A universe with no beginning or end

In summary, the problem of infinite regress has been around for a while, as the idea of an infinite past seems to lead to absurdities. While the big bang model seemed to have removed the idea of an eternal universe, certain inflation models bring it back.
  • #36
Originally posted by wuliheron
I'd never join a club that would have me as a member.

Groucho Marx

Existence may be the ultimate mystery, but I certainly can't prove it! I doubt my own doubt, and never settle for certainty. Not even the certainty of my doubt. :0)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull! You wouldn't have stated that you have this doubt, unless you are certain of having this doubt. It is not impossible to be uncertain of everything; but one who is uncertain of everything cannot be certain that he/she is so, and thus cannot state it.

In a rational universe filled with rational human beings it isn't possible, but I've never claimed to be rational much less that the universe is rational. Go ahead, prove me wrong. LOLOLOLOLOL
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #37
Originally posted by wuliheron
In a rational universe filled with rational human beings it isn't possible, but I've never claimed to be rational much less that the universe is rational. Go ahead, prove me wrong. LOLOLOLOLOL

What's the point, you aren't rational. The claim that you (and the universe) are irrational creates paradox, and is thus not worth discussing (that's right, there is not point in discussing paradox in a thread about a rational universe. *sticks out tongue*).
 
  • #38
Originally posted by Eh
No, because an expanding universe does not get bigger. Expansion seems to be misleading in this case.

Expansion is getting bigger, isn't it? If not, explain what it is.
 
  • #39
What's the point, you aren't rational. The claim that you (and the universe) are irrational creates paradox, and is thus not worth discussing (that's right, there is not point in discussing paradox in a thread about a rational universe. *sticks out tongue*).

Yuk! If I had something that ugly in my mouth I'd stick it out too!

Paradox, as many here have been quick to point out, is not well defined. As I have repeatedly pointed out in innumerable ways, this is precisely what makes it valuable. Logic and mathematics themselves are based on the concept of the absurd and to deny this is, in its own rite, absurd.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by wuliheron
Yuk! If I had something that ugly in my mouth I'd stick it out too!

Paradox, as many here have been quick to point out, is not well defined. As I have repeatedly pointed out in innumerable ways, this is precisely what makes it valuable. Logic and mathematics themselves are based on the concept of the absurd and to deny this is, in its own rite, absurd.

Is this something that you believe for a certainty, Wuliheron?

Besides, a discussion of paradox could easily bring an end to the discussion that is the theme of this thread, but that doesn't mean that it answers it (no matter if you think it does, it doesn't). It just makes the subject irrationality, and this could leave Eh - and the rest of us - without a constructive argument (which we could have had).
 
  • #41
Originally posted by Mentat
It is clearly not as clear as you think, otherwise I wouldn't have convinced a good few members in the old PFs of my view. Please, enlighten me.

Well let us try to make the situation more clear.
Suppose we have a grid, representing 3D space. It has lines on it, defining the current metrics. Now the anlogy with space expansion is that the size of the grid gets bigger. This is also the case when the grid is infinite in size.

Your argument supposedly comes from the fact that Infinity + Any number is still Infinity, and even Infinity * Any number is still Infinity, so in a mathematical sense you cannot say that the size of the space is getting bigger. You CAN however claim that the size of the metrics gets bigger, and that is what is being meant when we say that space expands.
 
  • #42
Originally posted by heusdens
Can you point me to any arguments or proof that this is not a reasonable assumption (except from plain ignorance)?

Don't you think that science has shown us this to be the case?
Science hasn't shown us anything, other than that our perceptions of mind are orderly and predictable. There's not one scientific-fact which favours materialism over idealism.
 
  • #43
Is this something that you believe for a certainty, Wuliheron?

Besides, a discussion of paradox could easily bring an end to the discussion that is the theme of this thread, but that doesn't mean that it answers it (no matter if you think it does, it doesn't). It just makes the subject irrationality, and this could leave Eh - and the rest of us - without a constructive argument (which we could have had).

Paradox is not the end of discussion, au contrair, the beginning of discussion. No paradox, nothing to discuss. Likewise, paradox is not the end of rationality, but its origin as I already stated.

Do you honestly believe westerners are the only people to ever contemplate infinity? How absurd. Infinity is just another aspect of paradox. Acknowledging this simple fact of life brings rigor and a grounding effect to your debate, which is infinitely complex.
 
  • #44
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Science hasn't shown us anything, other than that our perceptions of mind are orderly and predictable.

Perceptions of mind? That what we perceive of is the 'outer reality' (which is not just out of us, but also in us).
Can the mind perceive of itself?

There's not one scientific-fact which favours materialism over idealism.

Most of the scientific facts in physics, chemics and biology do favour materialism. Materialism has been proven to be a more workable assumption then Idealism.
 
  • #45
Most of the scientific facts in physics, chemics and biology do favour materialism. Materialism has been proven to be a more workable assumption then Idealism.

I agree a hundred percent with this statement. Like Aristotlelian logic, materialism has proven to be the more brute force approach that quickly goes to the heart of the matter. That's not to say idealism does not have its value though, only that like a lot of liberal ideas it often not very expedient. Fortunately, the two are not mutually exclusive any more than the concept of paradox is. :0)
 
  • #46


Greetings !
Originally posted by heusdens
This is like opening up a box of tricks, that can fill in any gap in our reasoning. I think you have the wrong conception of material existence anyway. What you call the "paradox of existence" is not a box of tricks you can use at will to fill gaps of understanding.
Why not ?
Or would you rather think that the paradox
centers "around" a single thing. ( Maybe
a super-string in 26 dimensions ? )
You are trying to limmit paradox, by definition
it can have no limmit.
Originally posted by heusdens
For sure we can know if the elementary particles are elementary. At least when we discover that they can be divided up into more elementary forms of matter, a counterfact has been proven.
And we don't ? Can you ever be certain of anything
except existence ?
Originally posted by heusdens
Can you prove that?
Nope.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by Mentat
Bull! You wouldn't have stated that you have this doubt, unless you are certain of having this doubt. It is not impossible to be uncertain of everything; but one who is uncertain of everything cannot be certain that he/she is so, and thus cannot state it.
That's why we have a wonderful thing called
estimate of probability(through science =
all knowledge + all experience).
(Not that you can ever calculate and be certain of
the exact probability - but as long as science
appears to "work" your estimates based on it could
work too.)

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #48
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Science hasn't shown us anything, other than that our perceptions of mind are orderly and predictable. There's not one scientific-fact which favours materialism over idealism.]
Of course there is LG - science can predict.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." Leonardo Da Vinci

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #49
You are trying to limmit paradox, by definition
it can have no limmit.

The sentiment is good, but the literal statement is not. Paradox does have a definition and, thus, it is not a meaningless word or a purely sentimental one. Logic alone cannot describe paradox, that is why it is useful.
 
  • #50
Originally posted by drag
Of course there is LG - science can predict.
The prediction of orderly-perceptions does not prove that what we 'see' is real unto itself. It just proves that what we see is orderly and predictable. Your point is irrelevant.
 
  • #51
Originally posted by Lifegazer
The prediction of orderly-perceptions does not prove that what we 'see' is real unto itself. It just proves that what we see is orderly and predictable. Your point is irrelevant.

A statement like 'there is not one jot of proof for material existence' which is stated as if that would have some absolute truth, is rather relative and subjective vision on material reality, which only portrays the will and intent of a subjective mind, which intends at leaving us with a 'reality gap' to be fitted in with what he sees as 'Divine intervention' 'Divine source' or 'Divine origin' of and to existence.

But most people know better then that.

They will see that the materialist claim, though it cannot be established with 100 % certainty, is true, and which is backed up with lots of scientific evidence in all fields of science, while the opposite position (the 'divine' nature of reality) has indeed not one bit of evidence, but is entirely based on the subjective mind, and lacks objective proof, and proof based on empirical knowledge.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
Originally posted by heusdens
Well let us try to make the situation more clear.
Suppose we have a grid, representing 3D space. It has lines on it, defining the current metrics. Now the anlogy with space expansion is that the size of the grid gets bigger. This is also the case when the grid is infinite in size.

Your argument supposedly comes from the fact that Infinity + Any number is still Infinity, and even Infinity * Any number is still Infinity, so in a mathematical sense you cannot say that the size of the space is getting bigger. You CAN however claim that the size of the metrics gets bigger, and that is what is being meant when we say that space expands.

This can't be right. Think physically. If a dimension of space is infinite, then it goes on forever. How much bigger than "forever" can you get? (this is a rhetorical question, btw).
 
  • #53
Originally posted by Mentat
This can't be right. Think physically. If a dimension of space is infinite, then it goes on forever. How much bigger than "forever" can you get? (this is a rhetorical question, btw).

Something of infinite size that gets bigger still remains infinite size. But this does not contradict the idea that it DOES get bigger.
Even while it is infinite, it is made up of parts, and all it's parts grow. I would certainly call that getting bigger (at least you get that perception when measuring around within a finite portion of the space).

Capito?
 
  • #54
Originally posted by Mentat
Expansion is getting bigger, isn't it? If not, explain what it is.

Expansion is a local event. Asymptotically flat space between the galaxies expands. That is, the distance between point A and B expands, but when this happens in a universe of infinite volume the size remains constant. Expansion does not necessarily mean the universe is growing like in the balloon analogy.
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Your error here is that you, like heusdens, are assuming that existence is fundamentally material.

I did assume that in the second point (on GR), but not in the first one.

From this, you deduce that a static material-existence (with static forces too) would be unable to change itself. Hence you conclude that such a state would have to remain eternal - thus negating the onset of time. And since time has happened and is still happening, you conclude that there could not have been such an original-state as unchanging-Existence.
Your reasoning is correct - except that your premise needs to be proven to validate that conclusion.

Let the set of all processes be represented by the function of time P(t). P(t) is static iff, for all n in Z+, d(n)P/dt(n)=0. If all the time derivatives are zero, then it is logically impossible for P to evolve in time, unless you assume something else. That is what you do, despite denying it here...

However; I took the non-assumed route towards making my conclusion of reason.

Hardly! You have to assume that there is some supernatural being to reach in from outside the universe and set all these things in motion. Once you open the floodgates for assuming figments of the imagination like that, you can not get anywhere, because anything goes.

And if you subtract your asserted-premise from a re-reading of my post, then you'll see that there's nothing wrong with my reasoning.

There is plenty wrong with it. Aside from the needless assumption above, the argument is not even deductively valid. Look at it again:

"Firstly; the beginning of time = the beginning of change.

Hence, you are in error by assuming that the beginning of time = the beginning of existence. Existence doesn't necessarily imply 'change'. And there is no logical-reason to label the idea of unchanging-Existence as an absurdity."


You say "hence" as though the second part follows from the first, when it obviously does not. This is a simple non-sequitir whose acceptance demands that we assume the existence of one of an infinite number of possible gods.

Hence, you are in error by assuming that the beginning of time = the beginning of existence. Existence doesn't necessarily imply 'change'. And there is no logical-reason to label the idea of unchanging-Existence as an absurdity.

What makes more sense:

1. To assume that the statements of GR and QFT (which make a strong inductive argument) are on the right track?

or...

2. To open the door for all manner of deities for which there is no evidence?

If you want to argue that The Mind existed in a changeless state, then I can just as well argue that the Easter Bunny always existed, hiding eggs for The Mind's children. Hey, you know what? That just might rescue your idea, because the Easter Bunny moves very fast, I hear. That's it! We have found the original source of motion for everything!
 
  • #56
Originally posted by Lifegazer
The prediction of orderly-perceptions does not prove that what we 'see' is real unto itself. It just proves that what we see is orderly and predictable. Your point is irrelevant.
Stop ! If you'll "listen" to yourself for just
a moment you'll see that you didn't say
CHOOSE - you said FAVOR. The ability of
science to predict clearly makes it favorable.
In this light my point is relevant.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #57
Originally posted by heusdens
Something of infinite size that gets bigger still remains infinite size. But this does not contradict the idea that it DOES get bigger.
Even while it is infinite, it is made up of parts, and all it's parts grow. I would certainly call that getting bigger (at least you get that perception when measuring around within a finite portion of the space).


How much bigger is 1 than 1? If I were to add something to 1 and still get 1, I would have to be adding zero, because otherwise the result would be bigger than 1. This means that I can't add anything to 1, without getting a bigger number. There is no "bigger number" than infinity. You cannot add something to infinity at all, it makes no sense (because of previous reasoning on the number 1). It is as though all numbers are as 0 compared to infinity.

So, if I add zero (which = any finite number) to infinity, I have exactly the same amount of space left, and thus no expansion has taken place (obviously - since I'm adding zero).
 
  • #58
Originally posted by Tom
1. To assume that the statements of GR and QFT (which make a strong inductive argument) are on the right track?
How DO the statements of GR, QFT or "you name it"
actually EXPLAIN the Universe ?
(The easter bunny is just as good...:wink:)

" The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been
widely regarded as a bad move.
Many races believe that it was created by some sort
of God, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI
believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed
out of the nose of a being called the Great Green
Arkleseizure.
The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the
time they call The Coming of The Great White
Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than
fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the
only race in history to have invented the aerosol
deodorant before the wheel.
However, the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory is not
widely accepted outside Viltvodle VI and so, the
Universe being the puzzling place it is, other
explanations are constantly being sought. "
Douglas Adams

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #59
Originally posted by drag
How DO the statements of GR, QFT or "you name it"
actually EXPLAIN the Universe ?


They don't explain the universe, they describe it. The description is such that there is no such thing as motionlessness.
 
  • #60
Originally posted by Mentat
How much bigger is 1 than 1? If I were to add something to 1 and still get 1, I would have to be adding zero, because otherwise the result would be bigger than 1. This means that I can't add anything to 1, without getting a bigger number. There is no "bigger number" than infinity. You cannot add something to infinity at all, it makes no sense (because of previous reasoning on the number 1). It is as though all numbers are as 0 compared to infinity.

So, if I add zero (which = any finite number) to infinity, I have exactly the same amount of space left, and thus no expansion has taken place (obviously - since I'm adding zero).

Well I already accepted that point of view, but it is besides the point since infinity can't be measured anyway.

The only thing we CAN and DO measure however is the size of the metrics of the grid which is of finite propertions, which gives us the impression it is getting bigger.
 
Last edited:
  • #61
Originally posted by Tom
They don't explain the universe, they describe it.
The description is such that there is no such thing
as motionlessness.
Aah... But, if they only describe it - how
can they be a reason against other options
(you can always add one more discription) ?
To be such a reason they need to be more than
mere discriptions - they need to be explanations.
And them being explanations is not something you
can prove...:wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #62
Originally posted by drag
That's why we have a wonderful thing called
estimate of probability(through science =
all knowledge + all experience).
(Not that you can ever calculate and be certain of
the exact probability - but as long as science
appears to "work" your estimates based on it could
work too.)

Live long and prosper.

Please explain your reasoning here, I entirely missed it's relavence/practicality.
 
  • #63
Originally posted by drag
Aah... But, if they only describe it - how
can they be a reason against other options
(you can always add one more discription) ?

You don't change the description on a whim; it is dictated to you by data. I don't understand what you're getting at. Could you be less suggestive and more explicit?

To be such a reason they need to be more than
mere discriptions - they need to be explanations.
And them being explanations is not something you
can prove...:wink:

Of course, arguments from science are inductive in nature, and thus the premises do not absolutely support the conclusion. When someone wants to sieze upon the small uncertainty, then we have to look at what they want to replace it with.

In this case, it is proposed that the natural workings of the universe be replaced with an omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent Mind that once existed in a changeless state, and has left no evidence of its existence except one fanatic who calls himself lifegazer.
 
  • #64
Originally posted by Tom
In this case, it is proposed that the natural workings of the universe be replaced with an omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent Mind that once existed in a changeless state, and has left no evidence of its existence except one fanatic who calls himself lifegazer.

One? We might be happy if it was only one. The reality is that it is leaving and spreading around viruses in different flavours, that spread and copy themselves around, making people think they can act in the name of God. Sometimes in the forms of people flying with airplanes into buildings, others commanding airplanes to drop bombs on innocent people, etc. etc. The world is still full of it!
 
  • #65
Originally posted by Tom
You don't change the description on a whim; it is dictated to you by data. I don't understand what you're getting at. Could you be less suggestive and more explicit?



Of course, arguments from science are inductive in nature, and thus the premises do not absolutely support the conclusion. When someone wants to sieze upon the small uncertainty, then we have to look at what they want to replace it with.

In this case, it is proposed that the natural workings of the universe be replaced with an omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent Mind that once existed in a changeless state, and has left no evidence of its existence except one fanatic who calls himself lifegazer.

If you think that Lifegazer is a fanatic, then your experience with fanaticism is very limited. Lifegazer is just dedicated to his idea (even if he/she did "take a break from it", earlier ).
 
  • #66
Originally posted by heusdens
They will see that the materialist claim, though it cannot be established with 100 % certainty, is true, and which is backed up with lots of scientific evidence in all fields of science,
Why is it so difficult to understand that science only confirms the order & predictability of our perceived-universe, and that this knowledge of order does not confirm anything about reality?
Here's your argument:-
1. The universe is ordered.
2. Therefore, the universe exists unto itself, beyond our perceptions.

I think you'll find that your conclusion is definitely a non-sequitor.
'Order' can equally-apply within images & thoughts (i.e., an ordered-mind). That's why you cannot say that science confirms reality. It does not. It just confirms order of perception.
 
  • #67
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Why is it so difficult to understand that science only confirms the order & predictability of our perceived-universe, and that this knowledge of order does not confirm anything about reality?


So "percieved-universe" is entirely separate from "reality"?
 
  • #68
Originally posted by Mentat
So "percieved-universe" is entirely separate from "reality"?
The point is that you don't know what sort of reality you are perceiving. And just because our perceptions are ordered so that we can understand them, does not confirm the external nature of that reality - not in the slightest.
I thought that would be obvious considering that most of my arguments are founded upon the same existing-order of those perceptions. However, please note that my conclusion (about the mind) is built upon knowledge of this order also. And it is not just assumed, as is the case with any materialist you might encounter.
 
  • #69
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Why is it so difficult to understand that science only confirms the order & predictability of our perceived-universe, and that this knowledge of order does not confirm anything about reality?
Here's your argument:-
1. The universe is ordered.
2. Therefore, the universe exists unto itself, beyond our perceptions.

I think you'll find that your conclusion is definitely a non-sequitor.
'Order' can equally-apply within images & thoughts (i.e., an ordered-mind). That's why you cannot say that science confirms reality. It does not. It just confirms order of perception.

Perceptions are part of the reality, the mind is part of the reality, the source of perception is part of the reality.
 
  • #70
Originally posted by Tom
I did assume that in the second point, but not in the first one.
I have to disagree since you assumed that a static-unchanging existence would be without power to effect self-change.
By the way, don't you see the big-bang as an origin?
Let the set of all processes be represented by the function of time P(t). P(t) is static iff, for all n in Z+, d(n)P/dt(n)=0. If all the time derivatives are zero, then it is logically impossible for P to evolve in time, unless you assume something else. That is what you do, despite denying it here...
I do not just assume an origin for time. I argue that an origin is definite...
I think you once agreed with my argument that "existence is eternal", because you also agreed that 'absolutely-nothing' cannot be the cause of, or the abode of any proceeding existence.
However, when we discuss existence as a whole, we are not necessarily saying that it has also been in a state of eternal-motion (eternal change). Such a conclusion as that would require reasoned-support, for it is equally-possible that existence had/has a singular form, which means that fundamentally, existence was/is unchanging. In other words, the statement "existence is eternal" does not imply that existence has always been fragmented and changing. It may once have been (and in some sense, might still be) singular... indivisible... unchanging.
Thus, any philosophical argument about time must proceed to analyse the logic of causality and its effects, in order to ponder the nature of that time. In the argument I hinted-at above, I can show that no effect of time can claim to be the end of a specific causality-chain and also claim that the causality-chain is infinite. I argue that all effects must proceed from an original-cause, and that all causality-chains must be finite. I'll give a full explanation if anyone's interested.

It should also be pointed-out that your statement is actually irrelevant. You kind-of infer that there can be no processes of change, until change exists. That's all you're basically saying. And it's correct. However, your statement does little to address the issue of whether a state of changeless-existence was responsible for such a change. You just assume that it is impossible.
This appears to be short-sighted, especially when considering the fact that all change is self-imposed (comes from within existence). Time is self-change - of existence.
"Firstly; the beginning of time = the beginning of change.
Hence, you are in error by assuming that the beginning of time = the beginning of existence. Existence doesn't necessarily imply 'change'. And there is no logical-reason to label the idea of unchanging-Existence as an absurdity."


You say "hence" as though the second part follows from the first, when it obviously does not.
"it is equally-possible that existence had/has a singular form, which means that fundamentally, existence was/is unchanging."
It is a mistake to assume that existence = change.
This is a simple non-sequitir whose acceptance demands that we assume the existence of one of an infinite number of possible gods.
Actually, by reason, there is only one possible God. The omni-God.
The non-finite God.
 
<h2>1. What is a universe with no beginning or end?</h2><p>A universe with no beginning or end is a theoretical concept that suggests the universe has always existed and will continue to exist indefinitely. This idea challenges the traditional belief that the universe had a specific starting point, such as the Big Bang theory.</p><h2>2. How is a universe with no beginning or end possible?</h2><p>There are several theories that attempt to explain the possibility of a universe with no beginning or end. One theory is the cyclic model, which suggests that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and contraction, with no true beginning or end. Another theory is the steady state model, which proposes that matter is constantly being created and the universe has always existed in a constant state.</p><h2>3. What evidence supports the idea of a universe with no beginning or end?</h2><p>Currently, there is no concrete evidence that definitively proves the existence of a universe with no beginning or end. However, some scientists point to the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the leftover energy from the Big Bang, as evidence that the universe has always existed in some form.</p><h2>4. What are the implications of a universe with no beginning or end?</h2><p>If a universe with no beginning or end is proven to be true, it would challenge many traditional beliefs and theories about the origins of the universe. It would also have implications for our understanding of time and the concept of infinity.</p><h2>5. How does the idea of a universe with no beginning or end affect our understanding of the meaning of life?</h2><p>The idea of a universe with no beginning or end may challenge some religious and philosophical beliefs about the purpose and meaning of life. It may also lead to a shift in perspective, as it suggests that the universe has always existed and will continue to exist, potentially without any ultimate purpose or end goal.</p>

1. What is a universe with no beginning or end?

A universe with no beginning or end is a theoretical concept that suggests the universe has always existed and will continue to exist indefinitely. This idea challenges the traditional belief that the universe had a specific starting point, such as the Big Bang theory.

2. How is a universe with no beginning or end possible?

There are several theories that attempt to explain the possibility of a universe with no beginning or end. One theory is the cyclic model, which suggests that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and contraction, with no true beginning or end. Another theory is the steady state model, which proposes that matter is constantly being created and the universe has always existed in a constant state.

3. What evidence supports the idea of a universe with no beginning or end?

Currently, there is no concrete evidence that definitively proves the existence of a universe with no beginning or end. However, some scientists point to the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the leftover energy from the Big Bang, as evidence that the universe has always existed in some form.

4. What are the implications of a universe with no beginning or end?

If a universe with no beginning or end is proven to be true, it would challenge many traditional beliefs and theories about the origins of the universe. It would also have implications for our understanding of time and the concept of infinity.

5. How does the idea of a universe with no beginning or end affect our understanding of the meaning of life?

The idea of a universe with no beginning or end may challenge some religious and philosophical beliefs about the purpose and meaning of life. It may also lead to a shift in perspective, as it suggests that the universe has always existed and will continue to exist, potentially without any ultimate purpose or end goal.

Similar threads

  • Cosmology
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
80
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
853
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
37
Views
2K
Back
Top