The foghorns are in full bloom tonight. (My father coined that saying.) I can hear all three of them echoing off the Headlands. There's a bit of adiabatic expansion (upwardly-mobile fog) creeping over the hills. Otherwise it's clear here in Sausalito, and I sit with the main hatch wide open. A beautiful night. The foghorns are getting louder due to the dropping temperature of night.

And here's a completely random thought: "Scientists" often speak of the "time-space continuum". (Yeah, that's something often spoken of in the old Star Trek episodes too, but the modern "scientists" are really trying to bring it in to respectable usage.) Anyway, the idea is that space and time are immutably intertwined and cannot exist without each other. No time without space and no space without time. I have been considering such posits of physics in the last two years, and I have found fault with this one. I can not imagine space without time. Space denotes mass, and mass (as we know it) must exist in a four-dimensional space. To say there is mass with no time is absurd because if there is mass, then said mass can be affected. Affecting the mass (however immediate said affecting may be) will still take time. So in this posit, I deem the "scientists" correct: there cannot be space without time.

However, why could not there be time without space? The accepted thought is if there is no space, there can be no matter, thus no people. If no people (or beings), there can be no experience of time, and lo, time does not exist. But this just doesn't ring true. Take, for an example, a prokaryotic organism. Such an organism (technically alive) can have no experience of time. Yet if the being exists, there is time and space. If the posit above is pushed to it's extreme point, without any experience of time, there is no time. This doesn't make sense.

(Unless life is entirely a dream and all of time (for our universe) lasts for less than a measurable instant.)

(But it's not, and it doesn't.)

(Duh.)

(For now.)

So if we toss out the theory which states time must be experienced in order for it to exist, time is no longer dependent on space. Thus time may exist without space.

What happened before the "Big Bang"? Something must have happened. There is always a before and always an after.

And I'll say one more thing: the "Big Bang" (if it ever did happen) happened a LONG time before the modern "scientists" think it did. These "scientists" (merely self-important mathematicians) think they understand Einstein because they are filling in the gaps of his theories with their own fake data. Idiots. Einstein was far closer to the truth of existence in his basic premises than these goofs are now. Einstein just did not communicate himself as well as he could have, because he so tightly embraced mathematics later in his career.

Math is not the answer. It is only a tool by which we may view relationships.

And for viewing relationships, math is an excellent lens.

My spell-checker doesn't enjoy the word "prokaryotic". To hell with that construct of automatons. It likes "prokaryote". Stupid spell-checker.

Those are my ramblings for this evening. I am now 45 minutes late for extracting my laundry from the cookers. Now I fold. And I will consider further these physics, as well as the math behind relationships.

But I'll try not to consider such items too heavily.