[Texas Songwriter]

Good evening Betty. Thanks for your comments. I think it is well said that you reference the priori commitment to deny creatio ex nihilo. It is sort of a left-handed compliment to those of us who follow where science leads that the materialist, atheist would go to such lengths as the Many Worlds Hypothesis to delude himself with such illconceived notions. But, lets face it: the twentieth century and this decade has been an attempt by cosmologist to deny what all of the research and experimentations declare so clearly....that there was a beginning. The history of the twentiety century cosmogeny has been a series of failed attempts to craft acceptible nonstandard models of the expanding universe in such a way as to avert an absolute beginning predicted by the Standard Model. Previous to 2003 and Borde-Vilenkin- theorists intent upon avoiding a beginning relied on a period prior to Planck time devised hypotheses to a void ex nihilo creation can no longer go where these dragons are conjoured. From Einstein, Hoyl, Eddington to Hawking these contortionists, bright though they are, elect self-delusion, to the clarion call of science and its findings. Borde-Guth-Vilenkin explained this without the necessity of Planck time thus negating denial of any previous world or thing or space or time prior to the singularity. It is, quiet simply where the physical meets the metaphysical. And physics cannot hope to go there, but through vain imaginings.

So, thank you for bringing it to everyones attention.

[betty boop]

Borde-Vilenkin- theorists intent upon avoiding a beginning relied on a period prior to Planck time ....

Planck time is the smallest "increment" of time the human mind can conceive. It is a measure of time, not time itself.

These theorists are saying before there was time, there was time. How can time be before time became? The Standard Model says there was a beginning of space and time. And that model seems to be holding up pretty well. Yet theorists such as Hawking, Steinhardt, Borde, and Vilenkin insist time doesn't begin; space doesn't begin: They just always were. And the physical universe, by the same rule, is eternal — it just goes on forever.

But if the universe is eternal, then how did it develop its laws? You don't get lawful behavior out of an infinite regression, back to a beginning that never was....

Such an approach obviates the two greatest scientific/philosophical questions man can ask: Why are things the way they are, and not some other way? And why is there anything at all, why not nothing?

Thank you so very much for writing Texas Songwriter, and for your kind words of support!