Loudmouth,
The bang, expansion, slowdown, contraction, bang again theory has
been I believe abandoned.
The universe is expanding at an increasing speed and will never contract.
Eventually only the stars in our galaxy will be visible.
At least as far as I can understand that is the current theory.

we live..in the bacK-PRESURE..OF THE LAST BIG BANg
the so called expansion..is RELITIVE TO THE BACK COMPRESSIon

AS THE big bang expANDS..so too everything expands
[think..of liKE..A BALLOON WITH HAPPY BIRTHDAY..pRINTED/ON it expands as a balloon is inflated..THE WORDS PRINTED ON IT EXPAND ACCORDING AS THE PRESURE of the balloon expands it

at the present time..Water is WATER
but IN THE NEXT PHASe..OF THE EXPANTIOn..matter accORDingly shall change STATE/too..ROCK SHALL BECOME LIKE WATER..water shall become like air is today..[IN AFFECT THEN..THE CHANGES OF STATE]wILL SIMPLY limit the limits of enERGIES capacity..to change STATE

IN THE BEGInning..the universe was like ''THE DEEP'
THAT DEEP NOW IS CALLED 'outerspace'..ITS NOW A VACUUM

as matter further disipitates..into iTS NEXT STATE
it BECOMES AETHER...till the inversion..[big collAPSE]
WHEN WE DRAW TOGETHER..ONCE AGAin..energy/CHANging state/as wE GO...
TILL WE Once again pass by this material state[but briefly]..BEFORE the 'deep'/void YET AGAIn..recieve its instrUCTION/TO CHANGE STATE.

'Runner,

'I'm certainly no Physicist but I do believe in gravity. '

Loudmouth

No one doubts gravity but how it came into existance in the first place is the question. A lot more logical that a Lawmaker put the law into place than it just appeared.

Bazz,

But surely all the bits have to slow down eventually, bumping into all that dark matter ? I don't know, is dark matter subject to gravity or does it just sit there ?

So much to learn, so little interest.

Joe

Ah well Loudmouth that is the question !
I saw a program fairly recently with Steven Hawkins and a number of
other cosmologists in which that is the latest theory.
There is one unresolved matter.
In the first few microseconds of the big bang the laws of physics appear to be different.
That needs to be resolved.

Regarding the accelerating dispersal it was thought to be effect of antimatter. I think that was it.

This article tries valiantly to define the word "fundamentalism". But, in the end, he only shows how it has become like any other nebulous, ideological catch phrase, like 'peace' or 'freedom'. It means whatever you want it to mean in a context. It becomes just any other emotionally laden adjective.

I think Foyle summed it up best in saying it is a word used when attempting to denigrate. If someone's belief or ideology is different to yours, and you don't like them, you call them a fundamentalist. In the McArthur era, that's how they used the word 'communist'. You want to smear someone or some group, then call them communist. But the word has no tight definition, at least not in the way it is usually used, even in this article.

The article tries to define fundamentalists as those adhering to certain principles or doctrines. But all people do that to a degree. 

It tries to relate the definition to violence. But over the millennia, people have always found all manner of reasons to be violent, or not to be, as they so choose. It's hardly a tight definition.

It talks about fundamentalists not being 'open' to consider alternative views. This also is vague and nebulous. He gives the examples of Christian 'fundamentalists' who argue against abortion, gay marriage, and evolution, and thus make an influence on society. Yet by and large, this is what these people do. They use arguments. They use their intellect. They're not using violence. They use their brains to counter the arguments and views of their intellectual opponents. 

Creationists in America were famous in the 1980s for filling university auditoriums with lively and vigorous creation/evolution debates. Their debating skills were so sharp that evolutionists today like the atheist fundamentalist Dawkins (in using the adjective, I reveal that I don't care much for him or his views) are afraid to debate with creationists.

Burrowes, presumably doesn't like Christians, so he smears them with the word 'fundamentalist'. I thank him for attempting to define the word. But all it serves is to reveal his own prejudices.