In this contribution, I'll respond on some of the things said by others regarding my contributions since my last contribution. Each entry will start with the pseudonym of the person on whose entry I'm commenting immediately followed in a new paragraph starting with my own pseudonym followed by my comment.

speedfreek: M-Theory proposes the possible existence of multi-dimensional membranes which interacted, causing our universe.

dcl: Let's not lose sight of the fact that, as attractive as M-theory may be in some respects, there is absolutely no evidence for or against it. So let's remember that at best it is only a hypothesis awaiting the first evidence that it may be valid. I'm under the impression that the same must be said for loop quantum gravity.

speedfreek: As for Loop Quantum Gravity, Abhay Ashtekar and Martin Bojowald have released papers stating that according to loop quantum gravity, the singularity of the Big Bang is avoided. What they found was a prior collapsing universe.

dcl: I, too, think it plausible that the present expansion was preceded by a bounce from a previous contraction, but I'm not aware that there is any evidence for a bounce, so we should not seize on the idea that there was one.

damian1727: "I am not asking why all of the physical constants have the values that they do. I think these values have the values that they do merely because we wouldn't be here to ask the question if they were different" is not a very satisfying argument ... how does it feel as a physicist having to put all the force ratios ..constants ..partical masses into your equations by hand ... they should arise from the theory and in an ideal world not be able to take any other values

dcl: Physicists agree that values for physical constants should ideally arise from the theory, but most theories aren't as complete as we'd like them to be in that respect.

damian1727: just to say well im here so that explains it is just utter nonsense imho

dcl: I don't know where you got that quote. My being here explains nothing.

damian1727: we need to understand how the universe came to be the way it is...thats physics...so the search continues and we have yet to explain how the force ratios ..constants ..partical masses came to hold the values they do.

dcl: We'd like to understand how the universe came to be the way it is, but we don't need to.

damian1727: you sound as if you think further investigation is not worth it

dcl: It's not clear that that remark was addressed to me, but it appears to me that it was. I feel that further investigation in some areas is pointless. For example, the idea that the Universe has the shape of a cube, a 3-torus, a doughnut, or a dodecahedron is pointless because the suggestion that the Universe has any of those shapes seems preposterous to me. The shape that seems plausible to me is that of an expanding four-dimensional hypersphere.

damian1727: ultimatley you seem to be asking the ancient question WHY SOMETHING AND NOT NOTHING?

dcl: I am not asking that question and am curious as to why you think I am.

Cougar: Here [in runningn the movie backward] your answer is incorrect. We can't get anywhere near 10-43 sec. From my recent reading on the subject, many major names in the field all seem to agree on how the movie would rewind back to 1 second.

dcl: I suggest you broaden your reading. There are any number of respected sources that give that 10-43 figure. That figure comes from the Standard Model of particle physics, not from accelerator experiments.