Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[modest]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

Hello modest in reference to:

 

"Big Bang Blasted!"

The Home of Tired Light. Redshift, the Hubble constant, Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the Expanding Universe all explained.

 

 

 

Tired Light is an alternative theory to that of the expanding Universe. This theory explains the experimental evidence without resorting to the 'cosmological constants' or 'vacuum energy' that are essential to the theory of the expanding Universe.

 

Experiment tells us that photons of light from distant galaxies have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off. Since red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, we say that they have been 'redshifted'. The Theory of the Expanding Universe explains this as space expanding and stretching the photons as it does so. In Tired Light we say that the photons lost energy during their journey to us by bumping into electrons on the way.

 

The Tired Light Theory (that redshift is due to electron interaction) is supported by the fact that measured values of the Hubble constant, H are exactly equal to a combination of the parameters of the electron. This is known as 'Ashmore's Paradox'. If, in the expanding Universe, the expansion is not related to the electron then why is the Hubble constant found experimentally to be related to the electron?

 

What is wrong with this logic?

 

Is this logic further than reality as explained by the BBT expansion of the universe via space/time without reference to actual observations.

 

"Actual observations" agree with cosmological expansion and rule out tired light scenarios.

 

The relation between universal expansion and redshift is observationally confirmed through a great variety of tests...

 

Today, tired light is remembered mainly for historical interest, and almost no scientist accepts tired light as a viable explanation for Hubble's Law.

 

Tired light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the assumption that there is no systematic error in any of the data, the analysis given above establishes with high probability that the present tired-light model disagrees with observation.

 

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1972ApJ...174....1G&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

We also demonstrate the 1+z light-curve time-axis broadening expected from cosmological expansion. This argues strongly against alternative explanations, such as tired light, for the redshift of distant objects.

 

When we compare this result to the alternate theories, it is clear that they are severely challenged or simply ruled out. The tired light theories (Zwicky (1929); Hubble & Tolman (1935); Hubble (1936); Mariˇc et al. (1977); Chow (1977); La Violette (1986) would not yield this slowing of the light curves, and thus do not fit this dataset.

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0104/0104382v1.pdf

 

We conclude that the Tolman surface brightness test is consistent with the reality of the expansion. We have also used the high-redshift HST data to test the ``tired light'' speculation for a non-expansion model for the redshift. The HST data rule out the ``tired light'' model at a significance level of better than 10 sigma.

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0106/0106566v1.pdf

 

It is "simply ruled out" by many, many observations. How, for example, would tired light time dilate a supernova? It would not. Simple observations like that support cosmic expansion and rule out tired light.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day Modest

 

Mate the link

 

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1972ApJ...174....1G&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

 

Is dated 1972. Its out dated by updated data.

 

It states that galaxies are moving apart.

 

Observations show us that galaxies cluster.

 

The link is not worth saving. Have you actually read it.

 

=======================================================

As for link

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0104/0104382v1.pdf

 

Lacking updated data, Has no understanding of the process that goes on during a supernova.

 

=======================================================

 

as for wiki infomation. Alot of that is opinion based and needs updating.

 

======================================================

 

You say simply ruled out by many observations.

 

Please supply those observations.

======================================================

 

This paper may place light on the subject

 

[0806.4085] A review of redshift and its interpretation in cosmology and astrophysics

 

A review of redshift and its interpretation in cosmology and astrophysics

 

Authors: R. Gray, J. Dunning-Davies

(Submitted on 25 Jun 2008)

 

Abstract: The interpretation of redshift in cosmology and astronomy yields a great deal of information about the universe in which we live, but much controversy surrounds the correct interpretation of the phenomenon. This article discusses the history of the redshift, and how its interpretation varies between different cosmological theories, including the Big Bang theory and some of its most famous rivals, the Steady State theory and Tired Light theory, and aims to highlight a few of the problems still existing. Some notions not normally associated with astronomy and astrophysics are mentioned also in the hope that a somewhat broader view of this important topic may be investigated.

 

[0804.3595] Time Dilation in Type Ia Supernova Spectra at High Redshift

 

Time Dilation in Type Ia Supernova Spectra at High Redshift

 

Authors: S. Blondin, T. M. Davis, K. Krisciunas, B. P. Schmidt, J. Sollerman, W. M. Wood-Vasey, A. C. Becker, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, G. Damke, A. V. Filippenko, R. J. Foley, P. M. Garnavich, S. W. Jha, R. P. Kirshner, B. Leibundgut, W. Li, T. Matheson, G. Miknaitis, G. Narayan, G. Pignata, A. Rest, A. G. Riess, J. M. Silverman, R. C. Smith, J. Spyromilio, M. Stritzinger, C. W. Stubbs, N. B. Suntzeff, J. L. Tonry, B. E. Tucker, A. Zenteno

(Submitted on 22 Apr 2008)

 

Abstract: We present multiepoch spectra of 13 high-redshift Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) drawn from the literature, the ESSENCE and SNLS projects, and our own separate dedicated program on the ESO Very Large Telescope. We use the Supernova Identification (SNID) code of Blondin & Tonry to determine the spectral ages in the supernova rest frame. Comparison with the observed elapsed time yields an apparent aging rate consistent with the 1/(1+z) factor (where z is the redshift) expected in a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding universe. These measurements thus confirm the expansion hypothesis, while unambiguously excluding models that predict no time dilation, such as Zwicky's "tired light" hypothesis. We also test for power-law dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1+z) factor.

 

 

[0709.0520] Starburst Intensity Limit of Galaxies at z~5-6

Starburst Intensity Limit of Galaxies at z~5-6

Authors: N. P. Hathi, S. Malhotra, J. E. Rhoads

(Submitted on 4 Sep 2007 (v1), last revised 22 Oct 2007 (this version, v2))

 

[0707.3351] Reflections and Thoughts on Tired Light

Reflections and Thoughts on Tired Light

Authors: M. Moore, J. Dunning-Davies

(Submitted on 23 Jul 2007)

 

[0706.2885] An Alternative Explanation for Cosmological Redshift

An Alternative Explanation for Cosmological Redshift

Authors: David Schuster

(Submitted on 19 Jun 2007 (v1), last revised 9 May 2008 (this version, v2))

Abstract: The first and most compelling evidence of the universe's expansion was, and continues to be, the observed redshift of spectra from distant objects. This paper plays "devil's advocate" by providing an alternative explanation with elementary physics. I assume a steady-state universe that is infinite in both expanse and age, with the observed redshifts caused by particle interactions creating an overall index of refraction of the universe. The cumulative effects of these interactions over long distances cause not only the shifts that we observe, but also the monotonically increasing redshifts as more distant objects are observed. This is a novel explanation for the phenomenon known as "tired light" which has been discussed for decades.

 

=====================================================

 

Its not us simple as it looks. The intrinsic properties are only now been understood, particularly ultra dense compact matter that plays a part in supernova process.

[Buffy]

For fun I picked this one:

[0707.3351] Reflections and Thoughts on Tired Light

Reflections and Thoughts on Tired Light

Authors: M. Moore, J. Dunning-Davies

(Submitted on 23 Jul 2007)

In summary, it basically provides a simple appeal to the well-accepted notion that the speed of light slows down when passing through a medium without bothering to try to even compute the necessary density of that medium were the tired light theories to be adequate explanations of red shift.

 

Boy, just about *anyone* can publish these lightweight (6 page) "surveys and conjectures" that are obviously simply trying to create a "base" of "scientific agreement" for these theories.

 

It's not the number of papers Pluto, its whether they actually say anything meaningful or not!

 

A multitude of words is no proof of a prudent mind, B)

Buffy

[Pluto]

G'day Buffy

 

What you say is correct and I thank you for the quick response.

 

But! we must not be blinded by the light of many.

 

Redshift is questioned and it requires further research so that future data can fit whatever theory.

 

What part of the paper do you disagree?

 

Do you think light does not change over distance and time?

 

Do you think that lensing is not a fact?

 

Do you think that ultra dense matter does not influence the wavelength of light?

 

This is quite interesting paper.

 

[0809.2328] New Possibilities for Observational Distinction Between Geometrical and Field Gravity Theories

New Possibilities for Observational Distinction Between Geometrical and Field Gravity Theories

 

Authors: Yu. V. Baryshev (Astron.Inst.St.-Petersburg Univ.)

(Submitted on 13 Sep 2008)

 

Abstract: Crucial observational tests of gravity physics are reviewed. Such tests are able to clarify the key question on the nature of gravitational interaction: is gravity the curvature of space? or is gravity a matter field in Minkowski flat space as other physical forces? Up to now all actually performed experiments do not allow to distinguish between these two alternatives in gravity physics. The existence of well-defined positive energy-momentum of the gravity field in Poincare-Feynman approach leads to radical changes in gravity physics and cosmology which may be tested by laboratory experiments and astrophysical observations. New possibilities for observational distinction between geometrical general relativity and field gravity theories are discussed. Among them: the contribution of the scalar repulsive force into Newtonian gravitational interaction, post-Newtonian translational motion of rotating bodies, gravitational deflection of light by small mass bodies, scalar gravitational radiation from spherically pulsating stars, existence of limiting radius, surface, magnetic field for massive bodies and absence of singularities and horizons for relativistic compact objects.

 

I think I post links to save me from typing.

 

The problem I have is that the more papers I read the more I find myself knowing that I know very little in the scope of the universe.

[Buffy]

But! we must not be blinded by the light of many.

 

Redshift is questioned and it requires further research so that future data can fit whatever theory.

I agree that its good to question the theory, but you've got to realize that if you question something, it would behoove you to come up with a reason why other than just "I think it could be wrong."

 

So,

What part of the paper do you disagree?

I'm somewhat familiar with the actual experimental data associated with measuring lightspeed through a medium, in fact there was an episode of The Universe on the History Channel this evening on this very topic, which got me thinking about this paper you cited.

 

Its well proven that passing through a medium slows down light, but that slowdown is directly proportional to the density of the medium it passes through. But you need a LOT of density to get it to slow down much. In our own atmosphere, the speed is affected by far less than 1%. The red-shifts we are talking about explaining are gigantic in comparison, and thus unless you're going to argue that the average density of material between the source and us of these stars is far more dense than water, the argument cannot, well, hold much water!

 

This is the *only* appeal that that paper put forth. How can I not think it's simply not bothering to even do the math when it claims that 1+1=86?

 

Do you think light does not change over distance and time?

That's something that's not mentioned in that paper. I have indeed seen it appear in some places, most recently in the Dot-Wave Theory thread over in the Strange Claims forum.

 

Do you have a logical explanation--hopefully one you've thought through well enough to present here yourself rather than merely pointing us to a paper somewhere that you haven't verified in your own mind--for why the speed of light would vary? And why it would not do so in our local space--aside from well-understood variations due to media--but would do so at large distances?

 

Can you explain why red-shift data seems to correlate perfectly for those stars that are close enough to provide even parallax-confirmed distance data? Doesn't it seem to be the case that for those geometrical distances to be "misleading" it would require them to be affected by something akin to relativity?

Do you think that lensing is not a fact?

How is lensing inconsistent with red-shift? Lensing bends light, it does not create a medium that would slow it down. How is this question relevant?

Do you think that ultra dense matter does not influence the wavelength of light?

Sure it does. Just said so. The question is not one of the individual densities of particles--that cause gravitational lensing--but rather average density of that matter in space, which is what slows light down.

 

Are you sure you understand the difference between "dense matter" and "the density of a region of space"? They're two very different things!

 

I think I post links to save me from typing.

 

The problem I have is that the more papers I read the more I find myself knowing that I know very little in the scope of the universe.

And there you have it: you need to increase your understanding. This comes from comparing and contrasting the statements in these papers and trying to keep an open mind to either side.

 

If I were just an absolutist, I would not have bothered to read the paper you referenced. I like new ideas, they in fact happen all the time! Some of them do overturn the conventional wisdom! Einstein did!

 

On the other hand weak scholarship is all too common these days and that paper really did not even pass the smell test. Sure it's fine to propose an alternate theory, but to blithely skip over even attempting to show why that alternate theory would match even a single data point makes that paper absolutely worthless. Worse still, even a cursory, back-of-the-envelope computation, like the one I give earlier in this post is orders-of-magnitude wrong.

 

Thus are you really sure this particular paper does anything to advance your argument?

 

I'd say it actually goes a long way toward providing the jumping off point to discount tired light completely!

 

I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong, B)

Buffy

[modest]

G'day Modest

 

Mate the link

 

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1972ApJ...174....1G&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

 

Is dated 1972. Its out dated by updated data.

 

That should tell you something. Tired light was being revisited by this paper in 1972 after it had already been abandoned for decades. It looked at an old 1930’s idea to see if all the 1930-1970 observations still discounted it. In other words, the paper that I linked is dated because this idea has been dead for a very long time. I also link modern papers that mention in passing that such-and-such observation or study disproves the old question of “tired light”.

 

It states that galaxies are moving apart.

 

Observations show us that galaxies cluster.

 

Oh, boy. Clusters are not a counter observation to recession or cosmic expansion. Both galaxies and galaxy clusters show redshift. This was well-known in 1972 as the link, in fact, discusses clusters.

 

The link is not worth saving. Have you actually read it.

 

Pluto, if you're unsure what a galaxy cluster is or how one could be receding because of cosmic expansion, don't assume the information you're reading is to blame. The link properly examines expansion vs. non-expanding "tired light" scenarios.

 

As for link

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0104/0104382v1.pdf

 

Lacking updated data, Has no understanding of the process that goes on during a supernova.

 

What mistaken assumptions does it make? Please be specific.

 

as for wiki infomation. Alot of that is opinion based and needs updating.

 

Can you please quote the part you think needs updated and show how you would change it.

 

You say simply ruled out by many observations.

 

Please supply those observations.

 

Surface brightness measurements of 47 starburst galaxies at redshift 5−6 done in 2007:

By taking the constancy of intrinsic surface brightness as given, if we were to do similar calculations using an alternative “tired light” models, that predicts a much weaker redshift dependence, typically (1+z)−1, the difference in predicted surface brightness between an expanding cosmology and a “tired light” model would be a factor of (1 + z)3 ∼ 73 ∼ 300. While a full application of the Tolman test (Tolman 1930, 1934) needs to properly account for both possible evolution and k-corrections, neither effect approaches the factor of ∼300 expected from cosmological surface brightness dimming. Thus, we derive strong evidence in favor of the expanding Universe and against any alternative “tired light” models from the surface brightness measurements.

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0709/0709.0520v1.pdf

 

Its not us simple as it looks. The intrinsic properties are only now been understood, particularly ultra dense compact matter that plays a part in supernova process.

 

What would compact matter have to do with redshift being cosmological expansion vs. tired light?

 

You might want to read what coldcreation has said regarding tired light in the Redshift z thread posts # 262 and 265.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day Buffy

 

You said

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pluto

I think I post links to save me from typing.

 

The problem I have is that the more papers I read the more I find myself knowing that I know very little in the scope of the universe.

 

And there you have it: you need to increase your understanding. This comes from comparing and contrasting the statements in these papers and trying to keep an open mind to either side.

 

Mate I think you read it out of context.

 

Any person who reads will find how little they know. Its a general statement.

 

I'm a book worm, and read papers on the trott.

 

I'm fully awear of redshift data, stars and galaxy clusters.

 

When people talk about expansion and acceleration.

 

From what point or points are they talking about?

 

and How do they observe the expansion or acceleration from those points.

 

I just want to know your thoughts on these points. (For Now)

[Buffy]

I think I post links to save me from typing.

 

The problem I have is that the more papers I read the more I find myself knowing that I know very little in the scope of the universe.

And there you have it: you need to increase your understanding. This comes from comparing and contrasting the statements in these papers and trying to keep an open mind to either side.

 

Mate I think you read it out of context.

 

Any person who reads will find how little they know. Its a general statement.

 

I'm a book worm, and read papers on the trott.

Oh and you failed to address the very question I posed in what you quoted, dear!

 

It's quite obvious that you do read quite a bit on the topic, including the data, but what I'm asking you to do here is actually *think* about what the theories and data *mean*.

 

I know you don't mean to--I know you've stated your position as being a general skeptic in the past, not necessarily pushing a particular point--but in posts like the recent ones above, you at least appear to be promoting "research papers" that even non-experts like myself can see are meaningless once even a modicum of *thinking* is applied.

 

This unfortunately does not reflect positively on the weight of your arguments.

 

That's something you may want to think about when contributing your arguments: you may have some important points to convey here, but they'll be lost among the links that are not only irrelevant, but laughably so.

When people talk about expansion and acceleration. From what point or points are they talking about?

All points! That's the strange thing about expansion: no center point! So a question back to you: do you think there needs to be? Why?

 

To reinforce something modest just said too: just because space is expanding does not mean that local clusters of galaxies should not move according to mutual gravitation.

 

Expansion proceeds from everywhere and is thus cumulative over distance: but the point is that it's not "pushing" anything, and thus, over the space of a galactic cluster, not only is its effect not terribly large, it doesn't matter so far as the gravitational effect that the constituent galaxies have on each other.

How do they observe the expansion or acceleration from those points.

The consequence of what I just said is that any point is just fine.

 

Think about it: to us it does look like we are in the exact center of the universe. What do you think the odds are of that being the case?

 

If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction, :)

Buffy

[Pluto]

G'day Buffy

 

I must thank you for your kind response. I cannot answer all, but in due time, maybe.

 

You said

 

It's quite obvious that you do read quite a bit on the topic, including the data, but what I'm asking you to do here is actually *think* about what the theories and data *mean*.

 

I agree with you with respect to the theories and the meaning of the data. I try to do that, but there are strong points and different theories.

 

 

Oh and you failed to address the very question I posed in what you quoted, dear!

 

I will adress the point in due time.

I have the flu and my mind is fogged up.

 

All points! That's the strange thing about expansion: no center point! So a question back to you: do you think there needs to be? Why?

 

I agree no centre point.

 

The part that I do not agree with is that expansion does not occur throughout the universe.

 

When we look at the evolution and form of galaxies we see different stages of contraction and expansion that is related to the so called black hole mass and activity.

 

Think about it: to us it does look like we are in the exact center of the universe. What do you think the odds are of that being the case?

 

Zero.

 

 

Expansion proceeds from everywhere and is thus cumulative over distance: but the point is that it's not "pushing" anything, and thus, over the space of a galactic cluster, not only is its effect not terribly large, it doesn't matter so far as the gravitational effect that the constituent galaxies have on each other.

 

I agree

 

This unfortunately does not reflect positively on the weight of your arguments.

 

At this moment my aim is to understand.

 

I have been given a topic to read with a few papers on the Radiation escaping from black holes.

 

I should have taken up tennis

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

 

This quite interesting reading

 

Can the Universe Create Itself?

 

Authors: J. Richard Gott, III, Li-Xin Li

 

(Submitted on 30 Dec 1997)

 

Abstract: The question of first-cause has troubled philosophers and cosmologists alike. Now that it is apparent that our universe began in a Big Bang explosion, the question of what happened before the Big Bang arises. Inflation seems like a very promising answer, but as Borde and Vilenkin have shown, the inflationary state preceding the Big Bang must have had a beginning also. Ultimately, the difficult question seems to be how to make something out of nothing. This paper explores the idea that this is the wrong question --- that that is not how the Universe got here. Instead, we explore the idea of whether there is anything in the laws of physics that would prevent the Universe from creating itself. Because spacetimes can be curved and multiply connected, general relativity allows for the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs). Thus, tracing backwards in time through the original inflationary state we may eventually encounter a region of CTCs giving no first-cause. This region of CTCs, may well be over by now (being bounded toward the future by a Cauchy horizon). We illustrate that such models --- with CTCs --- are not necessarily inconsistent by demonstrating self-consistent vacuums for Misner space and a multiply connected de Sitter space in which the renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not diverge as one approaches the Cauchy horizon and solves Einstein's equations. We show such a Universe can be classically stable and self-consistent if and only if the potentials are retarded, giving a natural explanation of the arrow of time. Some specific scenarios (out of many possible ones) for this type of model are described. For example: an inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself. Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own mother.

[Michaelangelica]

For fun I picked this one:

 

In summary, it basically provides a simple appeal to the well-accepted notion that the speed of light slows down when passing through a medium without bothering to try to even compute the necessary density of that medium were the tired light theories to be adequate explanations of red shift.

 

Buffy

You have TOTALLY done my head in Buffy

 

Anyone for a game of checkers?

[Pluto]

G'day Michaelangelica

 

Your move.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

I was going to start a new thread under Galaxy Formation and Evolution and tha I thought maybe this link would fit into this thread.

 

I cannot stop reading papers, is it a sickness.

 

I might take my wife out instead.

 

This link is interesting,

 

[0811.1688] Effect of Central Mass Concentration on the Formation of Nuclear Spirals in Barred Galaxies

Effect of Central Mass Concentration on the Formation of Nuclear Spirals in Barred Galaxies

 

Authors: Parijat Thakur, H.B. Ann, Ing-Guey Jiang

(Submitted on 11 Nov 2008)

 

Abstract: We have performed smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations to study the response of the central kiloparsec region of a gaseous disk to the imposition of nonaxisymmetric bar potentials. The model galaxies are composed of the three axisymmetric components (halo, disk, and bulge) and a non-axisymmetric bar. These components are assumed to be invariant in time in the frame corotating with the bar. The potential of spherical $gamma$-models of Dehnen is adopted for the bulge component whose density varies as $r^{-gamma}$ near the center and $r^{-4}$ at larger radiiand hence, possesses a central density core for $gamma = 0$ and cusps for $gamma > 0$. Since the central mass concentration of the model galaxies increases with the cusp parameter $gamma$, we have examined here the effect of the central mass concentration by varying the cusp parameter $gamma$ on the mechanism responsible for the formation of the symmetric two-armed nuclear spirals in barred galaxies. Our simulations show that the symmetric two-armed nuclear spirals are formed by hydrodynamic spiral shocks driven by the gravitational torque of the bar for the models with $gamma = 0$ and 0.5. On the other hand, the symmetric two-armed nuclear spirals in the models with $gamma=1$ and 1.5 are explained by gas density waves. Thus, we conclude that the mechanism responsible for the formation of the symmetric two-armed nuclear spirals in barred galaxies changes from the hydrodynamic shocks to the gas density waves when the central mass concentration increases from $gamma = 0$ to 1.5.

[Buffy]

I cannot stop reading papers, is it a sickness.

 

I might take my wife out instead.

Oh I don't think it's a sickness at all.

 

But I *would* recommend taking your wife out instead! :cheer:

 

Women love us for our defects. If we have enough of them, they will forgive us everything, even our intellects, :phones:

Buffy

[Pluto]

G'day Buffy

 

Are you a girl or a boy?

 

You said

 

 

Women love us for our defects. If we have enough of them, they will forgive us everything, even our intellects,

[Buffy]

Are you a girl or a boy?

Geez, it's not obvious? :eek: And a boy named Buffy? Gosh that would be downright cruel of my parents, wouldn't it!

 

Nope, in spite of misundertaking my sign off on that post, I'm all girl:

You said

Women love us for our defects. If we have enough of them, they will forgive us everything, even our intellects, :phones:

No I didn't say that: it has Buffy's Asterisk on it. Click the link and read up on the meaning of :phones: when I use it... It requires looking stuff up on the Internet, but that's good for you!

 

My daddy left home when I was three, and he didn't leave much to ma and me, just this old guitar and an empty bottle of booze, :phones:

Buffy

[Pluto]

G'day Buffy

 

Sorry mate, I'm only a male, unable to think on two things at the same time.

 

============

 

I worked all day

 

I'm off to bed, to sleep, to dream