept G od as part of cr ation. e If spacelet theory has any basis, that elementary particles and photons are spacetime wavelets,fi electromagnetism is actually mediated by real charged antiphot ons not virtual phantom photons as convention proposes,if curvature, w het her spacet ime or s imply time, is a central feature of our universe including t he concept of balanced curvature, if spacetime/time has elast icit y 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 anot her 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 t he strongest evidence for G od's 'signature' in creation is the fact w e observe the expansion rate of our universe as accelerating. Our universe appears to be expanding faster and faster. This, by itself, implies our univers e is a 'one shot deal'. There's no mechanism, in the deterministic framework outlined above, that could s low it down, other t han an 'a ct of God' .. Some people have looked for 'signatures of God' elsewhere: perhaps inexplicable patterns in the CM B is one, another signat ure could be breakdow n of 'normal' physics before Planck-t ime,.. 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 aretruly bizarre 'creatures' .. In the past, i've writt en that our brains and dolphin sonar are biological signatures of God but .. Perhaps we can best s ee God in works of art such as M ichelangelo or M ozart . When i s ee 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 .. M y times in Thailand are when i developed feat ures of t he Other M odel 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 O ther M odel w truly inspired.. ere Without that inspiration, the Other M odel wouldsimply not exist. What is the s ource of inspiration? Human genius? i'm not that bright.. P erhaps God isthe source of human inspiration .. If She's quiet now, perhaps H umilit y is important aft er all.. ;) ..Nope, nothing,.. Nothing but a blazing fire in my heart telling me She's always there and alw ays will be there..