Was there ever a Nothing?

[rigney]

While not having a Scientific mind by any stretch of the imagination, or overly endowed with brain power; my question is: Did the universe spring from nothing? Something so small as a singularity? Or was it aleady in a condition to be built upon? In either of the cases, why? If not, how was this feat accomplished? I've read so much on the subjest as to become saturated, yet able to rationalize very little. What amazes me is that many people seem to have answers to most of these questions. How, I don't know? So, since I have so little to offer other than questions, it would be nice receiving conjecture that I can relate to, even if only in generalities. And that, regardless of how impractical it might be. In the meantime, I'll I'll keep up with the post and continue reading.

Edited September 2, 2010 by rigney

[DrmDoc]

While not having a Scientist mind by any stretch of the imagination, or overly endowed with brain power; my question is: Did the universe spring from nothing? Something so small as a singularity? Or was it aleady in a condition to be built upon? In either of the cases, why? If not, how was this feat accomplished? I've read so much on the subjest as to become saturated, yet able to rationalize very little. What amazes me is that many people seem to have answers to most of these questions. How, I don't know? So, since I have so little to offer other than questions, it would be nice receiving conjecture that I can relate to, even if only in generalities. And that, regardless of how impractical it might be. In the meantime, I'll I'll keep up with the post and continue reading.

 

Not being a physicist, but having great interest in and considering most thoeries regarding this subject, I believe that something cannot spring from nothing. Everything had a beginning and that beginning was something we may never truly understand. Even if one perceives some supreme consciousness as the progenitor of our universe, something came before it to bring that consciousness into being. Everything came from something or somewhere and no speculation, no matter how reasonable, could convince me otherwise. To believe otherwise, in my opinion, is magic not science.

[losfomot]

While not having a Scientist mind by any stretch of the imagination, or overly endowed with brain power; my question is: Did the universe spring from nothing? Something so small as a singularity? Or was it aleady in a condition to be built upon? In either of the cases, why? If not, how was this feat accomplished?

 

I, also, am not a physicist... however,

 

I believe the most correct answer would be that we do not know yet.

 

If you already know this, then you are just looking for possibilities. There are many to choose from. If you have an imagination, you could make one up... it might be right!

 

There are many universes. In one of them, there was an enormous black hole. The local intelligence there were trying out a new type of cosmic weapon near their black hole, when suddenly BLAM! the black hole disappeared. The locals were stumped because they knew about conservation of energy... a black hole can't simply disappear. The truth is, it burst into another universe... ours.

 

Actually, The universe has always existed, it just has cycles of expansion and contraction... we just happen to be in the expansion phase currently.

 

No, but seriously... it was God, silly. But if you question where he came from, well then you're lost because its all about faith my friend.

 

Could be we will never know.

Edited September 2, 2010 by losfomot

[rigney]

Not being a physicist, but having great interest in and considering most thoeries regarding this subject, I believe that something cannot spring from nothing. Everything had a beginning and that beginning was something we may never truly understand. Even if one perceives some supreme consciousness as the progenitor of our universe, something came before it to bring that consciousness into being. Everything came from something or somewhere and no speculation, no matter how reasonable, could convince me otherwise. To believe otherwise, in my opinion, is magic not science.

 

Appreciate your input. Sometimes it's hard making a statement designed as a commitment, since most folks fail to understand your reasoning. There is no mystique in my questions, only that I was hoping for input to which I might establish some value. In believing the universe is continuous, it is at best humorous to religious factions as well as the scientific mind. This, regardless of how it came into being, which to me somehow means, infinite. Get back!

 

I, also, am not a physicist... however,

 

I believe the most correct answer would be that we do not know yet.

 

If you already know this, then you are just looking for possibilities. There are many to choose from. If you have an imagination, you could make one up... it might be right!

 

There are many universes. In one of them, there was an enormous black hole. The local intelligence there were trying out a new type of cosmic weapon near their black hole, when suddenly BLAM! the black hole disappeared. The locals were stumped because they knew about conservation of energy... a black hole can't simply disappear. The truth is, it burst into another universe... ours.

 

Actually, The universe has always existed, it just has cycles of expansion and contraction... we just happen to be in the expansion phase currently.

 

No, but seriously... it was God, silly. But if you question where he came from, well then you're lost because its all about faith my friend.

 

Could be we will never know.

 

While I do appreciate your humor, I see more than the frivolity of your statement. Since there is method to your madness, share it. What I would like is some common sense that I can understand, rather than a "cut in stone" rational.

Edited September 2, 2010 by rigney

[Klaynos]

Our current models work back to within fractions of a second after the big bang, we cannot comment with confidence on times closer to t=0 or times before that. Or even if a concept of time is meaningful before that....

[losfomot]

While I do appreciate your humor, I see more than the frivolity of your statement. Since there is method to your madness, share it. What I would like is some common sense that I can understand, rather than a "cut in stone" rational.

 

Your question is worded as though it were clear cut... but it isn't. I have no idea what you are looking for. In your original post, you are asking where everything (the big bang) came from. This is a question to which we currently have no answer. You seem to be aware of this, and yet you want 'some common sense that I can understand' what does this mean? There is no 'common sense' answer to the question. There is only speculation. I am guessing that you are looking for more speculation.

 

My opinion is that it didn't come from 'nothing'. But that doesn't mean I'm right, and it really doesn't tell you anything about where it came from.

 

Some people would say that 'nothing' could never have existed, because it isn't anything to exist. 'Nothing' is the absence of 'things', so there could never be 'a nothing'. The word 'Nothing' is not a noun.

[Mr Skeptic]

There's many suggested sources for the universe. Most of them are not from nothing. But is the suggestion that the universe came from nothing as ridiculous as it seems at first glance? Before and after imply time, without time (which is part of our universe) the law of cause and effect need not necessarily apply. And if you want the law of cause and effect to apply you need time, so that there was something before the universe anyways.

 

So some suggested possibilities:

1) Omnipotent beings, aliens, etc.

2) Collision of multidimensional branes

3) A quantum fluctuation in a different spacetime, with gravitational potential energy as negative energy that balances the mass-energy of our universe so the universe actually has zero energy.

4) A cyclic (eternal) universe

5) others...

 

Option 1 isn't really science though.

[Moontanman]

At this point we do not have the energy necessary to test back to the energy level of the big bang much less beyond the big bang, The idea of colliding branes in a multidimensional bulk space appeals to me in a very basic level but it will be a very long time, if ever, before we will command enough energy to do experiments to see if anything exists at the required energy levels....

[Edtharan]

One thing to note is that the Big Bang sinularity is a Space Time singularity. This means that only space and time didn't exist, this says nothing about anything else. So with the Big Bang, the Universe does not have to come from nothing, only space and time have to come from what was already there.

[rigney]

Your question is worded as though it were clear cut... but it isn't. I have no idea what you are looking for. In your original post, you are asking where everything (the big bang) came from. This is a question to which we currently have no answer. You seem to be aware of this, and yet you want 'some common sense that I can understand' what does this mean? There is no 'common sense' answer to the question. There is only speculation. I am guessing that you are looking for more speculation.

 

My opinion is that it didn't come from 'nothing'. But that doesn't mean I'm right, and it really doesn't tell you anything about where it came from.

 

Some people would say that 'nothing' could never have existed, because it isn't anything to exist. 'Nothing' is the absence of 'things', so there could never be 'a nothing'. The word 'Nothing' is not a noun.

 

My question was of three parts and made no mention of the BB. Nothing I said was clear cut, or in stone; and the BB was somehow an assumption on your part, which I don't mind. As much as I read, my head is still filled with cobwebs when trying to understand science. Especially the universe and how it was created. The common sense thing was in your referencing a multiverse spitting our universe out accidently. Now, that's wild! And you're right, speculation can lead anywhere. My thought is that one of you will spit something out that may be prospective and someone might run with, even me. Oh yea! Since nothing from nothing leaves nothing,

"Nothing" is somehow classified as a noun, among other things.

 

There's many suggested sources for the universe. Most of them are not from nothing. But is the suggestion that the universe came from nothing as ridiculous as it seems at first glance? Before and after imply time, without time (which is part of our universe) the law of cause and effect need not necessarily apply. And if you want the law of cause and effect to apply you need time, so that there was something before the universe anyways.

 

So some suggested possibilities:

1) Omnipotent beings, aliens, etc.

2) Collision of multidimensional branes

3) A quantum fluctuation in a different spacetime, with gravitational potential energy as negative energy that balances the mass-energy of our universe so the universe actually has zero energy.

4) A cyclic (eternal) universe

5) others...

 

Option 1 isn't really science though.

 

 

Mr. S, Is there anything to validate even one of these theories, other than faith or more theory? Only #4 makes any sense to me at all. And as hard as I try to understand what I read, I can't really find anything substantive in these claims. Help me out.

 

One thing to note is that the Big Bang sinularity is a Space Time singularity. This means that only space and time didn't exist, this says nothing about anything else. So with the Big Bang, the Universe does not have to come from nothing, only space and time have to come from what was already there.

 

This is exactly the kind of answers I was hoping to question without seeming totally ignorant. So when I ask a question(s), it isn't that I'm trying to outsmart you, 'cause I'm really not in a position to do so. But, if in fact substance of the B.B. was there before time and space began, how could it have possibly been so without space of some sort surrounding it? I know it has something to do with Einsteins theory of relativity, but I just don't know how to connect the two.

 

At this point we do not have the energy necessary to test back to the energy level of the big bang much less beyond the big bang, The idea of colliding branes in a multidimensional bulk space appeals to me in a very basic level but it will be a very long time, if ever, before we will command enough energy to do experiments to see if anything exists at the required energy levels....

 

Tried looking at both brane and string theories. The mathematical conundrums of either scared the bejabbers out of me. I wouldn't know how to even approach a question on the subject.

Edited September 3, 2010 by rigney

[Mr Skeptic]

Mr. S, Is there anything to validate even one of these theories, other than faith or more theory? Only #4 makes any sense to me at all. And as hard as I try to understand what I read, I can't really find anything substantive in these claims. Help me out.

 

Yes and no. Things can be validated through theory, so that is a perfectly good way to validate things until such time as they are tested. For example I could design a computer using nothing but theory, and it should work fine when built.

 

Universe creation theories are based off of other theories, and also off speculation. It is the speculation that is the problem, combined with the fact that these theories can't at the moment predict any experimental results (they are very complicated and we need more math skillz).

 

This is exactly the kind of answers I was hoping to question without seeming totally ignorant. So when I ask a question(s), it isn't that I'm trying to outsmart you, 'cause I'm really not in a position to do so. But, if in fact substance of the B.B. was there before time and space began, how could it have possibly been so without space of some sort surrounding it? I know it has something to do with Einsteins theory of relativity, but I just don't know how to connect the two.

 

We and the things in our universe are bound to this spacetime. There could be a separate spacetime elsewhere, completely inaccessible to us. There could also be a different spacetime almost inaccessible to us. It is quite possible for the energy in our universe to have come from a different spacetime.

[rigney]

Yes and no. Things can be validated through theory, so that is a perfectly good way to validate things until such time as they are tested. For example I could design a computer using nothing but theory, and it should work fine when built.

 

Universe creation theories are based off of other theories, and also off speculation. It is the speculation that is the problem, combined with the fact that these theories can't at the moment predict any experimental results (they are very complicated and we need more math skillz).

 

 

 

We and the things in our universe are bound to this spacetime. There could be a separate spacetime elsewhere, completely inaccessible to us. There could also be a different spacetime almost inaccessible to us. It is quite possible for the energy in our universe to have come from a different spacetime.

 

C'mon, give me your best shot, but tell me when to "duck"! Seriously, my thought process doesn't allow me to wander too far from the present universe that I presume we live in. Is it possible that our universal space/time is somehow connected with other space times of which you speak? Has this been proven to any degree, or is it part of another hypothesis? Me, I wouldn't know how to tell the difference regardless of which way it went.

Edited September 3, 2010 by rigney

[Mr Skeptic]

If it were proven there would be just the one theory.

[rigney]

If it were proven there would be just the one theory.

 

Y'u know whatta I mean!. Is there any credible evidence to support the idea that other universes "might even" exist? We seem to know so little about the one we live in, it's hard to imagine folks out looking for new ones. Clue me in.

Edited September 3, 2010 by rigney

[Mr Skeptic]

Y'u know whatta I mean!. Is there any credible evidence to support the idea that other universes "might even" exist? We seem to know so little about the one we live in, it's hard to imagine folks out looking for new ones. Clue me in.

 

Other universes are a prediction from various theories that seek to explain our universe. Also, the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics is an interpretation which means there will never be any evidence for nor against said worlds. So it is nothing more than a matter of taste to believe in many worlds or not, as far as this interpretation goes, and there will never be any evidence in either direction. The same is not true for other theories, but what remains true is that we currently cannot tell the difference. There is neither any real evidence that the universe is just one, nor many.

[Edtharan]

This is exactly the kind of answers I was hoping to question without seeming totally ignorant. So when I ask a question(s), it isn't that I'm trying to outsmart you, 'cause I'm really not in a position to do so. But, if in fact substance of the B.B. was there before time and space began, how could it have possibly been so without space of some sort surrounding it? I know it has something to do with Einsteins theory of relativity, but I just don't know how to connect the two.

This is based off of Stephen Hawking's model of a finite but unbounded universe.

 

One of the Mathematical tools used to make sense of a lot of physics is "imaginary Numbers". These are number that when squared give an answer that is a multiple of -1. They are a well established mathematical number. What is interesting is that much of the maths that describe the physical world can be simplified by using imaginary numbers to formulate the equations for them.

 

One such useage is with Time and Space. I don't fully understand the maths of it, but when you apply imaginary numbers to space/time, time becomes identical to the space dimentions. And, just as space can be curved you can also curve time as well.

 

It gets interesting when you look at black holes, the singularity that forms in a black hole in normal space/time actually disappears when you use imaginary numbers for space/time.

 

The best way to visualise this is like the Earth. At the North pole (or any other point really), there is a mathematical singularity. Because this point is a point, it has no size, and thus no dimensions. This would be like a black hole in space/time.

 

If you then use the analogy of the distance south as Time and the area of the slice through the Earth as Space, then you can see how both space and time can seem to emerge from a singularity.

 

However, even though it is a mathematic singularity, it doesn't cause the laws of the universe to brek down. Also, at that point, things can exists (so long as they have no dimentionality to them).

 

This is why I meant when I said that only space and time didn't exist at the big bang.

 

It also shows you why nothing can exist before the big bang, because if you try to move in any direction from the singularity you will end up going south. You can't go norht of the north pole.

 

Now, you might speculate that you could go "up" from the norht pole, but to do that you would have to leave space/time (or at least our space time), and this is what Mr Skeptic was talking about.

 

As long as you stay within our space/time, you can not go north of the north pole.

 

With a universe that colapses and re-expands, you would essentially have a series of sphere that interconnect, just touching at the point that is the singularity, in an osculation. It would look like a sting of pearls necklace (if you could see it form outside of our space/time).

[rigney]

Edtharan, you and Mr Skeptic have both given me views to look at and to think about. But since numbers aren't something I'm very good at, even in keeping up with my checkbook; the question I would like to ask is: What if this universe (ours) is the only one that exists, with nothing else out there? Right or wrong, I can grasp such a thought. Mr Skeptic put it in prospective when he wrote the following possibilities---

 

1)* Omnipotent beings, aliens, etc.

2) Collision of multidimensional branes

3) A quantum fluctuation in a different spacetime, with gravitational potential energy as negative energy

that balances the mass-energy of our universe so the universe actually has zero energy.

4) A cyclic (eternal) universe

5) others...

 

*Option 1 isn't really science though.

 

#4. The "cyclical and eternal universe" thing made the most sense to me. And when guys like you and Mr S finally do figure out what the connection between matter and antimatter is, I believe this riddle might be solved. Being totally ignorant of dis-similarities between the two, I asked Mr S, yesterday; if matter is moving away from a source directionally and spreading out, is antimatter doing the same thing, or is it going in a different direction? At this point, I realize it isn't a fair question to ask, but perhaps one or both of you have some idea?

Edited September 5, 2010 by rigney

[rigney]

Our current models work back to within fractions of a second after the big bang, we cannot comment with confidence on times closer to t=0 or times before that. Or even if a concept of time is meaningful before that....

 

Extarpolating time as such to determins the BB is beyond my ability. But is it possible that initial tick of time as we know it, was only a continuance of something already cyclic and eternal?

[granpa]

you cant go before the beginning anymore than you can go north of the north pole

 

why assume that everything came from nothing.

Isnt it simpler to just assume that everything came from everything.

 

if we assume that the universe began in the simplest possible state then what is the simplest possible state?

the simplest possible state would be a single binary bit.

Edited September 5, 2010 by granpa

[rigney]

you cant go before the beginning anymore than you can go north of the north pole

 

why assume that everything came from nothing.

Isnt it simpler to just assume that everything came from everything.

 

if we assume that the universe began in the simplest possible state then what is the simplest possible state?

the simplest possible state would be a single binary bit.

 

Appreciate your answer, but my statement was not to assume that our universe came from nothing. The fact we and "it" exist, attest to confirm cause and effect. My thought was, why would it have happened only this one time? Was this binary bit the 1 or the 0? I just don't know.

Edited September 5, 2010 by rigney

[granpa]

The fact we and "it" are here, attest to confirm something caused it to happen. My thought was, why would it have happened only this one time?

 

you are saying that something caused the beginning to happen? If that were the case then the beginning wouldn't be the beginning because something that existed before the beginning caused it to happen.

you can only go so far back in time and then you reach the beginning. you just cant go any further. Just as its meaningless to ask what is north of the north pole so its also meaningless to ask what happened before the beginning and it is meaningless therefore to ask what caused the beginning to happen.

 

it isn't that the answer is incomprehensible. Its that the question you are asking is simply meaningless.

Edited September 5, 2010 by granpa

[Klaynos]

Extarpolating time as such to determins the BB is beyond my ability. But is it possible that initial tick of time as we know it, was only a continuance of something already cyclic and eternal?

 

That is possible. We do not have enough evidence to say either way at the moment.

 

you are saying that something caused the beginning to happen? If that were the case then the beginning wouldn't be the beginning because something that existed before the beginning caused it to happen.

you can only go so far back in time and then you reach the beginning. you just cant go any further. Just as its meaningless to ask what is north of the north pole so its also meaningless to ask what happened before the beginning and it is meaningless therefore to ask what caused the beginning to happen.

 

it isn't that the answer is incomprehensible. Its that the question you are asking is simply meaningless.

 

Perhaps a better question is...

 

Is what our current models seem to indicate as being the beginning, is actually the beginning?

[granpa]

well yeah. thats a good question too.

[jackson33]

If Nucleosynthesis is correct, at some point under extreme heat no element can exist as that element, then what is that heat as any element decays back (opposed to natural isotope decay). Keeping in mind most all current and stable elements are results of fusion during solar activity. That is if elements were produced or capable of being produced, there should be a temperature connection and the reverse of nucleosysthesis possible....IMO.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

 

Fred Hoyle, an advocate for an eternal Universe (Steady State), tried to argue both expansion, by way of Hydrogen Production, via the idea Hydrogen was and had been consistently been created from empty space, think an atom or so per square meter, per some time period. Said another way, he was promoting an evolution of the Universe or additional matter, basically in arguing BBT, which IMO was an error. IMO, if over time Hydrogen or any stable element is subject to heat/cold, it either reverts back to subatomic particles or during some process (event) is defused back into those particles. Said another way, matter in the Universe is today, whatever form it's in is the same as it's always been. Expansion then, if even true (I seriously doubt), should have been argued differently, as could any of the additional "SO CALLED" supporting evidence for BBT.

 

In 1948 Hoyle, Hermann Bondi, and Thomas Gold developed the steady state cosmological models. Hoyle provided a mathematical theory of the model which was an extension of the general theory of relativity and featured continuous creation of matter. The leading spokesman for the new theory, he coined the term “big bang” for the competing model during a radio lecture. He worked on numerous other problems in theoretical astrophysics and cosmology—from the origin of the solar system to the nature of quasars. In 2000, long after nearly all cosmologists had accepted the evidence for an evolving universe, Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and N.V. Narlikar supported a (quasi) steady state universe in a book.[/Quote]

 

http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/BruceMedalists/Hoyle/index.html

 

To the thread rigney and without extending your question into a SSU vs. BBT argument, the above is the essence of my argument for an eternal existence/future Universe and would suggest pretty much as it is today.

 

As for your "Pulsating Universe", "Cyclical" or a death of and regeneration from either a cold/heat death of the previous, they are of course plausible. Since we have no idea just how big this Universe is it could just as well also be endless or we could be as an atom in an endless space full of similar atoms, it seems unimportant/redundant to discuss what could never be known.

 

Despite the term "heat death", the temperature of the entire universe would be very close to absolute zero in this scenario. Heat death is however not quite the same as "cold death" or the "Big Freeze" in which the universe simply becomes too cold to sustain life due to continued expansion, though the result is quite similar (see: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae181.cfm for a more detailed explanation). [/Quote]

 

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Heat_death_of_the_Universe

 

Out of curiosity, are you familiar with the origin of BBT itself, the connection to the Catholic Church, although that's not my reason to oppose. I seriously believe, if Astronomy/Astrophysics had approached this issue from a different angle (not most all experimentation directed at proving), what's being taught or investigated, would be much different than it is today.

 

Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître ( lemaitre.ogg (help·info) July 17, 1894 – June 20, 1966) was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, honorary prelate, professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Louvain. He sometimes used the title Abbé or Monseigneur.

 

Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.[1][2][/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

[rigney]

If Nucleosynthesis is correct, at some point under extreme heat no element can exist as that element, then what is that heat as any element decays back (opposed to natural isotope decay). Keeping in mind most all current and stable elements are results of fusion during solar activity. That is if elements were produced or capable of being produced, there should be a temperature connection and the reverse of nucleosysthesis possible....IMO.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

 

Fred Hoyle, an advocate for an eternal Universe (Steady State), tried to argue both expansion, by way of Hydrogen Production, via the idea Hydrogen was and had been consistently been created from empty space, think an atom or so per square meter, per some time period. Said another way, he was promoting an evolution of the Universe or additional matter, basically in arguing BBT, which IMO was an error. IMO, if over time Hydrogen or any stable element is subject to heat/cold, it either reverts back to subatomic particles or during some process (event) is defused back into those particles. Said another way, matter in the Universe is today, whatever form it's in is the same as it's always been. Expansion then, if even true (I seriously doubt), should have been argued differently, as could any of the additional "SO CALLED" supporting evidence for BBT.

 

 

 

http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/BruceMedalists/Hoyle/index.html

 

To the thread rigney and without extending your question into a SSU vs. BBT argument, the above is the essence of my argument for an eternal existence/future Universe and would suggest pretty much as it is today.

 

As for your "Pulsating Universe", "Cyclical" or a death of and regeneration from either a cold/heat death of the previous, they are of course plausible. Since we have no idea just how big this Universe is it could just as well also be endless or we could be as an atom in an endless space full of similar atoms, it seems unimportant/redundant to discuss what could never be known.

 

 

 

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Heat_death_of_the_Universe

 

Out of curiosity, are you familiar with the origin of BBT itself, the connection to the Catholic Church, although that's not my reason to oppose. I seriously believe, if Astronomy/Astrophysics had approached this issue from a different angle (not most all experimentation directed at proving), what's being taught or investigated, would be much different than it is today.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

 

Wish I could be as informative and intuitive as some of you guys are Jackson, unfortunately I'm not. And yes, I believe there is much inconclusive evidence as to why we and this universe exists, which has nothing to do with religion. If God is somewhere out there, I believe he will give us credit for our ignorance. Otherwise, let's keep on truckin'

My questions are strictly from the hip and in most cases only ?? You know what I mean? Somewhere back, perhaps 60 years or so, I somehow heard of the BB and seemed to grasp its meaning. Why? I have no idea, or to whom the phrase might be connected. It made sense that a big firecracker went off and, "Pfft", we were here. Since physics and math are not among my strong suites, I just let it go until I joined your forum about 3 months back and started reading. Keep it coming, and I'll keep asking the questions.

Edited September 6, 2010 by rigney