The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

[Harry Costas]

Hello Buffy

 

I agree with what you say.

 

You have missunderstood what I said but! thats ok, that will come out in the wash.

 

 

My main point is this.

 

Too many people are thinking along the BBT and because of this, if there is a error in its foundations than, What are we doing? Why is there so much money going to towards this theory?

 

Why don't the big boys get it right?

 

For example

Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big... est_999.html

 

and than we see Nobel Prizes given out for research not even agreeing with it.

 

Sorry my time is short, have to go to hospital to see my parents. But! I will focus on this later.

[Aireal]

Hello Everyone

 

I have been through this conversation on many differant forums over time, the results are often the same.

 

I have given links to articles by Nobel Laurates about the censorship in physics most claim do not exist.

 

Endless links to problems with the "evidence" in support of the Big Bang.

 

If nothing else, the Pope's support of the Big Bang as proof of the book of Genisis should at least cause scientists to pause and consider.

 

It is not the only theory that supports the facts, I have a list of over 30 at the moment, some good, some not so good, but at least as vaild as the B.B. theory. If you think the B.B. is the only decent model, than you have not looked very hard.

 

Of course if you are a supporter of the Big Bang, you will not "waste" your time going to those links and take a serious look at such "crack pot" theories to see if they have anything to them. And my list of crack pot theories is far larger than my list of over 30 so so ones.

 

So I do not even bother to list them anymore. Or even try for that matter, to convince B.B. supporters that their model is in error. If they wanted to, the could have done the same research I did. They don't want to, and all the links in world will not change their minds.

 

I do not take others word in any thing as I am a natural skeptic. It was that natual skepticism that lead me to the belief that the Big Bang was faulty, and so I am not likely to be swayed by the crackpot theories that are also flawed, and don't do as good of a job at hiding it.

 

The future of physics lie in those young minds that have not been indoctrinated to the B.B. as the only vaild theory, and have not been set in their ways by a lifetime of work in support of it. You can not blame current researchers for their staunch support of a theory they grew up with, and spent a lifetime trying to prove, its human nature.

 

So I have decieded that my time would be best spent in devloping the best of the alternate theories to the point it can compeat with the big bang. This is no easy task as most research funding is given to work in support of the big bang, so it is no wonder that the alternate theories are not as developed and robust as the B.B. model. If some of them had millions in funding over the years, they may be more advanced than they are.

 

So please excuse me for not having a list of links to support my view, it would be time consuming to find them all, and would probably do no good anyway. I have grown pestimistic lately about such things. Besides I need to get back to my research, forums are a nice break from it, but my time is limited, I ain't getting any younger.

[durgatosh]

Dear All,

 

It has been nice to take a break for a while and watch the discussion among our learned members of the forum. I must say that I have benefitted from a lot of informations from the members.

 

At the same time, I must also say that it is strange that the debate in this thread has shifted to the big bang theory. To me, the big bang theory is irrelevant as far as the origin is concerned because it does not explain the origin/reason of existence/nature of the singularity which caused the big bang. It does explain many of the observed phenomena in the universe. That big-bang might have happened does not prove that it was the origin.

 

As I have explained on a number of occasions in this thread, my belief is that the universe is ever-existing and eternal; changing its form but eternal. I have explained it by my interpretation of zero (which represents "nothing").

 

Free Thinker

Now, for a little more comprehension help (and post count), it must be understood that at any one time the total energy in the Universe equals ZERO. We exist as localized fluctuations. So when you add this to the question you get "What happened before there was nothing?"

 

"Nothing" does not need an explantation for its origin because it is nothing. You have to explain where an apple came from; but the non-existence of an apple does not require an explanation as to where did no apple come from.

 

In my interpretation of zero, nothing (zero) can exist only as a vast multitude of phenomena and entities, the sum of which is zero. The impossibility of zero to exist on its own is supported by the quantum theory and by the illustration of overtaking vehicles (in my first post/article on this thread).

 

In other words, it's turtles all the way down.

 

TFS

 

My own scientific curiosity is not satisfied by the turtles beneath turtles ... all the way down. I want to reach the end of the tunnel (if there is an end). If there is no end, I want to find a reason for it being never ending. My interpretation of zero explains the never-ending infinite nature of the universe (the reason for the turtles being all the way down).

 

Harry Costas

As for the other logic, negative and positive infinity and zero. Reminds me of going round and round in circles.

 

It seems strange that this reinterpretation of zero (negative to positive infinity) can seem like going round and round in circles to some people. It is the only way I can think of which can break this viscious circle by actually giving a mathematical explanantion of the eternal existence of the universe.

 

I just wish there were more discussion on the nature and interpretation of zero rather than the debate about the validity of the big-bang. The birth of the planets in the solar system does not explain the origin; similarly the big-bang does not explain the origin even though it might have occured.

 

DP

[Harry Costas]

Hello Aireal

 

 

I agree with you mate.

 

Cosmologists are funny in some way.

 

But! many have been given info as evidence supporting the BB.

Even though this evidence is in dispute. Much of this will be resolved within the next two years or so.

 

Regardless of what anybody thinks, work on your theory with an open mind.

 

Get your facts and evidence correct and do not worry about the BB people.

 

Emotion can stop you or it can drive you. So become the driver and simile.

[Shoushou]

Thnx Durgatosh for ur hard working on the theory of (Spilt of zero) I guess it sounds very logical somewhat..I actually have some comments about ur post:

 

**I agree with u about the point of the "nothing" origin..But here arises another quistion, How could a nothing turn into a huge well-organized universe?? & why had it stayed for a specific period before it turned from nothing into a whole universe??& what caused it to split (if we consider the nothing as zero)??

I agree, we don't need to know the origin of the nothing (cause there won't be an origin in fact) but what is the reason for the start of the universe ( the split of nothing "zero")???

I guess in this regard we should consider some religious believes which refer to a Creator who caused the nothing to start as a universe..Because after thinking u'll find that there's not any scientific theory which will provide an explanation for how the nothing turned into a whole universe...

I shall here quote ur phrase (or what it means): science is the most important thing we have today inspite of its insuffecience in axplaining some important phenomena in our universe...

So we should accept the religon as a complementary factor which compensates the insuffecience in science..

 

**I've a question about how do u conclude the infinity of the universe?? & why don't u postulate it's returning into nothing???

 

 

keep working on ur theory,,it is a great work in fact...

[Tormod]

Because after thinking u'll find that there's not any scientific theory which will provide an explanation for how the nothing turned into a whole universe...

 

Well, thinking might not get you there but reading will. There are some good books on the subject.

 

Here's a review of one book: Before the beginning - the origins of the universe. Note that the review is almost 6 years old and I've read a lot of good books after that - but this one was quite entertaining.

 

No need for religious diversions. Sternglass proposes that the first orbit of a positron-electron pair caused the universe into existence...due to friction. And it took a whopping 17 billion years (or so).

 

Mindblowing stuff, and probably completely wrong, but a great read.

[Tormod]

"Nothing" does not need an explantation for its origin because it is nothing. You have to explain where an apple came from; but the non-existence of an apple does not require an explanation as to where did no apple come from.

 

....

 

In my interpretation of zero, nothing (zero) can exist only as a vast multitude of phenomena and entities, the sum of which is zero.

 

The faulty logic is so obvious that it's biting itself in the tail.

 

You say: "nothing (zero) can only exist as a vast multitude of ..."

 

In other words, zero = nothing (according to the above statement).

 

but you also say: Nothing does not need an explanation.

 

In light of what you've written, it seems obvious to me that in your theory, non-existence is impossible, because it implies existence.

[durgatosh]

Shoushou

I agree with u about the point of the "nothing" origin..But here arises another quistion, How could a nothing turn into a huge well-organized universe?? & why had it stayed for a specific period before it turned from nothing into a whole universe??& what caused it to split (if we consider the nothing as zero)??

I agree, we don't need to know the origin of the nothing (cause there won't be an origin in fact) but what is the reason for the start of the universe ( the split of nothing "zero")???

 

Tormod

The faulty logic is so obvious that it's biting itself in the tail.

 

You say: "nothing (zero) can only exist as a vast multitude of ..."

 

In other words, zero = nothing (according to the above statement).

 

but you also say: Nothing does not need an explanation.

 

Thanks, Shoushou for your compliment and Tormod for your critical comment.

 

I would urge you once again to read my 1st post / article on this thread. The "split of zero" is a concept that I described to explain the origin from nothing. But I discarded it because it does not explain why others do not split (if 0=+2-2, even so 4=+6-2, and so on). My theory of origin does not end with split of zero, but it starts from there. It is analogous to many mathematical proofs where we assume the opposite to be true and then go on to prove that the assumption was wrong. The logic is therefore, not faulty but it is an evolution of the concept behind my theory of eternal existence.

 

The hypothesis I put forward that "the instability of a thing is directly proportional to its proximity to zero" is the central tenet of my theory. I got support from the quantum theory and my illustration of the paradox of overtaking vehicles. Using this hypothesis, zero becomes infinitely unstable and thus cannot exist on its own. Therefore, it can only exist as a vast multitude ..... , the sum total being zero. Because the sum total is zero, we need no explanation of where this zero came from. And because zero cannot exist on its own but only as a vast multitude of ...., this becomes a mathematical proof of an eternal universe.

 

Shoushou

I've a question about how do u conclude the infinity of the universe?? & why don't u postulate it's returning into nothing???

 

Thats why, Shoushou, I do not postulate the universe returning to nothing. It did not come from nothing, it will not return to nothing. It is of eternal existence, the only condition being that the sum total of all the things, phenomena and dimensions is zero.

 

Tormod

In light of what you've written, it seems obvious to me that in your theory, non-existence is impossible, because it implies existence.

 

You said it, Tormod. This is explained by my interpretation of zero.

 

DP.

[TheFaithfulStone]

"the instability of a thing is directly proportional to its proximity to zero"

 

Define "instability", "thing", and "zero" within context.

 

If "instability" means "likelihood to cease to exist", "thing" includes sub atomic particles and "zero" means "nothingness", then your hypothesis is wrong, as electrons do not decay.

 

TFS

[Aireal]

Durgatosh and Shoushou

 

I just caught the topic you all were discussing. Nice to see young minds thinking. However TheFaithfulStone makes a good point. All the evidence to date points to the conclusion that the closer to zero the more stable something is. The electron does not decay, the proton is also very stable, so stable it bothers many physicists. So your conclusion does not fit the evidence. But you are questioning and exploring, which is good.

 

We have a long running discussion about infinity here. http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=444 if you wish to check it out. Infinity can be considered the opposite of zero, but I do not know of any one discussing the topic of zero. But maybe taking a look at the subject of infinity will shed light on what you seek.

 

Feel free to check it out, but you may not want to post there yet. The site is devoted to work on a specific theory and is not an open forum like this. I only mentioned it as I felt it may be of help in your understanding of these concepts. Good luck and take care.

[TheFaithfulStone]

One possible response is a tautology. "Well, an electron isn't close to zero then, since it doesn't decay." How do you know if something is close to zero? If it's unstable. Equivalent to saying "either something is unstable or it isn't."

 

You need a definition of "close to zero" that doesn't include instability, or your whole argument is a very elaborate begged question.

 

TFS

[this edit brought to you by the letter "R"]

[durgatosh]

Define "instability", "thing", and "zero" within context.

 

If "instability" means "likelihood to cease to exist", "thing" includes sub atomic particles and "zero" means "nothingness", then your hypothesis is wrong, as electrons do not decay.

 

TFS

 

My definition of these terms is not as restrictive as yours. I shall attempt to define them; there may be controversies in actual wording and definitions but I hope my concept will be understood.

 

"Instability" includes but does not only mean decay. "Likelihood to cease to exist" is the extreme form of instability; this is what I mean when I say that zero is infinitely unstable and therefore impossible on its own.

 

"Things" does not only include subatomic particles. It includes all the matter/mass/energy/space/time and all phenomena (explained or unexplained) in the universe. Electrons are not unstable in the sense that they do not decay spontaneously. But when electron and positron come together, they annihilate releasing an equivalent amount of energy. In that sense, it is more unstable than other larger particles. And mind you, there are smaller particles; the quarks, photons etc the nature of which is not completely known yet.

 

"Zero" is a mathematical representation for "nothingness". I have explained previously in this thread about the fallacy of continuity (supported by the quantum theory and the illustration of the paradox of overtaking vehicles. Hence, everything (mass/energy/space/time/etc) move in discrete quanta. We do not know the magnitude of this minimum quantum, but imagine what would happen if we consider a magnitude lower than this minimum quantum. The scale of "proximity to zero" is measurements at those small magnitude. It is then that they would become really unstable. Finally, when you approach zero, zero itself would be impossible.

 

Aireal

Infinity can be considered the opposite of zero, but I do not know of any one discussing the topic of zero.

 

This is the missing link. Infinity is one sided; zero is both-sided infinity (negative to positive infinity). Zero actually is all-encompassing. The whole universe can be represented by zero (if you agree to this interpretation of zero).

 

DP

[TheFaithfulStone]

To reiterate - you need a definition of zero that doesn't include instability.

 

You'll also need a definition of instability that doesn't include zero - especially if things can be stable in one dimension (spontaneous decay) and unstable in another (particle annihilation.)

 

What does it mean to be for something to be unstable? It seems like it's probably not an exact quality. I mean, in a certain sense the earth is more unstable than an electron in that running into a star would destroy it (but not the electron.)

 

As far as considering a unit of space smaller than a "metron" (quantized space unit) it doesn't make any sense. Space simply ISN'T smaller than that. It's like trying to imagine a number bigger than infinity - it's a trick you can play with language, but it's not something you can actually DO.

 

TFS

[Aireal]

Durgatosh

 

Your last reply did shed some light.

 

When you spoke about approaching zero in terms of size or magnitude at scales smaller than quanta, this is not new and it has been covered pretty well. It would be very hard to say something in that has not already been stated and explored extensivly in the last 7000 years on that topic.

 

Your example ot the electron/positron is approaching zero in time, as the electron and positron are created togeter at the same moment in time. This subject has been explored extencively by the greatest minds of the last 90 years and is at the heart of the Big Bang model. Again, it would be hard to add to the work they have already done.

 

Lastly zero as a math concept has been explored since the time of ancient sumer some 7000 years ago.

 

So you have taken on quite a challenge if you wish to add to the base of knowledge in these fields. Like the TheFaithfulStone pointed out, it is more playing with language than anything else. Of course that is not your intention. In this modern world you are using words the ancients did not have, but the concepts are the same. Do not let words confuse and dulude you.

[durgatosh]

TFS

To reiterate - you need a definition of zero that doesn't include instability.

 

You'll also need a definition of instability that doesn't include zero - especially if things can be stable in one dimension (spontaneous decay) and unstable in another (particle annihilation.)

 

I do not agree that definitions of zero and instability necessarily need to exclude each other. I believe, and many may not agree, that the definition of instability has to include zero and the proximity to zero. Zero, as a mathematical number, can be defined and understood as it is. But zero, in the context of real world and universe does not exist and thus needs the concept of instability to define it. Can you imagine "nothing" in a real world?

 

TFS

As far as considering a unit of space smaller than a "metron" (quantized space unit) it doesn't make any sense. Space simply ISN'T smaller than that. It's like trying to imagine a number bigger than infinity - it's a trick you can play with language, but it's not something you can actually DO.

 

Exactly. A unit of space smaller than the quantized unit does not make sense; same is true for the quantum magnitude of time and mass/energy. Infinity (in the usual sense) is undefined. We can't imagine a number greater than infinity because we do not have a known greater number to approach. However, zero is smaller than these quantum magnitudes and mathematically, it would be possible to have a number which is smaller than a quantum magnitude. In the context of the real world and universe, this would not be possible. Why? Because in those magnitudes, instability sets in and finally zero becoms impossible to exist on its own.

 

So, you see, I do not want to play tricks with language. I wish my English was that good. But, I am trying to explain abstract concepts using day to day language. It may be imprecise at times, but concepts are more important than words and definitions.

 

Aireal

So you have taken on quite a challenge if you wish to add to the base of knowledge in these fields. Like the TheFaithfulStone pointed out, it is more playing with language than anything else. Of course that is not your intention.

 

New thoughts or discoveries do not mean that it was not existing previously at all. We all stand on the shoulders of giants in order to see further. Zero, annihilation of positrons and electrons and concepts like such have certainly been explained many times over. I am trying to combine the concept of zero, infinity, quantum theory and instability to give a logical explanation about the origin of universe ... without falling into the trap of the endless question of "where it came from" and without invoking a creator who is responsible for the origin.

 

I am happy that you understand that playing with language is not my intention. The concepts are such that it is dificult sometimes to find exact words to explain them.

 

DP

[maddog]

Durgatosh,

 

Your "Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery" does not BTW.

 

The Big-Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory for the origin of the universe. According to it, the entire content of the universe was condensed in an infinitely dense matter-energy complex :doh: which exploded at the moment of the so called big-bang. The universe technically was born at that moment and the protagonists of this theory censure the events before this moment.

 

It has been said that the big-bang was a moment of singularity from which everything including matter, energy, space and time sprung up. What, then, is the nature of this singularity?

 

The Big-Bang Theory may be the "convential wisdom" at the moment yet is

not the be-all end-all of theories available. It's origin goes back to Gamov

who in the 50's coined the term. He did this by using the empirical evidence

from the Hubble data that for all distances of objects in the universe were found to be moving away at increasing velocity with distance. This gives the

impression of expansion. Roll time backwards and you come to a "point" some

time in the past. Simple enough. All the latest data (with exception of the

WIMP data of 2003) showed at all scales acceleration that was thought to

be decelerating. Ergo, a "closed universe". Since 2003 with the WIMP data,

this is now known otherwise. The expansion is accelerating the other way.

Another point you may have neglected was the "inflationary" period early on

(whether this really happened or not is still not known), from the Big-Bang

itself to some short time afterwards this expansion was somewhat superluminal.

 

This does not mean the expansion went faster than light. Instead "space"

itself was thought to being created then. Within the first few "micro seconds

or less" space itself didn't exist. Also as density rises, GR requires space

itself to bend. I know I may be butchering this, I am still dealing with jet lag

being on the east coast in Long Island while my head is still in Southern Cal.

For that I am sorry. I am just pointing out that all lot of activity would have

been happening ("cosmically") near the beginning. A lot of theoretical

wizardry has been done by very famous scientists in this miniscule time period

(10e-30 to 10e-8 past the Big Bang) and not all these scientist agree on all

points. In particular is something John Wheeler (UT, TX) thought up about

Bubble Universes; such that the Big Bang may have been a succession of

Little Bangs over time with the effect that the univers "locally" appears to

occillate (in and out).

 

Either way you do not acheive "infinite density" at time=0. Just like you do

not divide a value by zero. Meaningless.

 

...Split of Zero

 

Conceptually, this is a very simple theory. It is easy to understand if we replace the infinitely dense mass-energy complex (of the big bang theory) with zero and the event of big bang with the split of zero. In other words, it is from nothing that everything sprang up. Mathematically, 0 = +x –x. :eek_big:

 

I don't classify what incomplete thought that do not fully take into account

what is know to be a theory. For any theory to be viable must do that.

 

Zero is the singularity. Before the beginning, there was nothing; no mass, no energy, no time, no space. We can mathematically represent this nothing as zero. The origin of universe was the split of zero. From zero, several positive and negative things sprung up. This was the beginning of time, space, mass and energy. The universe will always obey the law of conservation, that is, the sum total of all existing things and phenomena should be zero.

 

There is NO Before the beginning to be nothing of. To be so, Time

would need to be a complex number. Though that is another idea altogether.

You misrepresent the "Law of Conservation of ...". This is NOT stated as you

say above. Conservation Laws (say energy) states that Energy is conserved

through all interaction (before/after). Any system where you work out the

energy involved would be present on both sides, not that they both equate

to ZERO !!! So you following conclusion is then obviously fallacious as well.

 

According to this theory, there must be positive and negative mass, positive and negative energy, positive and negative space, and positive and negative time. Why don’t they cancel each other and become zero? This can be explained by supposing that the positive and negative things are compartmentalized so that they do not interfere with each other. It means that we live in a positive (or negative?) universe and there must be some negative universe as well. This does not explain how the positive and negative things could be compartmentalized. :eek_big: :eek_big: :eek_big: :eek_big: :eek_big:

 

I elect not to fully comment here... :doh: :lol:

 

I retract that, I would like to see some "Negative Mass" as scientist are

considering such exotic stuff as "Negative Energy" to explain the hyper-

expansion spoken above.

 

Another difficulty with the theory of “split of zero” is that if zero can split, other things can split too.

 

If 0 = +x –x,

Then, 2= +4 -2,

8 = +4 +4, and so on.

 

However, we do not see any object splitting spontaneously in front of our eyes. The theory of “split of zero” fails to explain this contradiction.

 

No contradiction. Zero can be zero as

 

0 = 0 + 0 = 0 + 0 + 0 = ...

 

You could have two divergent series

 

Sum[0;infitity;(-1)**(2n+1)] and Sum[0;infinity;(-1)**(2n)]

 

I will leave it to the reader that if you were to sum these two infinite sums

together which by themselves diverge to -infinity and +infinity respecively,

you would attain the result of 0.

 

Does this mean that -infinity + infinity = 0 (No, not in all cases)

This did not split as you say.

 

Therefore, zero (nothing) cannot exist by itself. The only way by which zero can exist is in the form of positives and negatives, the sum total of which is zero.

 

Of course it can... :doh:

I can even demonrate it by ===> 0 = 0 QED :lol:

 

... quantum theory, we understand that there will always be a finite separation between two objects or events in terms of space, time and energy. Continuity is not tenable.

 

Continuity is fine... It is called Calculus, invented by both Newton/Leibnitz.

You should take it. You might understand it better.

 

Hence, zero would be infinitely unstable and cannot exist on its own. The only way zero can exist is as a sum of many positives and negatives. Thus the quantum theory gives support to the previously mentioned hypothesis: “The stability of a particular thing is inversely proportional to its proximity to zero.”

 

This conclusion is ludicrous, if not laughable. :doh: :lol:

 

Not surprisingly, therefore, extremely small subatomic particles like electrons, quarks, photons etc are highly unstable.

 

:doh: Quite inaccurate! In case you are quoting from some reference, I am

not aware of. Leptons (like electrons, positrons) are Very stable even for

cosmic time (if left alone). They are however very prone to interaction with

other particles and giving or receiving energy in the process.

 

It is true some GUT theories (Shalom, Glashow, Weinberg) have been considering

that Protons (3 quarks) can spontaneously split (create something else --

as yet unknown). Multiple experiments of this expected action into something

have been running around the world: Japan, Canada, Australia, US, Europe...

and no one has found a (yet) such a "splitting" into anything. After 20+ years

we are now approaching 10e32 seconds of time (integrating over all tanks in

all experiments).

 

Therefore, the universe never began, nor will it ever end. It has always existed and will always exist as an infinite multitude of positive and negative things and phenomena, the sum total of which will always be zero.

 

Sounds kinda' biblical to me... and definitely not a scientific conclusion...

:umno:

 

:hammer:

 

I will add to this soup mix of something (I thought you would) add is that

by use of Quantum Mechanical Vacuum Fluctuations you can have the effect

of "creating" something from "nothing". This occurs normally near 0 degrees

Kelvin (VERRY COLD!) At this point little is in motion. This can happen where

the absense of anything can create spontaneously energy by creating an

interaction afterwards when nothing was there before. Energy must be

balanced so the discrepency must be made by other interactions to get back

the initial energy state. This does make you thought of "splitting zero" viable.

The point is that making a condition sufficient does NOT make it

necessary :shrug:

 

maddog

[durgatosh]

Maddog,

 

If you do not want to think out of the box, it would be impossible to explain any new thought to you. If rubbishing everything becomes a habit, one would start picking up errors outside the context. You criticize the "split of zero" without understanding that this is just a step in the evolution of my concept. A closer look into the discussions in the thread will make it clearer. You criticize the phrase "before the beginning" without understanding that it is meant to question all theories of origin which state that universe began with a "big-bang". What was the source of the singularity and if there was no source, why does it exist.

 

You have not understood what I mean by law of conservation; it does not apply to energy alone, but includes everything (space/time/mass/energy etc). I believe that these entities and other phenomena (explained and unexplained) are linked in a way that the sum total is zero. I know this concept would again seem laughable to you, but the concept of equivalence of mass and energy was equally laughable before E=mc2.

 

I could go on and on and explain my thoughts on your comments. But I have already explained these concepts a number of times. It just requires an open mind to understand them.

 

You seem to contradict everything without giving a thought about what is meant by these concepts. It doesn' really matter; most people are indoctrinated by what they have studied or learnt or believed. Any new thought can never be taken well by them. Unfortunately, all this in the name of science!

 

DP