Logically, say this is the moment called now, in 2010, a moment ago 2010 is gone, there is no evidence that it exists, still exists? Even another universe pathway would have to have a "now" and a "past"...so how does one monouvre onself into a domain that has not a single molecule?..there is no past in any Universe, every Universe that exists or is theorized to exist can only have a "now"?
Dear Georgina,
I read the different thread , it's interesting all these dicussions.
You say "I do not think there is a past, present or future domain, only 4 dimensional space."
I understand your model, but we have proof about our past dear Georgina the first amino acids, the first cells the differenciation animal vegetal, after the different step with fishs ....reptilians....mamalians ...in fact we have proofs dear Georgina, we have a line of time where we see the evolution and the complexification of the mass systems.
We can thus extrapolate correctly our future and act correctly in the present .
The space time is linked of course but relatively speaking and it's there people confounds about the walls and the globality or locality.
Our present is the same everywhere, only our perceptions is limited with the special relativity, all that was necessary for the perceptible locality and its intrinsic creations, simply.
Thus we can't confound the universal system of the space, the energy increases in a 3D system where the duration is, in the present, constant.
If we take the locomotion, the nutrition and the reproduction, which are bases of the evolution , the system and its duration must rest like it is simply.
If not the mass and its irreversibility aren't taken logically in this line time.
The globality and the locality are the same in the present ,were the same in the past and shall be the same in the future.
The energy thus is purely linked with the mas and the evolution where this mass increases near main centers in rotation, these spheres, cosmologicals and their intrinsic 3d evolution.The past was different in its mass but not in its duration in fact .
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 19, 2010 @ 12:52 GMT
Hello dear Georgina,
Thanks for your answer.
Yes indeed it's a past which is not at this present, and I admit thus we can just have a subjective analyze, but we can superimpose the real datas and thus have the real correlations of evolution.
In fact it's really the evolution and the complexification which appears for our mind.
When I classed a little of all, the taxonomy after a time needs the past analyze and there too we see the correct link with mass and differenciation by evolution.
When the referential of evolution of mass is respected, that becomes easier for the model extrapolated.
How can we have limits if the time constant of evolution is not inserted with its pure duration which permits the building, these polarisations since the begining.When matters have evolved due to thermodynamical parameters inside a sphere, we see the increases of mass .The time is a main piece, irreversible and constant.
Only the spacetime in its pure limit between the unknown and the reality, this mass , can be inserted with a pure link space and time.Only there in fact , we can't thus analyze the system in evolution like that.
The "spatial change" thus needs "time duration" for this complexification, evolutive of the mass.
Best Regards dear Georgina
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 19, 2010 @ 22:07 GMT
Dear Steve,
You asked how we should operate without inserting time. The answer to this is that we recognize there are two versions of reality that can be scientifically modeled, which are not the same. Both models of reality can be used without the need to assume that the other model must be wrong. One is a model of what exists. Such a model may be deduced from measurable interactions, theory and mathematical manipulations or intuition, logic and reason. It is a model of existential objective reality separate from experience. The other is a model of what we experience and observe. It is constructed from data obtained from that experience and those observations. This is science at the macroscopic scale, utilizing the scientific method and it gives a subjective reality model.
If time is a part of the model it is a subjective reality model. That does not in any way mean that it is wrong or not realistic. It fits what we can observe and deduce from those observations. This is a big part of science and how we comprehend the world and its development. However it is not the same as the objective material reality. The actual "stuff", continuously changing configuration, that exists unobservable in space. What it all is no one knows because we can not look at it and carefully examine it. It can be given a name or many different names for different types of detected interactions but that is not to really know it. It is giving it a label or many labels. If there is no detected interaction, then there is no evidence for something, but that is not the same as there being nothing there. Such a model may be a simplification of objective reality or it may be something totally different that just happens to work. Fitting expectations and giving reasonable answers. There is no way to prove that it is true.
If an objective reality model answers the foundational questions, is logically self consistent, mathematically sound (if mathematically described),and does not make impossible the basic physical laws that have been found via observation and have not been dis proven (via scientific method over a very long period of time), then it can be said to be a good objective reality model. That is not to say that it is what exists in objective reality but that the model is good, in itself, as a model.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 20, 2010 @ 03:47 GMT
Dear Steve,
Following on from my previous post. Having said that I think there should be two models for the two different realities I have not answered how to deal with objective reality without time.So here I go again....
I think that all we can be certain of with regard to objective reality is that it is continuously changing. So everything is a transition from one spatial...
view entire post
Dear Steve,
Following on from my previous post. Having said that I think there should be two models for the two different realities I have not answered how to deal with objective reality without time.So here I go again....
I think that all we can be certain of with regard to objective reality is that it is continuously changing. So everything is a transition from one spatial position to another, which may be regarded as exchange of an amount of energy. We can not say any particle or object is at point A or point B because it is never static but just passing through. I think it is reasonable to call it an elusive dynamic entity. It is a something changing its position in space. We can not have both A and B together in the model because either one of the points is considered to be in the future relative to the other ,which does not yet exist. Or one of the points is in the past relative to the other, which also does not exist. So we can not say where it is in objective reality.
We can though, by using vector dimensions, try to indicate change in position from somewhere to somewhere by giving direction, even though this is imprecise as the vector dimensions are not absolute. There is no time interval between A and B in the model because neither A or B can be given as its position and A and B can not be considered simultaneously.
As every change in spatial position can be considered exchange of an amount of energy each of the proposed 4 dimensions could be regarded as spatio-energetic. Without energy exchange there is no spatial change and without spatial change there is no energy exchange.It therefore does no matter which is considered energy or spatial change because there is an equivalence. Now even though time has been removed it still seems to me that 4 dimensions in the same orthogonal arrangement are required to account for the physics of the Universe and observation of gravity and experience of passage of time. I may be mistaken about this but I have not yet been convinced otherwise.
I can not claim that this is definitely the best approach but some thought has been given to what foundational elements are required in order to model this reality. Of course the dimensions themselves do not exist as objective features of the universe but are a tool to enable a description of what is going on.I have continued to review and improve upon the idea partly as a result of talking about it on this site. I am much clearer about what should and should not be included and why. It seems to me without a structure the description and predictive possibilities are more limited. Though perhaps it would be more realistic and possibly honest to admit that- the unknowable something is just changing indescribably in an unsee able and unknowable other version of the reality that we experience. That is the nub of the problem for science. Science has delved right up to that philosophical and religious territory where the scientific method can no longer be relied upon to provide "scientifically objective" irrefutable answers. It is likely no coincidence that the Templeton foundation is patron of FQXi.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 20, 2010 @ 04:39 GMT
Perhaps there is a lot we cannot see, experience, or detect because we have relied upon electric charge to reach as far as it can reach, either as photons from space or as the quarks which make up hadrons.
It is unknown whether or not we will ever have a chance to work with more exotic kinds of charges with higher permitivities and permeabilities. If we could, perhaps we could indeed probe down to fractions of a Planck constant.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 20, 2010 @ 05:26 GMT
Steve, All,
The connection between strings, branes, objective reality space, relativity and space-time.
Following on from my previous replies to Steve. Considering the proposed model of objective reality. Each version of the objective reality is represented as existing in 3D space alone, not space time. For the reasons previously given. There therefore must be a sequence of depictions of the objective reality because it is constantly changing and needs to depict those changes. These can be imagined as pages or layers of 3D space not space -time. A stack of these layers will give 4D space.It can not be represented on a single 3D space sheet.
If these are imagined to be transparent one can imagine seeing the paths that the particles or elusive dynamic entities have taken through the pages or sheets. Though they are not in any of those positions now. Those paths may be reminiscent of strings. Although the strings themselves have no objective reality. It only exists in the sheet currently occupied, the other spatial positions have been vacated. The direction the particles or ED entities have taken from one sheet to the next does not exist within the space of any sheet and is not time as there is no time in this model. It is a spatial change from one 3D space to another but is responsible for the perception of time within subjective reality and forms the time dimension of the space-time construct used within relativity.
There is continuous change in position from one layer to the next, which I have called moving afore or afore-wards. It is not any direction within a 3D space. This change may be regarded as a loss of Universal potential energy. This occurs even if something does not change position within a single 3D space sheet. So nothing is stationary. This is the direction of movement of all macroscopic material and the usual direction for sub atomic particles although they can move in the opposite direction too. This will account for why there are more electrons detected than positrons, which according to Feynman can be regarded as electrons moving backwards in time.If energy is input a particle may move in the other direction aft-wards. It has not moved in time though because there is no time only space. There is afore space and aft space and there is (now)space.
Each objective space can be considered a spherical layer of a hypersphere, so there is a sequence of nested 3d space spheres. This is the structure that I have been calling the 4D Mega universe. It has space alone with no time.It is without time. This is proposed not because the space -time continuum is incorrect but because it is a model of the reality of experience, which is different.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 20, 2010 @ 06:40 GMT
Hi Georgina,
Why do we need such a model?
You said, "There is continuous change in position from one layer to the next, which I have called moving afore or afore-wards. It is not any direction within a 3D space. This change may be regarded as a loss of Universal potential energy. "
What is this model supposed to tell us?
Positrons moving backwards in time can't be right because they would allow us to see the future, which doesn't happen.
To better understand time, you have to understand how such phenomena would be used and abused. If someone really could see the future, they would buy lottery tickets and become rich. If they could change the past, they would probably undo stupid mistakes, or perhaps even invest in Intel decades before their stock soared. We don't see either of those abuses. The idea that we have muddled ideas about time, therefore requiring a new model, only leads to more confusion. Sorry for being blunt. But these kinds of phenomena are just too easy to understand.
Time is very simple. Another spatial dimension of energy is not.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 20, 2010 @ 08:20 GMT
Hi dear Georgina and Jason,
Dear Georgina,
It's interesting all that.
You have a beautiful perception of the universal dynamic.
I think you see the Planck scale and the limit between the unknown and the physicality.
Now of course is it a reason to insert these laws in the generality and the globality, I don't know.
I amit your model is intriguing about the universal recycling of energy.
The Ec and Ep are relevants in this line of reasoning indeed.
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 20, 2010 @ 10:41 GMT
Jason ,
Several things you asked.
Why do we need this model? Because relativity can not be reconciled with quantum mechanics without comprehension of how the two different views may each be different perspectives of the one reality. One version of the reality is our experience of the universe and the other is an attempt to model the existential reality. Neither version of reality is...
view entire post
Jason ,
Several things you asked.
Why do we need this model? Because relativity can not be reconciled with quantum mechanics without comprehension of how the two different views may each be different perspectives of the one reality. One version of the reality is our experience of the universe and the other is an attempt to model the existential reality. Neither version of reality is more real but they are different aspects of the same thing.There are also unanswered foundational questions that this model can help to explain.
The model is supposed to tell us that particles and matter move through 4 dimensional space not just 3. It is the same story but one version is written out on individual space pages which allows change to be incorporated into the model and the other is all together on one space-time page but doesn't show exactly what is going on. Space-time clearly shows our observed reality and spatio- temporal separation of objects and relativity. But it does not give a reason for time to pass. It is a static model of space and time. Looking at the pages stacked together in this kind of objective reality model it may be possible to model the progress of waves of disturbance through the 4 dimensions of space rather than just within 3. It can show how this progression or transition gives rise to the physics that we observe, EM waves, forces and physics of material objects.
The space-time model does not show time passing it is static. Sitting here, what was my future has become my present and what was my present has become the past. Or I can imagine a direction of travel in time of myself from the past into the future. Within the space-time model I am still in the same space -time. On the same page. It is counterintuitive but the model which incorporates time does not clearly show time passing and the model without time does show how time be perceived to pass as we go from page to page through 4 dimensional space.
Each page of space in the model is 3 dimensional so the direction that leads from one page to the next must be orthogonal to it and a direction that can not be pointed to from within 3D space. We have talked at length before about where this dimension is. The best that can be said, since the dimension does not exist upon a single space page at all, is that it runs from the exterior surface at every point on the object to the interior center of gravity of that object. Extending from aft space to each point on the surface and into afore space from the center of gravity. The object itself being like a vortex with the interior being ahead in 4 dimensional space than the exterior. This in in keeping with time dilation within an object within the space-time model. So as the object moves from one page to the next the exterior will take up the spatial position along the 4th dimension that was occupied by the interior. This direction of change in position can then account for the force of gravity which is not entirely satisfactorily explained by the space -time model alone.
Re the positrons. Nothing travels in time Jason, because time is not an objective reality, imo. Nothing can travel back from the future so there is no way to see the future. It is just something that can be imagined. It is not a place. Afore-space is not the future. It is just more space, as is aft space. The discovery of Feynman in 1940 was that -according to the the space-time description- a positron moving forward in time is exactly the same path as an electron moving backwards in time. I have assumed that the other way around would also be the same as I assumed that the implication of this was that these particles are equivalent particles but moving in opposite directions.Is this incorrect? I am sorry you found the ideas I have suggested confusing. I have tried my best to explain them. Understanding ones experience of time is simple but modeling how it can arise from a purely physical mechanism is trickier.
All,
I did say that both a and B can not be incorporated into the model but it has occurred to me that perhaps they can be placed between the layers of space. Even though there is no gap between the layers, as it is all just one space in objective reality. It would just mean that A and B are not points or locations in space at which a particle can be said to be located. But within space (a page) the particle is always in transition between points.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 20, 2010 @ 10:58 GMT
Dear Steve,
thank you for your reply. I am so glad that you can appreciate what I have been trying to encapsulate. I can not claim that it is the best way to model this but it is my own attempt to show that it can be done. It allows for both relativity and another QM type model to both be correct but representing different versions of the same reality. As well as showing a way in which some foundational questions might be answered.
I imagine that within the 4 dimensions of space is a chaotic sea of activity. "Particles" can pass through 3D space pages in either direction so appear and disappear as well as moving across 3D space as they progress afore. This can account for so called virtual particles appearing and disapearing within space-time.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 20, 2010 @ 17:17 GMT
Dear Georgina,
You are welcome, with pleasure.
If the appears and disappears , what are the tow main referentials and the link Ec Ep .....onje chaotic and one harmonious ?
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 20, 2010 @ 21:46 GMT
Steve,
you ask about Ec and Ep. I think that means the energy of light and potential energy. Please correct mean if you are thinking of some other meaning for those terms.
In objective reality there is no speed as there is no time. Things are also just always going somewhere from somewhere but never just are somewhere. The speed of light refers to our space-time experience of light. When traveling along the 4th dimension material objects particles and even light just appears in the new space. It arrives on the new page not from somewhere else on that page of 3D space but from an orientation that can not be described from within 3D space. It is the angle of trajectory or ratio of distances ( change in position across 3d space divided by change in position along 4th dimension) of the light that is constant rather than its speed. That is why c is a constant in space-time relativity, imo. The 4th dimensional component whereby light arrives in space means on the one hand it is instantaneous but it can at the same time be spreading out across space as on each new page its 3D spatial position has moved. That is the what is measured as the speed of light in 3D space, imo.
Loss of Potential energy takes an object closer to a gravitationally attracting mass which has a more afore-wards spatial position. Also called gravitational attraction. This is change in position along the 4th spatial dimension on top of that change that would occur without such attraction. Because it is acting along the 4th dimension not just through space it will act instantaneously but the observation will be of an object progressing through 3 D space towards the ground which can be measured and given a speed. That speed does not apply to objective reality it comes down to a fixed trajectory giving a constant.
So the connection of the constant of gravity and the constant of light speed is both have a fixed rather than variable trajectory or ratio of distances. That is the change in position across 3D space divided by the change in position along the 4th dimension. Gravitational attraction brings matter together into bigger and more complex structures and light permits us to observe that phenomenon in space. Though what is observed is not the same as what exists materially in objective reality rather than that observed space.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 21, 2010 @ 10:11 GMT
Hello dear Georgina,
It's a beautiful explaination of your model spatio temporal.
I say me that the evolution implies a changement of mass and thus the gravitational constant needs approximations.
I say me too that the motion implies the duration, thus the rotations implying mass.
Thus of course I have difficulties to imagine this system without this motion thus without this mass....even the preception due to the light is in this logic but probably with an other main sense of rotation for the linearity.
Now if we analyze without this motion, that implies a very big difficulty to see the correct evolution of the mass, because like you say indeed in this logic the time do not exist , but the mass also dear Georgina in this line of reasoning.
An other point correlated with my model is the rotation around the center of our Universal sphere.....there also that implies confusions.
If the constant duration is not inserted with the evolution, I think it's more difficult.
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 21, 2010 @ 16:48 GMT
Steve ,
thank you again. It did occur to me that my explanation to you was flawed. So I must correct that. The speed of light is constant but gravity has a constant acceleration. Therefore light has constant trajectory in objective reality and and the gravitationally attracted object constant -change- in trajectory. However the most important point in all that previous post ,imo, is that it shows how a force can act instantaneously but still be measured to have speed or acceleration. Which has been a big puzzle for science. Newton can be said to be correct but also those whose see the force as non instantaneous. It depends which version of reality one is referring to. It is often said that _ nothing can act faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, because Einstein said so. So instantaneous action is possible. He is correct but when talking about action occurring across 3D space.Using this model it cab be seen that both light and gravity act along the 4th dimension.
With regard to the difficulty of comprehending one reality in terms of the other.It is my opinion that the reason the foundational questions have remained unanswered for so long has been because of the fixed way of thinking about ideas such as motion and time. Although the objective reality model is required to answer those questions, it does not mean that the subjective reality of time operating and things having speed etc is not also correct. It is just a different viewpoint of the same physics.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 02:23 GMT
That should have read ...nothing can act faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, because Einstein said so. He is correct but when talking about action occurring across 3D space. Using this model it can be seen that both light and gravity act along the 4th dimension. So instantaneous action is possible without disagreeing with Einstein.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 06:40 GMT
Georgina,
I just found your post. Pages in a book method is easy to understand. I can understand page t, t+ delta t, and so on.
You said, "Loss of Potential energy takes an object closer to a gravitationally attracting mass which has a more afore-wards spatial position. "
I was thinking about dark energy and gravity. Every fermion and bozon has a tiny contribution to gravity. Perhaps you might find my analogy odd, but it was you who gave me the idea. Every particle in the universe has a tiny gravitational attraction. This is the same as saying that every particle in the universe removes space from the universe. It is almost as if these particles are leaks in the universe. The drainage of space from the universe manifests as gravitational accereration.
I have to go. I'll explain more later.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 09:18 GMT
Georgine,
Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all space and causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate.
In the Einstein equations, the Cosmological constant is used to quantify the expansion of the universe in such a way as to be a kind of anti-gravity. In fact, Λ = 8πρvac; that means that the cosmological constant is proportional to a vacuum density. The vacuum density refers to the zero point energy from virtual particles.
What is space? Space is a density of virtual particles. When the density increases, the cosmological constant increases and causes the universe to expand; the amount of space added to the universe increases. From the Einstein equations, we notice that the Cosmological constant works against gravity. Therefore, gravity is the contraction of the universe, and effectively the removal of space from the universe.
Do you agree?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 23, 2010 @ 03:08 GMT
Jason ,
I am afraid I can not say that I do agree. Firstly because I do not think there is expansion of the universe in existential material reality. I am aware that observations have been made and interpreted as showing expansion of the universe but the image observed and interpreted is not the existental universe that exists now.
If you develop a hyperspace craft you will be traveling into unseen space that exists now. Not just across 3D space but afore and aft too. If you travel far enough from earth, or if you travel into afore or aft space, you will encounter previously unobserved structures. That is because you will not be traveling back in time into the "false" image of the universe that we have constructed. You will be blind, as we are, to what exists in the universe now- until you encounter it.(Sounds a bit scary!)
Secondly I do not think the cosmological constant is a property of the existential material universe but is a fudge factor necessary to fit cosmological observations to what has been assumed to be happening using a space-time model.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 23, 2010 @ 03:41 GMT
Jason,
just to calarify (or rather confuse but correct) what I just said .
I said "you will be traveling into unseen space that exists now." I meant to say unseen space -with the material configurations- that exist now.
Only by the time you have built you craft and got there it will be a different now with different spatial configurations. Though still will not be the material structures shown in the images produced from cosmological observation.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 23, 2010 @ 04:33 GMT
Jason,
Perhaps this is a better way of explaining what I mean. When I look at a book of maps or large map chart it shows (if fairly recent edition) what exists now in terms of geographic boundaries, roads, buildings etc. It does not, travelling out from my position, show what used to exist, getting further into the past the further away form my location on the map. However that is what a map of the universe shows.
We do not have a map, more like the sort of maps we usually use, where it shows the spatial arrangement of things -now- rather than within space-time. We perceive, via interpretation of EM radiation that has been detected, configurations of matter spread over time and space. That is what has been mapped, but is not existential material reality now. It is a subjective perspective.
All particle interactions are happening in "now space" that we do not have a map of, not in space-time
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 23, 2010 @ 17:13 GMT
Hi dear Geargina,Jason,all,
I Forgot to answer you Georgina, sometimes we loose the thread.Hiihihi
Thanks for your answers.
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 23, 2010 @ 20:47 GMT
Hi Georgina,
You said, "Firstly because I do not think there is expansion of the universe in existential material reality."
The Cosmological term in the Einstein equation is treated like an anti gravity term. Whether or not the universe is expanding or contracting is unclear. But if it were, then we could use that equation to describe it. I'm trying to figure out how to model an anti gravity propulsion engine out of it.
You said,"If you develop a hyperspace craft you will be traveling into unseen space that exists now. " The way I approach the hyper-drive physics is that a space-craft that is entering hyper-space will also, in a sense, be transitioned from our universe-lattice to a hyper-space lattice. The hyper-space lattice has to tolerate a "bubble" of space-time, something to put the spaceship/crew/cargo inside of; we don't want them to disintegrate.
In a sense, they would be flying blind with respect to the standard universe (our universe); they wouldn't even notice gravity from moons, planets, suns, etc. They are allowed to stop and take a peek inside of space-time to look around and make sure there's not a planet or black nearby. Navigation will probably require some very sophisticated computer modeling. Alpha Centuri looked like it was over there, from earth. Somebody can figure out where it actually is.
While traveling around hyperspace, there is hyper-space light, charges, galaxies, etc. Light requires less energy to signal; it also signals faster. Coulomb charges are much stronger and hold their molecules much tighter; but energy is managed more efficiently in the form of mass. In other words, it takes a lot less energy to move things around, m=E/c'2.I can explain these last ideas by pointing to various equations and substituting c' for c, where c' >> c.
Transitioning the space-ship and its space-time into hyperspace is the hard part.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 23, 2010 @ 23:37 GMT
Hi Jason,
I understand what you are saying you want to do with the cosmological constant . However if it is just a factor that has to be input to make theoretical space time fit with interpretation of observations, it relates to the subjective experience of the universe and its models and is not a part of the existential material universe within 4 dimensions of space that you will be operating in. imo. I consider it a dead end route because of that. Though of course you are free to take what ever avenues you choose.
You said "Navigation will probably require some very sophisticated computer modeling. Alpha Centuri looked like it was over there, from earth. Somebody can figure out where it actually is." You make it sound so easy!
I am of course biased in my opinion because I have been thinking about the objective reality of space for a long time. It is my opinion that you will need to think about what actually exists materially, rather than clinging to the space-time concept and theoretical extrapolations from that model, that just do not apply to the objective reality of space and hyperspace, afore and aft not future and past. I say that not to be unkind or dismissive of the thought you have put into this project but to be helpful by pointing you in what I consider, in my biased but honest opinion, to be the correct direction.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies