I watch this movie but you are going to need to make it in a documentary format. The story line would develop over many years or even decades. Come to think of it, I believe this would probably be a better book than a movie.

I assume you are partial to Fred Hoyle's continuous creation concept of the universe, a concept that has been totally discredited in scientific circles. It is not that scientists are creatures of a sort of faith about the big bang theory, it is that the big bang theory conforms to the observed facts. There is no "one instance of time". Time is responsive to the observer and that varies greatly. The universe today is not a result of randomness but is responsive to the evolution of the interaction of universal forces which are not completely understood today but nevertheless are assumed to be perceivable and comprehended in the long run. The concept that scientists are some sort of coherent group that can be dispensed with like a religious cult verges on total idiocy. Good science fiction rests on extensions of known and accepted understandings with what-ifs thrown in to introduce viable concepts. I see very little if anything of that here.

Sand: The Big Bang Theory is just that, it is a theory based upon the "observable" Universe. The theory itself though presently plausible, is far from being wholely accepted as this book shows the Speculative Nature of the Big Bang Theory.My assumptions made are:

Electromagnetic energy undergoes a variety of changes while traveling through space and the assumption is that correction factors can be applied to allow the observer to better quantify and locate characteristics of the Universe.


In multidimensional space, most space has a reference to time. Collect all spacial information of the Universe that is most common to an infinitesimal time frame.

The subatomic particles released by matter entering Black Holes form the energies defined as Dark Energy. These energies are only slightly detectable and have properties we have yet to discover.

Graviton are real and possess qualities that can be manipulated.

Dark Energy influences spacing of graviton bundles which help to align matter in the Universe in predictable patterns. Similar to "Far Space" where they can predict the location of a worm hole. "“I would say that this regime of gravity is as far from direct experience and knowing as the subatomic world itself,” says CfA astronomer Jeffrey McClintock.

Star Trek made many more assumptions? Any one episode is a composite of many assumptions deviating significantly from what is considered to be "mainstream science". Traveling faster than the speed of light, Hiesenberg compensator, parallel universes, multi-dimensional space, deflecting matter which is traveling near the speed of light, artificial gravity, .... Scientists often make speculative statements that loosely follow from their work.

A respected scientist at the University of Michigan presents Inside the Physics of Eternity and provides a "perspective" of how the Universe may be continuous with new multiple Universes evolving from our own.

Subatomic particles are key features in determining the basic qualities of the Big Bang theory, yet we can not readily detect subatomic particles, nor do we significantly understand their properties. Yet scientists readily describe how they "may" provide information about the Universe; it is a supposition that may prove to be true. Most likely it will lead to new concepts and theories, not hard fact.

For science fiction, I don't think this is so far fetched as to be unbelievable by science fiction enthusiasts, and the general public.

"Speculative Nature of the Big Bang Theory"Link defective, copy and paste the following link to your browser:

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(ai4yj53xmdbvjx55gakycx55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,16;journal,88,147;linkingpublicationresults,1:102021,1

Your inference that the big bang theory is doubtful because it is a theory indicates that you have small comprehension of the nature of what a scientific theory might be. All of Newton's laws are theories just as any formulation of the inter-relationships of observations. This does not make them doubtful unless there are observations indicating that their predictions do not pan out. The big bang theory so far seems very consistent with observations and is accepted by an overwhelming number of informed scientists as any examination of the current literature indicates.

Although the latest explorations in string and brane theory favor the existence of multidimensional factors in the universe none of it has yet resulted in observational possibilities. That something is a theory does not speak either positively or negatively as to its relationship to reality which is an exceedingly slippery concept.

Gravitons have never been observed. Subatomic particles are regularly accelerated to near light speeds in particle physics experiments. Subatomic particles are also routinely observed in particle accelerator experiments. The electron, proton, neutron, et al are also routinely manipulated and observed in particle physics experiments and have done so for many decades.

sand: Regarding observing subatomic particles. They can be observed in a supercollider, but not through a telescope.

It depends upon what you mean by observing. Many stellar phenomena are dependent upon the interrelationships of subatomic particles en masse under extreme conditions. Hans Bethe postulated his substantiated formulation of hydrogen fusion which subsequently was used by Teller in construction of the hydrogen bomb on observing and theorizing subatomic interactions in the Sun. Nobody has seen an actual subatomic particle but film traces of their paths recorded in particle interreactions back up theoretical speculations.

Well, as for your movie plot, it sound more like your personal pet fantasy than a plot for a film. If you did make a movie based on this summary, I would have to say that it would be rather boring. It sounds a bit long and would probably be better as a book. Your blatantly anti-Middle Eastern theme is a bit offensive. Your shameless promotion of your "Ethical Reasoning" concept is a bit offensive too.

As for your science, it's pretty weak. While it's possible for interstellar "forces" to affect light, there can be no doubt that the stars are more or less where they appear to be. Tweaking them a little this way or that isn't going to line them up into any remarkable pattern. I won't bother analysing your peculiar assumptions, but I must say very few people would be impressed by your theories.

I'm afraid I can't in good conscience recommend this movie. I give it one thumb down.

LOL ^^

Now it's rare I use internet colloquialisms but I'll make exception for the above statements :)

I wish, in my heart of hearts, for one good science fiction film to be made in my lifetime which actually abides by the laws of physics. That means no big noises when explosions occur, or when engines 'engage'. Just once, a true representation (to some extent, I mean we are talking science fiction here!)

Please, please, please can some director, head my words, fullfull my aspirations and spark interest in the public as they marvel at the way things should really work.

Just noticed some grammatical errors in my post above.Apologies!