God is a lady engineer M ost religions 'lay claim' to God, describing God in a unique way relating to them.

F ine for religions; bad for science. Historically, science has pulled away from religion and God in an attempt to understand nature / the universe without It. All well and good but if God had anything to do with creation, delusional. So we're stuck at a point in physics/cosmology where science is attempting to construct models of our universeexplicitly wit hout God - and - religions have coopted God for th own 's inister' purposes.It's an untenable situation. eir Imagine cosmology as a person who finds a pocket-watch for the fi st time; they've never seen a r watch before. They don't understandit s funct ion. They take it apart. They put it back togeher. t They understand the mechanism. But they don't understand thefunction. In actuality, this is a poor analogy for cosmology because we're not yet to the point of understanding the mechanisms of the universe. We're close but not there. Historically, quantum mechanics, the theory of physics of 'the very small', has pulled away from determinism and 'classical mechanics'. A crucial experiment has 'proven' once and for all things very small behave inherently random. This is the infamous 'double slit' experiment. Photons, electrons, protons, atoms,.. are used in an arrangement where they can only pass through one of two slits. The confounding result is that if one s ingle particle is pass ed t hrough the arrangement at one time, single particle by single particle, an interference pattern still exhibit s. This pattern only happens when things interfere or cancel out. So conventional quantum physicists talk of 'selfinterference'. This is accepted fact. Another accepted fact is virtual exchange mediating forces. F eynman, perhaps the greatest physicist of human history, has developed a theory of electromagnetism based on virtual exchange. The idea is virtual particles are spontaneously creat ed and destroyed specifically , virtual photons for electromagnetism, between interacting particles. When two electrons 'push away from each other' or an electron near a proton attracts, there is actually a cloud of virtual photons doing the work of pushing or pulling. The same goes for magnets and magnetic fields. When you push two magnets together, say north-north or south-south, the force you feel between them is actually created by a cloud of virtual photons. Sound unreal? This is accept ed fact. Finally, there's the philosophy behind the ideas. Determinism as sumes a classical cause and effect: we're born, we live, we die,.. Our life-paths are analogous to life-paths of particles in an experiment. They are emitted/created, they follow trajectories, t hey int eract (or not), they are absorbed in some kind of detector,.. In determinism, tomorrow exists as much as today and is just as real and tangible. But with indet erminism, the conventional s tandpoint , tomorrow is not guaranteed. Tomorrow is likely but not 100%. Protons can decay. Nothing is 100% what it appears to be. Neutrinos can change character. 'Empty space' can create energetic particles. Sound fantastical? Again, accepted fact. At last we deal with free will. Determinism as sumes we have free will as sanctioned by God. But probability-adherents / probabilists insist this is an illusion. If we live in a Newtonian 'clockwork' deterministic universe, our 'free will' is merely an illusion of lack of information. i tend t o agree with this analys is. Probabilis ts are the 'ultimat e freedom' party because they build in randomness to the very matter and structures of life itself. But is this absolutely required to insure true free will?

i have studied some of chaos theory in mathematics. There's the concept of a strange attractor. It describes the behavior of deterministic systems withnon-linear s truct ure. The Lorenz s ystem is an example. This astounding fact of math is: fully deterministic systems can exhibit seemingly random behavior. No protons were ever observed to decay. 'Atom trapping' experiments indicate we can precisely manipulate matter which seems to violate the uncertainty principle - a cornerstone of probabilistic quantum mechanics. The images of the Hubble deep field show us pictures of galaxies billions of light years away in astounding clarity/precision. If phot ons are inherently random, wouldn't those images appear blurry? Convention contends the inherent random - virt ual exchange model is t he simplest model wit h the least number of assumptions, following Occam's Razor. They call this the Standard M odel. There is also a Standard M odel for cosmology which takes the concepts from conventional quantum mechanics and 'puts them on' the universe / creation. All fine and dandy except for the facts above. It's considered bad taste to bring up 't he one who cannot be named'. It's said, as soon as you invoke his name, you're considered crank or at least fringe. B ut that man argued for a deterministic classical model - arguing that we merely lacked understanding of the very small. Only time will tell if he was right .. The Casimir force 'proof' was actually based on Vanderwaal's forces which was co-opted by probabiists (sound familiar?). And it's poorly understood l depends on the materials used in experiments. This is supposed evidence of 'vacuum energy' .. The Higgs was originally an adhoc creation to explain mass within the probabilis tic framework. With the LHC spewing out events and data, we'll s oon exclude any reasonable mass for the Higgs, effectively crashing t he hous e-of-cards called t he St andard M odel. .. Let's take this 't he other way'. Let's as sume God created the universe for the specific purpose of creating the capacity for life /'intelligence' (that 's in quotes 'cuz we don't seem t o be very intelligen t at times). So G od must have engineered the cosmos to maximize the likelihood of lifegenerating structures. The stable isotopes, some with very spe ific propert ies that produce lifec bearing chemicals: carbon, oxygen, hydrogen,.. and water. These are based on the hydrogen atom and its constituents: the electron and proton. The properties of those define chemistry and therefore life. But here is where God was very clever. The propert ies of those element ary particles can actually be defined by properties of space-time.Further, those properties can be simplified as properties of time only. Gravitation, strong force, both kinds of t ime dilat ion, mass , and even spin can be described by temporal curvature. In order to curve, time must be elastic. In order to impede electromagnetic events, time must have impedance .. Occam's Razor has helped me develop and simplify t his Other M odel of elementary particles. It's helped me 'look into Her mind'.. By recursively applying Occam's Razor on the Other M odel,i've arrived at an exceedingly simple, fully deterministic, view of protons, electrons, and the cos mos.

The simplest surface that matches o ervat ions is t he hyper-torus , a donut -like s hape which has bs zero curvature (is flat). The simplest model of electrons/protons is acharged temporal distort ion surrounded by clouds of charged anti-photons . They are required to make electromagnet ism work in a deterministic universe; we need something to mediat e e-m. At one point, i tried to look at e-m as a kind of curvature but it 's difficult .. The Other M odel is actually testable, brings God back into science as Prime Cause, and acknow ledges H er as Creat or. Is this religious or rational? Zealous or reasonable? Look at the history of s cience: biology has eliminated the need for God with evolution and cosmology has eliminated the need for God with inflat ion / colliding branes. But in so doing, we've bent over backwards so far - essentially forcing experiment to agree with prime assumptions.P rime assumptions that are essentially incorrect. As sumptions bas ed on a philosophy with an 'empty need' (t free will can indeed exis t w it hin a det erminist ic universe). rue Chaos theory has shown us effectively random behavior can exhibit from fully deterministic systems M ore and more evidence accumulat es indicating w e'r e i n a clas sical s pacetime with . deterministically interacting elementary particles. Strong evidence indicates our universe was engineered to support life.. It's hard to deny Her involvement in creation. M ost of us believe in some kind of deity (so is it such a leap to allow Her into cosmology?). If we divorce the concept of God from religions, we allow the reintroduction of It into science. Science has distorted reasonableness and rationality by adopting explicitly Godless concepts. i respect and admire the motivations, but t he res ult is delusion. (By forcing every experiment to conform to inherent randomnes s - virt ual exchange. ) That is not science but a kind of religion in itself. In olden days, Cat holic pries t w ould recite M as s in Lat in. It w as unintelligible t o common folk. Today, conventional theoretical physicist s preach about their views of cosmic creation. They use mathematics to support their ideas which most of us cannot comprehend. They shroud the core concepts in ambiguity and math telling us they're unintuitive. Difficult to understand. And we believe them. We trust them to explore the frontiers of understanding honestly, with integrity, a d s elflessly. n But everyone knows physics today is acutthroat' business endeavor akin to any other human ' endeavor: competition for funding, attention, recognition,.. is F ierce. So the illusion of fairness and objectivity is exactly that. Ideas are not given equal treatment. i've recently written to prominent physicists aboutmy ideas' .. But will any pay any at tention? i ' sincerely doubt it .. Will the ideas ever be tested? M aybe.. If we continue to ask questions. To force accountability and research transparency .. And perhaps slide a little funding our way .. Yesterday, i found a PhD out of work, excluded, wit h a family to s upport, A man w it h definit e .. contributions to science but excluded and marginalized .. i had a deep sense of 'something is terribly wrong with our world' as i read about his research and life-struggles .. Why is it that

M ozart was tortured by Salieri? Jealousy? Why w Bohm driven to life-threatening depression? as Cuz he pres ent ed a different w ay of looking at things? Because he was marginalized ? In my own life, i've found such challenges: 'friends' ridiculing and condemning me .. For what? Because i offer ideas which don't conform to the status quo? Because i buck convention? And now i find myself in a seemingly endless perpetual state of unemployment, trying to elevate awareness about science and psychology, emotionally support family,..i can understand why Bohm was driven to shock 'therapy' .. Why 'the one who cannot be named' felt excluded and marginalized .. Why Feynman proposed to look in the neglected corners .. Why each and every one of us has a specific 'mission' in this crazy modern life. i'm optimistic and hopeful .. About everything . No amount of neglect, indifference, and lack of support can conq that. We will unders tand our universe, we will s hare experiences, we will uer learn,.. Tomorrow exists as real as today; you reading these words is as certain i'm writing them. A 's omewhat ' ;) famous quote from Miss ion t o M ars : "Life reaches out to life. That's what we were born for, right ? To s tand on one world and look tow ard t he next.." Soon we will discover the ubiquity of life. Life will be discovered on other planets/moons. i'm certain of it. This universe was engineered to support life. Every fiber of mybeing tells me this is so. The evidence points toward it .. Someday, science will recognize it .. Not t oday, not tomorrow, but someday..