Are we Space Itself?

What I'm about to present is not meant to, nor can it, debunk creationism. The fact that we can't even wrap our meager minds around the infinity of time and space tells us that anything is possible.

Like most people on this small, life giving dust speck, I found myself looking into the sky at 4 years old, wondering where it ends. Somewhere along this path to my current day being, I ended up on a collision course with the day that I just had to know. Although I don't yet, someday I might!

While growing up, I went to church, said my prayers, and still find myself confiding, within, to an entity that seems to have forgotten that I exist. After losing so many friends, my girlfriend at 28, my sister, and nearly me a few times, I found myself rather God-less.

I realized that if I was ever to understand who, or what, I was, I'd have to learn everything I could about that which I could not see. Knowing that faith is a gift I have yet to receive (Tom Hanks), I turned to physics for clues to the answer.

Doing the math, I learned that energy does, indeed, equal mass at rest times the velocity of light squared. The mere fact that mass can be converted into energy, and vice versa, seemed so unreal to me that I was compelled to understand it better.

Now I was getting some answers, yet for every one explained, there were two more questions.

I learned about the Law of the Conservation of Energy, how it doesn't really go away, but merely gets transferred. I learned about quantum mechanics, how electronics work, and also did the math showing that post Newtonian physics (Einstein's relativity) can't be applied to the very small.

I discovered everything I could about the tiny, and once I realized that it has taken man more than 30 years to go from 10-16 to 10-17 (really small) that I'd looked inward deep enough, and that I could spend a lifetime between there and the minute-ness of space itself without much progress and a whole lot of un-proven math. Satisfied with what I knew, I left it up to others, and looked outward for the bigger picture. I had strayed far enough away from my original question.

It wasn't until I had studied astrophysics for a while, that I glanced back at the very small, and what I saw, for once, started making sense.

The current day understanding of our universe, is that it's 13.7 billion years old, and originated with a big bang. It's also been theorized that it began with equal parts of matter and anti-matter. When a particle and its anti-particle meet, they annihilate and cancel eachother out, emitting photons in the form of gamma rays. Through a hypothetical physical process called baryogenesis, an asymmetry between baryons and antibaryons left the small amount of matter we see today. In other words, we're made up of the scraps.

So the universe, in the beginning, was very hot, very dense, and expanding rapidly. What used to be 10^30 degrees, is now a mere 2.7 Kelvin, barely more than absolute zero.
The microwave radiation we see left over from the big bang, also used to be very short wave gamma rays.

At ten microseconds after the big bang, things had finally expanded, cooled, and calmed enough for protons (two up quarks and one down quark) and neutrons (two down quarks and one up quark) to form.

By the time it was one second old, we were left with protons, neutrons, electrons and lots of radiation.

Fast forward almost 14 billion years...

As recent as the early 1920's, the general view of the cosmos, was that it consisted entirely of the Milky Way Galaxy. That's when Edwin Hubble got his chance to observe the sky with the world's largest telescope, the Hooker 100 inch, at Mt. Wilson, Ca., which I grew up lucky enough to see every day from my front yard.

Not only did he prove conclusively that there were galaxies beyond our own, he and Milton Humanson, by plotting a trend line from 46 galaxies with their redshifts, determined that the farther distance between any two, the greater their relative speed of seperation. Hubbles Law.

Several years ago, two different groups of antronomers were observing the far reaches of the visible universe trying to determine the rate at which it was expanding. They both expected that rate to be slowing, and both realized, at about the same time, that it was actually speeding up... and it didn't make sense. Both camps were so sure they had gotten it wrong, that neither even wanted to tell anyone. 5 billion years ago, however, this was not the case.

When they looked back to when the universe was around 9 billion years old, they discovered that the rate of expansion actually was slowing.

It seems, safe to say, that the farther galaxies got from eachother, their gravitational pull became less, and they continued on their merry way without as much tugging from the others in their neighborhood...but something else is also happening.


(nasa image)

The one thing to note about the expansion of our universe, is that galaxies don't act as if they're flying "through" space as much as it appears that space is actually being "created" between them. But what's pushing it apart?

Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Semi-recently, it's also been discovered that only about 4.6 percent of the known visible universe is made up of matter that we can actually see. Cosmologists believe about 72 percent of the universe consists of dark energy, and the other 23 percent is made up of dark matter.


(nasa image)

Basically, more than 95% of the energy density of the universe is in a form that has never been detected in a lab.

Moreover, nobody can even tell you what dark energy actually is.

Let's ask a couple questions and start putting together what I'm getting at.

What's extra? Space!
Where, exactly, is the space coming from that seems to be "injected" between galaxies?
I believe it's being created as the energy from the big bang "un-winds".

What's missing? Energy!
If the law of the conservation of energy states that energy can be converted, back and forth, into mass and doesn't go away, then where did all the energy go from the "Big Bang" when the universe was full of very short wave gamma rays (aside from early decoupling and cancelling waves). Today, all we see are the remnanats of that in the form of much longer microwaves. (CMB)

If space itself was made of "nothing", and that energy isn't somehow being unwound, or converted back into space itself, (creating more space), then wouldn't they still be gamma rays?

What are We? Mass!
What is Mass? Energy!
What is Energy?.......

Us=Mass=Energy=Space?

Now to get a better picture, just imagine taking a billion miles of space and squeezing that into the size of a baseball. Somehow it's pretty easy to see how energy in the form of a photon might pop out. Now where might something like that happen? A black hole perhaps?

Given that space beyond our finite visible universe seems to wander off into forever, it could have even been a much more massive wave that compressed enough space to create everything we see...and black holes are just a by-product of such a calamity like the tiny vortexes you might see in a slow moving stream. Obviously, any speculation beyond the "Big Bang", or the event horizon of a black hole, is simply that, so I'm just throwing it out there for the mental picture.

Another mental picture of our universe might be to imagine a melting ice-cube dripping into a glass of water, where the ice-cube is mass, the cold droplets dark matter, and the glass of water itself is space.

Lastly, as far as mental images go, imagine a coiled up spring that violently releases its energy and simply goes limp, laying out into a flat line once it unravels.



(note: Forgive my cheezy hand scribbled diagram, as it isn't to scale, and the predicted expansion rate along the hubble constant isn't drawn correctly. I just picked up a CD off the desk and scratched it on there for a visual representation of the basic idea. I'll replace it with a graphic that doesn't look like I came up with it on a bar napkin after a night of drinking. Also, another likely outcome under F, is that all the energy, including mass, simply unwinds back into space...ie:the indefinite expansion.)




What it all Means, and why it's such an uplifting feeling to think it could be true.

If we're all just energy, and energy is nothing more than bunched up space, then we can exist forever, God(s) or no God(s).
Regardless of life after death, Heaven or Hell, if we're space itself, then we just might exist , in some aware form, to reach the end of the sky in some distant future.

Without the need to imagine a creator, or feel that this is all there is to my existence, it's the only thing I can come up with that makes sense of my own reality.

If your beliefs beckon you along a different path, by all means, travel it.

Again, even the impossible stares us in the face every day. Space goes on forever, yet it can't.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
You may have noticed that I didn't load up the main topic with hard to understand math, or concepts beyond that of a high school freshman.

If you're having trouble understanding something, I'd be glad to walk you through it, or provide a reputable source for you to look into. Science Daily, Wikipedia, or YouTube will not be one of them.

Along that line of thinking, I also won't be willing to debate about concepts or processes not already accepted by a main stream university. (That goes for you too Mr. Einstein was wrong... you know who you are ) Well ok, to some extent maybe but I'd really rather you didn't completely derail my thread, and keep it confined to CURRENTLY ACCEPTED science and observation.

If it falls apart, it falls apart. I doubt myself more than anyone.

I also welcome any in-depth discussion or math beyond this first post, as it's merely a starting point, and a limping leap at a hair-brained hypothesis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------





If you're interested in this kind of thing, like watching videos, and haven't got a clue where to begin...here's about 50 hours of actual classroom lectures to get you started.

Berkeley Physics

Physics 10 Lecture 01 Atoms and Heat
Physics 10 Lecture 02 Atoms and Heat II
Physics 10 Lecture 03 Gravity and Satellites
Physics 10 Lecture 04 Gravity and Satellites II
Physics 10 Lecture 05 Radioactivity
Physics 10 Lecture 06 Radioactivity II
Physics 10 Lecture 07 Nukes
Physics 10 Lecture 08 Review Session
Physics 10 Lecture 09 Electricity and Magnetism
Physics 10 Lecture 10 Electricity and Magnetism II
Physics 10 Lecture 11 Waves
Physics 10 Lecture 12 Waves II
Physics 10 Lecture 13 Light I
Physics 10 Lecture 14 Light II
Physics 10 Lecture 15 Invisible Light I
Physics 10 Lecture 16 Invisible Light II
Physics 10 Lecture 17 Quantum I
Physics 10 Lecture 18 Quantum II
Physics 10 Lecture 19 Quantum III
Physics 10 Lecture 20 Quantum IIII
Physics 10 Lecture 21 Review Session
Physics 10 Lecture 22 Relativity I
Physics 10 Lecture 23 Relativity II
Physics 10 Lecture 24 Universe I
Physics 10 Lecture 25 Universe II
Physics 10 Lecture 26 Review Session

Yale Astrophysics

Astronomy 160 - Yale Astrophysics - 24 Lectures - UTube
or
Astronomy 160 - Yale Astrophysics - 24 Lectures - videolectures.net


Peace

wow, i know its rude to post without reading all the op and following posts but just want to say it looks like an epic thread with thought, explination and links for further reading. Excellent stuff, I now know how my saturday night/sunday morning will pan out now!
Thanks for the work, will comment further when I actually get through it all.

Peace

Thankyou for the post, was a very interesting read. I used to love theorising about the universe and have speculated on many different ideas some not to far off from what you believe, its also funny that a lot of what you talked about is represented in different spiritual beliefs, but I won't make comparrisons here, those joys are for you to discover.

Nice thread

Thanks for the replies.

Although it doesn't seem to have generated much interest, I suppose I can be thankful that I'm not begging a mod to close the thread from all the ridicule.

Fantastic thread, S&F for you.

I'm about to dive into some of these videos you provided.

I like the post... plain and simple way you put things. Why does this have to mean there is no God though?... and when I say god please do take that as abstract as you'd like to. I mean, we didn't have to be living thinking beings in order for life to exist. Couldn't we just have all been plants or something? You see, as for the Big Bang- I understand the concept and also the concept of black holes and dark energy and things like that but I still say there was something before the Big bang. There had to be. Anything else would completely go against the laws of physics, wouldn't it? So, how can it be the very beginning?.. or did you just mean the beginning of the Universe we see now?... and what does this have to do with God you might ask. I have no idea and not sure why I am talking about two separate things at once other than the fact that if there WAS a Big Bang which was not the beginning of ABSOLUTELY everything, then we have no idea what was going on before this event. Right? Except for the possibility that it might have been a similar concept of energy, which still makes this energy completely perpetual if this is true... and that within this energy, there might have always been, in some form... a living reflection of an existence that can will itself into being. Both the creator and the created. If that is not a God, what is?
I don't consider myself faith bound or brow beaten at all. When I was young I played on the idea of denying God and no one tried hard to stop me, but every breath is just a reminder of the entire indisputable reality to me.


... but anyway, good post.

... and when I say perpetual... I don't mean in the finer details because I'm well aware that nothing in physics is perpetual... but that in itself makes the whole entire concept of everything perpetual.

Originally posted by ChaosMagician
I like the post... plain and simple way you put things. Why does this have to mean there is no God though?... and when I say god please do take that as abstract as you'd like to. I mean, we didn't have to be living thinking beings in order for life to exist. Couldn't we just have all been plants or something?

I think the point I was trying to make, is that it absolutely doesn't rule out the existence of a God, or even many Gods for that matter. As a child, if you go to church, you're told that your future consists of two choices... Heaven or Hell. Somewhat unwilling to accept that, I started asking questions which led me to where I am now. The destination in question seems more relevant at this point.

Originally posted by ChaosMagician
You see, as for the Big Bang- I understand the concept and also the concept of black holes and dark energy and things like that but I still say there was something before the Big bang. There had to be. Anything else would completely go against the laws of physics, wouldn't it? So, how can it be the very beginning?.. or did you just mean the beginning of the Universe we see now?...

I touched on that a bit in the original post where I "speculated" beyond the big bang.. I'm only referring to our current visible universe. To think everything is only 13.7 billion years old would be a stretch, at best, and I wouldn't even think of trying to guess what there was before it.

Anyway, for the most part I'm pretty sure we're in agreement about it... I read back my own OP and also wondered why I went so heavy on the God angle, but decided not to change it.

Peace

oh, I guess I thought you were getting at a point you weren't solely set out to do and not just extending your ideas toward the philosophical direction. When I read certain lines I suppose I assumed you were going to establish an argument solely for science. I have read a few threads like that lately. Don't get me wrong, I certainly see good reasons to compartmentalize the two subjects most of the time. I just personally could never imagine how to get one to necessarily rule out the other. I guess that draws me to that debate... as well as somewhat of an interest in trying to wrap my head around things I don't know how to calculate, but have often tried to envision.

I think you just blew my mind. Can't believe I read it all.

No pictures showed up though.

Originally posted by lernmore
If we're all just energy, and energy is nothing more than bunched up space, then we can exist forever, God(s) or no God(s).
Regardless of life after death, Heaven or Hell, if we're space itself, then we just might exist , in some aware form, to reach the end of the sky in some distant future.

This sent shivers down my spine by the way. I made a post earlier today regarding a dream I once had involving me dying but not waking up afterwards.
I was in nothingness, a black abyss.. it looked like space without the stars and planets...
I wasn't a physical body - I was just thoughts, a conscious. I started freaking out because I couldn't move anywhere and my exact thought was "so this is what happens after death..".

What do you make of that?

Originally posted by Nventual
This sent shivers down my spine by the way. I made a post earlier today regarding a dream I once had involving me dying but not waking up afterwards.
I was in nothingness, a black abyss.. it looked like space without the stars and planets...
I wasn't a physical body - I was just thoughts, a conscious. I started freaking out because I couldn't move anywhere and my exact thought was "so this is what happens after death..".

What do you make of that?

Well that's a frightening thought... I was kinda hoping it would be more like going to sleep and waking up after a zillion years.

Although interpreting dreams isn't something I'd ever feel comfortable attempting, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to think out loud for a second, since you asked.

My guess would either be...

A) You've seen the future, and the fate to which you are ultimately doomed, and it could be some time before that next bus comes along.

or

B) It was just a dream...and a scary one!

Images should be back up BTW...... stupid server. Thanks for the heads up.



Peace

Originally posted by ChaosMagician
oh, I guess I thought you were getting at a point you weren't solely set out to do and not just extending your ideas toward the philosophical direction. When I read certain lines I suppose I assumed you were going to establish an argument solely for science.

No worries... Like I said, after re-reading my OP I, pretty much, saw that coming.

I also figured that those actually familiar with the physics might get two paragraphs in and move on to another thread. I was hoping for someone to show me what laws it breaks, and why it can't be a valid hypothesis. That hasn't happened....yet.

I have some questions but am not real sure how to word them or even if they are legitimate questions. I've never really studied this field... just random ponderings late at night.

If we are able to figure out that the universe is expanding at different rates and believe it is coming from the origin of the present universe and can see light from billions of years ago, then what in the world is in the opposite direction? If in the opposite direction of expansion there are also galaxies that are lightyears away but they have preceded us regarding the aspect of expansion, then how can they be in the past and also, how could we possibly see them?

That might not have been worded well. If it's hard to understand what i'm trying to get at, let me know.

Originally posted by ChaosMagician
If we are able to figure out that the universe is expanding at different rates and believe it is coming from the origin of the present universe and can see light from billions of years ago, then what in the world is in the opposite direction? If in the opposite direction of expansion there are also galaxies that are lightyears away but they have preceded us regarding the aspect of expansion, then how can they be in the past and also, how could we possibly see them?

Time, not space is what limits our view of the "observable" universe. Looking back, there comes a point where there simply hasn't been enough time for the light to travel to us. For all we know, what we're able to see is just a tiny pin-point when we start talking about the actual "size" of our universe.

One misconception people have is that they picture the "big bang" much like many of the artists renderings as an explosion. From what we can see, it doesn't seem to originate from a single point, but involved every bit of space that we can see.

The age of the universe, on the other hand, is something that we can try to determine.

The way we try to determine the age is by observing, and plotting the red-shifts of type 1a supernovae in distant galaxies, as well as the temperature of space and the cosmic background radiation.

When played in reverse, it seems to converge back to, and beyond the "surface of last scattering" when the sky would have been hot, dense, and opaque... before matter clumped and galaxies began to form.




Also, here's another image for the main topic that visually describes how the EM waves we see today have become longer (red-shifted) as the universe expands.



Seems just as plausible to be a cause of the expansion, rather than a result.

reply to post by lernmore

In response to the question: "Are we space itself?", my answer would be "yes".

The 'space' in which my consciousness exists is over here and the 'space' in which your consciousness exists is over there.

What is the origin of that 'space'? The 'movement' of self reflection which creates my "self" as being independent of not only every other "self"; but, also, the physical reality itself. This is referred to as the metaphysical duality which underlies not only all thought but the entire scientific method itself.

All of this occurs prior to thought.

Then thought enters for the purpose of maintaining the continuity of the 'space' of consciousness over 'time'. In other words, time would not exist without thought.

Science, as I understand it, is incapable of determining such things as the "origin" of the universe. Rather, science is for the purpose of describing things which already exist.

For example, according to the fundamental rules of physics applying to flight, it is categorically impossible for a bumble bee to fly. Its wings are not big enough, its body is too big, and its wings cannot exert enough force to lift that body. Judging on the basis of those laws of physics itself, the only conclusion is that the bumble bee cannot fly.

In reality, however, the bumble bee takes advantage of very small eddy currents of air along the surfaces of objects to get sufficient lift. And, with that extra added force, its wings are able to lift its body.

Similarly, in accordance with other laws of physics, it is impossible for it ever to start raining. All of those equations pertain to something which happens after 'nucleation', I believe it is called. But there are no equations which necessitate that nucleation ever begin.

In other words, it is important to understand both the advantages and the limitations of the scientific method.

And, with regards to the origin of the universe and human consciousness, this is particularly applicable.

Mi cha el

reply to post by lernmore


Yeah, after thinking about my question and rereading... I'm not sure if that's exactly how I wanted to word it but it's close.

I was looking at the drawing that shows the big bang as coming from one point and I was trying to wrap my head around this because I too have always envisioned it different... again, without ever really putting much time and effort into studying it. So I was asking the question because it seems that the picture is provided to give just an idea of the concept, which it does and to me is beneficial to further the idea of the expansion theories, but it also gives the impression that it does indeed come from a certain point and suggests that the universe is calculable in regards to direction... and that is what I wanted to clarify. I mean, most people do not have access to all this equipment used so we can only try to read through the factual findings we are told of, the theories and the ideas in our head and hope that the facts have been put into a format we can understand.

Here's where I have a problem with the big bang theory... if it did come from a certain location it seems no one has told us which direction and that's why I asked what is in the other direction, but if it's correct that it didn't quite happen that way, then how are they calculating expansion?...or is it just meant to relate to the phases of cosmic events and not *everything" in a linear time line? I mean, I do realize that they can see "old stuff" which is obviously old because of the distance they are observing and the fact like you mention, that the light has had time to reach us... but does that mean that there is not new stuff over there as well that we just can't see yet? Maybe there is...so maybe just because there is old stuff over there it doesn't mean that it's the old area of the universe altogether and maybe the rate of expansion is because different events are in different stages... so could it be more about the stages themselves that it is in and that the universe is constantly destroying and recreating itself and it's an ongoing process... as opposed to the theory that it's all expanding and will one day all contract and that it's all happening on a neat little synchronous time line.

Could it be more like swiss cheese full of growth and holes, because in black holes... there is obviously already contraction because it's pulling stuff in, right? then there are different stages of expanding energy... so how can the entire universe be expanding if there are black holes where contraction is taking place? It's part of the universe too.

I mean, I'm not looking at it through telescopes. I'm not reading the numbers and doing the math. I can only guess but I have read many different theories and some claim that it all happened at once and that was the very beginning and everything is expanding outward and everything will one day contract and I just have a problem believing this. Not the concept... I can grasp the concept and do believe there are quite possibly much larger cosmic events that could be immensely destructive or creative that we have never seen much less names... but *everything*?...Like the whole thing and nothing existed prior to this? I'm just not buying it... but I'm not a scientist sooo...

also, not to drag this out but I was thinking about dark matter and dark energy. I don't know how they detect it or see it or whatever and was trying to envision what it could be and what it could be from. it's obviously not energy in the form of light or visible matter but obviously there is the potential for something to be there and one day there will be perhaps... we just can't see it yet.

I don't know why but the drawing that shows expansion made me think of a calendar and history. As humans, we try to make an account of history. if we had all the right tools we could make a pretty decent account and we have been trying more and more to the point where we now even video all sorts of meaningless crap and put it on the internet whereas things further back are harder to account for, and there have been few that have been able to predict the future... but I believe it HAS happened and then most of us at least try to determine what the future will hold. Even if we can't know for certain, we set appointments and set up meetings and plan things to do and perhaps when you ask the boss what will happen wednesday... he says "there will be a meeting" and goes on to try to tell you what the meeting will be about. He's not predicting future exactly but sure enough... wednesday there is a meeting and it goes very similar to what he said. of course this could all change much more easily than we can change the past but my point is that if you look out into the future... or try to, you have many blinders obstructing your view but you can see vague glimpses here and there and try to make somewhat of a prediction. some are better at it than others for different reasons. Tangled in with your attempts to see what the future might hold are also memories of the past which may be more clear in some cases, in some they may just be too out of focus all depending on our ability to account for history... then there are the realities of the present or at least what we know of those realities.

My point is what if looking out into space is sort of similar, since time is such a factor when you are talking great distances and the time it takes and the means for which things are to become apparent to our senses. You might look out into darkness and see nothing at all but darkness or you may somehow be able to calculate endless possibilities... just as some people might have no idea what they are doing next wednesday or ever as far as the future is concerned and their calendar is just like a dark void and that might work out ok in a lot of ways for them, but some see endless possibilities on their calendar... they plan it, they calculate it and they try to manage it to it's greatest potential and sometimes things don't fall quite into place but in the long run, they are a person who gets a lot done and makes a lot of things happen... and I don't mean just guessing what might be in the future such as planning a meeting on sunday when no one will be in the office, but making educated determinations to the best of your knowledge and using it to your advantage.

What if thinking in terms of not just observing space but learning how to most efficiently make pre-determinations about what could potentially be "out there" is how scientists really make leaps and bounds... making educated guesses about what could be behind the blinders of time.

Originally posted by ChaosMagician I can only guess but I have read many different theories and some claim that it all happened at once and that was the very beginning and everything is expanding outward and everything will one day contract and I just have a problem believing this. Not the concept... I can grasp the concept and do believe there are quite possibly much larger cosmic events that could be immensely destructive or creative that we have never seen much less names... but *everything*?...Like the whole thing and nothing existed prior to this? I'm just not buying it... but I'm not a scientist sooo...

Well, for me, there are two issues of importance here:

1) I am suggesting that "time" is not really intrinsic to reality itself, but is nothing more than a category of thought which is projected by the consciousness of the "self" upon perceptions of reality. In other words, there is no initial expansion from "time" zero followed by a final "end of time" contraction. Rather all of this is occurring at the same 'time' or instantaneously. In other words, the whole psychological motivation behind the concept of time is as an effort to preserve the existence of the consciousness of the 'thinker' itself. And, if that consciousness is simply eliminated from the equation, there is no need for the concept of "time" at all; and,

2) Pictures of thoughts are intrinsically tied to the 3-dimensional 'curved' space in which the human body exists. I would suggest that none of this can ever be fully understood until there is an actual ability to visualize a 2-dimensional 'flat' space; that dimension of space out of which the 3-dimensional 'curved' space emerges by means of self-reflection and thought itself.

Mi cha el

Here's a somewhat outdated "Ask an Astronomer" page from Cornell University that answers some of the most frequent questions on the subject. I didn't really provide much in the way of general information in the main post.

Cosmology and the Big Bang

There are also countless sources available from reputable schools scattered all over the internet, one just has to look around a bit. Not to mention, ninety-nine percent of the answers, give or take .00000001 percent, will be more thoroughly thought out and complete than I can provide.

The video links in the first post, while rather long, are the best I've been able to find so far. I highly recommend taking the time to watch them. The Astronomy 160 lectures go into great detail about some of the questions already asked.

I'm still trying to figure out how to respond to the whole metaphysical duality thing without getting into that debate, while gently trying to steer the thread back toward the discussion for which I originally created it.

Not that the topic itself isn't worthy of discussion at some point, but I find it much easier to build a fence with a Skilsaw than surgeon's tools.

reply to post by Michael Cecil



I think of time as a tool, a measurement. I think ALL of reality can be considered a mere perception of reality along with time.

...and lernmore, this is your ship- steer away. What are your next thoughts on your topic?