If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

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.

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*

read/discuss • winners

**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.

read/discuss • winners

**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

read/discuss • winners

**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*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Eugeniu Alexandrescu**: *on* 10/4/12 at 12:14pm UTC, wrote By looking at your average rating, I just don't really understand why you...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/4/12 at 5:43am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

**Eugeniu Alexandrescu**: *on* 10/3/12 at 18:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Ben, Thank you for the hints, especially for the one about Amanda...

**Benjamin Dribus**: *on* 10/2/12 at 22:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Eugeniu, You present some interesting ideas here. A few thoughts...

**Eugeniu Alexandrescu**: *on* 10/2/12 at 9:48am UTC, wrote Thank you very much! My deadline is tomorrow. Good luck to you, too. ...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/2/12 at 8:29am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

**Hoang Hai**: *on* 9/19/12 at 15:47pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 9/17/12 at 12:24pm UTC, wrote Eugeniu Thanks. The rotating plane model initially emerged from varying...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**akash hasan**: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..."
*in* Announcing Physics of the...

**Jorma Seppaenen**: "I find this very interesting topic. I am just a amateur enthusiast of..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

**Michael Jordan**: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Anonymous**: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..."
*in* Constructing a Theory of...

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

**Hanvi jobs**: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**Robert McEachern**: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**James Putnam**: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..."
*in* Black Hole Photographed...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**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.

**Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes**

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

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.

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

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.

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.

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi FORUM

May 24, 2019

CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]

TOPIC: From Minkowski's Diagram to the Multispace Model of the Universe by Eugeniu Alexandrescu [refresh]

TOPIC: From Minkowski's Diagram to the Multispace Model of the Universe by Eugeniu Alexandrescu [refresh]

One wrong assumption may be our belief that we live in a unique spacetime continuum. The Multispace Model advances the hypothesis that the universe is a multispace world, filled with countless independent and overlapping spaces. The model is based on the author's discovery of a 3D Space-Time Diagram (3DSD) of special relativity, which he introduces to the reader following a series of hypothetical hints left by Minkowski. The author wouldn't tell if the famous mathematician really left these hints for posterity. It's up to you to decide. The Multispace Model introduces the reader to several hypotheses. Reference frames of special relativity are independent physical spaces, hypothesis that confirms Minkowski's 1908 declaration that the world is composed of an infinite number of spaces. The model also leads us believe that space and time may not be the most basic constituents of reality. Some spaces, like those holding fundamental particles, are relativistically orthogonal to the space of the universe and therefore invisible to us. This prediction explains quantum spaces as real frameworks embedded in the universe, but physically separated from it. Spaces holding nested spaces (think of an atom) are visible, while gravity appears to be a force not of attraction but of repulsion, a cosmic pressure.

Eugeniu Alexandrescu is founder and president of Convergétics Research Center he started in 2002. The Center is an interdisciplinary research company that aims to study various aspects of the surrounding world and to synthesize them into a coherent and convergent model of reality.

Dear Eugeniu,

The problems in your essay about quantum spaces really important for the physics. Please see my essay and Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter in which no problem with different types of spaces. First of all particles can not be treated as points (see also Scale dimension ). The singularities and black holes in Universe are absent. There is possible substantional models...

view entire post

The problems in your essay about quantum spaces really important for the physics. Please see my essay and Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter in which no problem with different types of spaces. First of all particles can not be treated as points (see also Scale dimension ). The singularities and black holes in Universe are absent. There is possible substantional models...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sergey,

Thanks for your opinion on this essay.

Basically, I agree with you to disregard the Big Bang model, but not the existence of singularities and black holes that you consider "as objects, absorbing any substance and not giving anything out." I will post my comments on the forum page of your essay.

In Endnote 6 you find an explanation of Fig 2, but because of the limited space I had to cut several details. Please let me know if we want to get the whole text.

For your second question, I didn't explore other possibilities since in Minkowski's diagram the x' and t' axes approach the light path. (In special relativity, the bisector of the xOt-angle is called the "light path," because when v=c the two axes x' and t' are superimposed.)

My scope is to demonstrate that Minkowski's original diagram is just a partial view of the 3DSD, the later showing the "whole picture.'' This means that trying to rotate plane P' around other axes would have obscured my point.

Regards,

Eugeniu

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your opinion on this essay.

Basically, I agree with you to disregard the Big Bang model, but not the existence of singularities and black holes that you consider "as objects, absorbing any substance and not giving anything out." I will post my comments on the forum page of your essay.

In Endnote 6 you find an explanation of Fig 2, but because of the limited space I had to cut several details. Please let me know if we want to get the whole text.

For your second question, I didn't explore other possibilities since in Minkowski's diagram the x' and t' axes approach the light path. (In special relativity, the bisector of the xOt-angle is called the "light path," because when v=c the two axes x' and t' are superimposed.)

My scope is to demonstrate that Minkowski's original diagram is just a partial view of the 3DSD, the later showing the "whole picture.'' This means that trying to rotate plane P' around other axes would have obscured my point.

Regards,

Eugeniu

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eugeniu,

Lorentz transformations from the mathematical point of view are transformations of coordinates and time of frame 1 to coordinates and time of frame 2, which are rotation of coordinate systems. For x and t it is rotation of plain in space. But axis u is not really perpendicular to the plane xOt. So we can determine orientation of plane P` with the help of two rotation. I supposed that in Figure 2 axis u is perpendicular to the plane xOt, in this case there is second rotation is necessary. In any case orientation of axis u depends only on coefficients of transformations, which depend themselves on speed and Lorentz factor.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

Lorentz transformations from the mathematical point of view are transformations of coordinates and time of frame 1 to coordinates and time of frame 2, which are rotation of coordinate systems. For x and t it is rotation of plain in space. But axis u is not really perpendicular to the plane xOt. So we can determine orientation of plane P` with the help of two rotation. I supposed that in Figure 2 axis u is perpendicular to the plane xOt, in this case there is second rotation is necessary. In any case orientation of axis u depends only on coefficients of transformations, which depend themselves on speed and Lorentz factor.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sergey,

In fact, axis u is really perpendicular on observer's plane P. I agree that this confusion is caused by my drawing, and I think the best way would be to see the detailed explanation of the 3D Space-Time Diagram.

Note that at the top of the Web page you should see a slide show with plane P' rotated in four successive positions. You can pause or stop the slide show as you wish. If you don't see it, either Java is not running and you need to enable it, or AdBlock or a similar program blocks Java and you have to disable them on this page.

Regards,

Eugeniu

In fact, axis u is really perpendicular on observer's plane P. I agree that this confusion is caused by my drawing, and I think the best way would be to see the detailed explanation of the 3D Space-Time Diagram.

Note that at the top of the Web page you should see a slide show with plane P' rotated in four successive positions. You can pause or stop the slide show as you wish. If you don't see it, either Java is not running and you need to enable it, or AdBlock or a similar program blocks Java and you have to disable them on this page.

Regards,

Eugeniu

Dear Eugeniu,

For travelling of energy and matter in the Universe black holes are not needed. You can see some arguments about impossibility of black holes in the article Covariant theory of gravitation.

About the expanding of the Earth see the news New Study Shows Earth Is Staying The Same Size. My full answer to your other questions is at my discussion page of essay.

The slide show 3D Space-Time Diagram is working good enough. But the length of time vector t` must be close to zero when the speed of motion is close to the speed of light. So there is necessary second rotation of the plane P`.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

For travelling of energy and matter in the Universe black holes are not needed. You can see some arguments about impossibility of black holes in the article Covariant theory of gravitation.

About the expanding of the Earth see the news New Study Shows Earth Is Staying The Same Size. My full answer to your other questions is at my discussion page of essay.

The slide show 3D Space-Time Diagram is working good enough. But the length of time vector t` must be close to zero when the speed of motion is close to the speed of light. So there is necessary second rotation of the plane P`.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sergey,

I followed your link to redOrbit:

> "Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.

Yeah... Right! Remember Climategate? These NASA scientists must be friends or they just learned from the CRU people. Since they didn't know how to explain that the Earth temperature started to decrease, CRU scientists "fixed" the data to still show warming. Smart guys, isn't it? Well... until the Climategate. Same thing now with this NASA study. If Wu and his team admit Earth's expansion, they would need to explain it. But they have no idea. And nobody does inside the concept of a unique space. It is only my black & white holes theory that provides a hypothesis. But this is not proved yet either. So they better say Earth isn't growing.

But Wu was smart, because he added at the end "... within current measurement uncertainties," which would exonerate him in case somebody finds out that Earth is still expanding.

> "... the length of time vector t' must be close to zero when the speed of motion is close to the speed of light."

In fact, t'=0 means that seen from the observer in P it dilates to become infinite, or if you want eternal. And a particle in an orthogonal space does exactly that: it appears to an observer as dimensionless and eternal, which is the reason why, with some exceptions, first generation matter is said to be stable, i.e. last forever. Length contraction and time dilation are well known consequences of the Lorentz transformations.

I followed your link to redOrbit:

> "Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.

Yeah... Right! Remember Climategate? These NASA scientists must be friends or they just learned from the CRU people. Since they didn't know how to explain that the Earth temperature started to decrease, CRU scientists "fixed" the data to still show warming. Smart guys, isn't it? Well... until the Climategate. Same thing now with this NASA study. If Wu and his team admit Earth's expansion, they would need to explain it. But they have no idea. And nobody does inside the concept of a unique space. It is only my black & white holes theory that provides a hypothesis. But this is not proved yet either. So they better say Earth isn't growing.

But Wu was smart, because he added at the end "... within current measurement uncertainties," which would exonerate him in case somebody finds out that Earth is still expanding.

> "... the length of time vector t' must be close to zero when the speed of motion is close to the speed of light."

In fact, t'=0 means that seen from the observer in P it dilates to become infinite, or if you want eternal. And a particle in an orthogonal space does exactly that: it appears to an observer as dimensionless and eternal, which is the reason why, with some exceptions, first generation matter is said to be stable, i.e. last forever. Length contraction and time dilation are well known consequences of the Lorentz transformations.

Dear Eugeniu,

I hope you agree that the matter at the Earth is made of nucleons mostly. The same is true for substance of neutron star. We do not say in the case about quantum fields as a source of the substance. Instead of it we explain big object with the help of small particles. And the same is supposed for any real particles including nuons or praons. All the particles are made again of particles which are much more small.

You say about a particle in an orthogonal space does exactly that: it appears to an observer as dimensionless and eternal, which is the reason why, with some exceptions, first generation matter is said to be stable. In my mind the postulate about constancy of speed of light and the Lorentz transformation are result of convention. In reality the absolute speed of light in one-way experiment may be another. See for example: Metric theory of relativity.

So it is hard to deduce right ideas about matter on the base of conventional Lorentz kinematics.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

I hope you agree that the matter at the Earth is made of nucleons mostly. The same is true for substance of neutron star. We do not say in the case about quantum fields as a source of the substance. Instead of it we explain big object with the help of small particles. And the same is supposed for any real particles including nuons or praons. All the particles are made again of particles which are much more small.

You say about a particle in an orthogonal space does exactly that: it appears to an observer as dimensionless and eternal, which is the reason why, with some exceptions, first generation matter is said to be stable. In my mind the postulate about constancy of speed of light and the Lorentz transformation are result of convention. In reality the absolute speed of light in one-way experiment may be another. See for example: Metric theory of relativity.

So it is hard to deduce right ideas about matter on the base of conventional Lorentz kinematics.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

Eugeniu,

I was increasingly aghast as I read your attack on the heart of established physics. But what really made me shake my head was towards the end when you left reality behind and wrote that these different spaces are 'invisible' and;

"Different from visible spaces, which have a physical existence within the space of the universe, orthogonal spaces, while physically embedded in...

view entire post

I was increasingly aghast as I read your attack on the heart of established physics. But what really made me shake my head was towards the end when you left reality behind and wrote that these different spaces are 'invisible' and;

"Different from visible spaces, which have a physical existence within the space of the universe, orthogonal spaces, while physically embedded in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

Thanks for your comments. I have downloaded your essay and put it on the list that I am going to read.

> "You may note that Fig 3 of my essay bears a passing resemblance to the inclining plane of your nicely interpolated Minkowski one."

Yes, I agree there is a resemblance, but it's only superficial. The two explanations of the diagrams are completely unrelated, which makes all the difference...

Best regards and wishes.

Good luck in the contest.

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your comments. I have downloaded your essay and put it on the list that I am going to read.

> "You may note that Fig 3 of my essay bears a passing resemblance to the inclining plane of your nicely interpolated Minkowski one."

Yes, I agree there is a resemblance, but it's only superficial. The two explanations of the diagrams are completely unrelated, which makes all the difference...

Best regards and wishes.

Good luck in the contest.

Eugeniu

Thanks. The rotating plane model initially emerged from varying incident angles of refraction and the KRR I discuss briefly in the essay. There I use it as the proof that standard vectors analysis is nonsense and a concept of optical axis is required to conserve causality. i.e. Observed 'Light paths' are not normal to causal planes or Schrodinger sphere surfaces. Even the...

view entire post

Thanks. The rotating plane model initially emerged from varying incident angles of refraction and the KRR I discuss briefly in the essay. There I use it as the proof that standard vectors analysis is nonsense and a concept of optical axis is required to conserve causality. i.e. Observed 'Light paths' are not normal to causal planes or Schrodinger sphere surfaces. Even the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close...

view entire post

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

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

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eugeniu,

You present some interesting ideas here. A few thoughts come to mind.

1. I agree that frames of reference should not be equated with coordinate systems.

2. Amanda Gefter has written an interesting essay here called “Cosmic Solipsism.” This view is somewhat similar to your statement that different frames of reference are independent spaces, since each observer has his/her own frame of reference in relativity. You might be interested in reading it.

3. Another hint of “multispaces” in standard physics is Feynman’s sum-over-histories version of quantum theory. This hint arises in the following way: in his 1948 paper Feynman discussed summing over particle trajectories in Euclidean spacetime and thereby recovered “standard” quantum theory, with its Hilbert spaces, operator algebras, Schrodinger equation, etc. Feynman was able to take all the trajectories to be in the same space because he was working with a background-dependent model, meaning that the ambient Euclidean space was assumed to be unaffected by the particle moving in it.

Now, if general relativity has taught us anything, it is that “spacetime” and “matter-energy” interact, so different particle trajectories mean different spacetimes. Hence, in a background-independent treatment, Feynman’s sum over histories should become a sum over independent spaces, with a different space corresponding to each particle trajectory. His original version should be viewed as a limiting case in which the effect of the particle on the spacetime is very small.

However, it would really be more correct to retain the independent spaces even in the limit… so some form of multispace model seems absolutely necessary for quantum theory!

I enjoyed reading your essay! Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

You present some interesting ideas here. A few thoughts come to mind.

1. I agree that frames of reference should not be equated with coordinate systems.

2. Amanda Gefter has written an interesting essay here called “Cosmic Solipsism.” This view is somewhat similar to your statement that different frames of reference are independent spaces, since each observer has his/her own frame of reference in relativity. You might be interested in reading it.

3. Another hint of “multispaces” in standard physics is Feynman’s sum-over-histories version of quantum theory. This hint arises in the following way: in his 1948 paper Feynman discussed summing over particle trajectories in Euclidean spacetime and thereby recovered “standard” quantum theory, with its Hilbert spaces, operator algebras, Schrodinger equation, etc. Feynman was able to take all the trajectories to be in the same space because he was working with a background-dependent model, meaning that the ambient Euclidean space was assumed to be unaffected by the particle moving in it.

Now, if general relativity has taught us anything, it is that “spacetime” and “matter-energy” interact, so different particle trajectories mean different spacetimes. Hence, in a background-independent treatment, Feynman’s sum over histories should become a sum over independent spaces, with a different space corresponding to each particle trajectory. His original version should be viewed as a limiting case in which the effect of the particle on the spacetime is very small.

However, it would really be more correct to retain the independent spaces even in the limit… so some form of multispace model seems absolutely necessary for quantum theory!

I enjoyed reading your essay! Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ben,

Thank you for the hints, especially for the one about Amanda Gefter. I let her know about that.

I will go right now to rate your essay, which I appreciated, but didn't left any comment thinking that with 200 post you already had a lot to answer. But since every vote can make a winner, it's not the same thing for the rating, so I'll do it.

So I hope you keep the first place and win the contest, 'cause you deserve it!

Good luck.

Gene Alexandrescu

Thank you for the hints, especially for the one about Amanda Gefter. I let her know about that.

I will go right now to rate your essay, which I appreciated, but didn't left any comment thinking that with 200 post you already had a lot to answer. But since every vote can make a winner, it's not the same thing for the rating, so I'll do it.

So I hope you keep the first place and win the contest, 'cause you deserve it!

Good luck.

Gene Alexandrescu

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 [equation] and [equation] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [equation] of points. After it anyone give you [equation] of points so you have [equation] of points and [equation] is the common quantity of the people which gave...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

By looking at your average rating, I just don't really understand why you put all this time to write me this post, when it is quite obvious that none of us would be among the first 35 anyway...

But I noticed that our ratings are not instantly updated to change the average rating of the contestant, so probably you got several ratings between the updates. Don't forget that we all give our ratings these days...

But I noticed that our ratings are not instantly updated to change the average rating of the contestant, so probably you got several ratings between the updates. Don't forget that we all give our ratings these days...

Login or create account to post reply or comment.