Re. the first citation you write:
Vilenkin used a model of a closed space time with zero energy and then shank it down to a zero radius. When he did this the "nothing" became unstable and virtual particle paris formed and vacuume energy caused expansion (i.e. the "nothing" changed)
Actually, Vilenkin studied the HHH model of inflation in quantum gravity and showed (1) it could be re-derived from more general principles and (2) it had certain unphysical features like tachyons (a polite way to say it is not workable as it is). I have now read the paper and I cannot see any parts of the paper where they indicate they study the model with radius shrunk to zero and claims the model in this case would be unstable, specifically I believe a radius of zero lie outside the valid regime for the HHH model. What page/equations/lines of the paper is it you find to support this claim regarding zero radius universe?
(I apologies about the plain text, it was the only location of the paper I could find where you didn't have to pay to download it as a PDF).
So you have not read it? how then do you know your summary is correct when it is not at all supported by the abstract? The paper is freely available from arxiv.
As regards to my fourth citation (...) It's a paper by Friedan discussing how the non-linear sigma model shows that our universe might have formed higher dimensions (up to 26) from a starting point of just 2 dimensions.
but then is it not more accurate to say in some models of the universe the laws of physics are not absolute in some sense but we do not really know?
In regards to my sixth citation the paper shows that even at the plank scale the Lorentz Covariance can be preserved. The basic problem with gravity is how to quantize space-time geometry (think of quantized space-time geometry like a lattice structure of grid points). The problem with any lattice structure is that it breaks Lorentz invariance. Noncommutative geometry solves this problem by maintaining Lorentz invariance and space-time structure at small length scales. While there are probably much better papers linking quantum mechanics to time this is the only one I could cite that I somewhat understand.
Now that is a very nice description of some of the problems facing QG and string theory. I tried to put it into google and lo and behold I get the following article: http://scienceandnonduality.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/noncommutative-geometry-holography-and-solipsism/
Comparing the referenced article against yours gives: (referenced article in yellow)
The basic problem with gravity is how to quantize space-time geometry
The basic problem in quantum gravity is how to quantize space-time geometry.
A quantized space-time geometry is like a lattice structure of grid points that replaces the space-time continuum: (image of a 2d square lattice)
(think of quantized space-time geometry like a lattice structure of grid points).
The problem with any lattice structure is that it breaks Lorentz invariance.
The problem with any lattice structure is that it breaks Lorentz invariance and cannot be considered as fundamental.
Noncommutative geometry solves this problem by maintaining Lorentz invariance and space-time structure at small length scales.
A noncommutative geometry solves this problem by maintaining Lorentz invariance while effectively introducing a grid of lattice points through a noncommutative structure at small length scales.
Obviously re-phrasing someones elses work to make it appear like your own is not exactly conving me you have a very firm grasp of what you write. At any rate this is completely tangential to how the reference is actually used; if your point is simply that most formulations of physics include time then that is obvious by opening any elementary textbook in physics; you do not need to cite a fairly obscure paper on non-commutative spacetimes.
I appologize if I came off as trying to browbeat anyone. That is the complete opposite of what I want to do. In the past I have cited much more accessible resources (Wikipedia and various scientfic pop magazines) but invariably someone always jumps up and points out "Hey, those aren't science! Anyone one can write that crap!"
At this point you should then point out to the person that your claim is still true and give him additional references. These are by the way often found at the bottom of the wikipedia page.
It is much, much better to cite wikipedia than choose an article on inflationary cosmology which do not even discuss the point you are interested in, or at least do not discuss it any more than hundreds of other articles on physics. The purpose of referencing work should be to make the text more accessible for a reader by ensuring he or she can check the claims in his own time, not to jazz up ones written work by the most hard-to-read articles you yourself have not even read. I believe we have had this discussion before regarding logic.
Finally, for gods sake, if you are going to plagiarize something DON'T change the wording SLIGHTLY. It is much better to copy it in full and later claim to not have done it on purpose.