Thank you,
Your fellow physicist
Monkeyrun26@hotmail.com

[...] [...]

[...] לידיעה ביוניברס טודיי כיצד כתבו ×?ת כל התנ"ך על ר×?ש של סיכה? ומהי בדיוק ננו [...]

The idea of an expanded universe is the cosmology that one of the books of the Bible teaches. Isaiah 42: 5 describes God as 'he that created the heavens and stretched them out …..'

Truey , haved you read the dictionary definition of theory ? (Since you invoke the definition, thought to ask) .

One person claimed that the faster than light expansion involved in reflection would violate physics by the fabric of space being said to go past the speed of light .

Well several conisderations are in order .

For one , physicists working with cesium gas got light itself to go a little bit past its normal speed of 186, 000 miles per second —according to one science article I read a number of years ago .

Secondly if the fabric of normal space expanded it would have had to expand into some other *type* of space —with somewhat different toplogical qualities . I know that there are those who could say otherwise—that it didn't have to have something to expand into (but that claim to the contrary would be mystification and incoherent) .

Recursively you cannot have an inside without an outside –since the very concept inside exists in contradistinction to an outside .

What does that last argument have to do with whether space could have expanded at beyond the usual speed of light at 186, 000 miles per second (you may ask) ?

Well if there was a topologically different type of space that the space of the original Big Bang inflation expanded into —expansion into it might have somewhat different physical constants that the extant sort of cosmic environs in which we reside now .

As for the Big Bang, saying that it didn't happen isn't correct. As mentioned by Tom, we have evidence that at the very least supports the theory. We can possibly get a few fractions closer, but I don't see us actually seeing what happened at the exact moment the BB occurred (ie: dividing a positive number in two will never get you zero).

But, we may be very close to having proof of them. Yes, not blackboard proof, actual and physical proof that can be recorded and studied. The Hadron Collider could create micro-black holes and prove the existence of other dimensions. More details at http://www.livescience.com/environment/060919_black_holes.html

I was always under the impression had any advances were to made here, it would probably within gravitation.

However, this sound interesting….

The moon is a giant ball of aluminum foil.

Everybody knows that.

Science was once a realm where observation and experimentation was the path to understanding the universe around us. That's a cute way of practicing science but the followers of string theory have evolved beyond such childlike exploration.

Compared to the leading proponents of string theory, all "old DNA" scientists from Newton to Sagan were tragically retarded. Without the "new DNA", you are what Watson & Crick might refer to as "one of the mud people."

Watson & Crick were the missing links between old and new DNA. They were simultaneously retarde (profoundly in many cases) yet showed flashes of the "new DNA" string theorists you ignorantly mock.

Bow your head.

There is a reason for the word theory and a definition as well. I personally don't think its true either only because it deals with the entire universe which is so incredibly vast and constantly being rediscovered.

I think the current theories, which may be correct and somewhat accurate, rely on too many assumptions such as dark energy, dark matter, and the so called singularity.

I'm not trying to discredit anyone or anything, just saying that science is certainly going in the only direction it can go based on what is possible for us to measure. However don't make theories like the big bang or anything else for that matter become a scientific dogma. That in itself is not science.

When we talk about String theory, it's important to remember that several different and independent String Theories were developed, all of them mathematically sound, which for theorists was a problem. An equation cannot have two or more contradictory right answers. M-Theory is the intersection of String Theory and Supergravity, and it is M-Theory which describes membranes as fundamental to multidimensional cosmology.

The proposed experiment would probably shed light on the subject, and the array could also be used for other astronomy. But the economics of creating something so massive and so immaculately precise are ridiculously prohibitive, considering that it still couldn't "prove" the theory, only provide supporting evidence… or it could disprove the theory by providing contradictory evidence. But until we have demonstrable and practical need to validate String Theory, such an experiment could not be adequately funded. Scientific discovery most often rides on the shoulders of practical applications. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is.
So far, M-theory (which includes String Theory) is consistent with all the experimental data we have. It would be far more cost effective to fund more theoretical research in hopes of making predictions that would be more economical to experiment with.

At last count I understood that we were had solved back to just seconds or fractions of a second prior to the big bang, in a brief time period where the accepted laws of physics did not yet apply (prior to the point where the strong and weak nuclear forces and the electro-mag force split, and just after time had begun).

There are theories, equations, observations, and universe-wide background radiation and heat left over from the event that, while not conclusively proving the theory, offers plenty of evidence to support it.

What data do you have to back up your statements that these things never existed?

Being men & women of science we are always ready to hear other's supporting and dissenting theories, providing you can back it up…