Yes. I am sure. It is pseudoscience at best. Completely untestable, chosen ad hoc so your model matches some aspects of the observable universe. There are some numbers occasionally in models of the early universe and yes, they are very tiny. Perhaps a more reasonable size to start is more comparable to the planck length. I don't really know though and we definitely can't measure it.
I literally mentioned it zero times until you brought it up. And the CMB expansion/Hubble expansion/distinction is something you made up. Do you mean the CMB photons increasing in wavelength over the past 13.7 billion years?
Yes there is indeed a mixture of stuff always in our universe. You know the approximation is a good one to give a good sense of what the real universe actually should do. The real exponent would be somewhere in between each one depending on the particular era. It's a clever idea and physicists do it all the time to get a good sense of what should/would be happen in extreme/limiting cases.
Not sure what you mean exactly. Actually let me clarify. I have no idea what you are even saying with this question. What is a thermodynamically active sphere? Maybe I need to start reading papers like those summarized here: https://physics.aps.org/articles/v10/78.
I wouldn't be so petty as to belittle your intelligence with such remarks. But I must confess that your model seems really weird to me beginning on page 9. You have God making the heavens and the Earth and then crunching it all back together before one planck time has passed, before letting it all expand again. Or 380,000 years of real time occurs in .128 tau seconds.
No unique predictions, some failed predictions
I think that your model suffers from no unique predictions (you've basically described most of the standard understanding of the early universe). All your predictions are done after the original model predicted and measured several of them (like the only light elements prediction from nucleosynthesis). The production of heavier atoms did not occur in this initial moment because the distribution of them is different from the very light elements. So there's a least one incorrect prediction of your model I suppose.
And then you hand wave away some of the unknowns of the standard model (like the one part in a billion or so difference between matter and antimatter) by just saying 'easy, God did that one' in classic god-of-the-gaps type of fashion.
Interesting Plain Reading of Genesis
I don't get the whole God makes the heavens and the Earth and its dark (all of that takes place in less than 10^-43 seconds) and then the entire universe erupts into a giant supernova (required to produce heavy nuclei) and somehow the Earth isn't destroyed. That's a lot to occur that isn't said in a plain reading of Scripture which almost begs the question, why do you take it literally if you require so much to occur like the Earth getting created, then obliterated then somehow existing again outside of this explosion? It seems like so much flexibility but then you must literally read everything else.
The end of all things
I get it. You've thought about this longer than any of us ever will. I doubt anybody could show you to be wrong even if you were. I at least appreciate you are generally aware of the real cosmology and don't just dismiss it like most YEC. I certainly am not up to the task anymore (though perhaps never was). I still don't get how much real time passes for every tau second. Like after 3,000 year seconds did half of 13.8 billion years occur. I have no idea, but back to the for me. I promise to read anything else you post in this thread but may not have the energy to respond.