Bang/Crunch Revisited

[modest]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Maybe you are not yet familiar with how i see the cosmos, as re-stated yet again in post #26 of the "Bang/Crunch Revisited" thread, as follows:

Me thinks you're taking the analogy an order of magnitude or two too far. The rubber sheet (or the balloon) is not a description of the universe. It's an analogy for how distance behaves in the metric which describes the universe. Let me repeat that:

The balloon is an analogy for how distance behaves in the metric which describes the universe.

Originally Posted by Michael

Our cosmic event horizon is just a small bubble of visibility *within* the thickness of the "rubber" of the good old cosmic expanding balloon.

The rubber sheet and the balloon have no thickness. They are both 2 dimensional otherwise the analogy breaks down. The balloon is a manifold, not a 2-sphere. If you care to represent our cosmological horizon on the manifold then it must be a circle. It can't be a "bubble".

Originally Posted by Michael

This mini-cosmos within the maxi-cosmos, the Whole Balloon, is cycling through bangs and crunches even as the whole balloon keeps expanding.... *Yes*... out into the infinity of space.

The balloon in the analogy represents the infinity of space. Saying that the balloon expands into the infinity of space wouldn't make sense. It's best to understand that astronomers are answering physical questions. Astronomy is a physical science.

How far is RD1 from earth? How long did it take the light from RD1 to reach us? How fast is RD1 moving relative to us and in what direction? Those questions have physical answers that persist regardless of the semantics of the balloon analogy or how real or not real we consider space.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Modest:

The above is a two dimensional rubber sheet... a plane. My expanding balloon is a 3-D sphere... and the "rubber" is the "stuff" of cosmos... with a thickness containing the whole mini-sphere of visibility which is our cosmic event horizon.
So, naturally cosmos appears isotropic/homogeneous in all directions
as the whole balloon expands with our little visible cosmos as one tiny bubble in the rubber of the balloon.
Can you understand what I am saying?

Do I understand what you're saying? Yes. You're saying that the surface of a rubber balloon expands isotropically in 3 dimensions which is demonstrably false. The surface actually gets thinner as the balloon expands. Clearly our universe is not expanding in one direction and contracting in another.

The balloon analogy is meant to relate an aspect of cosmological theory... that there is no center to a two dimensional spherical manifold, and if the manifold expands, it's not expanding away from anything.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Space is infinite emptiness. Cosmic "stuff" exists in specific locations within unbounded space.... reference balloon cosmology above.
Nothing... none of this cosmic "stuff" travels faster than light, and space is lack of 'things', emptiness... no-thing-ness, the *volume* in which stuff exists, and "it", being nothing, does not 'travel" or expand at all.

It doesn't matter if you think of space as emptiness, nothingness, volume, or whatever. It doesn't matter how you interpret cosmological theories—you either agree with the physical answers or you don't. If you disagree then you'll need to provide a different theory which gives predictions that can be falsified. That's the way the scientific method works.

If nothing can recede faster than the speed of light then how old (from the last big bang) and how large (to what you call the "cosmic event horizon") is the observable universe? Big bang theory gives a comoving radius of 46 billion lightyears and an age of 13.7 billion years. Clearly 46 divided by 13.7 is greater than 1 so BBT does indeed give answers greater than the speed of light. If you disagree then you should give different specific answers and a theory for finding them. Otherwise, what is there to discuss?

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I may introduce a very important criticism of all assumptions surrounding the redshift paradigm, but this is not the "place or time."

I'm not sure what you mean by "redshift paradigm" or what your criticism of it could possibly be, but cosmic redshift is very-well handled by a scale factor in standard cosmology (aka "expansion"). Cosmic redshift as a measure of expanding space is verified by the Tolman surface brightness test, time dilation in Type Ia supernovae light curves, and the temperature of CMBR as a function of redshift. These things are a means of distinguishing expanding space from other models and extensive observation shows they are consistent with the former and rule out the latter.

The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion.

So, again, unless you have a theory which explains that data...

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I am not "wondering" at all "what difference it makes if we say something is moving through space or if we say space is expanding between things."
It is my most profound understanding that space is empty volume in which all *observable/detectable* phenomena exist and move.
Space is emptiness. It has no properties... being the *void* in which things with properties exist. Space does not expand. Things move away from other things in space... emptiness/volume.

You're missing the issue. When an astronomer says "expanding space" (such as the paper I just linked) they are characterizing the way things move—the way the universe evolves. It doesn't matter if you want to interpret space as "emptiness" or if you want to say it doesn't have properties. That's not what "the reality of the expansion" is referring to. It refers to something very specific: the Robertson Walker metric, and the fact that the kinematics of the universe on large scales is very well modeled by that metric.

Your objection to "expanding space" is semantics. It's like someone saying that a football field is 100 yards and you objecting that a yard isn't a real thing with physical properties... it just misses the issue.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I will study it at another time.... and get back to you on prevalent dissent on redshift as the basis for the "inevitable conclusions"... what you believe are indisputable "facts."

A fact is an honest observation. As such, redshift is a fact. I'm not sure you understand why I wrote "inevitable conclusion". If the speed of something increases with distance (Hubble's law) and distance can increase to infinity (open universes are spatially infinite) then an inevitable conclusion is that speed will increase beyond some finite value. An informed counter proposal to that logic would be the Milne model.

Before you get into the "prevalent dissent on redshift" I'd be interested in hearing about the physics of redshift. How is it measured? What does the measurement refer to physically? What theory could I use to predict the sun's redshift? I think this is important because I have a hard time judging the relevance of something until I understand it.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

But the reason for more volume between objects over time is that they are simply moving away from each other as in the expanding balloon... not that "space itself" (as if it were an entity) is expanding.

Yes, like the balloon. Consider this as a mental exercise. Blow up a balloon half full of air. Draw latitude and longitude lines on it (a grid). This grid is what astronomers call comoving coordinates. Mark a spot on the surface of the balloon and call it "Milky Way" and another spot a good distance away called "RD1".

Now we imagine 2 bugs which you're going to drop on RD1. These bugs are trained to crawl directly to the Milky Way spot from RD1. You start blowing up the balloon slowly and consistently and drop the first bug and it starts crawling with it's tiny little legs. A second or two later you drop the next bug and it starts crawling the same speed as the first. Now you have 2 bugs crawling along the surface of an expanding balloon. You use a ruler to measure the distance between the bugs and it's one centimeter.

The balloon continues to expand and the bugs continue moving toward the Milky Way. When they get there, how far apart do you suppose the bugs will be? Because the balloon expanded they will indeed be more than 1 cm. As I'm sure you've guessed, this is an analogy for light moving from one galaxy to another in an expanding universe. The bugs represent two crests in a wave of light. The wavelength is shorter when it is emitted versus when it is detected.

The physics model of the expanding universe is very much like this analogy except it is in 3 dimensions while the surface of the balloon is only 2 (there would be one more set of grid lines in addition to the latitude and longitude we drew). Also, space is very-nearly flat at large scales so the grid lines wouldn't be spherical. But, the point is, neither of these dots are moving relative to these grid lines. Every galaxy is at rest relative to the universe as a whole while the distance between points on the metric expands. This has very specific observational consequences which must be taken into account in order to correctly predict astronomical observations.

If you describe something different with different observational consequences then you'll no doubt be describing a very creative and interesting universe, it just won't be our universe.

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Modest:

Me thinks you're taking the analogy an order of magnitude or two too far. The rubber sheet (or the balloon) is not a description of the universe. It's an analogy for how distance behaves in the metric which describes the universe. Let me repeat that:

The balloon is an analogy for how distance behaves in the metric which describes the universe.

Me thinks you don't see my model cosmos as I am presenting it...
And it is theoretical "envisioning" at present way beyond over-all evidential confirmation... tho it fits with the isotropic/homogeneous universe we observe with everything moving away from everything else.
I'll elaborate further on my above summary:

Our cosmic event horizon is just a small bubble of visibility *within* the thickness of the "rubber" of the good old cosmic expanding balloon. This mini-cosmos within the maxi-cosmos, the Whole Balloon, is cycling through bangs and crunches even as the whole balloon keeps expanding.... *Yes*... out into the infinity of space.
...
Anyway, we can't even "see out of the rubber" (the visible cosmos) let alone see the *yes* empty space within or beyond the bubble.

The above (your four people pulling on a rubber sheet) is a two dimensional rubber sheet... a plane. My expanding balloon is a 3-D sphere... and the "rubber" is the "stuff" of cosmos... with a thickness containing the whole mini-sphere of visibility which is our cosmic event horizon.
So, naturally cosmos appears isotropic/homogeneous in all directions
as the whole balloon expands with our little visible cosmos as one tiny bubble in the rubber of the balloon.

Make that one tiny sphere of "rubber molecules", galaxies and such(as far as we can see), within the over-all expanding sphere of the balloon.
Of course the thickness of the rubber membrane will be thinning as the maxi-cosmos, the balloon expands. But since we can't see beyond the small sphere of the tiny part of the balloon membrane we are in... we will prpbably never be able to verify whether this mini-sphere is part of the maxi-sphere.
But the "rubber molecules" in this analogy represent the actual "stuff" of cosmos... phenomena we can observe.

As far as your challenge goes... to show evidence or shut up...
envisioning is a legitimate part of science and certainly of cosmology.
If imaginary clashing membranes can be taken as serious cosmology... based on very esoteric math/metrics positing 11 or more "dimensions"....
Well, I could reasonably ask for some slack on "my evidence"... even tho I am not famous like the M-theory boys (with the scientific community hanging on their every word.

Nearly late for an appointment, Gotta go.

Michael

[modest]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

But the "rubber molecules" in this analogy represent the actual "stuff" of cosmos... phenomena we can observe.

Yeah, the problem is that the stuff in the cosmos expands at the same rate in all directions. The rubber material in a balloon quickly expands in a direction tangent to the surface and slowly constricts in a radial direction... not really the best analogy for our cosmos.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

As far as your challenge goes... to show evidence or shut up...
envisioning is a legitimate part of science and certainly of cosmology.

I'm just trying to impress upon you that balloons and branes are an effort to envision a physical theory which successfully describes the cosmos. You seem to be interpreting a nonexistent theory—which is fine, but worth pointing out—very far removed from the interpretation of FLRW or M-theory which actually can model the universe.

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Modest:

Yeah, the problem is that the stuff in the cosmos expands at the same rate in all directions. The rubber material in a balloon quickly expands in a direction tangent to the surface and slowly constricts in a radial direction... not really the best analogy for our cosmos.

That is not a "problem" if you understyand my model... which you obviously still do not "see." *If* our visible cosmos is *within* the "rubber" of the big balloon and it is expanding and thinning in thickness... all galaxies and 'stuff' we can see are spreading apart exactly as we can observe just like rubber molecules in all directions. (Laterally as the molecules of the balloon membrane and in the outer direction of expansion with the outer surface expanding faster than the inner surface... neither of which is within our range of cosmic vision...the 'cosmic event horizon.' And we certainly can not "see" beyond the "rubber" in either the direction of expansion or the direction of origin... so there is no way to verify the 'empty space' beyond or within this maxi-cosmic ballon. Tough situation! Science can not verify all cosmological visions! that does not keep us from seeing... or "envisioning" all possible cosmologies.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

As far as your challenge goes... to show evidence or shut up...
envisioning is a legitimate part of science and certainly of cosmology.

Modest:

I'm just trying to impress upon you that balloons and branes are an effort to envision a physical theory which successfully describes the cosmos. You seem to be interpreting a nonexistent theory—which is fine, but worth pointing out—very far removed from the interpretation of FLRW or M-theory which actually can model the universe.

I have "envisioned" the above cosmos since I was a very young child. I do not present my mystic vision as confirmed by evidence in over-all pertspective. Science can not "see" beyond the membrane of the expanding balloon (if the vision is true.) However what we can see is consistent with this model in as it is all expandng (at an accellerating rate!) and within our local sphere of visibility the cosmos (galaxies and all are rubber molecules in the metaophore) it all looks like homogenious 'rubber' with everything moving apart from everything else.
I'll be taking a break from the science section now until my last two posts in 'spacetime' are released from censorship. That was the epitome of unfairness... whomever read the two posts in question left unanswered by Q's heavy authoritarian hand in sympathy with Maddog's inflamatory ("over and over and over") post in reply to my summary of the thread.
See you in "transpersonal psych' if you are interested.
Michael

[enorbet2]

While there are any number of good solid scientists who are also religious ie mystics, they only remain good scientists when they keep the two separated, since Science, like Mathematics, is a tool, a construct, that depends on step-by-step precision. One pitfall for those mystics who have not had any scientific training is getting scientific nomenclature right. We have all seen how "theory" means something very different to the untrained than it does to the studied. Just because one is a pretty good golfer on weekends doesn't mean you're ready for Tiger Woods. You have to put in at least roughly the same training time he did to even get a match.

It never ceases to amaze me that mystics will berate Science in one breath and in the next seek it's verification. However here is a pertinent example of that and common pitfalls.

The Conscious Universe: Brahma's Dream

Please note that the author seems intelligent and reasonable and even quotes Carl Sagan (even if he likely blinks during "It is said that men may not be the dreams of gods, but rather that the gods are the dreams of men.") in his understandable appreciation that at least one ancient religion had people who dared think in terms of billions of years instead of thousands. However the author then begins to veer off track and hint at agenda when he claims that 4.2 Billion years is roughly equivalent to 15 Billion years (actually 13.7 iirc)

From his

" Here are the lengths of each of the 4 yugas in solar years:
Satya yuga: 1,728,000 years
Treta yuga: 1,296,000 years
Dwapar yuga: 864,000 years
Kali yuga: 432,000 years
The cycle repeats itself and there are 1000 mahayugas in one day in the life of Brahma (Hindu god)."

It would seem the author has at least spent some time researching Hindu, time that I contend would have been better spent researching Math and Science because he follows those terms and concludes with

If we take away all of the mythological nonsense from Hindu religion and replace it with mathematical nonsense, we come very close to the modern religion of cosmology. If you like, we are characters in Brahma's cosmic dream, and we are trying to understand his mind by analyzing and interpreting his dream.

So he equates mathematics and religion by declaring them both "nonsense", and directly that cosmology IS religion, only to conclude that Hindu really isn't nonsense "if you like" by reaching the exact opposite conclusion as Carl Sagan. Mr. Sagan rightly is fascinated by the idea that Bang and Crunch has any religious equivalency at all with a time scale orders of magnitude better than most, but he draws no conclusions from Hindu because it can't be tested and falsified. He doesn't even stoop to conclude within Science because of the lack of data. He only states that should there be sufficient Mass, there could be a Big Crunch and that should there not be sufficient Mass, the Universe may expand forever.

Mystics easily forget or ignore that mathematics is a construct, a tool, a language to replace words exactly because words are imprecise. Conceptually all math starts with the basest of fundamentals - 1 = 1, 1 =! 2, 1 + 1 = 2 and progresses from there. Furthermore, most mystics do not understand that as mathematics grew in complexity it first became possible to describe everything precisely. (pi x D is always a circle, never a triangle) and then it became possible to make predictions through math alone. Despite the popularity of the TV show "NUMB3RS" most people don't understand the full power and truth of Math. Probably, nobody does yet. Certainly I don't but I at least grasp it's precision and testability as well as it's infallibility given no "Garbage In". Logic ie. syllogism can compute nonsense as well as it can Truth. Mathematics ultimately cannot. HAL goes crazy and kills people

Notice that here

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

As far as your challenge goes... to show evidence or shut up... envisioning is a legitimate part of science and certainly of cosmology.
If imaginary clashing membranes can be taken as serious cosmology... based on very esoteric math/metrics positing 11 or more "dimensions"....
Well, I could reasonably ask for some slack on "my evidence"... even tho I am not famous like the M-theory boys (with the scientific community hanging on their every word.

Michael falls into the same trap as the Conscious Universe Bang-Crunch guy. He dismisses Science to try to achieve parity begging for "slack on my evidence" when there is no empirical evidence and just because the math is "esoteric" (read "too advanced for the average Joe so I can dismiss it") does not imply it is altogether without substantiation. The M-Theory "boys" are not listened to and discussed (and controversial) among the scientific community because they are famous. They are famous because they are qualified mathematicians of the highest order. They are also vilified by many as destroying the fabric of Science. However, they are worthy of consideration, even vilification where others are just ignored, because the math is good progressive math. All that remains determining if the premises are correct, just how far observed and verified phenomena will go to substantiate individual points leading up to the whole. No math, no words, no person can argue against or for someone else's dream or "envisioning". Thus however elegant, however compelling, it is less than fog and of no consequence beyond a mildly interesting curiosity.

[Michael Mooney]

Enorbet2:

All that remains determining if the premises are correct, just how far observed and verified phenomena will go to substantiate individual points leading up to the whole.

A long tirade to get to this bottom line!
I do have a MA in philosophy (as well as psychology) and I can tell you that if the premise is false, all the internally, logically consistent math in the world will not make the cosmology correct. And no one will ever "observe" 'strings' or the imaginary membranes they weave which are supposed to clash and create cosmi lke ours.

On the other hand everyting in my cosmology above is consistent with what we can and do observe as cosmos.... tho we will probably never be able to see out of the "balloon rubber" which may be *way* thicker than the diameter of our visible event horizon.

Mentioning my visions always prejudices scientists against me. But it is just another way of seeing/knowing albeit outside the realm of science (for the present.)
Ed: Oopse! Just reviewed my last post.Had forgotten that I said:
"I'll be taking a break from the science section now until my last two posts in 'spacetime' are released from censorship. "
Sorry. Breaktime.
Michael

[modest]

Originally Posted by michael mooney

modest:

That is not a "problem" if you understyand my model... Which you obviously still do not "see." *if* our visible cosmos is *within* the "rubber" of the big balloon and it is expanding and thinning in thickness... All galaxies and 'stuff' we can see are spreading apart exactly as we can observe just like rubber molecules in all directions. (laterally as the molecules of the balloon membrane and in the outer direction of expansion with the outer surface expanding faster than the inner surface... Neither of which is within our range of cosmic vision...the 'cosmic event horizon.' and we certainly can not "see" beyond the "rubber" in either the direction of expansion or the direction of origin... So there is no way to verify the 'empty space' beyond or within this maxi-cosmic ballon. Tough situation! Science can not verify all cosmological visions! That does not keep us from seeing... Or "envisioning" all possible cosmologies.

No, I'm not talking about anything beyond the rubber. That's not why I'm pointing out that the rubber is thinning. If the rubber molecules represent the things that we can see (galaxies and whatnot) then they will expand in two directions and contract in a third.

Here is a cutaway of the surface of a balloon with a sphere representing our observable universe embedded inside:



And here's what happens when the balloon expands (the material expands in the tangent direction and contracts in the radial direction):



What happened to the sphere there is not what happens with our observable universe, so I can only conclude that your idea is not a useful way of representing the universe. The only way around this problem (that I can think of) would be to say that the balloon is 4 dimensional. The sphere (the observable universe) would then expand isotropically in 3 dimensions.

Think of a person on the surface of a 3D sphere (like a person on a planet). It's not easy for that person to tell if they are on a sphere or on a large 2D disc by looking around themselves, and if the 3D sphere expands then it appears to the person as if the 2D disc is expanding. Likewise for someone on the surface of a 4D sphere, it's not easy for them to tell if they are on the surface of a 4D sphere or in the center of a 3D spherical volume. And, if the 4D sphere expands then it appears to them that the 3D volume expands (isotropically). But, you won't like that idea and you probably also won't recognize that there's a major flaw with your representation as it stands now

~modest

[enorbet2]

First of all, Michael, I don't see how you can rightly characterize my post as a tirade when I did not use any personal attacks or inflammatory words. If any inflamed you I am only too glad to apologize for any misunderstanding but also forced to point out that 1) I did not attack you but rather your proposal. and 2) that is the reason Science is superior to Mysticism since Science welcomes criticism and individuals, especially those with pet visions, do not tend to welcome any manner of criticism or even questioning.

I made a mistake in not being clearer about the fallibility of Math in that I can see, since you pointed it out, that it is indeed possible to miss the caveat "given no Garbage In" as a qualifier possibly due to my overly long post. However even that mistake furthers one point that words are imprecise and numbers are not.


Although it may be an exceedingly long time before we might be able to directly observe a string, let alone a membrane, as with many phenomena we can infer from the effect "invisible" things have on other observable things that they exist or not. As there are numerous posts even just here on Hypography establishing that fact, I will show you the respect of not rehashing something you may already know.

However I must point out that statements such as "Mentioning my visions always prejudices scientists against me." is not only imprecise but misguided, however revealing. While individual scientists are certainly subject to all human foibles, when confronted with an idea that has evidence behind it that idea is highly likely to be considered even if only to be disproved. Surely one who has an MA in philosophy as well as psychology is aware that there is a difference, however subtle, between "prejudice" and "discrimination". No scientist wishes to be prejudiced but all would like to be discriminating. The reason you may experience their behaviour as prejudice is that the first line of defense in discrimination is to not waste time where there is no evidence and that tends to upset those that may not require evidence nor certainly to be asked to give it. Furthermore Science has been so often and for so long hacked away at and chiseled in minutae of Mystics who hate it for not validating their "visions", bait it to attempt to destroy it, marginalize, imprison, hang and burn it's practitioners, that it is of little wonder that Mysticism, the antithesis of the scientific method, and the mystics who would be "God's visionaries" are so summarily dismissed when they offer no evidence.


BTW... excellent post, modest.

[Michael Mooney]

Modest,
Good graphics for a cosmic sphere in membrane barely thicker than our visible cosmos.
I was not very specific on how I see the proportion of our little sphere of cosmos within the thickness of the rubber. Mea culpa.

It would have to be more like atomic sized somewhere deep within the thickness of the rubber balloon membrane for my model to work. Then there is no way our observations would be other than they are as per the distortions of the sphere of visibility as you pictured it.

Your are right for the model you pictured.
But of course we will never know.

It would just be refreshing for a change if you didn't pretend to have all the answers. I certainly don't. But I "see" what I see and share it for what it is worth.
Obviously nothing in this forum. (insert "boo hoo" emoticon.)

BTW... did you ever make sense out of Doctordick's theory sans "spacetime." Seems like he had plenty of science and math to back it up... unlike my mere gnosis that it is an invention without ontological validity.
And others agreed with the absolute now transcending localization of "time."
Maybe we will never get resolution on that or the variability of distances with observational perspective.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Enorbet2:

However I must point out that statements such as "Mentioning my visions always prejudices scientists against me." is not only imprecise but misguided, however revealing. While individual scientists are certainly subject to all human foibles, when confronted with an idea that has evidence behind it that idea is highly likely to be considered even if only to be disproved. Surely one who has an MA in philosophy as well as psychology is aware that there is a difference, however subtle, between "prejudice" and "discrimination". No scientist wishes to be prejudiced but all would like to be discriminating. The reason you may experience their behaviour as prejudice is that the first line of defense in discrimination is to not waste time where there is no evidence and that tends to upset those that may not require evidence nor certainly to be asked to give it. Furthermore Science has been so often and for so long hacked away at and chiseled in minutae of Mystics who hate it for not validating their "visions", bait it to attempt to destroy it, marginalize, imprison, hang and burn it's practitioners, that it is of little wonder that Mysticism, the antithesis of the scientific method, and the mystics who would be "God's visionaries" are so summarily dismissed when they offer no evidence.

I should have said ""Mentioning my visions (almost )always prejudices scientists against me. Sorry. I did indeed overgeneralize.
(And characterizing your post as a "tirade" was meant to indicate a tirade against my way of knowing as a mystic rather that against me personally. But I am "half lay scientist" and a whole mystic... so that doesn't add up either in the mode of linear thinking!

I have as much respect for the scientific method as I have for mystic vision as a "gift" which differs from mere imagination or "envisioning." But I don't expect scientists who have never had a mystic vision to understand or "believe" that. Skepticism is healthy, and whoever has never hsd a "vision" should *not* believe they are valid.
That is way different than, conversely, believing they must be invalid for lack of ones direct experience in that way. The latter is prejudice .
I seek what is true about the universe, same as you and other scientists. It is just that I realize the value of empirical science and its evidential validation and what is called the "a-priori" branch of epistemology as well... which is the kind of "seeing" that mystics/gnostics experience as in *resonant identity with* the object of contemplation... on whatever scale. (*...*a subject for the transpersonal Psychology thread.)

No, Mysticism is not the antithesis of the scientific method.
There are 23 scientists whom I have quoted who also mystics...
but if you ask for verification, I will have to go into a thread of mine in Myspace over three years old. ...Please don't make me!...
Actually, it might be a good thing to share... but in a thread so labeled... another major project!)

Dinner time.
Michael