What is Outside the Universe, What Happened Before the Big Bang, Ekpyrotic What? … and Other Mysteries of Cosmology Explained
Ah, cosmology, the study of the origins and the nature of the Universe. The perfect topic for tying ones brain up into little crying knots, because frankly there’s all sorts of aspects of it that defy credulity, reason, and visualization. The perfect topic the end the week with then, because if one tries to understand cosmology hard enough, the brain will simply shut down in dismay … and you’re ready for a truly relaxing weekend.
Firstly, I’m not a cosmologist, so my understanding of this topic is pretty superficial and may even be entirely wrong in some respects. Still, I’ve been reading and thinking about it for a long time, and I think I have the gist of it down, or at least enough to explain it in a way that others can at least glean some understanding of my understanding of the topic. The second thing to understand is that this is a very wide open field and cosmologists themselves have very different ideas about what is going on here, so saying “debate continues” is an understatement.
I have covered some of these topics before, or at least the basics of them by discussing the Big Bang theory, Strange Lodgings, The Axis of Evil, and Dark Flow. And now that everyone understands the Big Bang theory … they can explain it to me. OK, that was a cosmology joke, and like cosmology, it’s hard to see the humour in it. Today I am going to try and explain what is “outside” the Universe and what is “before” the Universe. Or at least a rough idea of some of the current thinking about these things as I currently understand them.
OK, first, the background. We are very used to thinking of things in a conventional four dimensional way, time being the fourth dimension. So much so that people often conceptualize the Universe as having come into existence into some infinite void, and that before the Big Bang there was this infinite void going back in time forever until the Universe appeared. This is because we are so enamoured of our view that the four dimensions we experience are simply the fabric of reality that we can’t imagine anything else. Well, this isn’t the case. There is no infinite void, there is no “outside” the Universe in any conventional sense, and there is no “before” the Universe. It’s not that there’s nothing, it’s just that whatever is “there” isn’t “there” in any sense that we can intuitively visualize.
In other words, time and space are part of the integral fabric of our Universe, but they aren’t part of the integral fabric of reality. They are embedded in reality, but reality itself appears to have at least ten dimensions. The best example I can think of is an MRI and how it shows a two dimensional slice of a three dimensional object. Well, the Universe is a four dimensional slice of a multi-dimensional reality. See, this is easy. Yes, the Universe is a cosmic MRI of reality itself in a way. What cosmologists call our Universe as it exists in this multi-dimensional state is a brane. Well, sort of, it’s kind of an inflated brane, but remember that word.
OK, so we have this multi-dimensional reality, ten as I currently understand it. Fortunately five of those are “folded up” and never fully expanded. This means that besides up, and down, and sideways, our universe has five other directions perpendicular the the three we are used to. However in these five dimensions, the entire breadth of the Universe is some minuscule sub-atomic distance. Which obviously limits how far one can travel in those directions. Phew. Think what blueprints would look like if buildings had to have eight dimensions instead of three. Yerp, I can’t imagine that either, but I suppose if we had eight dimensional brains, it would be easy to imagine a seven dimensional blueprint of an eight dimensional structure.
So anyhow, in our five dimensional reality we don’t have space or a void, but what we do have cosmologists call the “bulk.” And “travelling” through this multidimensional reality we have at least two branes. It’s like a planet travelling through space, except the planet and space itself have extra dimensions so that visualizing this with our pathetic three dimensional brains is, well, impossible. And every once and awhile, like hundreds of billions of years in our time, though not necessarily in bulk time if there even is such a thing, these two branes collide. And when that happens we get … a Big Bang … and a universe such as ours “explodes” into existence with the release of unimaginable amounts of energy that this brane collision releases. Some cosmologists then have called this collision and subsequent Big Bang a, ahem, “brane storm.” See previous note about cosmology and humour, jokes like this are why few cosmologists ever successfully become stand up comics.
This then, in a horribly simplified nutshell, is what is called the Ekpyrotic Theory. Some physicists and cosmologists really like it because it does away with two of the problems with the basic Big Bang theory. It eliminates the need for the inflationary epoch, that was when in the first moments of our Universe it expanded much faster than the speed of light. I’ll do another post on the inflationary epoch sometime soon, but trust me, it’s one of the problems with the Big Bang theory. Secondly, apparently the Ekpyrotic Theory allow for a cyclic reality. That is, and I’m not sure I understand correctly, at some point in our distant future the Universe and energy is spread so thin that is “dissolves” back into the bulk somehow and becomes a pure brane again … which eventually collides with another brane … and another universe is created.
And the debate continues. Yes, the Ekpyrotic Theory does imply that there may be other Universes “out there” somehow, but they aren’t required. And while we can never actually confirm any of this with direct observation, apparently gravity crosses some of the “boundaries” between dimensions, at least on very tiny scales, like in our five folded up dimensions. This then is one of the things that the LHC (The giant atom smasher scientists are firing up in Europe) will be testing, the effect of gravity on tiny particles to see if something outside our Universe is influencing them. More on the LHC at some point too, but at least my gentle readers can finally get some sleep at night knowing that yes, there is indeed an answer to “What created the Universe?” aside from the logically and scientifically unsatisfying: “God did it.”
Have a great weekend everyone.
(The above image is a coloured version of the Flammarion Woodcut, an anonymous image from the nineteenth century. I’m claiming it as Fair Use under US copyright law. It’s not being used for profit, its central to illustrating the post, and its use here in no way interferes with the copyright holder’s commercial use of the image. I don’t know who to attribute this coloured version too, if I did I would link to therm and laud their fine work. And yes, my explanations above may have garbled or completely misstated some elements of cosmology, that’s what the comment section is for clearing up.)
Doug's Darkworld 
i cannot grasp any more than one sentence at a time, and i have no idea what you are talking about. but it was fun to read. keep up the good posts.
Ryan
May 14, 2010 at 9:35 pm
To expand on what lies outside the universe is subjective and nothing more at best. There is no frame of reference to understand anything that is not within the universe. It is not just physics that breaks down when we try to leave the universe , there is no vocabulary that can be used. Many years ago there was an attempt to create a perpetual motion device. One device was a clock with two numbers on it .A 9 at the twelve o’clock position,and a 6 at the six o’clock position. The premise being that as the hand moved past the 6 , 9 being a greater number than 6 would draw the hand away and on the way down the hand would see the 6 as a 9 thus perpetual movement would occur. That is what I am reminded of when I read the above article . I don’t say that to ridicule the author. We just don’t have the frame of reference needed as part of the universe to understand what is not the universe. At least I don’t.
Robert
February 18, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Even if we don’t have the senses to discern a statue in a darkened room, we can toss pebbles at it and guess at its shape and size by the sound they make. That’s all I am trying to do. —Doug
unitedcats
February 18, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Well, the easier explanation is that time (as a linear passage of events as we know it) exists only within the spacetime existant within the universe. Therefore, if no time exists outside of the universe, what is out there is irrelevant, because it exists, if it does at all, in all of it’s states simultaneously or none at all. It’s impossible to make sense of something that does not, at all, operate by something that we can understand as humans.
TR14L
March 18, 2014 at 11:05 am
Be cool if we could figure out how to use all those extra dimensions! lol, just travel to the other side of the universe like turning over a piece of paper….someday…
Peace
pyrodin
May 17, 2010 at 8:40 am
nice site and blog … just found yoour site on the net..
Chen Cen Wie
May 24, 2010 at 2:05 am
I like that theory it sounds much more meaningfull then the big bang
Harps
October 13, 2010 at 3:10 pm
The big bang theory never really did it for me… a multidimensional reality makes much more sense, I’d never before heard of “branes” and their collisions creating universes…Very interesting indeed. Can’t wait for the LHC results.
Leo
November 9, 2010 at 9:14 am
The big bang didnt do it for you and no other theory will. These attempts at making a theory for the beginning of the universe are completely pointless. The answer cannot be that the universe is infinite because there is a beginning to everything. Something as amazing as the universe doesnt just POP into existence from nothing. Whatever was before the universe cannot be explained with our language or with any language in the universe. Even the smart ass extraterrestrials are stumped.
kole
May 2, 2011 at 3:16 pm
I think our brains are simply ill-equipped to deal with it. Or maybe a few more thousand years of research would do.
bizso09
January 14, 2012 at 9:33 am
Have we ever considered that someone named GOD CREATED IT? DUHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!! All this by accident? I don’t think so! Hey, maybe its “that guy” named Jesus that claimed to be the invisible God who took on human flesh to reveal himself to us. Yes, of coarse it was. You must understand that we are made of more than a physical body in a physical world in order to understand the universe. We know that air exists and we don’t see that! We need to stop looking “out there” because the answers are right in front of our faces. Gee, that was pretty simple, and I didn’t need 80 years of school to explain that.
John Q. Public
February 22, 2013 at 11:45 pm
The LHC cannot uncover these questions. The Higgs-Boson is one thing, but to explore other questions, such as branes and multiple dimensions, you’d need a particle collider the size of the solar system (or larger), harnessing more energy than I can imagine. So, that’s a Kardeshev Scale 2+ civilization. We’re a .9, if I understand that scale correctly.
Robert
October 24, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Your source?
Guest
May 6, 2013 at 10:16 am
Is it possible to show the other dimensions in a drawing?
Vishnu
January 6, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Well, sort of. I have a drawing of a tesseract, a four dimensional cube, on this post: The Ekpyrotic Theory —Doug
unitedcats
January 7, 2011 at 10:37 am
I really struggle trying to understand the concepts in this information. I wonder whether the whole universe is actually on the side of a sphere rather than everything inside it.
Andrew
January 8, 2011 at 5:56 am
Doug, thank you so much for your attempt to give us some insight as to what you think might be on the “outside” of the Universe”.
I have always had this very question in my mind, since I was a young child. What has always bothered me about answers I have received my authority figures and friends, is that it usually ends in: “….and then there’s nothing, I guess”. In our existence, where everything is just a part if something bigger, the answer of “nothing” not only doesn’t make sense – it pisses me off too.
Why does it piss me off when people say that? Because they never say anything else after it! They never talk about what “nothing” could actually mean, and that it doesn’t make any sense at all in our “everything is part of something bigger” mentality, or existence. “Nothing” seems like a lazy answer to me, or at its worst – the inability for someone to think further. Like their brain just shut down completely when faced with trying to figure out what “nothing” could mean. It makes me mad when people just choose to accept, without looking for proof.
Now, for years I imagined a universe shaped like a sphere, with nothingness around it. But that is such a vague image, again with the “nothing”. It’s too simple for me now. As I got older this simple explanation started to remind me that I’m human, and humans try to simplify things. I got a notion that I was making the Universe a singular thing, and the “nothingness” “around” it being the only thing left, ever, end of story…..Not too imaginative, or open-minded.
Learning about the vastness of this universe (vast to me, but maybe tiny compared to other possible universes?), its theorized beginning, and some its strange laws that we still do not understand – made me think that the universe we live in could very well be part of something else even bigger. Or smaller, if laws like space & time have different meanings outside the Universe……Anyway, what I mean is that I am imagining it part of something else, not just a singular thing with nothing after that.
Ok now that I have established to you I opened my own mind to the possibilities of there being something other than “nothing” outside of our universe, through an insatiable need to know why things are the way they are, I’ll tell you that I am so glad other people in this world have some of the same burning questions I do.
Since I am not trained in explaining what I think about this stuff technically, with technical words and the brain concentration to explain one thing to the next, and why I think it – I’ll just say a few short things, and let my brain play the rest out when it has the time to. Maybe someday I’ll be able to better explain what I think about all these theories.
Fist off, the thing that stuck out most to me in your explanation, is the “bulk”. I had never heard that term, or the term “brain” before. I like how the Ekpyrotic Theory allows for the energy of our universe to dissolve into the bulk as a pure brane, and when colliding with another brane, another universe might be formed. I like this for two reasons
For one, I like the energy reference. Since as far as we know, energy cannot be created or destroyed – instead only converted to one form or another – it makes sense to me that our universe CAN be part of something else. Why should the laws of energy stop at the edge of our universe? They shouldn’t – and your explanation showed me a theory that opens the door for that.
The other reason I like the “bulk”, is that, it opens the door for other dimensions to feel at home in the mix. Infinite dimensions actually, as described to me in the Brane & Bulk section of the Brane Cosmology page in Wikipedia…….Anyway, it just seems to make more sense to me that other dimensions, that scientists and dreamers alike have envisioned really existing, now have a more friendly environment to be hypothesized about.
I’m no scientist – I’m a dreamer with a limited vocabulary, a lack of any formal education, who has a hard time stringing together complex theories in his head. But my need to know why we are here and what we are a part of, as far and big as I can possibly imagine, is massive…… Life itself here on Earth is NOT simple. There are complex answers to everything on this planet. I can expect the Universe and “beyond” to be no less complex, or interesting. There HAS to be more. There HAS to be some kind of mind-blowing fact, like we actually are a part of some conglomerate of universes, battling it out with another conglomerate of universes, in an all-out competition taking place in a huge inter-universe arena, with sponsors and an audience of gods — for multi-universal championship of the Eon….or whatever…Or that we’re just part of a much larger scaled version of a system of cells, each galaxy being each atom, just part of the building blocks of a yet larger organism…..Or that we are literally part of the building block or cells or atoms that make up……God. Anyway, you catch my drift – I think our universe is part of something spectacular – and with meaning.
This CAN’T be all — for nothing. Such large amounts of space, energy, and matter have to be for a reason. What would the sense be to have all these stars and energy bursts and gamma rays and whatnot, for nothing. Just the existence of matter, is enough to send my mind spinning into meaningful possibilities. It screams at me, that all “this” is for a seriously special purpose.
So mysterious, the question of what is “outside” our universe. So perplexing the possibilities are, and mind boggling ever further – is what it all means, or what all these existences, dimensions, and universes are all a part of.
Your piece cleared a few things up for me, and opened my mind up to new possibilities, thank you very much Doug, for trying very hard to simplify very complex but necessary theories, down to a form in which my very limited Human brain could somewhat grasp. And thanks for letting me vent about my interest in what’s “out there”……Very interesting, and very thought provoking. Thanks again.
Dean
January 15, 2011 at 3:32 pm
First, Dean – I feel the need to ask….. What “bigger” purpose does your imagination construct? I too struggle with this “greater purpose” concept. I am at a loss. I’m not atheist or anything, I’m “nothing” in so many senses of the word. I’d love to hear your feedback.
Dave – The beer model you purposed… You mention beer as if it is a magically appearing THING (concept). I believe it is important when “cosmologizing” that we try not to be so human. Remember: beer is a man-made concoction of highly selected organisms and ingredients in which we organize and thus call the end result “beer”. It is then consumed by our chemistry/physical composition and is then broken down and reconstructed (otherwise known as digested) into something not resembling “beer” at all anymore.
My point is that there technically IS a before and and after of “beer”. The chemicals, particles, conjecture and concept of beer are all there… just scrambled up. From the idea of wanting a beer in our thoughts to the actual hops being fermented in a vat somewhere. On and on forever before and forever after “beer”.
Then again, I have a feeling I am now approaching the bridge between cosmology and philosophy?
I love all the words above!
Paige
April 10, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Sorry- Dave not Doug!
Paige
April 10, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Doug not Dave.*** what’s wrong with me?
Paige
April 10, 2011 at 7:10 pm
if you want something the universe, then why stop there? What is outside that thing? And what is outside that other thing? You see this is a perpetual sequence that never ends. Humans cannot comprehend infinity. It’s like asking where did the Universe come from. Where did the Big Bang come from? Where that thing before the Big Bang come from? It goes on to infinity.
bizso09
January 14, 2012 at 9:39 am
To ANDREW’S comment: “I really struggle trying to understand the concepts in this information. I wonder whether the whole universe is actually on the side of a sphere rather than everything inside it”
…….What an interesting concept! I think I’ve heard a similar question posed on a T.V. show once. That concept would make it so there was a “middle” of it all, with our universe making up only a small part of something bigger – which has an exact middle. One possibility is that our universe, and other things in or on the sphere, would be rotating around something in the middle either by some pulling force, or by some outside force pushing against the sphere…..My question is, in that concept – WHAT would be in the middle so powerful or important, that so much space and mass would be circling it??
Dean
January 15, 2011 at 4:18 pm
My latest analogy is that our universe is but a “bubble” in a glass of beer. Beer that extends infinitely in multiple dimensions and has always been here and always will be here. And an infinite number of “bubbles” have gone in and out of solution in the beer so to speak, and in most respects it is not possible to see outside of a bubble if one happens to be in one.
Yes, the idea that the universe was a “sphere” in an infinite field of “nothing” was simply the fact that we didn’t have a clue. Now we have clues, and it’s more amazing than anyone imagined. Doug
unitedcats
January 15, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Perhaps our existance is only the thinking of another.
Perhaps our dimensions being time,space,sound,gravity,light or energy,mass and speed or rate of expansion are the only ones the Creator chooses to contemplate. On the other hand,
If you go back to the idea that existing is a reality painted on a canvas that could be a varity of shapes including a sphere in or outside a parabola and flat or undulating surface that meets itself but always our existance is someplace.bigger,smaller but where?
i think that we are in the imagination of the Grand thinker and where is He? or She or It.Are we being craped on a stump,floating in beer or piss or in a soap bubble.Will we ever be able to see or know
Dave
January 25, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Is there any reason to believe that the universe is in motion? Expanding the universe like holding a plastic bag outside a moving car.
David Cillo
March 27, 2011 at 5:33 pm
It can’t be in motion because there’s nothing for it to be in motion relative to. Still, there’s lots that’s not understood that might have bearing on your comment. Did you check out the links in the above post to my posts on Dark Flow and the Axis of Evil? —Doug
unitedcats
March 27, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Here is another question:
What created the dimensions?
Derek
July 9, 2011 at 1:00 pm
No one created them, they have always existed. —Doug
unitedcats
July 9, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Interesting article, makes sense and fits in with what I know. (Never heard the term “branes” before either, though).
I don’t know about you, but I can visualise as many dimensions as you want in terms of a multi-dimensional mathematical array, but that’s just in terms of maths. I wonder if it would work for understanding the mechanics of the uniververse by mapping attributes onto each item?
I also like an explanation of string theory I once heard on this subject. Our universe is just a bubble in a infinite bath tub. Each bubble is created, expanding and popping. And inside each bubble is all of reality for anything within that bubble. So there is an outside, but it is not any form of our reality. And what reality is in all the other bubbles could be radically different to ours (like all these other dimensions being expanded, and/or the ones we know not being).
Anyway, here’s a question that’s been bothering me for a long time. And I’ve yet to recieve a satisfactory explanation. OK, I read that the universerse is believed to be 92 billion light years from end to end, I’m guessing this has been calculated from the gravitation forces or some other thing like that since we can’t see anything that far away.
So how is this possible? That means that it had to expand at a rate of about 6 and 1/2 x the speed of light if it originated from a single point like the big bang (or “Brane collisions”) suggests. So does that mean that after this “collision” of “branes”, our universe had to have been created at an already massively large size? So is the current expansion meaningless? Because any expansion so far is merely a fraction larger than it’s original size?
Richard Noel
December 13, 2011 at 4:16 am
It s explained by something called the Inflationary Epoch, This was a brief period in the early Universe where it expanded vastly faster than the speed of light. I don’t begin to understand the physics behind it, but the Inflationary Epoch is a standard part of Big Bang cosmology and is apparently supported by observational evidence. I’ve also heard that if the Universe started as a cosmic string instead of a singularity, no Inflationary Epoch is required, but I haven’t read much on that line of thinking lately so I guess that didn’t pan out. — Doug
unitedcats
December 13, 2011 at 6:13 am
Aha! I think. Sort of what I had guessed, I guess. I had read that the “big bang” was just what we call a small fraction of a second when the expansion of the unverse was faster than light. My own imagination guessed that the resulting “explosion” must have somehow propelled all the matter outwardly much faster than the speed of light, which contradicted what the fact that no shockwave can pass the light barrier. Which, oddly (if I just read that right) is just a very bad way of explaining what happened.
I tried to read up on string theory. I couldn’t make head nor tale of it.
I had an idea once. A physics teacher once told me that for every piece of matter in the universe, there is an equal amount of anti-matter. And that means that everything in the universe, if you added it together, equals nothing. Becuase if you add +5 to -5, you get nothing. Always wondered if everything is just nothing split into 2. Maybe proof that everything is comes from, or rather is still, nothing. Of course, I haven’t found anything to support that. But it’s an interesting thought.
Richard Noel
December 13, 2011 at 6:52 am
The Inflationary Epoch was in the first fraction of a second of the Big Bang, nothing even resembling matter existed at that point. And nothing was propelled outwardly, the Universe, even when it was tiny, had no boundaries and no centre. People think of the Big Bang as an explosion, but that’s actually a poor analogy. The space between things in the Universe just got bigger, and still is, eventually our galaxy will be floating in an apparently infinite void. And I don’t understand String Theory either. They are making progress on understanding why so much matter was created instead of equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. Um, I think. Keeping up with cosmology is low on my priorities these days. —Doug
unitedcats
December 13, 2011 at 8:23 pm
I just looked up the asuymetry of antimatter. So no. Everything does not equal nothing. (At least as far as anyone knows. There could be a lot more out there that we can’t see.) But it was interesting thought, anyway.
Richard Noel
December 13, 2011 at 7:08 am
great read, fascinating !
dai
February 1, 2012 at 2:09 am
What I find extremely interesting is that in every expiation of the origin of the universe (AKA the big bang) there is a consistent component explained as “outside of the universe” an environment outside the boundaries of this universe. A place with no space\time. It accrued to me just the other day that if anything at all existed in this environment (with no space/ time) it would have no beginning and no end.
Let’s do a little mental experiment for a moment, shall we. In an environment with no space/time there would be no causality, nothing would happen before something else. The apple would be in my hand, on the tree, and in my gut all at the same moment. Like in quantum physics all three conditions could be true at any moment. In fact in this place with no space/time as soon as the apple came into being the apple would have always exited (AKA no causality), it would have no beginning and no end, it would just be. Furthermore with no space this apple would be everywhere at once. Likewise, if at some point some sort of life or conciseness were to evolve in this environment (with no space/time) as soon as it came into being it to would have always been, it would have no beginning and no ending. Without the restriction of space/time that you and I are so accustomed to, it would have no trouble acquiring knowledge of anything it needed at any moment, it would know everything and be everywhere at once.
All that is needed for this hypothesis to be true is for life to spontaneously develop in this environment with no space/time, which I must point out is no less probable than the origin of our universe or life spontaneously evolving on this planet as proposed.
Keep in mind that the amount of time (if that is what you want to call it) for conciseness to develop in this place with no space/time would be unending: a time scale that is orders of magnitude greater than that which is credited by current science to have brought us into this universe.
In conclusion, the very fact that every scientific explanation as to the origin of the universe requires an environment with no space/time for the universe to reside in provides the perfect place for a timeless God like entity to exist.
Dean H.
Dean
April 13, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Thank you so much, it is so facinating and just shows that the more we learn, the more questions we raise. I was just curious if you (or anyone out there) had heard a theory on what is happening (or may happen) to the other dimensions of reality as our universe (as well as others) continue to expand?
Lisa V
May 7, 2012 at 6:44 pm
wow… ive only seen that image and it really got me thinking. im an atheist and its really interesting to think about it. i didnt read the article, though :D.
but it seems interesting so i will definetly (is that how you spell it? >_<) read it some other time.
that guy
January 1, 2013 at 3:48 pm
What caused the Big Bang? What triggered it? And do we have any idea what was going on prior the Big Bang? Yes, there is a new idea, the answer about what was going on prior to the Big Bang, why the Big Bang happened and what was the reason?
According to the new hypothesis, the geometric interpretation of the Lorentz’s radical says that the Big Bang happened in an incredible way. If the speed of light in the universe is maximal, a new hypothesis explains that the Big Bang is the cause of the collision of galaxies with the speed of light.
Many theories suggest that when the intergalactic speed reaches the speed of light, then the universe is maximally expanded. But a new hypothesis about the universe talks back. When we think that the universe is maximally expanded, it is actually maximally compressed, the galaxies are in a singular state and at this moment they collide with the speed of light. The Big Bang is a result of the collision of galaxies with the speed of light.
This is not mentioned in any theory of the Big Bang yet. This is an extraordinary idea with the proof.
Ref: google – “ Релятивистская механика пространства времени разума “
Mikhail
September 14, 2013 at 8:20 am
Cool, thanks, will look into this. —Doug
unitedcats
September 14, 2013 at 9:34 am
This is absolute horse manure. Before the big bang was another universe, and another before that. it’s as simple as that.
jack
June 21, 2015 at 8:44 pm
Here’s the newest – and most correct theory, imo… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ
J Pond
September 9, 2017 at 9:19 am