| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | 
Universe Galaxies Stars logo.
     | Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine |

How can you have nothingness?

Ten Years Since The Revolution at Amazon.

SAS Black Ops at Amazon.
Amazon Kindle EBook Reader: Click For More Information.

What is Nothingness? Can Nothingness be a something? Could nothingness be a substance. We will explore the potential of nothingness and find out.

One of the unfortunate facts for the scientific community, and anybody else who wishes to promote the Big Bang singularity is, it has an elementary flaw in its construction: the theory itself collapses the moment any forensic investigation is mounted into its mechanics, and a painstaking search for universal missing mass is undertaken, even if some do say it exists as dark matter.

Above we see how a universe can compose itself. Look at how during the initial fusion period energy (E) and mass (M) are separated from each other. As the energy races away in one direction - mass centralises in another. This new theory from PM Crowley has the ability to explain where all the missing mass is.

The reason the missing mass is so critical is because, without it, the universe, if it continues to expand at its present, accelerated rate, could become so thinly scattered throughout the universe, it would simply end up as a nothingness, cold and empty, or what is known as The Big Chill.

Therefore, it becomes imperative to either discover why the mass is missing, or produce an alternative theory to satisfy the necessary criteria and locate all the mass in the universe.

The Big Bang was first discussed, and then debated at length in the early half of the nineteen seventies, as a theoretical hypothesis to understand how our mighty universe might having come into being from one devastating explosion. Members of Bell laboratories USA detected a low audible background hiss in the universe, and instantly jumped to what seemed an irrefutable conclusion: This must be the inceptive point where our universe began life. From a rudimentary appraisal, the theory seemed plausible, after all, if the universe did instigate itself from an initial point in space, where space became infinite as a singularity, there should at least be some remnant of the birth of such a cataclysmic act left over to identify its origin, and place of inception fusion. Science termed this low, audible hiss, an echo, and forfeited any chance of a prize for originality.

However, when the idea of a Big Bang singularity is ruthlessly examined, as people who have a problem with this subject matter have done, one evident piece of the puzzle, which should be abundantly obvious with such a demonstrative theory, is noticeable by its absence: mass. If the universe began 15 billion years ago, as science states, with a Big Bang singularity, then naturally all the universal mass a body measured by its resistance to acceleration should be apparent.

We should be able to conclusively measure all the universal mass with modern scientific instrumentation. Unfortunately though, we can't. The majority of universal mass is not apparent, and any attempt to measure the mass with modern scientific instrumentation fails abysmally.

Therefore, I think we are justified in asking honestly why we can't measure all the mass that should be there if this event really did take place as suggested by the scientific community? The chances are, we can't measure it because the Big Bang never actually took place, and the low audible hiss detected by Bell laboratories is no more than a figment of over active imaginations, and a scientific community desperate to validate their belief and place something which sounds credible in the public domain. The probability is, what Bell laboratories heard, was no more than a reverberation of sound from all universal explosions, consolidated to a strategic point in the cosmos, which is then spun back at them, like echoes off a canyon wall.

It seems inconceivable to any rational person, or anyone else in the field of science and cosmology, that the universe should come into being, on some specific day, for no perceivable reason. Why did it go bang? What made it go bang? Why that day and not the day before or the day after? What did it explode in too? Where did it all come from? And perhaps more importantly, where was the trigger factor so desperately needed to initiate a sequence of events, that all other events followed on from? These are just a few questions that really shouldn't be ignored if the postulation is to be taken seriously, although the academic community seems to have found a rather novel, if somewhat laughable way to circumvent the aforementioned. Stephen Hawking suggests in his book "A Brief History of Time" Events before the Big Bang can be of no significance, therefore we should say time had a start point know as a Big Bang Singularity. Very scientific Stephen.

Personally, and it is only a personal opinion, I think if we are to accept any credible explanation for the creation of our universe, we must first agree, that we need a trigger factor to make the event happen, and set the programme in motion. In life, in existence, all events without exception happen for a reason, regardless of how insignificant the reason might be. There is no collective or individual event that takes place spontaneously without an elementary reason to drive it. And so, we need a reason to initiate the said event in the first place, for without it, there can be no event, no Big Bang, no universe. From the reasons I've just raised out, you can see, quite clearly, a scientific explanation currently offered, doesn't just come down to the evidence science wishes to include within a very dubious hypothesis when promoting Big Bang theory, but becomes more about the tough, unrelenting questions they choose to omit.

If science had been honest with the general public over the past three decades, and explained comprehensively where necessary the failings included in their postulation when closely inspected, I'm certain a Big Bang singularity would never have gotten off the drawing board. It would have been resigned to the waste paper bin immediately. But the truth seems to get somewhat lost in the confusion. Hype and self-promotional advancement of academic peacocks who eternally plump up their feathers on the world stage, and an obsessive media, with televised special effects who have been prepared to convey sciences message regardless of the content or credibility of the postulation for profit, have failed to foresee the problem they themselves have caused. Quite simply, under the laws of physics, a Big Bang singularity in its present state is not only unlikely, it's theoretically impossible. No missing mass, no big bang! And that's really where the argument should end.

If we measure the available amount of mass in the universe, we come up with a figure of between one and five percent mass.

That means anywhere between ninety-five and ninety-nine percent of all universal mass is missing. And if we assume there will not be a secondary Big Bang, or third or fourth Big Bang, we have to consider the finer detail of this fantastical event -and say it somewhat lacks not just mass, but also substance and a credible alternative to such wild observation. No pun intended.

Therefore, what we need to do, is construct a theoretical hypothesis which is vastly more convincing, even in its embryonic stages than a Big Bang singularity. We need a piece of theoretical physics that can be modelled, measured, and then justified so we can show conclusively where all the missing mass is without ambivalence or ambiguity.

When you read what I've got to say in the following short article, you'll realise just how simplistic this endeavour can be if we first distance ourselves from the contrived postulation academia has conveyed with an almost religious zeal and hatred of anyone or anything which stands in its path or threatens to prohibit its advancement. No convoluted explanation or distorted argument; no half measures. Just a straightforward piece of postulation, complete with a measurable prediction, cultivated through a common sense approach that tidies up the loose ends and offers a forensic ability to prove what I say.

What fired my imagination a few years ago now, and led me in a totally different direction to current scientific thinking, was a piece of religious theology scripted around the third century AD.

In the third century AD, religious scholars pontificated the virtue of having a nothingness to permit God's entry into the universe, thus allowing God the ability to create everything we see around us today. They suggested God (and don't get me wrong, I'm not a bible thumper) entered the universe from a substance known as nothingness. And it's important to understand, that they said a substance known as nothingness, and not just nothingness parse. Even then the emphasis was placed on the fact that there cannot be exclusively nothingness.

If we measure the available amount of mass in the universe, we come up with a figure of between one and five percent mass. That means anywhere between ninety-five and ninety-nine percent of all universal mass is missing. And if we assume there will not be a secondary Big Bang, or third or fourth Big Bang, we have to consider the finer detail of this fantastical event - and say it somewhat lacks not just mass, but also substance and a credible alternative to such wild observation. No pun intended.

This set me thinking, not particularly thinking on how to demonstrate a credible theory of creation, heralding God's imminent arrival, but more, what the hell is a substance known as nothingness? Somewhat distracted from the job in hand, my thoughts were diverted into another question: How can you have a nothingness?

It was then I chose to look more closely at the literal explanation of the word, nothingness, rather than its looser interpretation or lexicon meaning. To us, a nothingness is perceived as meaning nothing, non-existent. It's not there! It doesn't exist!

However, if we look for a stronger definition of the said word, we must comprehend their can never be any such thing as a non-existent universe. You can't have a non-existent universe. There must always be a something universe. Even if we were to remove everything from the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, we'd still be left with a vacuum, an empty space.

Yet, it seems inconceivable to believe we can take everything out of the universe, because logic tells us it would have nowhere to go: Where could you take everything to? If the universe is infinitous, you could never remove the material from a universal remit, and place it beyond the natural borders, and if it's not infinite, it makes a mockery of creation itself. In other words, it would mean there is something quite tangible beyond our own known boundaries. Thus we must assume, for the sake of argument, all the material in the universe has restructured itself. It's not what it once was. What I deduced from this belief, was our universe in its roar state must have been built of a different substance than that which we see around us at the moment, a substance that does not resemble anything in our comprehension as we understand it today, and therefore could not theoretically apply to any law of physics as we understand it either. We might even say, at the pre-empirical state, before existence even became the laws of physics were neutered. And so what is this pre-physics?

Physics is that branch of science which applies to matter and energy, their interactions in the scope of mechanics, optics, heat, acoustics, electricity, magnetism, radiation, atomic structure and nuclear phenomena; the physical processes and phenomena of a particular system.

As you can see from the above, it was somewhat of a difficult task to track down a material, or non-material as it might well be termed in a pre-physics dimension that could convert an entire universe from something that doesn't exist in the first place, yet does exist, which can be boundless, yet prerequisite at the same time. We might even term this period aphysics. A hermaphrodite of mass and energy. For years I was stumped. I couldn't for the life of me come up with any reasonable solution to a seemingly insoluble problem, then, just when I was about to call it a day, give up and admit defeat, a rather unique idea struck me.

I explored the possibility of using a carbon based material to solve the conumdrum and construct a universe exclusively from this primordial state, as naturally everything around us is built of one carbon compound or another. A unique idea suddenly turned into a frantic search, sleepless nights and eventual formulation of a loose model on creation that was about to drive me crazy. But what form of carbon could we actually use to generate an entire sequence of events, subdivide the atomic substructure and build a perfect universe from it? Suddenly, out of the blue, it hit me like a freight train. Diamond.

The possibility of an entire univese built out of a single, infinite block of diamond or some other pre-physics vitrescent material seemed obtuse at first, but then gradually it began to make more sense when I meticulously explored the finer detail over the coming months. What initially seemed an off-the-cuff, unguarded thought, one of those thoughts people who deal in this field tend to throwaway after a few hours toying with it, suddenly translated into a frightening proposition. The basic building blocks of the idea didn't seem quite so daft after all.

But I desperately needed to put some flesh on the bones of the theory. Unintensionally, I had stumbled on a very sensible idea that resolved many of the problems which needed resolving. But first I wanted to reconsider my evaluation of our universes inception, and ask: might there be many universes out there beyond the natural remit of our own finite boundaries. The prospect of a multi-universal state was intriguing as it was startling.

Just for the moment put everything you've ever been taught of this subject matter to the back of your mind, and concentrate on a brave new theory. Forget about a single universe, but imagine an infinite amount of univese, an infintesional amount of universes, plural, with each universe being able to act as a catalyst for the next through heat expansion, compression, sub-division of the atomic matrix and consolidation of the particle physics. I had found a way, which we'll come to in a minute, on how to build a universe, incorporate time, and allow, if early theologian teaching is right, how to permit God's universal entry.

the universe.
As pressure is applied from one hot expanding universe, another section of the nothingness (carbon) fractures. As the first universe starts to cool and contract - the second will fuse creating the primary state of a new universe.

At last I had discoved a new theory so perfect in its application, everything else in its path was about to get trampled on. Not only had I stumbled unintensionally on a logical substance to create everything in the universe we see around us, galaxies, stars, planets, but I had also found the trigger factor so patiently searched for to make the event possible. I could literally open the universe in a much more plausible way than a Big Bang singularity ever could. More over, with a little lateral thinking on my part, I realsied I could also show where all of that illusive, missing mass is. No ambiguious rhetoric, no piece of postulation which collapses and falls apart the moment you scrutinise it more closely, no half arsed attempt to justify existence with a cobbled together idea, which at best is unlikely. I had found the key to the creation of not just ours, but every other universe in existence. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

Firstly, let me explain in a much more comprehensive way why diamond is acceptable as a compound to open the universe and make all universal events possible. I said I had to show how the laws of physics didn't exist before creation, but simultaneously show how the laws of physics were still there waiting to be activated. They were in that neutation period, a period before time, a period before we could descriptively determine how they elegantly work. In others words, I had found out how the laws of physics remained in limbo. With a diamond substance, I understood the elctron was missing. diamond has zero electron value. With no electron it is impossible to pass an electrical current through a block of diamond. This isn't in question, a simple test here on Earth shows that. And if that is the case, the diamond itself has no measurable length. And even though such an elementary substance might seem obtuse as a universal material to build a universe from, the reader should remember, this is a natural substance found here on Earth , not self created or structured in the laboratory which everything can be created from.

Under the second law of thermodynamics (the branch of physics concerned with the relationship between heat and other forms of energy) we wouldn't be able to measure how much diamond there was before our universe came in to being. It might be an inch wide, or infinite. As the laws of physics wouldn't apply it's irrelevant. With no electricity, there is no other application of physics, no light, heat, optics, magntisim, no acoustics, no sound, no gravity, no nuclear reaction. Quite simply we are talking about a dead universe of infinite proportions, a sea of infinite darkness, cold and destitute, where time and physics breakdown and existence itself has no meaning. This truly is the dead zone. But if it truly is dead, it might be reasonable to ask how could a magnifincent universe be formulated from a dead substance, because obviously if it's dead, then there can be no instigator or trigger mechanism?

It took me some time to put a hypothesis together to explain this strage problem. But by understanding the magnitude of what we discuss, what initially seemed impossible, the birth of the cosmos, it suddenly became very possible indeed to build a paradim and set creation on its way. I would use one universe to impregnate the next, and deal in a multi-universal analogy, structure a model and allow an ambit of investigation, forensically examine the content and conclude my observation based exclusively around the necessary criteria. Not some kack-handed attempt hurriedly put together by excited scientists who see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear. This was to be perfect, in every way with no principle collapse when finally investigated by modern cosmology and large radio telescopes.

Unlike Bell labs, who, when they first heard what they term the Big Bang singularity, thought they had pigeons nesting in their telescope.

I understood that if a diamond, carbon based compound could be infinite, everywhere, but nowhere simultaneous, then there was no good reason why one exploding universe shouldn't act as a catalyst for the next universe to be cborn. Or at least lay the seeds of the next universe by systematically ripping apart the very fabric of space.

Excited by the idea, what I said was this: if a universe, not our own universe, but a more distant universe suddenly and violently ignites, then naturally the heat inside it will cause that universe to expand, like someone blowing up a party balloon, and because of this sudden inflation, it will place undue and intollerable pressure on the rest of the surrounding diamond, carbon based compound.

This pressure will cause a fracture line to appear at a more distant location within the diamond, as the pressure becomes so unbearable it can't do anything other than fracture. Imagine what would happen if a block of diamond was placed under a heavy iron press, and the weight on top was continuously increased by maybe millions of tonnes. The diamond underneath would simply shatter in a thousand different pieces when it could no longer accept such extreme weight.

Eventually it would have to give. Just like a block of diamond would in the universe. And it's this newly formed fracture line that will determine the size of the next universe. However bigger the dimensional circumferance of the fracture line is from top to bottom, will become the dimension of our next universe, and everything inside it will simply collapse, because, inevitably the two farthest points of the fracture lines become the positions weakest points.

As the first universe steadily begins to cool over billions of years, the pressure from the original expansion exerted on the second place will gradually start to ease. It's then the diamond based carbon will recognise a division within its matrix.

At that point it must fuse. There is nothing else it can do, as a gap, no matter how small cannot contain any diamond, and so cannot be recognised as nothingness. It must therefore at that juncture, convert into a something by rearrang1ng its atomic make-up. The division produces an electrical charge, and the electron a negatively charged elementary particle that forms part of the atom outside the nucleus, is born.

From what I've just explained, you'll see I h.ave built in to the postulate a principal of cause and effect. I used one universe to instigate the next, which meant I could escape them narrow parameters laid down by science, where they suggest aBig Bang theory initiates itself for no apparent reason. The new universe here was born specifically because of reason, and allows this theory here to open up a whole new debate on the birth of the cosmos.

From the theory, you can witness a universe was created, because the laws of physics say it must be created. A touch like pushing a domino and watching the rest of the dominos fall in sequence as they impact against one another.

Once the second point in the diamond compound reacts fully to the first expanding, collapsin universe and fuses, from the central position, energy must race away as far as the two farthest points of the fracture line until it reaches the outer edges.

Yet simultaneously, all universal matter must centralise. The reason for this is easily articulated if we assume an attraction of particles takes place under a gravitational influence.

When the first particle locates stratyegically to the central position, the second particle doubles and has twice the attraction value, the third particle has three times the attraction value, and so on and so forth until every particle in the newly created universe has condensed into the one, specific central position, directy central to the newly formed universe.

There can be no arbitration to this. The central point has the greatest density, and must logically attract every other particle. It's a bit like a sink full of water and someone pulling out the plug. I've termed this event Fusion - Infusion To liquify by heat, energy and syphon from it, mass, or what I've colloqulised, A Silent Scream. The reason it should be silent is because, at the outset of creation, the universe should contain no wave mechanics, therefore, no sound should be heard, although once the process is fully under way, a beating heart will later be detected from a central position in the universe itself.

Some people might argue at this juncture, that if this happened, that all material did condense to a central locality, it lays the seeds for a Big Bang to take place.

Which might seem logical to float the theory at the time. You could even argue the principle cause and effect, so vital in expanding Big Bang theory or any other good piece of postulation has been discovered, and with an initiation point we could proceed with Big Bang belief. But before they do, they should comprehend the severity of such idle speculation and realise, they'd be back to square one and unable to show where all the missing mass is! Quid pro quo.

Therefore, it seems more prudent to argue that, once a centralisation of all universal material has transpired, leaving an empty universe, with nothing but residue enegy in its wake, the universe itsel! will eventually slow and grind to a dramatic halt.

It will simply stop turning, and what we'd be left with, is a universe of infinite weightlessness.

At such a juncture there would be no mass left whatsoever. We'd have a masssless universe irradiated in pure, untainted energy.

Yet, when the newly created universe, which has separated itself into the two key components any universe needs foundations on which to advance itself, mass and energy, we reach a critical point in its history, and leave it with no other option than to unwind. It will quite simply, return whence it came. A touch like a lost man tracing his footsteps in the snow.

With a universe of infinite weightlessness, the central core begins to release the super heavy Neutrons elementary particles with no electrical charge and the same mass approximately as a proton it condensed during the consolidation period. As these are released, they will fuse with the surrounding enegy and protons, elementary particles in the nucleus of all atoms, carrying a unit positive charge of electricity and supernova into new unblemished Galaxies so dense because of the imense power of the central point, they will be witnessed as no more than pulsars any of several types of small stars which omit radio pulses at regular intervals.

And with the birth of new Galaxies the universe will once again start to turn, thus returning mass back to the universe. It's this analogy which leads me to believe, that if our universe contains one percent mass, then one percent of mass remains in credit at the central location where all universal material actually located to in the first place.

When more material is relinquished from the central reserve, as the universe once again begins to slow, as Galaxies distance themselves from the universal hub, then the kernal of gravity will release more material, produce a lower volume of gravity and allow the universe to accelerate at a higher velocity.

This will once again increase the volume of mass, and so we would see two percent mass in the universe, but paradoxically increase the central point as well to two percent.

The central reserve must always retain an equilibrium with the surrounding field of energy. We term this a principal of balanced forces. The universe must always retain parity between mass and energy. If one superceeds the other, then the opposite must gain acceleration to keep a universal alignment, otherwise the universe would end up in one big heap in the corner somewhere. It's a touch like an entertainer spinning a plate on a stick. If the plate slows, and starts to lose its momentum, the man has to step in and apply more energy, thus the plate speeds up, mass and energy are realigned and balanced forces are returned.

The mass of the plate rotating must always retain a balanced force with the energy of the stick. If it falls below a certain level, the plate crashes to the floor. Bang!

This motion process will continue unabated until the universe contains fifty percent mass. At which point, fifty percent mass should be left at the centre of the universe. The irony is, the missing universal mass is not missing at all, it's merely the universe itself has not released enough material from its central location, thus the universe doesn't turn at the right velocity to make it apparent and we're led to believe the mass is missing, when in reality, its just not obvious to us in its present form. Imagine it like this: Just because you might have, say, five pounds in your pocket, it doesn't necessarily mean you are worth five pounds. For all I know you might have another hundred, thousand, ten thousand in the bank. Thus your worth is concluded by the over all money you have in your bank account, not the amount in your pockets. The universe is the same. Just because the proverbial five pounds (mass) is on display, it doesn't mean this is the sum-total of its value. Merely its the amount we see. Believe me, the universal bank account is bulging.

At first, the Fusion - Infusion idea seemed preposterous. I had no way to prove the theory accurate, or even offer it credibility. Then, quite by chance, the Hubble telescope came up with a piece of unexpected evidence. I already knew if the universe had moved one way during its consolidation period, it must naturally move back the other way as it unwound, although I believed any opportunity to prove the theory remote to say the least. Then I saw the very exciting results from Hubble's deep-field experiment, where the telescope observed the deepest, darkest recesses of the universe, and to my surprise, they showed us perfectly formed galaxies.

I couldn't believe my luck. By a freak accident, NASA had unintensionally provided me with not only a credible answer to my theory and lack of prediction, but at the same time they would also simultaneously contridict Elnsteinian physics. If the telescope hadn't been situated so far from the Earth , I would have quite honestly given it a big kiss!

According to Einsteinian physics, we may only ever look longingly back down, what he termed, a tunnel of time. It other words, we could only ever see Galaxies compose themselves. But the very advanced, very accurate, very expensive Hubble telescope contradicted Einstein in the most pornographic way, stood logic on its head and demonstrated unequivocally, not only can you look back at the earilest kindling of life, as embryonic Galaxies compose themselves, but you can also look forwards at the prospect of what is to come. These were the money shots. Hubble had shown us our future in all of its naked glory.

The Hubble space based telescope showed perfectly formed, completed galaxies. Amazing. But more importantly for me the telescope readings obliterated any chance of a Big Bang singularity. Although science, for a reason known only to themselves, still refuses to accept this.

They still argue, quite passionately and very defensively, that there must be an alternative explanation, even though any explanation remains as remote, and as distant as their search for all of the illusive, universal missing mass.

Now convinced of the merits of the arguement, and the outstanding piece of postulation I had built, I was determied to go further, to push at the boundaries of reason and take charge of a new debate.

After all, if I can't have faith in my ideas, how can anyone else? It became somewhat of an addiction over the next year or two, and a bit of a preoccupation with me to build in a measurable prediction. I wanted to give science something to go forth and measure, not just expect them to take my word for it. It was then it hit me. If the hypothesis was accurate, there should be a huge array of pulsars located central to the universe. At the distant centre of our universe, we should see an entire stella nursery full of pulsar activity. Out there somewhere, hidden many billions of light years away, will be a bank of pulsars, flashing, radiating a steady rythmic beat. Indeed, there will be a pumping, pulsating heart to the universe where everything around us is governed from.

No doubt this is the remnant science mistakenly believes to be left over from a Big Bang singularity.

My prediction is this. If we scour the heavens, then eventually we'll discover not only the largest array of pulsars imaginable, but a steady rythemic beat. A rythmic beat which might already be constrewed, as just mentioned, for a Big Bang singularity. All we need is a touch of faith, a bejief in our own ability to push the boundaries of reason to the very periphery of mankind's inquisitive nature, and explore the possibility any new theory might hold. The opportunities for our advancement of comprehension, are not only out there patiently waiting beyond the tapestry of creation we cheerish so much, but lurk within the confines of our own mind. Only our lack of understanding, and worthless ability to believe in ourselves holds back humanity from the greatest quest of all: the explanation of our contribution to the most magnificent event ever witnessed: The birth of creation.

With the theory complete, I knew I had more on my hands than I could ever wish for.

Not only could I now determine a simple, and it is simple, evaluation of creation, but I could also date the composure and decomposure of the universe.

Science stipulates with one percent mass detectable in the cosmos, our universe is approximately 15 billion years old. If we take them at their word, and I see no reason why we shouldn't, then we have to say a consolidation of universal material should be measured as fifty percent, not one hundred percent mass, as some might speculate. We only measure halfway, becuse the second half is calculated on its return.

Therefore, with this in mind, by my estimation our universe has completed half of its journey and is now moving back. This gives us a universal reading of not 15 billion years as science says, but 765 billion years, leaving about 735 billion years to run. If I'm right, the completion of the universe should take from start to finish somewhere in the region of 1.5 trillion years. At that point the universe will burn itself out, cease to exist, solidify and return to a diamond, carbon based compound free of the laws of physics, where it will patiently wait to prepare itself for another lifecycle. And the whole endeavour will begin all over again.

Big Bang Science Continued:

How to rewrite the Big Bang:

Pages below are only theory and should not be viewed as scientific opinion:

Essay chapters on how to rewrite Big Bang Thoery

  Go To Print Article  

Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts

the web this site
 | GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. |