Even some scientists give lip service to fairy tales.

There is no quantum universe. Quantum physics is definitely within our Universe (The time-space bubble that we call The Big Bang).

Which theories are you talking about exactly? The Big Bang is at this point considered scientific fact, even though not every aspect of the process is understood. The same can be said of evolution.

Not at all. You just need to be careful not to get your science from public media.

I don't believe that's correct FM. The BB has produced a myriad of predictions over time which have been fine tuned to the point where we have a good understanding of events and conditions mere moments after the initial BB. COBE and WMAP have confirmed many predictions and they are only the most recent.

M Theory, which is an extrapolation of string theory, cannot make the same claim. Even string theory itself is debatable as to its validity as a scientific theory (because at present it is un-testable).

Can you translate that into something more basic? What are the evidence that proves BB theory?

Are they not only assumptions?

How about the hazy world of where eletrons are ? Or the mass of photons ? Or the nature of alternate universes ? These are outside reality. The Galactic universe is outside reality because parts of it will never send light to us. As above.

How about the hazy world of where eletrons are ? Or the mass of photons ? Or the nature of alternate universes ? These are outside reality. The Galactic universe is outside reality because parts of it will never send light to us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Words without meanings that sound good.

All words have meaning, that is why they are called words. So for you to say words without meanings shows a lack of understanding of very basic principles.

The footery for M theory is solidly within evidence of sub atomic particles, specifically the quark. The entire area of subatomic particles can be detected so they must exist neh?

I think particle theory falls apart at the quark level. The mathematical modelling is just as important as the physical collisions, and with increasing power being required, it will stop soon anyway. String theory will probably replace it.

That was my point. Ive stated that M,theory IS evidence based and the subparticles within a quark (charm, up, down etc) are measurable. They dont exist in a "fuzzy world" of nonempirical mathturbation only.
All applications and (as far as M is concerned) predictions are slowly built from a few pieces of evidence and the ultimate goal of this process is to combine the various theories of matter and energy. It isnt that the bases dont exist, its more that the further reaches go beyond any evidence (to date). Hadron wasnt built soleley on a whim. It has a number of field applications that will require understandings of many subatomic particles and how they are knitted together. The popular press has focused on one or two sensationalized goals and the search for the boson isnt the thrust of Hadron. Its to further understand how many particles are structured and how they interact between their various quantum states. The overall search for a unifying theory of all energy and mass still eludes us, and how much energy is really needed to warp spacetime.How many quantum states of several elements are able to be distinguished and how can these states be usedful to the fields of chemistry and applied physics? (hint, we will be able to have entire chem labs on a popsicle stick with that kind of information)

The findings from Hadron will cause the finders to have a decade lead in several fields of application beyond mere theoretical physics. As an aside,there are a full several commercial entities that co-sponsor HAdron.