Quote: "We already assumed that there was nothing else in the box, so when the photons are gone, you really have NOTHING. Again: E=(1/2+n)h_bar w What's the catch?"
Here is where you lost me in your argument. The solutions to the Schroedinger equation for the harmonic oscillator potential are solvable irrespective of the presence or absence of photons to occupy the levels.
If there is NOTHING in the box, you set n to zero.
E=(1/2+0)h_bar w
which gives you: E=(1/2)h_bar w
In other words the energy of the box does not become zero when you get rid of all the photons, the box still has some energy, given by the above quantity. This energy is called the "zero point energy" or the energy of fluctuations of the vacuum. Quantum Foam.
Now... how can something emerge from nothing? A kind of 'what came first, the chicken or the egg' type question.
Just to give context to this, I was in a debate with a very, very smart Quantum physicist about the philosophy of NOTHING. (Physics is the philosophy of Buddhism in action. Amazing parallels.)
Anyway, we were discussing how things 'got started,' and this of course brought up the discussion of the Big Bang... and how QM can only trace back to within a nanosecond (actually a smaller amount, but I forget what that number is...) of the Big Bang actually occuring... at which point, all known laws of physics break down... so the Big Bang remains a theory, rather than a provable thing. Now before you go off discussing all the other theories that have emerged to explain this very small (but very significant) amount of time... that wasn't the gist of the discussion.
Because we weren't discussing HOW it all happened, but WHY. And my point was NOTHING is actually far more significant, to me, than anyone gives it credit. It is what allows for something. For in the absence of NOTHING, all you have is SOMETHING. And in my mind, the reason you cannot get back to zero starting point is because you are pursuing the wrong angel. There is NO starting point, for time and space did NOT exist until ROOM was created for it to exist.
Meaning... I don't think the miracle of the universe is all the 'stuff' in it... the galaxies, the gases, the stars, the super novas, etc., etc... the miracle of the universe to me... what was created... was the 'space' for it to be.
Meaning... if you were God... and you were the ALL OF EVERYTHING, everything that IS... and you know that... how then do you experience that? Well... at this very simple point, the only way for you to experience that which you are... is to become that which you are not. Some people call that 'division.' But how can you divide if all there is... is SOMETHING? How does one gain perspective between here and there, this and that?
How can energy do its thing without NOTHING?
That 'foam' in the vaccum cannot BE without the vaccum, or that would be ALL that there is. My friend was trying to show me that there is no such thing as absolute NOTHING... because "Nothingness" has a certain energy of its own... hence the simplistic formula, and I said, that's right, because we didn't start at zero. We started with 1, and zero was created in order for 1 to experience itself in all its infinite ways. He goes on about he uncertainty principle... and I countered that... which I will spare you all of...
So... in order for me to logically argue a point with him, he began teaching me QM so we had a common ground from which to start. I get the gist of it on a philosophical level... actually started reading all kinds of QM stuff... can't write out the formulas... they don't mean squat to me, actually... but if I get someone to translate for me, then I'm off to the races. He teaches it to me so we can debate it. Ain't that swell of him?
Quote: Here you are describing the eigenvalues of the solution of the time-independant Schroedinger equation for the harmonic oscillator. It is one of only a few analytically solvable problems in QM.
Dam straight. That's my point exactly. He tells me I can't prove my points, and I tell him... welp, neither can you.
To put it in another context, here is a quote from our friend Hairdog:
Quote: "You know, there is one good thing that has come out of four+ years of SSM: It has forced you to grow emotionally in ways you might never have had the opportunity to grow. The suffering it has caused you, has made you a better person."
I personally would not call this suffering, for that is just a matter of perception. And I wouldn't use 'better' either... for that is just a matter of perception, too... but in the absence of one thing, he has had the opportunity to experience another thing. Without the absence, that's all it is. Now, HD has perspective and infinite possibility. And choice. Big Bang.
OR:
In the absence of That Which You Are Not, That Which You Are, is not.
Fck. God. I think I hurt myself... scratch, scratch, yawn... heading off to bed...
GEL, I hope not. I cant let it be relevant to me anymore. I put my all into the first go round, tripped, and sat and waited the second time. I hope she finds everything she ran off to find. A-la Dr. Harley, Never see or speak to a former lover again. I have always done this. numbers changed, moving on saturday.
Thanks for the good wishes, from you and everyone else. If corrie realizes I am already pimp, and inversely not PIMPable like HD explained, and chromo stops distracting me, (and making me want to go back to school) maybe we can get back on topic.
I noticed chocoeyes has a thread(havent got to read it yet), saw a thread from CSW, have some thoughts for snook, some details and precise reasons for Cobra on exactly why my fight/convo stopping tactics works, cause he really needs the reasons why, and no timeeeeeeeee to even read.
I dont have time to be doing this. I have to pack and go to Sacramento tomorrow at 5am.
I cant help it.
Corri, if you can pull some releatively unknown formulae for QM harmonic oscillator seemingly out of nowhere, all for the purpose of-- at my first glance proving 0=0 then you are absolutely right. I am going straight into why did she say that, and not worry about your emotions to my response on the topic. You cant claim simplistic thinking on me with anything considering the topic, the agenda, and the effort. NOPE. Cute though.
Oh wait, bad BF.
Corrie.
I am so sorry to have possibly hurt your feelings. forgive me? Please? pretty please? <hugging self><corries mad at me >
How long you ask, ummm as soom as I saw the word 'NOTHING" in conjunction with the QM HO equation and your using the word 'mishmash'. Also I have seen some of your other posts around here, I dont even begin to think that you are 'thin skinned' or not above dishing or taking what I may dish, which is nearly always mild when given to women. My 'condescending' comments were toungue in cheek. You must remember, I am gender superior in my beliefs.
<patting corrie on head><now now dont strain yourself> J/K
I was in a real hurry posting. I couldnt figure/thought I had figured out why your were baby stepping something that in reality would need a lot more baby steps.
Sheesh you have me on the defense agian. You are a tricky one .
Any ways while I was reading your post I was thinking about what I remembered of quintessence, phantom energy and blackbody energy, which would disallow your apparently zero sum, that I thought you were using to prove NO Creator.
This is reevaluated now, after reading your last post, Ah -ha, even trickier then I thought.
yes you engaged my logical side, I talked to you like I would a guy, and men can be as brutal blunt as we want with each other when discussing theoretical, internally generated, mind dope,(my term for useless, mindaltering, chemistry inducing convos) and still be friends after calling each other idiotic nincompoops for believing their side of the unprovable point. also I was in a big hurry, shouldnt have even looked at the boards with my friend impatiently tapping her toes waiting to go eat. Im a big believer in anticipation though. LOL. (FWIW she wasnt interested in the topic. Go figure. I would rather have been here posting. Go figure, again.) my reply, now squelched by you banged around in my head all evening. Thanks. (it wasnt going to be blistering at all, humorous, superior maybe, but not blistering. interestingly enough it was pretty close to the same thing you said to Chromo. Mine was funnier though.)
YOU may have beat me at my own game. HMMM. I think I like it.
'Cuz were I any less than the one hell of a gal that I am, or had thinner skin... or didn't have a point I was trying to make, I'd tell you to kiss my lily white azz with the above response you gave me. You don't need to attack to counter.
Any chance you might see where I'm heading with this?
in reverse order. Yes I see. I did exactly what you are pointing at the past few months. Although I think you were mostly succesful because I was in such a hurry, and not able to truly reply. Ah well you still win, your post was prodding and instigating. I do still see your other point, Thats all I am going to say, I will not discuss ______________ anymore. Done. Over. No longer part of my reality.
While a very cool chick, you are thinned skinned if you thought this was an attack. Also a thin skinned chick wouldnt say KMA. She would run away, cry, and call me a big meanie. You apparently have worked at eliminating conflict avoidance.
Im curious if anyone else thought my response was an attack.
Off to bed, to dream of kissing your thin skinned Lilly White A$$. Ask and you shall receive. after D-Day. Untill then it will have to remain in mine/your dreams.
You are not only one hell of a gal, but very confidant, forward and aggresive too.
You cause my crap, call me on my crap, tell me what you like and where you want it, and demurely curse at me. I can tell we are NOT going to git along at all.
Ill try to put us on more equal footing. You get a louisville slugger, and Ill use the foam wiffle ball bat when we fight from now on.
I am being handed my a$$ so regularly around here lately, I not only am beginning to have a good look at it myself, but I am going to have to pull my head out or end up beheaded too.
Chromo there is still something wrong with your example. 2=1 I posted another one, but cant play anymore now though. If I dream about that instead of Corries LWA I am not going to pleased.
P.S.
rude, wouldn't you say? If I were talking to everyone, and not just the person who already knows it. I make a statement when I am talking to everyone to that effect. Otherwise they exist as flies on the wall, Jimmney Crickets in this minefield.
back to geek speak. You dont pull that stuff out of nowhere. I could only talk down to you, in your perception. (my perception was you were talking down to me by explaning it all out. Light isnt just one frequency? gosh. learn something new everyday. sarcasm yes. not attractive.) I was talking to a equal, and thus had no holds barred. Next time Ill use the foam bat on you.
You still made your point. However on the flip side, you thought something was true, and then thru your actions caused it to be true also. I want to LOL here, but it may not be appropriate.
You didn't hurt my feelings. I was pulling a 'girl' trick on you. Yes, men can call each other idiots in the middle of a debate and after it is done, go have a beer and act as though it never happened. I admire that, actually.
Girls, on the other hand (depending on the girl, mind you), when confronted with the 'superior' attitude, hit below the belt and tend to attack on the emotional level, leaving a man to scratch his head and say WTF? I thought we were debating Quantum Mechanics?
THEN the guy (some guys, mind you) get sucked into THE SH!T, and worry about taking care of the girl's delicate emotions and get pulled off track... start to apologize, "now, I didn't mean it that way"... and now all of the sudden, we are talking about everything under the sun EXCEPT Quantum Mechanics.
THEN the guy will back track and begin to explain WHY he followed the course of action he took, OR explain WHY he said what he said, thinking logically again, and assuming that once explained, the woman will GET what he meant.
And as soon as he does this... he is GREASED. You will get so far afield from the original point and into all kinds of side arguments and tantrums, you will eventually walk away or blow a gasket from sheer and utter confusion and frustration... because the point NOW is not a debate on Quantum Mechanics, but on Who Is Right, and the defense of Personal Motivation. Put simply... on Wading In the Sh!t.
(Mind you, the man and woman roles can be reversed at any time... just depends on who pulls the power play).
And in reality, no, I don't think you attacked me... but WERE I thin skinned, I would attack YOUR intentions, cock my head, pout my lip, and if you were unaware of what I was doing, or even if you WERE aware of what I was doing, I'd head off in another direction to gain the upper hand in what is quickly becoming an emotional cess pool.
This is classic manipulation and we all do it. But why? Bad boundaries, unawareness, and lack of practice in having a constructive fight. And it happens on both ends.
Long way in saying, BF, don't wade in. Don't give away your power... I'm no one to you. But even if I were someone to you, give me the respect I deserve by NOT WADING IN. Show through actions that you know that I can emotionally take care of myself.
"I'm sorry you felt attacked, Corri. But back to the original point of the discussion...." and then have at your counter point, if that's what YOU want to do. If you stay aware of your own emotions, you will not return an emotional attack on me while making your point. You'll stay on target.
If I am comfortable in my own skin and RESPECT you, I will listen to your counter and either concede the point, or return one of my own, and NOT attack emotionally in the process.
If I get to the point that I feel my emotions are beginning to take over, out of RESPECT for you and myself, I excuse myself until I can get a grip. And in return, respect my need to get a grip and allow me to regroup so we can continue WITH THE ORIGINAL POINT, rather than go in for 'the win.'
You cannot argue emotions. They are what they are. Period. Yet many people are so unaware of them, within themselves and others, that they will take over every single time.
This destroys intimacy. You get that whole parent/child dynamic going because someone is always taking care of someone else. As Mariposa pointed out, it isn't one spouse always being the parent, and the other being the child. This dynamic will switch, depending on the situation and how two people strategically align themselves to keep control.
Control is not the objective. Being right is not the objective. And that is a hard one to get. But perhaps you can see it here in our little exchange. Where did we veer off? Would you do it differently now? How?
Just some thoughts.
Corri
P.S. HD brought up P.I.M.P.ing. Sorry if you feel PIMPed.
--------------------------------------------------- If there is NOTHING in the box, you set n to zero.
E=(1/2+0)h_bar w
which gives you: E=(1/2)h_bar w
---------------------------------------------
I think you (or your friend who explained it to you) is confusing the meaning of the variable 'n'. In this case, 'n' is the the energy level for the available quantum states of a particle that finds itself confined to a harmonic oscillator potential (e.g. connected to springs). In other equations, 'n' refers to the number of photons. You have probably seen E = nhw, where n is the number of photons, h is Planck's constant, and w is the photon frequency. In that case, setting n = 0 would imply no photons present. In the equation for the harmonic oscillator, setting n = 0 refers to the "ground state." As this lowest energy state is non-zero, it is referred to often as the zero-point energy. It is from this zero-point energy (and quantum fluctuations a la Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) that some models propose the energy for the Big Bang arose. Setting n = 0 does not imply that no particles occupy those states, only that they are in the ground state.
-------------------------------------------------------- Anyway, we were discussing how things 'got started,' and this of course brought up the discussion of the Big Bang... and how QM can only trace back to within a nanosecond (actually a smaller amount, but I forget what that number is...) of the Big Bang actually occuring... at which point, all known laws of physics break down... so the Big Bang remains a theory, rather than a provable thing. Now before you go off discussing all the other theories that have emerged to explain this very small (but very significant) amount of time... that wasn't the gist of the discussion. ----------------------------------------------------------
Quite right, current electroweak, QM, relativistic theory can only trace back somewhat accurately to the so-called Planck Time, 10e-43 seconds after the Big Bang. Prior to this time, it is postulated that all four forces of nature were combined as a superforce. As a good theory of Quantum Gravity (that is reconcilable with observed General Relativity effects) has not been developed, it is currently impossible to seriously postulate the nature of the superforce. Attempts have been made (string theory, brane theory, etc.) but they really should be called hypotheses not theories (more on that in a minute).
I wouldn't say all known laws of physics break down near the Big Bang "singularity", just that there is a higher order model that has yet to be discovered (much like relativity is a higher order model of Newtonian mechanics). You might say our current electoweak, strong, and gravity models are just approximations to the "real" model that only take into account the data we currently can produce in a lab.
I have to get on a soapbox here for just a minute though. We need to define terms. In science, a theory is not "just a theory." The word theory refers to a set of universally accepted explanations for an observed set of phenomena. A theory has gone through many layers of peer review and testing before it can be receive the moniker. At a lower level is a hypothesis or an educated guess. Below even that are laws and facts, which are merely descriptions of observations. Hypotheses and theories are considered higher-order science as they attempt to explain the observations given the current data. A good example is the difference between kinematics and dynamics. Kinematics explains how an object moves (positions, times, velocities, accelerations, etc.). Dynamics explains why it moves the way it does (torques, energy, momentum, forces, etc.). The words law, fact, theory, and hypothesis are often misused, unfortunately by scientists as well.
The Big Bang theory is truly a theory. While there are many unexplained parts to it, its core statement that the universe is expanding from a previously very tiny state is sound and backed up by a LOT of evidence. Big Bang is pretty much on equal footing with biological evolution. We have a good handle on the process, just not the starting point.
Another important point, there is no such thing as a provable theory in science. Theories are all human-invented models to explain events. They either do a good job explaining the observations to within the experimental error, or they don't. If they do a good job, they are accepted, until new data comes along that requires a revision or a rejection.
-------------------------------------------------------- "There is NO starting point, for time and space did NOT exist until ROOM was created for it to exist." -------------------------------------------------------
An interesting hypothesis, and one put forth by several leading cosmologists. The Big Bang event could be said to have created by time and space. One way of thinking about it was that the universe had no dimensionality, and the Big Bang was simply the event that gave it its current dimensionality (3 spatial + 1 time). Of course, if you follow along with string theory, there may be many more dimensions "wrapped up" so they look like less. But as I stated earlier, that is really only a very preliminary hypothesis.
-------------------------------------------------------- "Meaning... I don't think the miracle of the universe is all the 'stuff' in it... the galaxies, the gases, the stars, the super novas, etc., etc... the miracle of the universe to me... what was created... was the 'space' for it to be. --------------------------------------------------------
I think most cosmologists would agree with you. Space itself, irrespective of the "stuff" in it is very interesting. The expansion of the universe is expansion of space, NOT galaxies flying apart from one another. There is also a theoretical time in the universe's history in which space expanded at speeds much faster than the speed of light. It is the space itself that is warped by gravity according to General Relativity.
-------------------------------------------------------- Meaning... if you were God... and you were the ALL OF EVERYTHING, everything that IS... and you know that... how then do you experience that? Well... at this very simple point, the only way for you to experience that which you are... is to become that which you are not. Some people call that 'division.' But how can you divide if all there is... is SOMETHING? How does one gain perspective between here and there, this and that? ---------------------------------------------------------
I see, this is a twist on the whole "what is good if there is no evil" or "what is God without the devil" philosophical argument. An interesting way of phrasing it Corri.
------------------------------------------------------- He goes on about he uncertainty principle... and I countered that... which I will spare you all of... ------------------------------------------------------
Don't feel like you have to spare me! Although we may want to spare BF if you want to continue on my thread. Just be careful, if you get me started you might have to spare yourself sometime.
-------------------------------------------------------- He teaches it to me so we can debate it. Ain't that swell of him? -------------------------------------------------------
VERY swell of him. I'd be happy to chip in whenever you need help also.
---------------------------------------------------------Dam straight. That's my point exactly. He tells me I can't prove my points, and I tell him... welp, neither can you. ----------------------------------------------------------
Here is one point where I will disagree a bit with you Corri. What you are talking about, something needing nothing to define itself, is truly a philosophical point. There is no laboratory experiment that can ever be devised to show that your statement is "true." However, QM, Big Bang, and other scientific models make predictions that can be tested. Unfortunately, our theory has gotten ahead of experiment. We don't have the equipment to adequately test many of the predictions of these theories ... yet. However, at some point they will be either validated or falsified, so they are truly scientific in nature, and not philosophical. Do you see the difference? It is like the current Intelligent Design debate. Sure, many people BELIEVE that a higher power created the universe and made it so orderly and complex, but that belief can never be "proven" in a lab, so such discussion has no place in a science class (but does have a very appropriate place in philosophy and theology).
Great insights Corri. I hope you maintain your interest in all things cosmological. To me there is no better thing to ponder than the very nature of the universe ... except maybe when the next time sex will occur.
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
x = 1 x˛ = x x˛ - 1 = x -1 (x - 1)(x + 1) = x - 1 x + 1 = 1 2 = 1
Very good BF! I like your version better, clearer statements to the conclusion. You'll have to show me how to do superscripts so that I don't confuse anyone else with ^2.
Do you see the division by zero error that SM mentioned on my thread? It is between steps 4 and 5 of your proof. If x = 1 (your opening statment), then x - 1 = 0, so you cannot divide both sides of the equation by x - 1. Cool, eh?
OK. For your next task, show that the area of a right triangle cannot be a square. Anyone know the famous title to this problem?
OK OK OK. You don't have to answer. We can get back to FOO issues and all that. Seriously, it has been fun Corri and BF. You both have very sharp minds. Let's go another round anytime.
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
Sorry Chromoglob, I can’t agree that Big Bang is all that great a theory. It may be a personal thing, but I have a problem with dark matter.
You have lots of observable data telling you that there simply isn’t enough matter in the universe to make BB work, so somebody decides that the vast majority of matter in the universe just isn’t observable. Huh? There’s not enough observable matter to support what we think we know about gravity, so we have to invent something else to be producing the gravitational effects we’ve observed.
We have a “theory”. We have data that doesn’t fit the model. So rather than thinking that the model might not be correct, we conjure up some unobservable and unmeasurable data which we then assume to be nearly two orders of magnitude greater than the actual observable and measurable data in order to make our “theory” hold water??? (I think the largest estimate I’ve ever seen was that luminous matter still only equaled maybe 20% of closure density. I’ve also seen 1% bandied about.) Then we start making variations on the data that we’ve never observed (baryonic, non-baryonic, hot dark matter, cold dark matter, etc.) in order to keep the theories working. Maybe I’m a rube, but I have problems with any theory that requires postulating (dare I say inventing) the majority of the data needed to support it. It may well be correct, but when anywhere from 80 to 99% of the required matter is merely postulated, I have a problem with calling it a "theory".
Let me begin by agreeing with you, dark matter is not personally a very satisfying model for the observations. But as our observing tools are not sophisticated enough to discern much about the properties of dark matter itself, it must remain unsatisfying. And then there is dark energy!!!! Talk about unsatisfying.
Unfortunately, whether or not a theory or observation is satisfying has no bearing on its correctness. Relativity is a big thorn in the side of physicists now because it works so well but is fundamentally different from the other models (QM) and makes what would be a very simple unifying theory extremely complex. Not to mention the assault on common sense that relativity and quantum physics represent!!!
An important note to consider is that dark matter is not just tied to BB theory. It is also tied to the Theory of Gravity and Electromagnetism (indirectly). You are right, there is not enough "observable" matter in the universe to make BB work. But you are defining observable as being observed by using light. The presence of dark matter is "observed" by its gravitational effects. That is not more mysterious or damaging to current BB or gravity theory than the fact that the human eye cannot observe radio waves, but we can still understand their function and have a unified theory that explains them.
Yes, we had a BB theory. And yes, new data came into play that said there is something weird out there that is affecting the rotation curves of galaxies and the primordial abundance of the elements. So scientists took a look at the various theories. Does the presence of dark matter violate the basic statement of the BB that the universe is expanding. No. Are there any predictions from BB theory that are invalidated by dark matter. No. Can this new data be incorporated into BB theory so that new-BB successfully maintains its earlier correct predictions yet also makes testable, verifiable predictions about dark matter? Yes! So the theory is modified to be more robust and inclusive of new data. I see nothing sinister about this process. If at anytime, a new model were proposed that makes better predictions than BB theory, then BB theory would be discarded (or at least relegated to less favored status).
"we conjure up some unobservable and unmeasurable data which we then assume to be nearly two orders of magnitude greater than the actual observable and measurable data in order to make our “theory” hold water???"
Again, dark matter is observed. It is just not observed by using light. Astronomers uses motion induced by gravity in many different ways to determine properties of astronomical objects (i.e. the mass of stars in binary systems). That is all we are doing here. We measure motion of stars in galaxies and galaxies in galactic clusters to be different than one would expect based on the matter visible by electromagnetic radiation. So we use gravity to determine the properties of this "invisible" matter.
"Then we start making variations on the data that we’ve never observed (baryonic, non-baryonic, hot dark matter, cold dark matter, etc.) in order to keep the theories working."
Unfortunately, that is the stage we are at right now. It is very unsatisfying to postulate matter that is not currently reproducible in the lab. Have patience.
"Maybe I’m a rube, but I have problems with any theory that requires postulating (dare I say inventing) the majority of the data needed to support it. It may well be correct, but when anywhere from 80 to 99% of the required matter is merely postulated, I have a problem with calling it a "theory"."
Here's the thing though. When we incorporate dark matter into the Big Bang model a few predictions do come out right. Primordial nucleosynthesis can predict the total amount of mass in the universe as well as the ratios of the types of matter present. Well, so far, the predictions are correct on "normal" matter and "dark" matter based on the latest data. Secondly, one of the problems with the BB was the speed at which galaxies formed. Based on the smoothness of the cosmic microwave background, the current density of galaxies is paradoxical. However, if we incorportate dark matter into the mix, acting as seeds for gravitational collapse but uninfluenced by the smoothing effect of the radiation, the current densities are easily feasible. So actually, adding dark matter SOLVED a problem with the BB. Finally, more recent measurements of the CMB have allowed us to determine its power spectrum. The exact shape of the power spectrum is highly dependent on cosmological parameters, including the percentage of matter. At the same time, high redshift supernova studies have been able to characterize that the universe expansion is accelerating. When these observations are combined, it fits very neatly with the predictions of BB (inflationary) theory, only if we include dark matter and dark energy. So here is a case where new data supports the existence of dark matter.
Again, let me say that this is very unsatisfying to me as well. There is no substitute for hard data from a lab. But unfortunately, as I stated on my thread in response to Corri, that data may be a long time in coming. So we will probably run around in circles for awhile before we can really see if the BB theory and dark matter are really good models for how the universe works.
Note to anyone reading this. My statements are intended as a defense of the BB Theory, as currently postulated with current data. In no way should my statements be construed that I consider BB theory to be unassailable or not fraught with many unaswered questions. But so far none of those unanswered questions invalidates the theory. So as I scientist, I must concede that BB theory is the most correct model to date.
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
.
banged around in my head all evening. 
