SNIP>
...it wasn't until recently that firstly String Theory and then Membrane Theory were released that everything started to fall into place.
>

Hi Neil,

I'm an uninformed but interested bystander too. And I admit that I get a kick out of theories becoming enhanced or blown away as the case may require.

You mention string theory and membrane theory (a new one on me). But isn't string theory's 'origin' this need to explain what was previously omitted or poorly explained by existing theory. And more importantly, hasn't string theory itself run into some obstacles recently?

I'm suggesting that, at least to the layman, string theory warrants a good deal of skepticism for at least 2 reasons:
1) it is the new kid on the block (a very old block) aimed primarily at explaining what is currently unexplainable, meaning that it could be subject to less-than-thorough scrutiny when the theorists get the 'fit' they need.
2) It is so new at this time that wider consideration may poke holes in it.

Then there's the question of funding, which you blame for the "global warming" wave that is so prevalent today. Is not string theory just as susceptible... money is generally easier obtained for sexy new theories than for old tired theories.

cheers

SNIP