Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

sava: on 12/28/12 at 14:09pm UTC, wrote On my site I present new unified, final theory (ToE) of the Universe which...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:36am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 10:49am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Peter Hahn: on 9/18/12 at 15:48pm UTC, wrote Benjamin, Looks like my link to Foamy Ether Theory is broken. Here it is:...

Peter Hahn: on 9/18/12 at 15:42pm UTC, wrote Benjamin, Thanks for your input. Your essay is extremely interesting,...

Benjamin Dribus: on 9/13/12 at 18:09pm UTC, wrote Peter, I really enjoyed your essay! You make a number of points that...

Anton Vrba: on 9/3/12 at 6:16am UTC, wrote Hi  Peter I read your essay with interest; I too spent much time thinking...

Sergey Fedosin: on 8/30/12 at 18:20pm UTC, wrote Peter You can imagine gravitons as cosmic rays that consist of...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

Georgina Woodward: "Quite right Lorraine, ( to be clear perhaps I should have said..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Honestly Georgina, Wake up! Change of number is NOT energy." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...

Roger Granet: "By the way, this post was from Roger." in First Things First: The...

RECENT ARTICLES

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM
July 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Persistent Failure of a Two Substance Paradigm by Peter CM Hahn [refresh]

Author Peter CM Hahn wrote on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 15:42 GMT
Essay Abstract

The assumption that matter and space are two separate entities (or substances) has resulted in the creation and development of two mutually exclusive theories of reality: quantum mechanics and relativity. The power of these two theories is undeniable, however they are incompatible and there are many questions which cannot be resolved. The belief that reality is comprised of two substances is the root cause of our continual failure to build a workable unified quantum theory of gravity (or theory of everything). This dual substance world view has also led us to the unfortunate philosophical interpretation that we are separate entities (particles of matter) living in the universe rather than beings that are part of the universe as a whole, where all the parts are intrinsically connected. This essay proposes an essential change in mindset that creates a pathway to a holistic, interconnected paradigm.

Author Bio

Peter CM Hahn is an honors graduate of the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (Electronics Engineering Technology) and a Certified Engineering Technologist. He worked for TELUS Communications Inc. in various telecommunications related technologies: digital switching, fiber optics, database and web development. Peter is an independent thinker and researcher and an active member of the Art Society of Strathcona County. Now that he is retired, he can focus his time and energy on his two favorite passions: woodworking and the pursuit of a Theory Of Everything.

Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 01:53 GMT
Peter,

Your essay brings out multiple issues in an interesting manner. A change in "mindset", as this essay suggests, is definitely needed.

The questions you ask in the Crazy Conundrums section will definitely be considered heretical by those that passionately believe that the current theories are correct. The first question in the Crazy Conundrums section is likely to cause stress even to those that approach physics from the classical viewpoint. It is quite possible that a number of the crazy conundrum questions will go away if there is a proper answer to the first question, "Why is gravitational mass and inertial mass equivalent?"

The classic definition of inertia makes it difficult to ascribe it to any known characteristics of Newtonian or curved space-time gravity. Both gravity theories have to accommodate the inertial influence of other objects regardless of distance. Newtonian mechanics, which is used to determine the orbits of planetary objects, simply ignores the distance between objects, resulting in what is termed "instantaneous influence at a distance." Einstein called it "spooky." Our planetary orbits would rapidly become increasing spirals without an instantaneous gravity influence in solar system distances.

Many of the essays in this contest identify problems with single assumptions, mine also (topic 1294), and some suggest how to correct a particular assumption. Several essays tackle more than one of the alleged erroneous assumptions, this one covering a wide gamut of incompatible assumptions. I doubt the peer review processes of traditional science journals would allow even one criticism and correction of a generally accepted assumption to make it to publication even if it provided an almost irrefutable solution, unless the author had one or more Nobel Prizes attached to their name.

I can offer a possible "mindset" change solution involving the first crazy conundrum question using a classical physics solution.

Helical EM Gravity

The paper contains a paragraph about inertia. The concluding sentence in the paragraph states, "The classical definition of inertia is applicable for distances that result in essentially instantaneous action at a distance, with delayed inertia, but inevitable, between objects beyond instantaneous distances."

It will be interesting to see if any of the essays in this contest will make it into a mainstream journal.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter CM Hahn replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 17:02 GMT
Frank,

I checked your 'Helical EM Gravity' link and there is no mention of the word inertia. In your summary, you state "Antenna, receiver and signal processor systems will have to be developed to enable them to efficiently acquire HEM emissions, which will aid in identifying the frequency of the EM gravity force." Do you have any ideas on the design of such a receiver? Publishing a detailed design of a device or experiment would add immense credibility to your theory.

Sticking to the theme of Indra's Net, Foamy Ether Theory (FET) has an inherently easy and natural explanation for the equivalence of inertia and gravity. The inflow of space (or foamy ether) predicted by FET shows that space is accelerating through us while standing on the surface of the earth. This is equivalent to a body (i.e. rocket) accelerating through space. The mathematical proof is presented on page: http://www3.telus.net/foamyether/gravity.html.

Cheers,

Peter

Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 04:55 GMT
Peter,

The Foamy Ether theory has considerable material and it will take some time to examine it.

"Do you have any ideas on the design of such a receiver? Publishing a detailed design of a device or experiment would add immense credibility to your theory."

I spent a good portion of last year and the early part of this year in trying to do exactly that. I submitted papers to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter CM Hahn replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 14:08 GMT
Frank,

I hear you. Most established institutions are not interested in alternative ideas; their purpose is to perpetuate the status quo. Thanks to the internet, sites like FQXi and viXra can give dissident scientists (like you and I) the opportunity to be heard. The question is, will there be enough meaningful content in these sites for its contributors to be taken seriously? And if that happens, will the contributor get proper credit?

General relativity is so protected by the physics community that it has essentially become a religion, where dissidents are completely ignored. GR followers create pure fabrications when observations don't agree with theory, like the invention of dark matter.

History has shown us over and over again that a serious crisis must occur before alternate theories are considered. I predict that that crisis will be the failure of interferometers (i.e. LIGO and Virgo) to detect gravitational waves, similar to how the Michelson-Morely experiment failed to detect relative motion through the ether. But this won't occur until well after LIGO is upgraded to Advanced LIGO (most likely 2016).

So all we can do is keep plugging away at our ideas and patiently wait for recognition. (I'm retired, so I'm not in any hurry.)

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo Galilei.

Cheers,

Peter

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 07:39 GMT
Dear Peter Hahn,

My previous FQXi essays assume ONE SUBSTANCE, which could therefore only evolve through self-interaction. This led to a master equation from which Newton's equation, a generalized Heisenberg quantum equation, Schrodinger's equation and particle physics derived. These essays are still online. This approach is spelled out in much greater detail in The Chromodynamics War and Gene Man's World. My current essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, extends the treatment to quantum mechanics.

As Frank Makinson comments above, peer review processes are notoriously not open to such a non-traditional approach. Instead current 'big name' theories invoke literally *hundreds* of fields as the basis of 10^500 universes.

I cannot present the case for an entire universe evolved from 'one undivided single substance' in a comment, other than to tell you that I believe you are correct to demand such a solution and to point you to where this solution has been developed. The answers to most of your conundrums can be found in the references. The answer to your last two is that neither space nor time is granular (although the particle creation process leads to stable particles that we think of as 'matter' or 'condensate')

Very few people seem to find the need for a single substance solution to be important, so I hope that your essay contributes to changing this situation.

Best of luck in the contest,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 10:25 GMT
Dear Peter Hahn,

When we consider single substance scenario of the universe rather than two substances, then minimal clustering of the matters of universe in holarchy is imperative and restructuring of atomic analogy is inevitable.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 16:20 GMT
Peter

I think both Boscovich and Einstein agreed with your thesis, as do I. Boscovich as space being the 'sphere of influence' around matter, and Einstein (1952) with;

"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning."

I found in my essay some very important implications arising from this structure, where the local space around all 'matter' is, along with the dense core, kinetically 'mutually exclusive' (only has one assignable state of motion with respect to other states). This scaled hierarchical system has the precise structure of truth functional logic.

I describe the model in my essay, using metaphors to help kinetic thinking, describing exciting results, but you're right, it's almost invisible without a new way of thinking. As a free thinker I hope you may be one able to assimilate it's important findings.

As for your essay, an exceptionally clear and well written analysis tackling an important subject well and with some originality, worth a high score even though not exploring implications of application, but probably sensibly. Mine in trying to do became too dense for many to hold on to. so hope you may see those I've found, comment and score mine accordingly.

Very best of luck in the competition.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter CM Hahn replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 20:11 GMT
Peter,

I like your quote from Boscovich regarding a "sphere of influence around matter" and Einstein's quote "Space without ether is unthinkable". This is very much in line with Foamy Ether Theory where matter is merely a distortion in the foamy ether (existing in an empty background void) and the foamy ether itself is the preferred frame of reference. This model also allows for the "infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other" as you mentioned in your essay.

In response to your comment "not exploring implications of application", I intentionally left that part out to satisfy FQXi's criteria of not using the competition to 'trot out our pet theories'. However, FET does present an actual 'physical model of reality' with a number of bold (and testable predictions), and offers a unique design for a gravitational wave detector.

At first glance, it appears that the ideas presented in your essay are very much in line with mine. I look forward to examining them in more depth.

Cheers,

Peter

Jeff Baugher wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 00:53 GMT
Peter,

Saw the link to your website and FET (which I previously was only vaguely aware of). I very much like your one substance analogies. If you are looking for a mathematical basis to develop your theory, where I also concluded the same thing, see my essay here. A number of the essays in this contest are converging on a coherent physical theory.

Modeling particles as elastic wave packet (see Sandhu Section 5) holes using a mathematically correct form of the Einsten tensor (my essay), imagine the Fig.2 of Marcoen's paper as traveling holes instead of particles which would seem to fit with the one substance analogies.

Regards,

Jeff Baugher

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter CM Hahn replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 14:55 GMT
Jeff,

Personally, I believe that mathematics has been far too successful over the years. This has caused physicists to falsely assume that mathematics is all you really need to create a proper theory of everything, and that an actual 'physical model of reality' is not necessary. I'm amazed at how advanced the mathematics of QM and GR have become without a working model. However, I think it's time we took a break from the equations and focus on developing an actual model of reality that exposes the true underlying structure of reality, starting at the Planck scale (and strings are not the answer). That will give us a starting point and give the mathematicians a true picture of reality for them to base their equations upon. This should eventually lead to the creation of computer simulations that truly emulate real physical processes. This is the approach that FET is taking. And at first glance, it appears that you and Marcoen are taking this approach as well. I look forward to examining your essay in more detail.

Cheers,

Peter

Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 16:13 GMT
Peter,

Actually, you and I do agree very much on mathematics. I view them as a tool to help explain a physical model, but those equations are still necessary to produce comparisons with empirical data. What is even better, though, is when the alternative model is developed enough so that you can spot a mathematical flaw in main stream equations. The difficulty then is being able to show that mainstream equations lead to an unknown paradox, or even better that a change in the mathematics clears up a mainstream equation but simultaneously makes the mainstream physical models unacceptable.

I think the best place to start is with mainstream equations that are already known not to work, and to see what it would physically mean to change some assumptions. Perhaps we will meet in the middle on our models.

Regards,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

John A. Macken wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 00:12 GMT
Peter,

I entirely agree with you when you said, "A proper theory of everything should be a theory with the fewest axioms and assumptions." The same idea occurred to me and I developed into a book titled "The Universe Is Only Spacetime" (available online here). Obviously, the premise also agrees with your point that there should be no difference between matter and spacetime. What I call the "quantum mechanical model of spacetime" is developed into the basic building block of all particles, fields and forces. This not only satisfies the requirement of being the simplest starting assumption, but it also generates some surprising predictions that are easy to prove correct. For example, my essay titled "Insights into the Unification of Forces" presents a previously unknown relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic force. This relationship was actually a prediction generated by the spacetime based model of particles and forces.

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 22:40 GMT
Peter,

I have been sifting through a lot of sand to find the jewel of your essay.

Your description of Mass (objects) and Space-time as two sides of the same coin makes sense. If you are missing either one you have the nonsense of a coin with one side.

Relativity theory links mass and space together in a limited way, where both exist as independent entities which have a minor relationship where mass curves space-time.

Quantum theory has point particles and waves which makes it seem that it is connecting mass and space-time, except for the fact we have one or the other but not both simultaneously. this gives us two coins without backsides. So you could say twice the nonsense of relativity.

I believe there is a principle culprit in this state of affairs and it is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is like a tax loophole which most physicist cannot survive without.

My favorite theory is at: www.digitalwavetheory.com I think you may enjoy it.

Best of Luck

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 17:49 GMT
Peter CM Hahn

In accordance with Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter I have some answers to questions in your essay.

1) Why is gravitational mass and inertial mass equivalent? - While the body is moving with constant velocity relative to an isotropic reference system, the force of gravitation does not prevent the movement of the body moves by inertia. In an isotropic system of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter CM Hahn replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 21:07 GMT
Sergey,

Thanks for your interesting and very detailed response.

However, I find it rather peculiar that you are basing your explanations on "fluxes of gravitons" since gravitons are pure hypothetical particles that have not been proven to exist (and I doubt ever will). What medium carries the "flux"? Can you draw me a picture or make a simulation without using equations? I am not convinced that gravity can be explained by gravitons since gravitons must have their own fields. So you are using a particle to describe a field, but that particle must also have a field. What is the transport mechanism of a graviton's field? It makes more sense to visualize gravity and matter as distortions in space-time.

The crazy conundrums that I mentioned are unanswered questions created by QM and relativity. I'm sure that alternative theories would likely have their own unique set of conundrums and paradoxes as well. What is seriously missing in ALL the theories I've seen is an actual 'working physical model of reality', with pictures of what reality actually 'looks like' if you could zoom down to the Planck scale! Only then can we build real working computer simulations that truly emulate reality at a fundamental level (no fancy equations or ad hoc constants). As far as I know, foamy ether theory is the only theory that offers that!

Regards,

Peter

John A. Macken replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 05:46 GMT
Peter,

I agree with your criticism of gravitons. One of the erroneous assumptions that my essay attacks is that the gravitational force is transferred by gravitons. In fact, I show that there is a previously unknown mathematical relationship between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force. For a fundamental set of conditions, the equations for the gravitational force only differs from the electrostatic force equations by a square term. This insight supports the idea that these forces are closely related and not transferred by gravitons or virtual photons.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 18:20 GMT
Peter

You can imagine gravitons as cosmic rays that consist of relativistic protons. Such gravitons may not have their own fields and medium carries the "flux". On the other hand gravitons may be similar to photons and neutrinos. The model of photon as a particle see in: Fedosin S.G. Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 06:16 GMT
Hi  Peter

I read your essay with interest; I too spent much time thinking what constitutes matter and how it interacts with space and other matter.  The probability cloud of electron orbits in shapes of dumbbells, donuts and other weird geometric shapes is in concept as weird as gravitational singularities, thus other solutions should be found.

Your one substance paradigm I befriend, in essence I believe that space is structured and is the only substance. Every thing else is merely a vibration or disturbance of the space.

This I realised as there is only one mathematical equation that describes motion, and that is the wave equation, Thus everything breaks down to waves in space and Maxwell's equations.

Regards

Anton @  (  /topic/1458  )

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 18:09 GMT
Peter,

I really enjoyed your essay! You make a number of points that modern physicists would do well to appreciate:

1. Physics is more than mathematics. It's fine, and often necessary, to have difficult and intricate math in physical theories, but if you want your approach to work in the long run, the math should follow the ideas and make them precise, not the other way around. Any physical theory not based on a simple physical principle or hypothesis ought to be viewed with skepticism.

2. Single-substance paradigm. I'd be interested to know a bit more of your ideas about what the single substance should be. You might be interested in looking at my ideas on this in my essay here: On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics. I think that spacetime and matter-energy are two different (emergent) aspects of a single underlying structure, which is closely related to cause and effect.

3. Holism. This can arise in a variety of ways. I prefer to view it in a quantum sense, as classical versions seem to me to lead to weird things like multiple time dimensions. I think that quantum holism is inevitable, at least in the context of sums over histories, which make more sense to me as a fundamental idea than taking for granted Hilbert spaces, operator algebras, etc.

Take care,

Ben

report post as inappropriate

Peter Hahn replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 15:42 GMT
Benjamin,

Thanks for your input. Your essay is extremely interesting, however, beyond my mathematical understanding.

I agree with your point 1 "Physics is more than mathematics". A working physical model of reality is absolutely essential, but seriously lacking in QM and GR. I prefer using the bottom-up approach, which has allowed me to develop Foamy Ether Theory. This theory describes a single-substance paradigm and is based on an actual working physical model. (I'm confident that you will find it interesting.) Perhaps your "quantum circuits" could be applied in modeling foamy ether structure!

Cheers,

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter Hahn replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 15:48 GMT
Benjamin,

Looks like my link to Foamy Ether Theory is broken.

Here it is:

http://www3.telus.net/foamyether/

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 10:49 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:36 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

sava wrote on Dec. 28, 2012 @ 14:09 GMT
On my site I present new unified, final theory (ToE) of the Universe which proves that all physical phenomena - mass, electric charge, electric field, magnetic field, gravity and gravitational field - are consequences of changes in local pressure and density of the ether. Ether, which fills infinite space of the Universe, is enormously dense, and contains enormous energy. Theory calculates all experimentaly measured values on subatomic, atomic and cosmic level.

report post as inappropriate