[quote="Liongold"][quote]Hawking radiation is unproven nonsense.quote]

That is a matter of opinion. Certainly, our ideas of thermodynamics, if correct, require it.

You confuse the negative energy of the gravitational field with negative energy of a particle, which does not exist. Both are different; negative energy in the graviational sense is actually positive. To explain it better, imagine an object orbiting a body with a certain amount of energy. Now, move this back by any amount you desire. Now here is the rub: because the body is now orbiting much more slowly than it was, this implies that the energy it used to have has actually gone down. Consequently, in a sense, you can call this type of energy change negative energy. That is why people sometimes treat a gravitational field as a reserve of negative energy.Imagine a very steep gradient a thousand miles long. About 3/4 of the way up, put 2 cricket balls next to each other. One rolls downhill and the other rolls uphill. There is also negative energy, which I think is what many people feel when it is time to get up.

I understand why you used your example; however, then we would require additional knowledge of water in the first place to explain that it will indeed expand at 4 degrees. Suppose, for one moment, that we did not know of this property of water, but, based on other experiments on liquids/substances, we know it should indeed contract. Also suppose that we know water exists but cannot experiment on it. Do you think there is a way, based on our knowledge of other substances, to predict, precisely and correctly, that water will contract at 4 degres celsius? To do that, you require information currently beyond your reach; you must rely on theory and speculation to understand water.Suppose we lived on a very hot planet where water did not exist naturally. In our labs we can change steam into water and then cool it down to as low as 10.C and we do a graph and find as we cool it down, it's volume decreases so we can show that somewhere below zero, water shrinks to a point source. Except that at 4.C water starts expanding again and at 0.C changes to ice. It is nonsense to speculate as Hawking has done.

The same situation exists; our own knowledge of the conditions of the Big Bang is limited so far to at the very least a few billion years after the Big Bang; before that is mere speculation. Indeed, speculation becomes our only tool when dealing with events before that which is currently explainable.

I assure you it is indeed real. Unless you can explain the redshift of the light of receding galaxies? There is incontrovertible evidence that each and every galaxy is moving away from us, as can be inferred from their redshifts.Until we are 100% certain on expansion, we should consider other ideas. Even if expansion is real, no one will see any movement in the galaxies in a thousand lifetimes, so we can have no real proof

A good point, but not necessarily. Say I have a very long line , stretching out till infinity. Now suppose I told you that at some points the line curves, forming a wave crest. Now, it is obvious that a wave crest is two-dimensional. Similarly, this small wave crest (too small to be seen, by the way) sometimes rises a little above the line, again too small to be noticeable, a lot less frequent and the rise in height a lot smaller than the deviation of the crest from the line. This new kind of curve is three-dimensional.Dimensions build up on the lower dimensions. If you have a 3D table of normal size, then it's 4D self will be house sized, even though all we can see is the 3D aspect. If you have a 10D thing that is quantum sized, then it's 3D aspect will be a zillion times smaller.

From this example, it can be seen that it is possible to form small three-dimensional lines from only a single dimension. You are, if you'll pardon me, imagining a Cartesian space with three axes and joining the axes together. You may claim that this will form a bigger object in different dimensions; this is true only if the object itself is increasing completely in dimensions. However, this is only a possibility; it is just as easy to imagine a very small house on a vastly huge square.

However, I will grant you that your model of dimensions is equally applicable. Indeed, two ideas of dimensions include the one where the dimensions are smaller than the original three, so that we notice only the three, and the one where the extra dimensions are so huge, we notice only localised constituent dimensions.

For example, let me take an enormous sphere, with us living on just a point on the sphere. Any mathematician will tell you that if you enlarge a curved space to a certain extent, it will be indistinguishable from Euclidean geometry; we have Riemann and Newton to thank for this. In much the same way, according to this idea, because the dimensions are so large, the only dimensions we will comprehend are the three dimensions we are familiar with.

Again, your idea of added dimensions resulting in an increase of size is a matter of opinion. The rest I've already answered to.It doesn't work like that. Each dimension added, adds in size. A simplistic example:

1D = 10 (a line ten atoms long), 2D = 100 (a square of 10x10 atoms), 3D = 1,000 (a cube of 10x10x10 atoms). 10D is going to be 10,000,000,000 atoms, so ten million times bigger than 3D