Support NeoGAF

[AgatonSax]

How did you know that's what I was looking for??


Right. Seeing as we're in a theory thread, I'll give it ya straight! After being buried arse deep in this stuff for months upon months, here is my theory..

On it all

We, the current human race, are descended from something maybe not of this earth.. maybe we were 'made'

There was 'something' before us but we just never had the understanding at the time to comprehend it, like a child that just does, but not really question.

The Bible, is real, but not in the way we perceive. Most of it is just round about stories of things that happend, just jazzed up, but, there are real things that happend in it..

So..

The Ten Commandments, now this I feel is the pinnacle thing. If and only IF humans actually stick to the text and not deviate, humanity would plod along nicely, but we didnt, and here we are doing all sorts of crazy shit..

So to sum up..

Some uber big brained mega alien dudes made us, showed us some mad stuff they could build (Pyramids, etc, stuff they probably were using as some crazy arse intergalactic power station), got pissed off with our monkey arses, chucked us the ten Commandments, told us to live by it or face ruin, and fucked off

We're only now finding out about it. Yet when we do find more, we still won't understand it

We were never meant to, we're just the stupid made monkeys



...I'm joking by the way, but it's a fun story

I also enjoyed parts of the movie Prometheus.

 

[spons]

Saying time didn't exist before the big bang surely is a convenient way to explain your scientific theories.
How about saying you don't have a fucking clue what happened instead of basically making up bullshit at the spot.

 

[Dr.Morris79]

I also enjoyed parts of the movie Prometheus.

Was that from Prometheus?

 

[sono]

seeming "end" to our visible universe.

Seeming only because of the speed of light we can't see back in time to beyond the start of the universe. We don't know what exists outside our light cone

 

[HRK69]

Saying time didn't exist before the big bang surely is a convenient way to explain your scientific theories.
How about saying you don't have a fucking clue what happened instead of basically making up bullshit at the spot.

Right, because if you don't understand it, it must be bullshit, how original

Saying "time didn't exist before the Big Bang" isn't some convenient cop out, it's what the math and physics actually point to

If you don't want to put in the work to understand the concepts, fine, but don't pretend your lack of comprehension is some kind of superior insight. Its not. Its just lazy

 

[killatopak]

Saying time didn't exist before the big bang surely is a convenient way to explain your scientific theories.
How about saying you don't have a fucking clue what happened instead of basically making up bullshit at the spot.

I suggest you read up on the theory of relativity where space and time is intertwined. They cannot exist separately as such must be made at the same time. matter itself is governed by the concept of space and such you can surmise space, matter and time came into existence all at once.

All the evidence points to this.

 

[jason10mm]

In the continuum of knowledge, with "bacteria" at one end and "all knowledge" at the other, I suspect we are currently about 2% of the way from 'bacteria', i.e we know fuck all, have mathematical models that only correlate with some of the observational data, and our observational data is like trying to extrapolate an entire film of just a random 2 second clip from somewhere in the middle. With an estimated 80% of the universe's 'stuff' being virtually undetectable 'dark matter/energy', we are clearly just spitballing ideas when trying to grok things like the origin of the universe.

I kinda like the notion that we are in a simulation that only creates stuff as we 'discover' it, and it can change depending on our supposed understanding of it. Explains a lot about observed phenomena through out the ages.

 

[rm082e]

The Vera Rubin telescope is now online and they've posted some of the first images and videos. If you click through to the link and open each image, you can view them in a few different sizes all the way up to 10013 × 6133. Here's a shot of the Virgo Cluster:

 

[jason10mm]

The Vera Rubin telescope is now online and they've posted some of the first images and videos. If you click through to the link and open each image, you can view them in a few different sizes all the way up to 10013 × 6133. Here's a shot of the Virgo Cluster:

To think that's the star/galaxy density of just a TINY MINUTE section f our universe but OH NO, aliens with FTL drives are gonna come to Earth to steal our water....yeah that makes sense

 

[Hookshot]

Saw something earlier that said the Vera Rubin is powerful enough to find "Planet 9" but it might take a few months to try and spot it moving.

 

[T8SC]

The link below is a 255 hour wide-field Cycle 1 JWST treasury program to map a contiguous 0.54 deg2 area with deep NIRCam imaging in 4 filters.

COSMOS-Web

cosmos2025.iap.fr

The area of 0.54 deg² would be like a small square patch just smaller than your pinky nail held at arm's length.

 

[cormack12]

The link below is a 255 hour wide-field Cycle 1 JWST treasury program to map a contiguous 0.54 deg2 area with deep NIRCam imaging in 4 filters.

COSMOS-Web

cosmos2025.iap.fr

The area of 0.54 deg² would be like a small square patch just smaller than your pinky nail held at arm's length.

What do you mean. The finger nail is the scale of the Universe it is mapping?

Or if I hold my arm out and look at the sky, my fingernail is the equivalent patch?

 

[T8SC]

Or if I hold my arm out and look at the sky, my fingernail is the equivalent patch?

This. Similar to the Hubble Ultra Deep Field but I believe that was about the size of your thumb print at arms length.

 

[rm082e]

Saw something earlier that said the Vera Rubin is powerful enough to find "Planet 9" but it might take a few months to try and spot it moving.

I've been following the news on this one over the last year or so. I've been holding out some tiny bit of hope, but then I saw this one from Anton:



I hope there turns out to be more to the story. I still love the idea of a distant Planet 9 somewhere out there.

 

[jason10mm]

I've been following the news on this one over the last year or so. I've been holding out some tiny bit of hope, but then I saw this one from Anton:



I hope there turns out to be more to the story. I still love the idea of a distant Planet 9 somewhere out there.

I think you mean PLANET X aka Nemesis, the one that every 12k years or whatever passes through the oort belt and belts us with a century of drastically increased impacts, constantly resetting our civilization advancement?????

 

[PonyStation4]

Not sure if its because of the JWT discovery in the OP, but I've been enjoying the new theory that recently emerged that we, i.e. our universe, is fully contained within a black hole of an even larger universe.

This would explain why there's a seeming "end" to our visible universe... this would effectively be the event horizon of the black hole we are in.

It also would resolve the notion of whether time began before the Big Bang. Nope - time existed far, far before that, because our black hole is within a much older universe.

Now, as to when that universe began... that happened infinite time ago, as that universe could also be within the black hole of another older universe, etc.

LOL it's all so silly when you type it out, but it's such a fun mindfuck to think through.

The visible universe is all that we can see because the light from further places still hasn't reached us. That doesn't mean that the universe ends there. Then there's also space itself expanding.

Time isn't a fundamental property of the universe, but something we perceive as change in our reality. In fact, what we know about physics proves that the past/present/future exist at the same point, because every equation works regardless of what direction in time a particle could travel. There is only 1 exception to this, entropy where things cool down. Where time only exists as a concept when things are getting less random and move slower, not the other way around.

There's many theories about the Universe, but the only one that has the most evidence backing it is the Universe always existing. Where it expands space until it runs out of energy, collapses, then expands again.

 

[jason10mm]

The visible universe is all that we can see because the light from further places still hasn't reached us. That doesn't mean that the universe ends there. Then there's also space itself expanding.

Time isn't a fundamental property of the universe, but something we perceive as change in our reality. In fact, what we know about physics proves that the past/present/future exist at the same point, because every equation works regardless of what direction in time a particle could travel. There is only 1 exception to this, entropy where things cool down. Where time only exists as a concept when things are getting less random and move slower, not the other way around.

There's many theories about the Universe, but the only one that has the most evidence backing it is the Universe always existing. Where it expands space until it runs out of energy, collapses, then expands again.

I don't know that you can have a perpetually expanding and contracting universe, eventually you run out of lighter elements, it's not like uranium decays back into helium and hydrogen. It also doesn't explain where all this shit came from in the first place.

 

[Rentahamster]

It also doesn't explain where all this shit came from in the first place.

According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy can't be created or destroyed, so that would suggest that in some form or another, energy doesn't come from anything. It just is.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

eventually you run out of lighter elements, it's not like uranium decays back into helium and hydrogen.

The elements don't matter because it's all energy, and you can't destroy energy; if the universe would contract all the energy would just gather into a single point of infinite density until another big bang happens, hypothetically.

 

[jason10mm]

According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy can't be created or destroyed, so that would suggest that in some form or another, energy doesn't come from anything. It just is.

The Laws of Thermodynamics, formulated by a meat sack sitting under a tree based on a few years of observation, is like tearing a single page out of the Wheel of Time saga, trying to reverse engineer the entire story, and then claiming how great it is even though you will never really be able to compare it to the real thing.

 

[Rentahamster]

The Laws of Thermodynamics, formulated by a meat sack sitting under a tree based on a few years of observation, is like tearing a single page out of the Wheel of Time saga, trying to reverse engineer the entire story, and then claiming how great it is even though you will never really be able to compare it to the real thing.

The laws of thermodynamics are a rigorously tested set of fundamental descriptions about how we observe reality, carefully refined over 200 years of scientific research. However poetic your metaphor is, it is not accurate and does not erode the confidence of how solid these laws are in describing the universe.

I'm not saying that we know everything about everything, but the laws of thermodynamics are very established and to iterate on them would be to discover other universes where physics works differently or perhaps in the very earliest stages of the big bang when physics break down - areas which are currently uninvestigable due to our limited technology and knowledge.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

The Laws of Thermodynamics, formulated by a meat sack sitting under a tree based on a few years of observation

This is such a reductive, and frankly absurd, way to dismiss something that's been extensively studied and tested; might as well take the position that nothing is real and anything is possible while taking whatever fairytale you conjure up to be truth instead.

 

[jason10mm]

This is such a reductive, and frankly absurd, way to dismiss something that's been extensively studied and tested; might as well take the position that nothing is real and anything is possible while taking whatever fairytale you conjure up to be truth instead.

Come now, some greek philosopher could postulate a few seemingly consistent and repetitive attributes about his local environment as well, but it would have ZERO applicability to other places. We have been observing space with little more than our eyeballs till just a few decades ago. We find new and unexplainable shit everywhere we look. It's the HEIGHT of hubris to think we have figured out an entire play from peering through a keyhole at it for a few seconds.

200 years from now the AI will troll through this thread and chuckle.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Come now, some greek philosopher could postulate a few seemingly consistent and repetitive attributes about his local environment as well

...this isn't even close to the same level of research, I don't know why you would even make this completely incompatible comparison; remember science is observing, measuring and testing, and then rigorous peer review, what it isn't is 'philosophising'

It's the HEIGHT of hubris to think we have figured out an entire play

Sure, but nobody is claiming that everything has been figured out either, just that there is a irrational level of dismissiveness you have for things that have been studied, hence why you then might as well take the position that nothing is real.

200 years from now the AI will troll through this thread and chuckle.

This is probably part of where your strange dismissiveness comes from; just because time progresses doesn't mean progress in science progresses linearly at the same pace.
A hundred years ago people believe we'd have flying cars by now, in the 60s people believed we'd have regular commercial space travel by now, none of those things, and many others, came true because there's always a problem of energy.
Unless there's some breakthrough in energy generation, energy storage and energy transfer to be able to run all new experiments and tests, the 'AI from 200 years in the future' won't have any other opinion on E=MC² as it does now.

 

[Rentahamster]

Come now, some greek philosopher could postulate a few seemingly consistent and repetitive attributes about his local environment as well, but it would have ZERO applicability to other places.

If you're analogizing a Greek philosopher's local environment (100 square miles or so) to our current observable universe (100 billion light years or so across), then sure, it's possible that we could find something outside of the currently observable universe that doesn't follow the laws of thermodynamics, just as we've found different biomes that have different attributes as we've explored the world. However, what that basically boils down to is the notion that "well, anything is possible since we don't know everything yet".

And while that's not technically wrong, it's fairly useless as more than a basic presupposition of knowledge since it doesn't say anything profound. It also grossly deemphasizes how much we actually do know about the universe.

We have been observing space with little more than our eyeballs till just a few decades ago.

Galileo observed Jupter's moons and recorded their motions 400 years ago.

We find new and unexplainable shit everywhere we look. It's the HEIGHT of hubris to think we have figured out an entire play from peering through a keyhole at it for a few seconds.

Consistently applying the laws of physics that we know of doesn't mean that we figured out the entire play. A lot of the new and unexplainable shit we know about we know because we use those laws of physics to mathematically intuit the effects of those things even though we can't directly detect or observe them. Applying the laws of physics as we currently understand them to our growing collection of observational data is what allows us to refine our models over time to become more and more accurate. It's by no means complete, but that doesn't mean we're shooting around in the dark here.

200 years from now the AI will troll through this thread and chuckle.

400 years ago, Isaac Newton described the laws of gravitation, invented calculus, and developed what we know as Newtonian mechanics. We still use those things today. We have since upgraded our understanding of all of those things immensely, but does that mean they were wrong? No, it means they were incomplete.

 

[Liljagare]

Saying time didn't exist before the big bang surely is a convenient way to explain your scientific theories.
How about saying you don't have a fucking clue what happened instead of basically making up bullshit at the spot.

Do you think that time started before the universe existed? If so, how would you go about explaining how that would be possible?

My limited ignorance of trying to understand what all the smart people are talking about is that, when time started, the universe allready had to exist, so, for our brains, there wouldn't be anything before that, as again, time didn't exist as a dimension (overly simplified)?

 

[jason10mm]

400 years ago, Isaac Newton described the laws of gravitation, invented calculus, and developed what we know as Newtonian mechanics. We still use those things today. We have since upgraded our understanding of all of those things immensely, but does that mean they were wrong? No, it means they were incomplete.

Incomplete is the same as those kids peeping at the play where they can see about half the stage. They've watched 3 minutes of the middle act so far. That lets them make some assumptions about the size of the cast, the language they are speaking, is it all singing or ballet, how characters might be dressed. They can extrapolate to other acts and since they can also see a sliver of the backstage there are some clues to what might be coming or has already happened. But they can never see the beginning of the play, it's unlikely they will be able to see more of the stage without substantial effort, and ultimately they just gotta watch and watch and watch and revise their understanding of the play as it unfolds. While a few of their inital guesses may prove to have been correct, the reality is the play will constantly evolve their understanding such that those early guesses will seem childishly naive.

Fortunately for us we are very unlikely to see significant advances in our lifetimes, I suspect very little of the culture we value would survive it, much like how a 13th century Norman would lament the state of the world today, from his POV.

My point isn't that some of the assumptions we have made are incorrect, its that they are EXTREMELY limited, abeit beneficial for our current state of living, but its lunacy to think we could make any kind of guess as to the origin or state of the universe at this point in our understanding of it. Wait a few centuries until we have seen a whole 10 minutes of the play, then maybe our guesses will be better.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

 

[Rentahamster]

Incomplete is the same as those kids peeping at the play where they can see about half the stage. They've watched 3 minutes of the middle act so far. That lets them make some assumptions about the size of the cast, the language they are speaking, is it all singing or ballet, how characters might be dressed. They can extrapolate to other acts and since they can also see a sliver of the backstage there are some clues to what might be coming or has already happened. But they can never see the beginning of the play, it's unlikely they will be able to see more of the stage without substantial effort, and ultimately they just gotta watch and watch and watch and revise their understanding of the play as it unfolds. While a few of their inital guesses may prove to have been correct, the reality is the play will constantly evolve their understanding such that those early guesses will seem childishly naive.

This is the path of knowledge and discovery. We know a lot more about the universe than you give us credit. It's not a blind asspull. Will we know a lot more in 200 years? Most likely yes. But it's not like our current year information is unfounded. Does Kepler's work or Brahe's work or Copernicus' work or Newton's work or Galileo's work seem childishly naive after centuries of hindsight? I'd say no. They did extraordinary work given the tools available to them at the time, and it is on the shoulders of those giants that we stand today.

Fortunately for us we are very unlikely to see significant advances in our lifetimes

Why is that fortunate? Science is accelerating at an exponential rate. Our lifetimes will be chock full of new discoveries.

I suspect very little of the culture we value would survive it, much like how a 13th century Norman would lament the state of the world today, from his POV.

I'm not sure what your message is here.

My point isn't that some of the assumptions we have made are incorrect, its that they are EXTREMELY limited, abeit beneficial for our current state of living,

I agree that our understanding of the world is limited, relative to knowing everything. But it's not nothing, and it's gotten us pretty dang far.

but its lunacy to think we could make any kind of guess as to the origin or state of the universe at this point in our understanding of it.

It's not lunacy. We have lots of evidence to back up these postulations. The mystery of how this works will be peeled back layer by layer over time just as how the mystery of how Zeus creates lightning was solved with science.

Wait a few centuries until we have seen a whole 10 minutes of the play, then maybe our guesses will be better.

Our guesses will be better. Our guesses now are still good.

 

[Avid Reading Horse]

It's not lunacy. We have lots of evidence to back up these postulations. The mystery of how this works will be peeled back layer by layer over time just as how the mystery of how Zeus creates lightning was solved with science.

Quite a bit of science as religion up in this mofo. There's no reason to believe that we can peel back every layer before hitting fundamental limits of our ability to measure things beyond pure faith.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Saying time didn't exist before the big bang surely is a convenient way to explain your scientific theories.
How about saying you don't have a fucking clue what happened instead of basically making up bullshit at the spot.

If there was time before the Big Bang, does that mean time exists infinitely in the past? I don't think that's possible because if that was true, today would never get here.

 

[Rentahamster]

Quite a bit of science as religion up in this mofo. There's no reason to believe that we can peel back every layer before hitting fundamental limits of our ability to measure things beyond pure faith.

Are we expanding our knowledge of the universe as time goes on?

 

[Ecotic]

The most interesting cosmology theory I ever heard was from a theoretical physicist. He argued that the universe does not actually exist because something cannot come from nothing.

However, he argued that concepts can be still true regardless of the existence of a universe, namely math. The argument goes that an equation such as 1+1=2 would always be true regardless of whether a universe exists.

Now, the universe is the ultimate equation, the sum of everthing. The argument goes that the universe we exist in does not actually exist, but the concept of a universe is still true even in the absence of an actual universe. We therefore 'exist' in a sort of ethereal conceptual state where nothing actually exists, but conceptually we (the universe) are unbreakably true, so our reality still unfolds like a math equation being solved despite a lack of actual existence.

 

[Avid Reading Horse]

Are we expanding our knowledge of the universe as time goes on?

Does "our knowledge" even have a unit? But no, human knowledge always goes up is not a rule when you consider things like civilizational collapse and the Dark Ages.

Even if I concede that point in a "well muh 401k always goes up over a long enough timeline" kind of way it doesn't really change anything. Given infinite time and resources surely the scientific method will reveal all... all that can be revealed by the scientific method that is. The fundamental nature of reality has no obligation to be in that set of things.

 

[Rentahamster]

Does "our knowledge" even have a unit? But no, human knowledge always goes up is not a rule when you consider things like civilizational collapse and the Dark Ages.

Even if I concede that point in a "well muh 401k always goes up over a long enough timeline" kind of way it doesn't really change anything. Given infinite time and resources surely the scientific method will reveal all... all that can be revealed by the scientific method that is. The fundamental nature of reality has no obligation to be in that set of things.

I think you're reading into my statement a lot more than is actually there.

 

[Bert Big Balls]

When I was 7 or 8 I sometimes thought to myself "if nothing was then what would be" and I managed to elicit a very particular feeling from that thought quite often. My little mind just couldn't comprehend non-existence. Not that I understand those concepts better today, but I feel like I know enough to realize there are things I'll never grasp.

It's baffling to think about. I have always tried to imagine what "nothing" would actually be. Is everything just white, or black? How can there be "nothing"? Like what the fuck, it's impossible to comprehend.

 

[Trilobit]

It's baffling to think about. I have always tried to imagine what "nothing" would actually be. Is everything just white, or black? How can there be "nothing"? Like what the fuck, it's impossible to comprehend.

I read a series of books (Otherland) about characters who were downloaded into a virtual game and in one of the worlds the sky hadn't been implemented yet. So as one of the characters looked up she didn't see the abscence of sky as black, the program just displayed a nothingness and it freaked her out. Reading that part I felt like my brain really tried to convey that experience and it wasn't exactly pleasant lol.

It wasn't exactly how one would experience the nothingness of the real world, but it's fascinating how the conceptualization even in "virtual form" makes the head hurt.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

I read a series of books (Otherland) about characters who were downloaded into a virtual game and in one of the worlds the sky hadn't been implemented yet. So as one of the characters looked up she didn't see the abscence of sky as black, the program just displays a nothingness and it freaks her out. Reading that part I felt like my brain really tried to convey that experience and it wasn't exactly pleasant lol.

It wasn't exactly how one would experience the nothingness of the real world, but it's fascinating how the conceptualization even in "virtual form" makes the head hurt.

I love Otherland but I read that series so long ago that I forgot a lot of the story details

 

[Rentahamster]

I have always tried to imagine what "nothing" would actually be. Is everything just white, or black?

"nothing" wouldn't reflect or emit any visible light, so it would appear black to your eyes.

 

[killatopak]

Does "our knowledge" even have a unit? But no, human knowledge always goes up is not a rule when you consider things like civilizational collapse and the Dark Ages.

Physically? Yes.

IIRC there is a maximum amount of information in a given size. There are limits on information.

The observable universe itself has a maximum of 10^120+ bits of information.

 

[jason10mm]

I love Otherland but I read that series so long ago that I forgot a lot of the story details

How a streamer hasn't picked it up for adaptation is beyond me. It even has that "diverse global cast" from the get go!

 

[LimanimaPT]

I think space, time and matter are infinite.
In the case of time, this just means that time spans indefinitely to the past and to the future.
If this is true, then matter wasn't created, it always existed.
If matter and space are infinite, this means that there are infinite universes.
There is no end for space. It just spans indefinitely in all directions and contains infinite universes.
If all this is true then there are infinite copies of ourselfs in all this universes.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

It's a form of existential crisis that anyone with deep thoughts goes through at some point in thier lives. I remember being a teenager and staring up at the night sky feeling waves of dread about why I'm here and what is the point of "all this."

It hit me out of nowhere in a parking lot at 10PM with my girlfriend at the time. I tried explaining why I was acting weird to her, but I don't think she understood.

 

[Guardian Monkey]

Do you think that time started before the universe existed? If so, how would you go about explaining how that would be possible?

My limited ignorance of trying to understand what all the smart people are talking about is that, when time started, the universe allready had to exist, so, for our brains, there wouldn't be anything before that, as again, time didn't exist as a dimension (overly simplified)?

You have created that barrier in your own mind. Do you think that time started before the you existed? Probably so, right? You weren't "then" though. You probably look at the future as a undefined marker right? Just apply that to the past. Time isn't even real, just a construct of our monkey brains to relate to the state of all matter for that instance.

 

[Sinozen]

Not really surprising as the big bang was always contested, but it's good we have solid data to show that it might not be correct. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out in the scientific community.

I think we're going to learn more about "reality" from work on consciousness rather than looking further out into the universe though.

 

[Rentahamster]

According to the videos youtube's been feeding me these past few days, this has caused some scientists to rethink their models, and some now believe that we might be peering into a galaxy in another universe. Some believe this galaxy might have been remnants from another universe that collapsed into a black hole and spawned off another universe. Some think that each blackhole in our universe might contain its own universe.

Not really surprising as the big bang was always contested, but it's good we have solid data to show that it might not be correct.

Let's make sure we don't go overboard with taking clickbait headlines from AI-voiceover Youtube channels at face value, too. None of the evidence suggests that anything existed "before" the big bang, or that the concept of an expanding universe (i.e. the big bang) is actually fundamentally wrong. What the new evidence does specifically is cast doubt on our knowledge of how galaxies form and that it probably doesn't take as long as we think it should.

As NDT says in this discussion, these new pictures make for some wonderful clickbait headlines, but let's not get things twisted here or overreach on what models are backed by evidence and what models are backed by conjecture. (at 2:49)

Be careful which science channels you follow on YouTube. Lots of sensational bullshit out there.

The galaxies being that young can mean our understanding of how early galaxies formed is likely incorrect.

Exactly.

 

[SlimySnake]

It hit me out of nowhere in a parking lot at 10PM with my girlfriend at the time. I tried explaining why I was acting weird to her, but I don't think she understood.

to be fair, women will never understand post nut clarity that hits us in the back of the car.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

How a streamer hasn't picked it up for adaptation is beyond me. It even has that "diverse global cast" from the get go!

All I remember is the general plot and that one guy who is in a wheelchair having an online friend who he thinks is a guy but is actually a girl in RL. There's a sociopathic serial killer named Johnny Dread. Also one of the hackers is a muslim in RL who goes by the name of BlueDogAnchorite

I read this series way back in Highschool which was around 20 to 25 years ago. (Yes I'm OLD) I remember loving the series

I never reread books, but one of these dHs this series will be reread by me. It's one of the few series I want to reread

 

[Liljagare]

Time isn't even real, just a construct of our monkey brains to relate to the state of all matter for that instance.

That is indeed quote worthy.

 

[Nocty]

I always find it amusing people assume that physics in all universes are the same. That may not be the truth - in fact, logiccally it makes more sense that every universe has it's own laws of physics. Multiverse theory assumed correct, of course.