The Light-First Universe: Why the Big Bang Gets Creation Backwards

Faith & Science Conversation
41

The error is the lack of error bars and predicted resolution. The predicted effect from dark matter on the longest journeys is predicted to be 5 feet. Are the measurements you are using able to pick up on a 5 foot deviation?

How many course corrections were there during the mission?

Were those course corrections greater than the 5 feet? I would think so. Are the measurements of the spacecraft’s position accurate to less than 5 feet? Probably not.

What the actual scientists are saying is that after billions of miles the deviation will be about 5 feet. They did the math.

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/510/4/5154/6496049?guestAccessKey=47000e5b-5ac0-4bdf-99f2-8f29bb3de340&login=true

This deviation could only be measured without course corrections, of which there were at least one. Each course correction resets the measurement, so the deviation is going to be less than 5 feet.

I really don’t see how your measurements are accurate enough to detect less than a 5 foot deviation in the path taken by the spacecraft. Even the experts are saying it isn’t measurable:

But it’s a tiny effect. After traveling billions of miles, the path of a spacecraft like Pioneer 10 would only deviate by about 5 feet (1.6 meters) due to the influence of dark matter. “They do feel the effect of dark matter, but it’s so small, we can’t measure it,” Green said.

How Dark Matter Could Be Measured in the Solar System - NASA

Added in edit:

This also got me to wondering . . . The effect of dark matter is predicted to produce a 5 foot deviation in a journey of billions of km (mixing measurement systems like any good American). How much deviation would be caused by the solar wind and light pressure?

1 Like
42

Refer to his posts to answer that question. The point is that I have never seen him trying to convince people that atheism is the only correct way of understanding all things. I have only seen a dedication to getting what science says and what the data shows correctly.

1 Like
43

Light is the product of marklar emitting latex.

Can you explain how that is false?

(Hint: @pevaquark gave you a hint when he said you aren’t even wrong.)

1 Like
44

For the record, I have only commented on the science.

If faith and science are going to be brought together then shouldn’t it be our aim to make it good science?

I think the shared view is that science should be determined independently of faith since they are based on separate things. Good science is science based on data and testing. The conclusions should be the same no matter what your view on faith is.

45

Stringing some symbols together is not science.

There’s the obvious observation that scientists have reached a consensus on many conclusions in many fields. That isn’t to say that consensus is automatically true, but it does say that there’s a lot of evidence that backs a consensus and anyone challenging the consensus needs to bring evidence demonstrating it is wrong.

46

Yes, my previous post was a bit harsh because I don’t think you are getting what I’m saying, but rather are just throwing post hoc word salads at me.

But I digress, you want to talk about dark matter in our solar system. Let’s go through several steps. What is the density of dark matter in the universe? On average of course. Let’s start there. What would you expect to find? What do you imagine when you say “the solar system should be swimming in it?” If we are traveling through a sea of dark matter, why should we feel any gravitational effects if it’s all around us?

1 Like
47

Thank you, pevaquark. I do understand what you’re getting at. You don’t know me. So, I understand why you assume that I just throw ideas around willey-nilly. I’m rational, thoughtful, and creative. Yes, I must work on my creativity. Thankfully, being a math teacher, I’m skilled at analysis.

Did you see the data I dropped in above [New Horizons analysis]? It answers, I think, your questions.

48

Well, you’re right I’ve done that, but not randomly! This entire set has deep meaning and is well intimately connected with reality. Go ahead analyze them and explain how they can be falsified and I will be considerate and respond. If they are falsified, I will go away, happy, knowing that I tried. :wink:
FABRIC FOUNDATION:
Reality is light threading itself into coherent geometry through agency.
All phenomena are expressions of the same threading dynamics guided by choice.
CORE EQUATIONS:
c = ΔΦ/Δτ (local light = fabric threading rate)
c_path = ΔΦ/Δτ * f(∇M) (light stretched by fabric threading; redshift ≠ recession velocity)
E = Mc² (energy = memory density)
I = ∫dΦ ; S = logΩ(Φ) (info = geometry; entropy = spread)
P = |ψ|² / Σ|ψ|² (quantum decision)
t = τ (universe experiences all time; photons Δτ ≈ 0)
R = ΣcosΔφ (resonance = stability)
B = ∇C ; B=0 stable (beauty = coherence gradient)
g = k∇M (gravity = flow toward memory density)
M = M_active + M_latent (active = expressed constraints; latent = stored, dormant)
∂C/∂τ = f(B, R, M_active, M_latent, A) (coherence evolves through agency)
M_latent + A → M_active (agency activates dormant memory)
Ψ = R(Ψ) (consciousness = recursive threading)
A = ??? (agency = unquantifiable choice activating potential)
Variables:
Φ=config, τ=depth, ΔΦ=change, Δτ=step, c=coherence rate, M=memory/mass, M_active/latent=constraint states, E=energy, I=info, S=entropy, Ω=state count, ψ=amp, P=prob, R=resonance, Δφ=phase diff, B=beauty, C=coherence, g=gravity, k=const, Ψ=consciousness order parameter, A=agency (unmeasurable)

49

The predicted deviation for Pioneer 10 is 5 feet, and it has travelled farther than New Horizons, but let’s go with 5 feet.

You claimed the flight of New Horizons was dead on. However, it had to make a course correction close to Pluto.

Just as the exploration of Ultima Thule will be the farthest-ever flyby of a planetary body, Sunday’s maneuver was the most distant trajectory correction ever made. At 8:55 a.m. EST, New Horizons fired its small thrusters for 105 seconds, adjusting its velocity by just over 1 meter per second, or about 2.2 miles per hour. Data from the spacecraft confirming the successful maneuver reached the New Horizons Mission Operations Center at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, through NASA’s Deep Space Network, at 5:15 p.m. EST.

Course-Correction Puts New Horizons on Track to Kuiper Belt Flyby - SpaceNews

A course correction of 2.2 miles per hour would mean in just 4 seconds after the course correction the spacecraft had already moved 5 feet from its previous path which cancelled out the effect from dark matter. The course correction was many orders of magnitude more than what would have been caused by dark matter.

That’s word salad. It doesn’t mean anything.

What the heck is the fabric threading rate? What units is it in? How is it measured?

Again, that’s word salad.

1 Like
50

Let’s see what’s on the menu for this word salad. Greek to me? :wink:
c = ΔΦ/Δτ (local light = fabric threading rate)
c isn’t just “the speed of light.” It’s the rate at which reality weaves itself together. That’s exactly why I’m calling this Fabric.
Think of it this way:
Φ = The current “configuration” or pattern of reality at any point
ΔΦ = How much that pattern changes
Δτ = Each “step” or moment in the fabric’s depth
c = How fast the fabric creates new geometric relationships

Basic idea is that light isn’t traveling “through” space. Light is the threading process that creates spatial relationships. When we measure “light speed,” we’re actually measuring how fast reality can reorganize itself geometrically.

When Genesis says “Let there be light,” it’s not just about illumination. It’s about the fundamental process that creates all stuff, all the geometry. Light is the “threading rate” at which the Logos weaves reality into being.
c is the heartbeat of creation. Its the rate at which new reality comes into being through divine threading.

51

How are you measuring this?

What is threading? How does it create space? How do we detect threading in an experiment? What experiment would differentiate threading from the consensus view of a photon travelling through space?

1 Like
52

No, no it does not. Think of it this way. The density of dark matter is indeed 5 times higher than that of normal matter, but both are VERY tiny in a region of empty space. The density of regular matter is about 1 proton per cubic meter, and dark matter is about 5 protons per cubic meter. If we travel through a uniform density of 5 protons per cubic meter, that’s going to have extremely small effects. Here is a recent paper looking at constraining the amount of dark matter locally:

Here’s a graph from the paper:

image
image2560×1280 120 KB

When traveling around our solar system, the density of dark matter is like a hundredth of the mass of the sun per cubic parsec. Keep in mind the density in our solar system is easily a trillion times bigger than this depending on how you define its boundaries. So… yes we know for a fact the local dark matter density is EXTREMELY low, especially compared to regular matter (locally, but not on cosmic scales!!). So your calculations and reasoning are very wrong in terms of what to expect if dark matter were real locally.

1 Like
53

Simple Answer: It’s how fast reality weaves itself together at the most fundamental level.
What it actually Is: Threading rate = How quickly the fabric creates new geometric relationships. Not light “traveling through space” but the rate at which spatial relationships themselves come into existence.

The Units:
c = ΔΦ/Δτ where Δτ = Planck time steps (≈ 5.4 × 10⁻⁴⁴ seconds)
ΔΦ = Configuration change per Planck time interval
Result: c = 299,792,458 m/s (same value we measure as “light speed”)

How it’s measured: We’ve been measuring it all along! Every time we measure “the speed of light,” we’re actually measuring the threading rate: how fast the fabric can create new geometric coherence.

Conventional view: Light travels through pre-existing space at speed c
Fabric view: Light IS the threading process creating spatial relationships at rate c

The “speed of light” is actually the “speed of reality creation,” the fundamental rate at which the universe threads itself into coherent existence, one Planck-time step at a time.

I remember going to a talk by a well-known bryophyte specialist. And he said the person who will really understand mosses and liverworts will be someone who is fresh and hasn’t been convinced by the textbooks. Not that I’m promising that what I’m saying is all correct. Nope. My conviction might be overstated. I’m saying that to understand reality, we must look to Jesus, see how he creates reality and then reshape our understanding. Yes, this is a radical view. There’s much we can use from the past, such as units of c and the planck in our eye. :wink: But we’ve gotten lost in the weeds.

54

The forum is not all about bringing in untestable mashups of real scientific terms believing you’ve overturned all of modern physics through this “new integrated theory of everything” or whatever you want to call it. I believe you’ve made the error that legendary Christian physicist James Clerk Maxwell warned against when he said:

But I should be very sorry if an interpretation founded on a most conjectural scientific hypothesis were to get fastened to the text in Genesis … The rate of change of scientific hypothesis is naturally much more rapid than that of Biblical interpretations, so that if an interpretation is founded on such an hypothesis, it may help to keep the hypothesis above ground long after it ought to be buried and forgotten.

You have fastened a most conjectural scientific hypothesis to Scripture and if I’m being honest, probably will hold on to your idea longer than you really ought to because of what it means to you personally and spiritually. However, Maxwell also would applaud what you’ve done perhaps because he also said:

I think men of science as well as other men need to learn from Christ, and I think Christians whose minds are scientific are bound to study science that their view of the glory of God may be as extensive as their being is capable of. But I think that the results which each man arrives at in his attempts to harmonise his science with his Christianity ought not to be regarded as having any significance except to the man himself, and to him only for a time, and should not receive the stamp of a society….

He may have liked your attempt to harmonize your science with your Christianity, but would suggest you shouldn’t expect it to have any significance except to you yourself and nobody else owes you anything in response or return.

Yet you said yourself, you imagine you are like Jesus standing up to the “priests of science,” yet presenting no real science. You imagine you have a remarkable discovery God told you to share, also paralleling yourself to Einstein (though claiming you aren’t? I’m confused)…

You said:

If your idea was really true, you would be overturning many fields of modern Physics, essentially claiming all of astrophysics and cosmology are mistaken and probably small scales with the quantum realm as well. I’ve personally seen and talked to many people like yourself over the years which comes with the territory of being a physics professor. This happens so much, that there is something call a crackpot index where you can score someone’s ideas:

John Baez

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

  1. A -5 point starting credit.

  2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

  3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

  4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

  5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

  6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

  7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

  8. 5 points for each mention of “Einstien”, “Hawkins” or “Feynmann”.

  9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

  10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

  11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

  12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don’t know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

  13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

  14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

  15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of “I’m not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations”.

  16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is “only a theory”, as if this were somehow a point against it.

  17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn’t explain “why” they occur, or fails to provide a “mechanism”.

  18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

  19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a “paradigm shift”.

  20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it “suppresses original thinkers” or saying that I misspelled “Einstein” in item 8.)

  21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

  22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

  23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

  24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

  25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the “The Evans Field Equation” when your name happens to be Evans.)

  26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

  27. 20 points for each use of the phrase “hidebound reactionary”.

  28. 20 points for each use of the phrase “self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy”.

  29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

  30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

  31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

  32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

  33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

  34. 40 points for claiming that the “scientific establishment” is engaged in a “conspiracy” to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

  35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

  36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

  37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

1 Like
55

Quick search in the paper. (I gotta get off this computer for now.) Did you notice this?
“evidence for disequilibria…is mounting” and “the freedom of the Gaussian processes can absorb effects that belong in a different, unmodelled field.”

"This paper confirms a local dark matter density of 0.5 GeV/cm³, yet my New Horizons analysis, with 10⁻⁶% precision over 7 billion kilometers, detects zero gravitational anomalies. The authors themselves acknowledge ‘disequilibria’ requiring increasingly complex models to explain away observations that don’t fit.

Why invoke increasingly complex models (Gaussian processes, disequilibria corrections) to explain away observations that don’t fit, while my direct measurements show exactly what simple physics predicts → no dark matter effects.

You’re proving my point. You’re saying dark matter is: So dilute locally that it’s undetectable with our most precise measurements; yet somehow creates dramatic, structured gravitational effects at galactic scales

If dark matter comprises 85% of galactic mass and creates rotation curve effects, it must have significant gravitational influence. You can’t simultaneously claim: It’s too weak to detect locally, AND It dominates galactic dynamics.

“Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

56

OK. No need to resort to insults again! If you’re running me away. I’ll be happy to oblige.

57

On the first page of the paper, it talks about all the ways we’ve calculated or measured the density of dark matter locally:

Extracting the local dark matter density from the data is a nontrivial task and there are many methodological approaches for this. First attempts to model the local matter density using stellar kinematics date back at least a century (e.g. Kapteyn 1922; Oort 1932;Bahcall 1984). As the main observable quantity at our disposal are stellar positions and velocities, most methods focus on the kinematics of some stellar population. For example, there are recent methods based on an analysis of circular velocities (e.g. Pato et al. 2015; Huang et al. 2016; Benito et al. 2019; Karukes et al. 2019; Lin & Li 2019; de Salas et al. 2019; Ablimit et al. 2020; Benito et al. 2021; Sofue 2020; Zhou et al. 2023; Ou et al. 2024; McMillan 2017; Cautun et al. 2020), fitting a parametric distribution function (e.g. Bienaymé et al. 2014; Piffl et al. 2014; Binney & Piffl 2015; Cole & Binney 2017), normalising flows (Lim et al. 2025), halo star mass models (e.g. Kafle et al. 2014; Hattori et al. 2021; Wegg et al. 2019), Jeans anisotropic modelling (e.g. Nitschai et al. 2020, 2021), modelling of phase-space-spirals (e.g. Widmark et al. 2021; Guo et al. 2022), very local analyses (e.g. Holmberg & Flynn 2000; Schutz et al. 2018; Buch et al. 2019), and vertical Jeans analyses (e.g. Garbari et al. 2012; McKee et al. 2015; Xia et al. 2016; Hagen & Helmi 2018; Sivertsson et al. 2018; Guo et al. 2020; Salomon et al. 2020; Wardana et al. 2020). For a more comprehensive overview and list of previous works, we refer to a review by de Salas & Widmark (2021). While most analyses agree on a local dark matter density on the order of 0.01 M⊙ pc−3 at the Sun’s position, they differ in their methodological approach and the level of rigour in their treatment of uncertainties

That doesn’t mean it’s undetectable. I showed you a map of estimates of dark matter locally, which we expect to be small. But take a small number and add it up over billions of light-years, and it becomes a big number. OR many places have more clustering of dark matter than our solar system or local star systems, as we measure specific amounts through gravitational lensing effects.

So I just told you the density of dark matter in local regions is like one hundredth of the mass of the sun per parsec and in our solar system, the density is easily (if you go out to the heliopause) one trillion times larger. That’s because we are in a solar system near a star. Most of the universe isn’t like that and any stellar dynamics is going to be dominated by matter (being a trillion times more dense), AND the matter is unevenly distributed thus giving rise to obvious gravitational effects. An even distribution of dark matter locally makes so that it pulls evenly in all directions and barely doesn’t anything at all!

1 Like
58

Yeah it’s a hard thing to say and I feel bad saying it. I’m sure if I met you in person, we could have a good time chatting and mutual fellowship in the Lord. I’m not sure if you are up for taking the test to score yourself on that index because what I and a few other are telling you is that you have this idea you really like and again, it means a lot to you. What you say here is

So you have this thing you call geometric coherence, which appears to have units of meters. Specifically it’s a very time amount of meters because, ΔΦ=cΔτ=1.62 x 10^-35 meters. So you are claiming that the universe… does what now? Threads itself into coherent existence? What is that supposed to mean? Is that… testable? Light is somehow traveling through this fabric and it gets redshifted? How exactly? What physical mechanism does this?

Do you have ways to quantify this fabric density? Or prove that it exists? Your fabric length or whatever is even smaller than strings in string theory - are you kind of copying that idea but adding your own nonspecific twist to it? You just add in some memory/mass density thing to your equations which apparently has no units in this equation, c_path = ΔΦ/Δτ * f(∇M), what on earth is memory density? How do we measure that? What real physical quantities does it correspond to? What measurements can be made of the memory density, which cannot have units, to make the units match in your c_path equation. How does this lead to a redshift? Why do further away things create

This is what I mean when you just make random stuff up to explain data away. Here’s another example:

There are REAL specific predictions and calculations that can be done with nucleosynthesis in real physics:

image
image850×614 56.8 KB

Yet you say oh this is some magical transition from a latent memory (God remembered to put in the ratios consistent with the Big Bang expansion??). There are some magic rules based upon imaginary physics “rules of information/memory crystallization” instead of actual real physics based on a real understanding of real high energy nuclear physics.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Again the CMB came from a real prediction of a hotter, denser universe where the photons decouple once it cooled to about 3000 K and based upon the real expansion history, we measure these photons to be at 3 K today. The base threading frequency of reality? What is that? You just took the word background from ‘cosmic microwave background’ and said ahhh that’s the “background of coherence.” What is the background of coherence? It’s an incredibly post hoc word salad with no real predictions and you just come in, throw some words at a modern problem in cosmology and call it a day.

So David. That’s what I really think about your idea. I don’t think it really came from God but love that you are so passionate about it and it excites you as a human and ignites your faith to understand and share it with the world. Don’t quit your passion, but I’d suggest maybe the Lord is leading you in a different direction and he had to use the forums here to do it. Keep dreaming big and fighting to understand the wonderful creation around you. Use your mathematical mind to wonder, find some folks to run your ideas by, take their feedback, and get back to dreaming with God.

2 Likes
59

Thank you for the apology. I agree. personal interactions are the best. Wrote a book about it, my book, Analog Jesus.

Just like most sane people, I live under a variety of assumptions. Clearly, you do too. These are mine.

  1. The universe behaves like a tree grows. (threading idea)
  2. Light is the background condition (the Logos)
  3. Space truly is nothing (light creates geometry)
  4. Universal agency (no true randomness)
  5. Time is not an axis (so I use tau instead, threading depth)
  6. Everything is stored as memory. (Again a tree is a perfect example. A tree stores the memory of all trees that came before it, i.e., M_active, and a seed is the same, but mostly M_latent)
  7. Beauty is part of God’s plan. (Things tend toward beauty.)
  8. Resonance as synchronization (There is a music to the universe. It harmonizes.)
  9. Fractal relationality (If a system works like this at one level, similar rules apply at other levels.)
  10. Paradigm universal availability (Understanding of nature is not only for the “priests” of science to enjoy.)

One of the keys, actually is c being relative at all frames of reference. This is why light is the background condition and the Planck “aperture” is how that light emerges). I then worked off of the assumption that meteorology and ecology are truly the central sciences. Ecology is about relationships (which parenthetically is what the Trinity is all about). And the understanding of meteorology is rock solid. This is where I get the gravity equation. High pressure is to low pressure as space is to mass. Pressure gradients drive flow, just as memory density gradients (∇M) drive what we call gravity. Weather systems show us how information patterns (pressure, temperature, humidity) create complex, beautiful, predictable dynamics. The same threading principles apply from quantum to cosmic scales. From there it all fell together.

I’m not going to index myself as a crackpot, a charlatan, or a dweeb. God loves me more than for me to debase myself like that.

Science belongs to all of God’s children, not just institutional gatekeepers. When Jesus said ‘I thank you, Father, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes’ (Matthew 11:25), He was affirming that truth comes through humble seeking, not credentials.

I’ve met a number of your challenges, not all of them. Not enough time. But my challenge to you is to truly study the equations. You’ll discover a very deep consistency. Are there steps to falsification? Sure and I’ve outlined a few here. You’ve spent considerable effort (thank you) defending a model that requires 85% invisible matter, patches, and increasingly complex tuning. I’m offering a unified framework that explains the same observations through information threading: testable, falsifiable, and grounded in both physics and Scripture.

The question isn’t whether I have all the lab equipment to test out all this, it’s whether the framework has explanatory power and internal consistency. Use an LLMs to verify the mathematical coherence, if you’d like. The real test is: does it better explain reality than models requiring invisible, undetectable matter?

“By their fruits you will know them” (Matthew 7:16). Speaking not of you, but judge the framework by its explanatory power, not by institutional approval.

60

Your critique reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. The Fabric framework doesn’t replace nuclear physics, it provides a deeper information-theoretic foundation for why nuclear processes occur with such precise, seemingly ‘fine-tuned’ characteristics.

In Fabric, M_latent → M_active represents the transition of potential information states to expressed configurations. For nucleosynthesis, this means that atomic formation isn’t random, but an information threading process. Elemental ratios reflect fundamental coherence constraints. Nucleosynthesis rates should correlate with information density gradients. You misunderstand my point. The CMB isn’t just thermal radiation. It’s a fundamental information substrate revealing reality’s base threading frequency. The 3K temperature isn’t coincidental.

“God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Light isn’t just electromagnetic radiation, but the fundamental information carrier of reality.

I appreciate your concern, but this isn’t a crisis of faith, that’s for sure. It’s pursuing scientific understanding as an act of worship. “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1) means rigorous investigation reveals divine design.

My framework doesn’t replace physics. It seeks its deeper, more elegant underlying principles.

1 Like