Scientifically I'm interested in verification of concepts from the field and the technology which comes from a better understanding of the universe. We both "know" the equivalence proportion! (E=mc squared) That formula is the only mathematical expression known commonly by people on the street, but one scientist referred to it a little "devil" it is so conceptually complex.

I'm excited. We have a gang of people at Cern right now who are determined to find out where all the antimatter is- or what happened to it. The fact that the speed of light is measured the same in a vacuum regardless of the motion of the source or observer tells us something about cosmic reality. So does the 43 Arc Seconds of precession in Mercury's orbit each century which cannot be accounted for by Newtonian mechanics. Flat space says something about the dimensional nature of cosmic reality, as does acceleration outward.

When all the pieces are assembled, I think the S7 dual universe will come out smelling like a rose, but scientific disputes are settled in the field. My opinion and 25 cents without proper verification will buy me a cup of coffee.

Nevertheless, lets not forget the point of my original note; OBSERVATION of the universe is the core of the scientific method- and even scientists can be occasionally caught guilty of "not looking".

Best Wishes, Sam Cox

A problem in cosmology is that it rather demands a comprehensive understanding of everything. A detailed understanding of so many scientific disciplines is involved, any serious cosmologist always winds up looking silly about something. However if the concept is sound, further investigation will bolster and further substantiate his idea.