Life is the only force in the universe that counters entropy.

Poor Stephen Hawking….can’t see a divine presence anywhere in his universe. They haven’t even figured out the shape of the atom, but already they are ruling God out of the picture. All I can say is L.O.L.

Oh please. Why does the Universe -need- a purpose? Why invent some sky-fairy to run the thing? It just doesn’t make sense. Oh, and? Life does not “counter” anything, and certainly not entropy; it’s a prety phrase, but an actual understanding of thermodynamics might help you there. Nobody and nothing exists forever. That’s a partial function of entropy.

No, humans invented gods in their own image to counter fears and explain the (then) unexplainable. There’s never been any, there never will be, and creeds and beliefs are merely whistling in the dark. The Universe is immense, humans are an infintessimal dot on an infantessimal dot. We aren’t at the Universal Apex, nor have we ever been. We aren’t anybody’s ‘creation’ except for natural, uncaring, nonintelligent process. Gods are too small for the actual place we live in; let ‘em go, and let the priests and priestesses get real jobs that actually do something.

In “The Grand Design” Stephen Hawking postulates that the M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics…the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate and later abandoned. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theory.

In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”

Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (fx raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.

Readers may like to browse the following write-up on ‘redshift controversy’ that forms one of the major inconsistencies with the ‘Big Bang Model’.

A large number of redshift observations remain inexplicable by the Doppler effect till date. Turning blind eyes to the revelations made in this connection in Halton Arp’s 1987 book ‘Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies’ as also in J.V. Narlikar’s detailed 1989 review of ‘Non-cosmological Redshifts’ is nothing but sheer indifference on the part of the mainstream cosmologists to accept the cosmological realities. The Doppler shift is a phenomenon in which the frequency and wavelength of a wave change for an observer moving relative to the source of wave. If a source of light is moving away from an observer, a ‘redshift’ is observed. Conversely, if a source of light is moving toward an observer, a ‘blueshift’ is observed. If the source moves away from the observer with velocity, v (v < c is possible since the space which separates the objects (e.g. a quasar from the Earth) can expand faster than the speed of light.

Under the cosmological redshift interpretation, galaxies are not receding simply by a physical velocity in the direction away from the observer; instead, the intervening space is expanding, which accounts for large-scale isotropy of the effect demanded by the cosmological principle (Harrison 1981). In the current cosmological model (Gray and Davies 2008), cosmological redshift is described as the observable time-dependent cosmic scale factor (a), governed by the expression, 1+z(cos) =
a(now)/a(then). Bondi (1947) defined cosmological redshift as the summation of the Doppler shift due to an object’s motion through space, and the global gravitational shift (Einstein effect) due to the difference between the potential energy per unit mass at the source and the observer. Mathematically, cosmological redshift is expressed as z(cos) = z(dop)+ z(grav),
where 1+ zcos = [(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]1/2 (1+∆Ф/c2), and ∆Ф is the difference in gravitational potential between the points of emission and reception of a photon, which hints at the Doppler shift not being the correct measure of distance between the source and the observer. For cosmological redshifts of z < 0.1, the effects of spacetime expansion are minimal, and the observed redshifts are determined by peculiar motion of galaxies relative to one another that causes Doppler redshifts and blueshifts (Gray and Davies 2008).

Some astrophysical observations (Burbidge 1973; Field 1974) have also raised doubts whether the large redshifts (Hubble redshift) related to the distant galaxies are due entirely to cosmological expansion. The strongest argument (Field et al. 1973) in favour of cosmological expansion is that there is no known hypothesis consistent with laws of physics (other than Doppler shift hypothesis) that can explain the observed redshifts. Crawford (1979) provides alternate explanation to the problem – the interaction of photon with curved space-time causes it to lose energy in the form of very low energy secondary photons, giving rise to the phenomenon of redshift. Marmet (1990) too was of the opinion that the cosmic redshifts could be explained without invoking the Doppler interpretation. According to him, photon, in its passage from a distant galaxy to the observer on the earth, loses some of its energy to the intergalactic medium. As such, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium between a galaxy and the observer, the more its light gets shifted toward the low-energy (red) end of the spectrum (Marmet and Reber 1989). Interactions of photons with atoms in the intergalactic medium always result in the production of secondary photon (bremsstrahlung photon) at longer wavelength (Jauch and Rohrlich 1980).Julia (2009) has attributed cosmological redshift of distant galaxies to the loss of energy of the photon with time through transfer of its energy (heat) to the intergalactic space whereby redshift is shown to increase exponentially with the distance,
z = e(H/c)d . These ideas suggest that the distant quasars might be much closer than their redshift would indicate if they have an 'intrinsic redshift' due to their being surrounded by a
'fuzzy' atmosphere containing free electrons and other material. This concentration of electrons produces the unusual redshift as the light travels through it, and loses energy to these electrons by the Compton effect (Grey and Davies 2008).

Readers may like to watch the video feature titled
‘Big Bang Theory-The ‘biggest’ lie of all? ‘Science’, with NO [Zero, none] ‘scientific evidence’?’ on
‘You Tube’ at the website:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2K-YVmuOCY .

The inflationary concept (in the Inflationary Big Bang Model), supporting a vacuum-dominated universe (arising out of quantum fluctuations) during phase transition in the early history of the universe was evolved by some cosmologists (Guth 1981; Linde 1982) to circumvent problems of ‘flatness’, ‘horizon’ and the ‘primordial magnetic monopole’ associated with the Big Bang model. The hypothetical inflation field giving rise to inflation, however, is very speculative lacking sound scientific explanation.There is no general consensus among cosmologists regarding the timing of the beginning and end of the inflationary epoch. In Linde’s ‘chaotic inflation’, inflation starts at the Planck time ,10 -43 sec when the temperature was 10 32 K, whereas in other models, inflation starts when the temperature falls to the point
(10 -35 sec after Big Bang when the temperature was ~10 28 K) at which the symmetry of the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is spontaneously broken.

Element of arbitrariness is also quite prominent in regard to interpretation of the cosmological costant in Einstein’s equations of general relativity. Some cosmologists have related the cosmological cosnstant to the dark energy following observations in 1998 of very distant galaxies that were suggestive of accelerating expannsion of the universe. Ironically, the true nature of the 73% dark energy and 23% dark matter ( as per the latest WMAP intertretations) pervading the universe hitherto remains elusive.

Every variant of cosmological model, be it inflationary or cyclic, predicts possible detection of the primordial gravitational waves created in the immediate aftermath of the cataclysmic Big Bang (the latest in the present universe as per the cyclic model). Futile experiments undertaken by the LIGO (Laser Interferometry Gravitational Wave Observatory) project since 2002, and by the Virgo interferometer since 2007 are suggestive of the fact that we are still far from finding tangible clues regarding the origin of the universe.

I have gone through three books titled, ‘ A Brief History of Time’, ‘The Theory of Everything’, and
‘The Grand Design’ – all authored by the celebrated scientist, Stephen Hawking. I find content of all his books to be more or less the same with minor variation here and there. I fail to comprehend why Hawking has been repeating the same thing again and again. Repeated mention of the Big Bang Model as viable explanation for the origin of the universe does not convince intelligent readers about its validity in the light of several unattended inconsistencies with the said model.