Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Haha! I have not been able to find a better one, that is why im questioning your science. I am not answering, I am questioning. Your answer, that diagram, is not sufficient enough to answer my questions.

I dont like it because it is very bare and not detailed enough. I dont know where those waves are coming from, I dont see whats causing their creation, and I dont see what keeps them the exact amplitude they are, why they dont just fall apart

There may be a better diagram somewhere, but I haven't seen it. Of course it would be more realistic to show it not polarized since most light sources aren't polarized, but then it would be too messy, so they show the polarized example and then we can just imagine it non-polarized.

I suppose I can see what a photon may be referred to, and that may be exactly 1 movement of the electron, up or down, if one motion from a rest point, down, creates 1 burst of wave, I suppose I can see how that can be considered 'the particle of light'

The motion of the electron causing EM radiation is only one possible source. Others are discussed below, and you should stop neglecting the other sources, please.

It doesnt show how the field exists. The field is not the electron right, the field exists all around the electron

Maybe you should strive to understand the field independent of the electron first. For example, if we detect photons from a 4 solar mass star in a very distant galaxy, the star might have collapsed into a black hole billions of years ago, but the photon continues on its journey to us for billions of years with undiminished energy as far as we can tell. This is actually pretty amazing and non-intuitive to some extent, but such is quantum mechanics...this is just the way we observe nature to work. You don't have to like it, but you have to accept observations for what they are, or reject them and live in a fantasy with no connection to reality. I'm not sure which you're inclined to do.

when an electron is accelerated does one direction of light wave 'jut' out like that diagram, or does radiation radiate all around its vertical axis? I dont think it radiates in all spherical directions right.

Correct, and this is more not so intuitive QM strangeness. Let's say you have a radiating sphere with 4 northern and 4 southern quadrants, for a total of 8. It could conceivably radiate 7 photons from 7 of the 8 quadrants, and one quadrant might have radiated nothing. This is sort of a quantum mechanical breakdown of the uniformity of the radiated emissions. In most cases photons are so plentiful it's inconsequential but when observing distant stars in distant galaxies, it can become significant, as we might receive photons from a particular distant object at relatively long intervals say about once an hour, which is why observations like the Hubble Deep Field took 10 days to make.

In/of the EM field, how are the Magnetic field and Electric field components of the field, 'nestled'? Is it an EM fabric, knit like. There is not good detailing of how the total field exists, and how the electrons interaction in the locality of the total field, produces the manner and means in which physicists know what light is and how it propagates.

You can either refer to the illustration I posted, or study Maxwell's equations. The fact you're asking this tells me you didn't really bother to even try to understand the illustration which answers this question about as well it can be answered without math. And once again, the electrons involved in the creation of photons we see from distant galaxies may not even exist anymore. The photon goes on without limit, long after the electron which emitted it was crushed in a neutron star or black hole or whatever. If you observe gamma rays, there may be no electron at all involved, it could be from a neutron changing energy states releasing a gamma ray photon as it falls to a lower energy state.

Gamma Ray Spectroscopy

When an atom undergoes a de-excitation transition, a photon is often emitted which carries off energy equal to the difference in energies of the two electronic levels involved. An analogous phenomenon occurs in nuclear transitions between nuclear energy levels. The photons emitted in nuclear transitions are called gamma-rays and generally have energies several orders of magnitude greater than atomic photons.

Your questions don't reflect an understanding of this quoted statement, as far as I can tell. While radio waves, light and gamma rays are all forms of EM radiation, their origins are not the same. This mentions different types of radio wave sources:

www.haystack.mit.edu...

What causes Radio Waves?

• Vibrating atoms and molecules
– Thermal vibrations due to temperature
– Rotational energy for asymmetric molecules

• Excited atoms and molecules
– Absorption/emission of energy (a photon)

• Accelerating charged particles
– Movement in electric or magnetic fields

Here's an illustration for the second category:

chemwiki.ucdavis.edu...

In that case the frequency of the emitted photon is just the result of the energy lost by the electron per QM and isn't directly related to any "wiggling" motion of the electron, though in the first case of thermal vibrations the frequency might be attributed to such a wiggling motion. So you won't see one universally applicable illustration linking the EM radiation with the source due to the various source types.

For the third type of source, search "Bremsstrahlung"

originally posted by: dragonridr

So why doesn’t the electric field of a charged object just zoom away at the speed of light?

Because the electric field is not made of photons.

It turns out that the photons which make up a static electric or magnetic field are "virtual" -- their energy and momentum doesn’t satisfy the relationship for "real" photons which is E=p*c (E is energy, p=momentum, and c is the speed of light).The virtual photons are constantly emitted and reabsorbed. A charged object with an electric (and possibly also a magnetic) field is surrounded by an entourage of photons, constantly being emitted and reabsorbed.

This is another way of saying, there is a field which is another way of saying a medium that is composed of no parts. They cant understand how the electron can be coupled to this medium physically, so they model it as if every new location of space the electron comes in contact with is 'evoking/exciting' this new local area of field, which they call, 'virtual photons'.

Photons, real and virtual, are emitted and absorbed by charged particles, even though they are not charged themselves. They only interact with charged particles, and not with each other.Well there may be one exception to this i wont go into right now but lets say its remote or at least never been observed yet. Any way energy is transferred by the creation and absorption of these virtual particles.The photon carries information as to the charge sign of its source. Hence the electron receiving the photon can decide whether to be attracted or repelled. Ill see if i can find a diagram for you that i like i found two but both are confusing for me even. Now in QM we call photons force carriers because they propagate the electromagnetic field. Ill stop here for a moment but ill add this to give you an idea what QM shows as interactions.

Everything you have ever told me, which you just repeat and repeat the same basic knowledge over and over ignoring my questions (though i do appreciate the effort, though i wish you would focus on what I am asking in stead of belittling me and assuming im not familiar with the basic tenants every reply), has been stuff I learned several years ago within my first week or two (or three) of researching the basic ideas of modern physics.

What I now am and have been doing in all these threads, is only deeply questioning the furthest bounds of scientific knowledge, that is all I am interested in, the further, the more, the dissatisfaction with the current level of knowledge. "well you have to know the current knowledge first thoroughly before you can critique it or question it", to an extant yes, to an extent no. I have only ever been asking questions, questioning the speakers on this on other similar threads, in regards to their knowledge of science and reality. I have only ever been trying for them to question their knowledge, to further their insight and understanding, and my own. To try and raise critical and creative thought in regards to these most important and fascinating matters. To try and pin down possibilities and potentials, and use thought as a light to illuminate the dark, in knowing what one does not know, cornering a problem from all sides, questioning everything about everything, to further knowing all about all. But I dont think my questions are answerable thus far, which is why they are being skirted. I think I may just come back in 10 years when psychics has maybe made some progress (and progress to me, or the progress im most interested, is not new toys, but more truth about reality).

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Does the EM field exist all around the electron? And it is somehow attached?

You are acting like you think a photon physically comes from an electron, as vomit physically comes from a humans mouth. I thought this was the exact concept field theory wished to abolish. So there I say the diagram is bad, for not detailing the entirety of the EM field around the electron.

Also yes, electrons in orbitals is the same thing. Electron moves, radiation is created. Electron is coupled to EM field. Acceleration of electron, or any jerky movements, causes radiation. Radiation is the energy equal to the mass of the electron im guessing times other variables im not exactly sure of like the electrons prior velocity and the relative mass, or energy added to the electron during the acceleration.

Why hasnt someone...or the thousands of people who have studied maxwells equations, drawn a decent diagram of what they say the universe is? Or are maxwells equations a useful approximation/tool and not a coherent and detailed replica of reality, which is why you really have no clue what a field truly is, and noone else does, and why there are no decent diagrams of the electron field interaction, that are realistic and accurate? I think thats probably the case, personally knowing how amazing artists are, renderings, digital art, even by hand the amount of possible detail that can be achieved is absolutely astonishing, surely one of them could have read maxwells equations, or perhaps 3 or so top maxwell equation aficionados could have talked them through their own mental perfect comprehensions and envisonments of how EM field exists in space.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Ill make this simple the fields your searching for is those virtual particles. Its the latent energy from the creation of the universe. Its everywhere and interactions with this explains all particle interactions.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Does the EM field exist all around the electron? And it is somehow attached?

You are acting like you think a photon physically comes from an electron, as vomit physically comes from a humans mouth. I thought this was the exact concept field theory wished to abolish. So there I say the diagram is bad, for not detailing the entirety of the EM field around the electron.

Did you even read my reply? I just said the photon can come from a neutron, so why would I draw a EM diagram showing it coming from an electron when you would correctly then just say it's wrong because there was no electron involved?

Also yes, electrons in orbitals is the same thing. Electron moves, radiation is created. Electron is coupled to EM field. Acceleration of electron, or any jerky movements, causes radiation. Radiation is the energy equal to the mass of the electron im guessing times other variables im not exactly sure of like the electrons prior velocity and the relative mass, or energy added to the electron during the acceleration.

Why hasnt someone...or the thousands of people who have studied maxwells equations, drawn a decent diagram of what they say the universe is? Or are maxwells equations a useful approximation/tool and not a coherent and detailed replica of reality

I have yet to see any model that is a flawless representation of reality. However Maxwell's equations are a non-quantum mechanical approximation which are pretty accurate in many cases. The more correct but still not perfect theory is QED (Quantum ElectroDynamics). That link shows the QED version of the classical Maxwell equations.

The reason it's still not perfect is partly described here:
"Ambiguities in QED: Renormalons versus Triviality"
But as that explains, it's still a very good theory.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ill make this simple the fields your searching for is those virtual particles. Its the latent energy from the creation of the universe. Its everywhere and interactions with this explains all particle interactions.

Latent energy, if its the fields im searching for, am I not searching for all the energy? And if all the energy that exists now has always existed, and will always exist, isnt all the energy latent? So you see that doesnt really explain anything.

And then calling the fields, which I dont understand how they physically exist, 'virtual particles', does nothing to describe or explain what they are or how they exist.

Is a field a solid (not in material terms, but in terms of connection), partless/component less, substance? Or is a field a network of parts?

Now if you say, a field is parts, or the field is the space between particles and virtual particles, as well as those particles them self, I must ask, what then 'is that' in between the particles? How is the field nature that is not describable by particles? Can it physically be described?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Did you even read my reply? I just said the photon can come from a neutron, so why would I draw a EM diagram showing it coming from an electron when you would correctly then just say it's wrong because there was no electron involved?

wow, this is complete red herring. I care only about the fundamentals, im using the electron as an example, if you want to use a neutron please do, to me witnessing the greatest minds knowledge produce an image I can see, of how they see the detailed creation of EM radiation from a charged (or neutral particle) of the universe, with its field, is all I want to see.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Did you even read my reply? I just said the photon can come from a neutron, so why would I draw a EM diagram showing it coming from an electron when you would correctly then just say it's wrong because there was no electron involved?

wow, this is complete red herring. I care only about the fundamentals, im using the electron as an example, if you want to use a neutron please do, to me witnessing the greatest minds knowledge produce an image I can see, of how they see the detailed creation of EM radiation from a charged (or neutral particle) of the universe, with its field, is all I want to see.

See the stuff you want to ignore is the basics and you need understanding of the basics to even grasp the concepts. The reason they dont have the convenient diagram because this diagram would have to contain months of physics classes reduced to a drawing not going to happen. I saw some attempts by grad students and lets just say they looked confused. To show you all involved in what you believe to be a simple transaction we have entire books on it. Yet you want a simple diagram well like in anything in life to get to what you want there is no short cuts. We tried to guide you in the right directions getting you to ask the right questions but you refuse to look.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ill make this simple the fields your searching for is those virtual particles. Its the latent energy from the creation of the universe. Its everywhere and interactions with this explains all particle interactions.

Latent energy, if its the fields im searching for, am I not searching for all the energy? And if all the energy that exists now has always existed, and will always exist, isnt all the energy latent? So you see that doesnt really explain anything.

And then calling the fields, which I dont understand how they physically exist, 'virtual particles', does nothing to describe or explain what they are or how they exist.

Is a field a solid (not in material terms, but in terms of connection), partless/component less, substance? Or is a field a network of parts?

Now if you say, a field is parts, or the field is the space between particles and virtual particles, as well as those particles them self, I must ask, what then 'is that' in between the particles? How is the field nature that is not describable by particles? Can it physically be described?

See there is no in between particles virtual particles are everywhere energy is everywhere. No point in the universe has zero energy. I know you heard me say this but you didnt grasp the concept pick any point anywhere no matter how small and there is energy there in fact the smaller the area we look the more energy it has.So there is no empty space in the universe there is always energy there.

a reply to: dragonridr
I agree. Einstein said "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." and we have a case here where someone wants it to be simpler, yet still accurate.

We can make it simpler and less accurate.

a reply to: ImaFungi
I gave you one simplified diagram at the top of this page (36), which is only one way a photon can be created...and there are other ways and I gave links to those also.

I also provided a link to QED if this simplified diagram was too simple for you.

originally posted by: dragonridr

See the stuff you want to ignore is the basics and you need understanding of the basics to even grasp the concepts. The reason they dont have the convenient diagram because this diagram would have to contain months of physics classes reduced to a drawing not going to happen. I saw some attempts by grad students and lets just say they looked confused. To show you all involved in what you believe to be a simple transaction we have entire books on it. Yet you want a simple diagram well like in anything in life to get to what you want there is no short cuts. We tried to guide you in the right directions getting you to ask the right questions but you refuse to look.

^^^^^^^^^^^ = WE DONT KNOW

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: dragonridr
I agree. Einstein said "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." and we have a case here where someone wants it to be simpler, yet still accurate.

We can make it simpler and less accurate.

Lies! I want the diagram more complex then the one you provided. Thats it.

originally posted by: dragonridr


See there is no in between particles virtual particles are everywhere energy is everywhere. No point in the universe has zero energy. I know you heard me say this but you didnt grasp the concept pick any point anywhere no matter how small and there is energy there in fact the smaller the area we look the more energy it has.So there is no empty space in the universe there is always energy there.

Ok nice! Now we have gotten somewhere. Though I disagree the smaller an area you look the more energy is there, that makes no sense, this is the kind of nonsensical thoughts that seem to run rampant with you...'physicists', the reason it is nonsensical/illogical/most likely/most definitely wrong, is that large areas are nothing but little areas. So if little areas have lots of energy, and larger areas are composed of little areas, then larger areas have more energy then little areas.

Ok, so how many fundamental fields are there that exist all throughout the universe? Main ones are Gravity field, EM field, Higgs field, and then Electron field and Quark field? Are there also neutrino field, and each fundamental particle has its own field, that exists everywhere throughout space?

a reply to: ImaFungi
For the 4th time (2 from mbkennel and 2 from me), you should watch the Feynman lectures on QED which explain what a simplified diagram cannot. I even found part 1 of each lecture for you (the remaining parts are linked in the right hand column as you watch each video).

Richard Feynman Lecture on Quantum Electrodynamics: QED. 1/8


Richard Feynman QED Lecture 2, Reflection and Transmission : 1/7


Richard Feynman QED Lecture 3, Electron Interactions : 1/8


There are four lectures in the series, and the above represent parts 1-3. I didn't see the 4th part on youtube but I think I may have got it from a torrent. It's titled:

Richard Feynman - The Douglas Robb Memorial Lectures - 4 of 4 - What does it mean and where is it all leading

But those three lectures should get you started.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I have watched them before. I dont recall there being a diagram of the electron and its coupling and radiating of local and greater field. Just forget about it, my questions are beyond your understanding, you cant comprehend why im asking what im asking let alone apparently what im asking, and this is not a problem with and of and about me, but it is my problem, attempting to ask my specific questions I do, to engage in discussion with intelligent and knowledgeable people on these threads is the way I seek at attempting to solve my problem. I dont want to learn volumes and volumes of equations and terms, I dont want to have all that stuff in my head, I have no means to receive a profession in the physics business, so I merely seek those who have, such as apparently Mbkennel is, so they can, as they ought be able to, 'simply express the deep and fundamental truths I seek in general discussion or analogy or light explanation, as if one cannot do that, it can be said one does not know the subject well enough theirselves', your response to that, "blah blah blah, it takes millions of lives working hundreds of years and they still dont understand it", well then what are we arguing about...it is true then that noone knows that a field is and how it exists. Or they would be able to tell me what it is and how it exists...or they would have gotten someone who is good at drawing to draw one.

Hypothesis: Noone knows what a field is, how it exists, how it works, how its coupled to an electron, how light propagates from this coupling as the electron is accelerated.

Experiment: If my hypothesis is false, someone how believes otherwise, will show me a diagram, which I hope will prove my hypothesis wrong. I only want to see my hypothesis proven wrong. All I want is to see how a field exists, the Electro and Magnetic components, and how the electron is coupled to it, and how when an electron is accelerated, the field is attached to the electron, and propagates radiation.

Result: ....................

a reply to: Arbitrageur



in this video Feynman explains the probability of reflecting photons of of water and says something like
" the world is made of chance" and the answer to the "why" is probability.
Only 4% of the photons get reflected and 96% goes trough but you can never tell which one gets reflected and which doesn't.

He totally despised the molecules as cause on the end...

Is he stupid ??

looks like this whole QT is based on one single though which would be,
"We don't know why nature works like it does, why some photons are reflected and some not,
we can not explain the mechanism of this but we play with dice therefore probability is the only way to explain it"

it even gets better in this two



All I see here is imaginary way to calculate probability but not a single explanation WHY !
Why some photons reflect and some don't ??

QT is Math only and nothing more...

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr


See there is no in between particles virtual particles are everywhere energy is everywhere. No point in the universe has zero energy. I know you heard me say this but you didnt grasp the concept pick any point anywhere no matter how small and there is energy there in fact the smaller the area we look the more energy it has.So there is no empty space in the universe there is always energy there.

Ok nice! Now we have gotten somewhere. Though I disagree the smaller an area you look the more energy is there, that makes no sense, this is the kind of nonsensical thoughts that seem to run rampant with you...'physicists', the reason it is nonsensical/illogical/most likely/most definitely wrong, is that large areas are nothing but little areas. So if little areas have lots of energy, and larger areas are composed of little areas, then larger areas have more energy then little areas.

Ok, so how many fundamental fields are there that exist all throughout the universe? Main ones are Gravity field, EM field, Higgs field, and then Electron field and Quark field? Are there also neutrino field, and each fundamental particle has its own field, that exists everywhere throughout space?

Ok before re tackling fields let me explain why the smaller the volume the more energy we see. Lets say we have a room 10ft by 10ft and we place a candle in the middle and the room started at 32 degrees. that candle may cause the room temperature to rise one or two degrees when we measure it. Remember heat is energy now we take that same candle and place it in a room 1 ft by 1 ft now that same candle would easily heat the room by 20 degrees. Now we take that same candle and place it in a metal box 6 in by 6 in that same candle would heat that box to the point you can cook on it. Energy level is unchanged during all this what changed was the space in which we had to divide the energy. This same exact reason is why the smaller of unit of space the more energy we see. You keep looking at things from what you believe to be logical but realize the universe is counter intuitive in a lot of ways. What we observe is often far stranger than you can imagine. Look we can literally bring light to a standstill or we can cause metal to loose its capability to produce a magnetic field when current is applied. We can explain this with QM so at least were on the right track. But the station is along way down the road to where we can say we truly know whats going on in the universe around us. But realize we have been around minutes compared to the universe.

originally posted by: dragonridr


Ok before re tackling fields let me explain why the smaller the volume the more energy we see. Lets say we have a room 10ft by 10ft and we place a candle in the middle and the room started at 32 degrees. that candle may cause the room temperature to rise one or two degrees when we measure it. Remember heat is energy now we take that same candle and place it in a room 1 ft by 1 ft now that same candle would easily heat the room by 20 degrees. Now we take that same candle and place it in a metal box 6 in by 6 in that same candle would heat that box to the point you can cook on it. Energy level is unchanged during all this what changed was the space in which we had to divide the energy. This same exact reason is why the smaller of unit of space the more energy we see. You keep looking at things from what you believe to be logical but realize the universe is counter intuitive in a lot of ways.

No. I did not mean a confined space, when I said space! When I said a little area of space. I meant, out in space, space is, a big area of space, if there is non 0 energy at ALL POINTS IN SPACE, then planck lengths are little areas of space, and larger areas of space, are many planck lengths. What ever non 0 value of energy exists in 1 small space, exists multiplied by the number of small spaces in any large area of space you are referring to. Surely if you box areas of space in with materials, there will be different effects, and of course an energy source that is not the space itself will diffuse in a large space.

Here you go (as to be expected with you) sneakily and dishonestly changing your argument when you realize (maybe you havent realized) you were wrong. And then as always, blaming it on me. I am questioning the most fundamental aspects of your believed theory, as to try and get you all to think about it further, and illuminate the currently dark logical tenants that must exist for what your theory states to be an accurate reflection of reality. Your theory and model is nice, but I have hit the end of its limits with my questions, it cannot satisfy my questions, this is not anyone or anythings blame or fault, but the fact that humans were born completely ignorant, reality is always completely true, and the complete truth appears to be completely difficult to pin down and know. I will come back in 10 years to see if physics has made any more progress in describing truth. The only reason I ever got interested in physics, was because I was desperately interested in philosophy, the truth regarding truth, the thought and pondering and wondering and illuminating and attempting to know everything. Any philosopher who is interested in Truth with a capital T, should at some point if they were thinking properly, turn to physics, and so I did, learning as much as I felt like, of the basic ideas of the history of modern physics and ideas, enough of what I thought of the generalities to grasp where modern physics was with their general metaphysical view of reality. I couldnt, and wouldnt want to dedicate my life to absorbing and studying the volumes of math and articles and papers for usefulness and creating things, thats not what im here for. So the knowledge I have received from my 'light research' and questions has been useful to me, expanding my abilities of critical thought, creativity, opening my perception, and understanding of the world and reality to a greater degree then I had possessed before I began looking into physics. I never considered I may not receive the ultimate answers to my questions, regarding the deepest fundamental quandaries and queries into the severely logical problems with the parsing and expression and knowing of the foundation of reality, because then maybe it would have turned me off from trying in the first place. Anyway, maybe ill see you around.

a reply to: KrzYma

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I am questioning the most fundamental aspects of your believed theory, as to try and get you all to think about it further, and illuminate the currently dark logical tenants that must exist for what your theory states to be an accurate reflection of reality. Your theory and model is nice, but I have hit the end of its limits with my questions, it cannot satisfy my questions, this is not anyone or anythings blame or fault, but the fact that humans were born completely ignorant, reality is always completely true, and the complete truth appears to be completely difficult to pin down and know.

You and KrzYma make a point we don't know everything, and Feynman and other scientists admit we don't have all the answers. Feynman says in those lectures that he's so tired of people asking him about what we don't know, that he intentionally made those lectures about what we DO know so people asking questions will at least be armed with that much knowledge.

In fact here is a video by a physicist admitting what KrzYma says about QM is true that it's just a very good model and there is still no consensus on physical interpretation of the model:

Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment) - Sixty Symbols


So, contrary to the accusations of some people, scientists don't know everything and are candid about admitting it, as seen in that video.

Where does this leave us? It still doesn't mean that religious fanatics can claim that "scientists don't know everything therefore maybe the Earth really is only 6000 years old like the bible says", or that EU proponents can claim "scientists don't know everything therefore maybe the the sun is really powered by electricity instead of nuclear fusion". It doesn't work that way, but these are the silly arguments I hear from those camps.

The fact that we don't know the physical reality behind QM does nothing to disprove that it matches observation, and makes predictions very accurately, and this gap also leaves no room to claim the sun is powered by electricity, this is simply not part of the knowledge gap.

But yes there are gaps in our knowledge of science. If there weren't we'd have an awful lot of bored scientists with nothing new to figure out. Just don't use this as an excuse to make up explanations like electric sun which don't fit observation, KrzYma, please. The fact that QM is an observationally fitted model may be true but it doesn't prove anyone's pet anti-mainstream theory is right. Give a better explanation for QM, or give some alternate theories that are consistent with observations, but most of the EU woo you post is inconsistent with and contradicted by observation. We don't have to claim to fully understand QM to say that.

Edit to add: I found the 4th Feynman lecture on youtube which I had trouble finding earlier:

a reply to: ImaFungi


Doesnt matter when you look at smaller and smaller areas the act of doing so confines the space.You cant have it both ways sorry.