# Space layers, gravity/expansion flow. Just an idea

• Yes
0
• No
1

## Recommended Posts

I had a random idea recently that popped in my head out of nowhere.

The Idea itself is that mass such as Earth is occupying space.
The space occupied therefore is now encompassing the mass in layers evenly around it. Space is not a substance and cannot exert pressure downward on mass. However space has been proven to constantly expand, Expansion is a form of movement which I could assume would also be a form of energy however undefined that energy may be. So if that energy of space expansion exists, Than the closer you are to the layers of space the stronger this energy becomes. I propose that the expansion force does exert constant flow towards all mass due to space attempting to expand to the position in which the mass is occupying. Not in a pressure form but a flow of constant and consistent energy cause by the never ending and uniform space expansion.This would also mean that smaller objects would be pulled toward larger objects. The space layers surrounding an object on earth such as you would also be the cause. The layers of space created by you pushing toward you would be vastly smaller. The layers of space pushing against you that are flowing exactly in the opposing direction of the downward force cause you to be forced down due to the space encompassing you more or less sucking you downward from the current of the larger "flow" of space. You can never be separated by the space layers encompassing you therefore if it moves, So do you. So in turn, mass doesn't pull together, space does.

This on a larger scale would be an idea of black holes.
I believe that a black hole is more or less an incident where the "singularity" within has achieved enough density to cause true space displacement (no space within the singularity mass). I believe this would cause the layers around the black hole to become infinite in number. Space literally crushing the area. Since space is believed to be infinite there is no reason to believe you can"t have an infinite amount of space encompassing an area. Which of course light could never leave an infinite space regardless of speed.

This I believe could answer time dilation as well because the more layers of space available could cause time to slow due to these layers.
If no matter existed the only measure of time would be the expansion of space itself if for instance it was visible at that point to be measured, This could truly be our only base line for time. That being said, If we now introduce matter, Each layer of space encompassing the matter would now cause time to slow minutely due to the extra layers causing resistance to the baseline flow of time. The larger the object the more layers and the more resistance. Which back to black holes said to have stopped time would be true if there is infinite layers of space causing infinite resistance to the base line flow of time. So everything from an outside observer, If we could see within, Would appear to stop but light would still be traveling at the speed of light constant and only appear to be stopped due to our perspective of our relative space around us at that time. which now would make Both Einstein and Hawking 100% correct with their theories

The distortion of light around massive objects could also be answered by this due to the light being distorted oddly due to the number of layers changing from close to surface to further away from surface resulting the light to appear to bend due to it being slowed at different rates due to the different layers of space the light must travel trough. Meaning your eyes would receive the same light at different times which would also means the photons that left the source at the exact same time reach your eyes at slightly different times causing a distorted view.

This could also mean that each layer of space is actually dimensions which may help string theory out a bit, if layered space is layered dimensions that would mean that the missing dimensions in which string theory is based upon could be this. The base line flow of time of course, mentioned earlier, would make space without matter one dimensional and matter folding space into layers is creating many additional dimensions. Furthermore if your in space  you would not feel any tug because your surrounded by one dimensional space even though your body is more than one dimension so you will be pushed away from at this point from the closest object (to clarify for positioning one dimensional space would be way out between galaxies not between stars and planets and other stars or even perhaps well beyond our universe and matter itself) with ever increasing velocity due to space expansion being constant and the faster you go the more massive you get and the more dimensional energy to increase velocity in which the speed limit would now actually be countably infinite given enough time since the expansion force will never stop increasing your mass to countably infinite in which countably infinite could never be a black hole.
So I am not good with math but I will try my best to use numbers for this.

lets use empty space as a baseline of 1 dimensional expansion pressure. Let us now say that Earth is 100 Dimensional expansion pressure due to it containing 100 extra layers (more than likely a much more vast number) to keep things simple to use earth as a percent marker. The moon is said to be 1.2%of earths mass which should equal to 1.2 dimensions however size to mass ratio would now come into play so that the size per mass is much higher for the moon this would mean the spatial dimensions would be pushed further away from the mass by size ratio than the earths so the dimensional flow of space is stronger than earth resulting in higher gravity yield per layer of dimension causing it to have more than 1.2%  of earths gravity. now a neutron star for example would be much smaller and much higher dimensional pressure of course resulting in an incredible expansion force but since it is much closer to its destination the pressure would be slightly lower ratio to earths dimensional expansion force to mass size. I would believe If you used earths gravitational pull being equivalent to its mass only and attempt to compare that with gravitational pulls of objects of varying size it would not scale in line due to this fact.

And to end an argument before it starts, the volume increase would push these dimensions further like an outer shell because all the space between atoms and neutrons and other smaller matter is filled with space already. Space itself would not be able to occupy itself only matter can occupy space so the space would naturally form a perfect uniform layering of dimensions to compensate for literally nowhere else for it to go.

The creation of the universe would to me make a lot more sense because of this as well

For this next area I would like you to imagine on a scale where our observable universe is the size of this "o" compared to your monitor this will be our countably infinite existence area.
If we consider that space itself in the beginning is what did not exist. For example perhaps bosons encompassed all to countably infinite existence since these particles can overlap with each other theoretically they could all be over lapping a countably infinite amount of times which would mean space could not exist anywhere in infinity. somewhere some how due to possibly entropy and probability the movement of bosons led to a point where nothing was touching each other at a singularly small point and created, space, or maybe negative mass? Since this space or negative mass could not and should not exist the force trying to right itself out of existence and back into matter causes this to expand infinitely due to the nature of negative energy. this would cause a massive and unending, ever-accelerating collapse which would not be uniform due to the number of countless bosons (bosons being used as a reference not as actual certainty) in one area to the next would cause this collapse to spider out and start to make circles and begin to collapse those circles, creating a universe. This would continue to infinity creating countless universes some possibly with much different elements than ours due to the initial bang having much more mass and energy to start with. the big bang being created by the infinitely faster than light collapse of "our" universe creating the massive energy to cause the big bang from such an enormous force, since the collapse would be infinitely faster than the speed of light the explosion would be infinitely faster than the speed of light which would not make this small point of collapse a black whole and in turn creates a universe which would slow its acceleration due to the vast outside expansion still flowing toward it and then begin to increase velocity again because of this inward flow.
A bubble in water for instance is being pushed down which forces it up. in the case of the universe this would cause "up" to be in all directions so the never ending negative expansion force attempting to move inward would constantly expand the universe until literally everything is perfectly evenly spaced. This would technically make our universe Finite but existence itself infinite which makes sense on all levels. We can not see anything before the big bang happened due to the fact that light simply didn't exist within "our" universal area of negative mass/space
I don't know what you all think of this stuff but I think these are much more plausible than a lot of other explanations and even answers a lot of unsolved questions and theories.

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jaksonslayer said:

Space is not a substance

What is a "space layer"? Maybe start by defining that and show how it relates to currently used models for spacetime?

*) A shorter version with some math would probably be easier to comment. Maybe focus on fewer concepts?

##### Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations

##### Share on other sites

You're obviously smart, so I have to wonder why you stopped studying science formally, and started making up the parts you didn't understand? It's a horrible habit. You have so many fundamental errors ("infinitely faster than the speed of light"), and you keep building on areas where you're misinformed so it compounds the misunderstandings.

If you don't find a bit of science "plausible", you should ask questions instead of making it up. The biggest problem with this is your mind is only working with what you know, so your explanations seem PERFECT to you. They make sense on a basic level because you crafted them to be exactly what you need. Not good science.

##### Share on other sites

I understand your points. However, not one of you actually said or mentioned anything why these wouldn't actually be true. Saying that it doesn't relate to "known" science is the absolute worst argument you can use.

bloodletting was "known" science at one point.

And I used multiple concepts just to show the idea of these "layered dimensions" could fit into any facet.

my whole implication here is that current understanding of "how stuff works" is completely wrong. Mass does not push, pull or move anything. the fact that I don't know how to put these ideas into numbers doesn't make them invalid.

If your going to say its not true, I would challenge you to give me an example of why.

How could infinitely faster than the speed of light be confusing? Which areas am I misinformed?

I would appreciate a better argument than "It isn't in a text book" or "your word use is incorrect"

9 hours ago, Ghideon said:

What is a "space layer"? Maybe start by defining that and show how it relates to currently used models for spacetime? ﻿

I will attempt my best definition here, "space layer" was used for lack of any better words in the beginning of the writing just to simplify understanding for the reader, seeing as it is easy to visualize layers. I am proposing that Space itself is negative mass, something with negative mass would be able to layer upon itself infinitely due to its mass being negative. positive or actual mass in negative mass would force the negative mass in the area to compress into multiple dimensional layers of negative energy or "space layers"

##### Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jaksonslayer said:

Saying﻿ that it doesn't relate to "known" science is the absolute worst argument you can use.

Not really. After all, scientific theories are tested against real world evidence so if your idea doesn’t match current science then it doesn’t match the real world.

30 minutes ago, Jaksonslayer said:

bloodletting﻿ was "known" science at one ﻿point.﻿

No it wasn’t

##### Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jaksonslayer said:

I understand your points. However, not one of you actually said or mentioned anything why these wouldn't actually be true. Saying that it doesn't relate to "known" science is the absolute worst argument you can use.

bloodletting was "known" science at one point.

!

Moderator Note

Well, it was medicine, which is not the same thing.

More to the point: science is evaluated by comparing evidence against predictions from models, and that’s really all that matters. You need a model that makes specific predictions, and the burden for that lies with you

##### Share on other sites

I will try to make a model for this for mathematical predictions. But I am just a plumber, these ideas visually came to me all at once when I was driving down the road... So I don't really fully understand the concepts. I thought of and wrote down all this within two hours.

I posted this for an attempt at a meaningful discussion on the idea itself. I can't honestly think of any facet of the universe that this wouldn't fit. I realize creating the math to the hypothesis is the only thing that can make it truly viable, but did not all theories start as hypothesis? Also, haven't countless hypothesis' been ridiculed until proven, such as the hypothesis that the earth was round and not flat?

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jaksonslayer said:

Also, haven't countless hypothesis' been ridiculed until proven, such as the hypothesis that the earth was round and not flat?

A far, far larger number were discarded (and possibly ridiculed) because they were wrong.

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

- Carl Sagan

##### Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jaksonslayer said:

Space is not a substance

and

2 hours ago, Jaksonslayer said:

I am proposing that Space itself is negative mass

If space consists of mass, even if negative, isn't that some kind of substance? So this contradicts the initial post?

2 hours ago, Jaksonslayer said:

I am proposing that Space itself is negative mass﻿,﻿ something with negative mass would be able to layer upon itself infinitely due to its mass being negativ﻿e. p﻿ositive or actual mass in negative mass would force the negative mass in the area to compress into multiple dimensional layers of negative energy or "space layers"﻿﻿

Negative mass occurs as a concept in some areas of physics. No particles with negative mass exists but that doesn't stop scientists from exploring theoretical aspects of how negative mass could behave. Your definition of negative mass seems to be something different so I can't really comment.

1 hour ago, Jaksonslayer said:

I posted this for an attempt at a meaningful discussion on the idea itself

I think that a more meaningful discussion would be possible if you ask questions about areas in current theories that bothers you before trying to introduce new stuff. It is really hard to analyse an idea that is explained using concepts from mainstream science but define those concept differently.

##### Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jaksonslayer said:

Expansion is a form of movement which I could assume would also be a form of energy however undefined that energy may be.

Like space, energy isn't a substance. It's a property of something that denotes its ability to do work. And the kinds of energy we're talking about are very well defined by current physics.

17 hours ago, Jaksonslayer said:

So if that energy of space expansion exists, Than the closer you are to the layers of space the stronger this energy becomes.

You know what a dimension is, right? Einstein showed us that the three bidirectionally spatial ones we know (length, width, height) are inextricably coupled with a unidirectional temporal dimension we call time. This seemingly universal geometry is what we call spacetime, and it curves in the presence of mass/energy. The more the mass, the more the curvature (from Earth, we need a well-defined amount of energy to account for the curvature and move a mass into orbit). It's a complicated thing to envision, and I really don't think your concept of "space layers" is going to help you understand our current best explanations.

Better you should check out the description of geodesics in GR.

18 hours ago, Jaksonslayer said:

I believe that a black hole is more or less an incident where the "singularity" within has achieved enough density to cause true space displacement (no space within the singularity mass).

Take a look at what happens when matter is under enough pressure and heat to overcome the degeneracy pressure that keeps electrons from compressing too densely. What you call "true space displacement" is simply a neutron star (in the previous example) curving spacetime much, much, much more radically due to a huge mass being in a highly compressed state. In the case of a black hole, the matter has been compressed enough (by being at the center of a supernova) that it overcomes the degeneracy pressure of its neutrons as well, and compresses inevitably into a point. The curvature this state of matter creates in spacetime is so severe that once past a certain distance near the black hole, no amount of energy could produce enough work to move you anywhere but straight to the surface of the matter at the center.

For someone who starts out saying "space is not a substance", you keep making references to space being displaced from mass. It doesn't work that way. Spacetime is just the coordinate system we use to measure the volume and movement within it. Listen to yourself:

18 hours ago, Jaksonslayer said:

Space is not a substance

2 hours ago, Jaksonslayer said:

I understand your points. However, not one of you actually said or mentioned anything why these wouldn't actually be true.

Ghideon tried asking questions about your space layers. Easily one of the most patient and effective members we have when it comes to spotting both good and bad arguments, and where those arguments stray from observation.

##### Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

If space consists of mass, even if negative, isn't that some kind of substance? So this contradicts the initial post?

I know my terminology is terrible, I wish I could put this Idea into a program to show my idea. I used "space is not a substance" so that people wouldn't think I was talking about physical pressure such as the physical pressure water produces when displaced which would have by all accounts been immediately ruled out.

12 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Negative mass occurs as a concept in some areas of physics. No particles with negative mass exists but that doesn't stop scientists from exploring theoretical aspects of how negative mass could behave. Your definition of negative mass seems to be something different so I can't really comment.﻿﻿

Yes, I have read some of these studies but what they are studying is particles slowed down and cold enough so that its energy is less than its mass. The negative mass I'm referring to is absence of everything. If the negative mass does exist, its energy would be infinite due to its mass being negative, anything greater than negative would be infinitely larger causing the negative mass to expand indefinitely causing the expansion of the universe, maybe this is the current mystery of dark energy, who knows.

25 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I think that a more meaningful discussion would be possible if you ask questions about areas in current theories that bothers you before trying to introduce new stuff. It is really hard to analyse an idea that is explained using concepts from mainstream science but define those concept differently.   ﻿

Isn't this literally how every theory is begun?

There are many accepted theories from different scientists that introduce new concepts all the time, that is how we learn new things.

##### Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jaksonslayer said:

The negative mass I'm referring to is absence of everything

I thought absence of everything is a vacuum?

22 minutes ago, Jaksonslayer said:

If the negative mass does exist, its energy would be infinite due to its mass being negative, anything greater than negative would be infinitely larger causing the negative mass to expand indefinitely causing the expansion of the universe, maybe this is the current mystery of dark energy, who knows.

Why would negative matter have infinite positive energy? If negative matter exists it would have a finite amount of negative energy?
Regarding "anything greater than negative", what does your model say about zero mass? Isn't zero also not negative? How are photons affected? Just two new questions that immediately arises, a definition of a space layer / negative mass requires more precision.

Note: In the mainstream sections we could have an interesting discussion about theoretical properties of negative matter, impact on conservation laws and how negative matter is likely not possible in our universe. Of course backed up by references to papers from reliable sources.
But this is speculations section and you are proposing new physics using what looks like your own definitions. Nothing wrong with that at all, but you need to provide the evidence. I can't guess what properties that the space layers/negative mass need to have to be able to behave the way you seem to imply. But I can say that it seems to contradict current theories in several ways.

36 minutes ago, Jaksonslayer said:

I used "space is not a substance" so that people wouldn't think I was talking about physical pressure

And that was a good start because it puts your idea into some context. It's just the rest I have trouble sorting out.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

You know what a dimension is, right? Einstein showed us that the three bidirectionally spatial ones we know (length, width, height) are inextricably coupled with a unidirectional temporal dimension we call time. This seemingly universal geometry is what we call spacetime, and it curves in the presence of mass/energy. The more the mass, the more the curvature (from Earth, we need a well-defined amount of energy to account for the curvature and move a mass into orbit). It's a complicated thing to envision, and I really don't think your concept of "space layers" is going to help you understand our current best explanations.

Better you should check out the description of geodesics in GR.

Take a look at what happens when matter is under enough pressure and heat to overcome the degeneracy pressure that keeps electrons from compressing too densely. What you call "true space displacement" is simply a neutron star (in the previous example) curving spacetime much, much, much more radically due to a huge mass being in a highly compressed state. In the case of a black hole, the matter has been compressed enough (by being at the center of a supernova) that it overcomes the degeneracy pressure of its neutrons as well, and compresses inevitably into a point. The curvature this state of matter creates in spacetime is so severe that once past a certain distance near the black hole, no amount of energy could produce enough work to move you anywhere but straight to the surface of the matter at the center.

For someone who starts out saying "space is not a substance", you keep making references to space being displaced from mass. It doesn't work that way. Spacetime is just the coordinate system we use to measure the volume and movement within it. Listen to yourself:

If you literally just took out the word curved and added layered in every one of your explanations, it fits perfectly... My point is saying its not a curve its space layered upon itself in the area giving the notion of curvature. That one dimensional space is not just simply bent around the mass but layered. since space in my understanding is depicted as one dimensional concerning gravity theory does that not mean it is stackable?

##### Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Jaksonslayer said:

My point is saying its not a curve its space layered upon itself in the area giving the notion of curvature.

But you agreed that space isn't a substance. How can it be layered upon itself? Please, please, please, look up the definition of dimensions in physics. It will tell you how the geometry of spacetime is applied wrt mass/energy.

44 minutes ago, Jaksonslayer said:

That one dimensional space is not just simply bent around the mass but layered.

There is no one dimensional space. How would you tell me where/when to meet you in one dimensional space? By using spacetime, I can give you x, y, z, and t coordinates to let you know, for instance, the longitude, latitude, altitude, and UTC so we can meet at my office on the 24th floor of the Sears Tower in Chicago.

44 minutes ago, Jaksonslayer said:

since space in my understanding is depicted as one dimensional concerning gravity theory does that not mean it is stackable?

That would mean they'd be separate and non-continuous, and what we observe is a continuum.

Start with dimension one, a line representing length. Now move 90 degrees FROM EVERY POINT along that line to show the second dimension, width. From that 2-dimensional plane, move 90 degrees FROM EVERY POINT along that plane to show the third dimension, height. You now have a cube in three spatial dimensions. Together with time, these four dimensions make up the geometry of the observable universe. Using this geometry, we can model orbital trajectories with such precision that we can send a rocket off in a straight line, have its course curved by relevant masses/energies over incredible distances, and accurately land on an asteroid.

The maths these trajectories are modeled on wouldn't work if your concept was viable. Relativity wouldn't work (and since our GPS system is based on relativity, and we know THAT works, it's more evidence that you have something wrong).

1 hour ago, Jaksonslayer said:

Isn't this literally how every theory is begun?

Absolutely not. You start with hypothesis, and then try to disprove it (because you can't show something is true, but you CAN show something is false). For an idea like this, it's a piece of cake to model mathematically, but only if you're fluent in physics language (the symbols, notations, and equations that focus on space, change, structure, quantity, and measurement). Once you have a model, you can use it to predict things you don't already know, to see if they occur and support your hypothesis. Amass lots and lots of evidence like this, and you can devise a verbal theory to explain what your model is showing us. But the theory will never be as precise and powerful in its explanatory powers as the model is.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jaksonslayer said:

My﻿﻿﻿ point is saying its not a curve its space layered upon itself

We have mathematical theory based on the curvature of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold representing spacetime. This theory can make quantitative, testable predictions (which have been tested and confirmed).

Can your “layer” model be tested in the same way?

What tests would distinguish your model from GR so we can decide which is the better model?

##### Share on other sites

I am more than likely wrong on all accounts but the Idea simply made sense to my current understanding. It seems apparent my current understanding is quite misleading.

This stuff is fascinating the hell out of me though. Could you possibly recommend some entry level physics/calculus books I could begin with increasing my understanding of how all this works?

##### Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Jaksonslayer said:

Could you possibly recommend some entry level physics/calculus books I could begin with increasing my understanding of how all this works?

Recommendations would depend on what level you are at and what your ambitions are. Do you want to follow along in a scientific discussion or really understand the details in the mathematical models? Do you want to know generally about physics or go deeper into specific parts such as cosmology?

Since you want to see the broader picture "how all this works" a start could be the (free) online resource http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu. It covers many areas of physics but does not use very advanced, nor explain much math. Depending on your level additional math resources might be required. You can buy the Feynman Lectures as printed books. I personally prefer the electronic version.

Some background about the Feynman Lectures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jaksonslayer said:

Could you possibly recommend some entry level physics/calculus books I could begin with increasing my understanding of how all this works?

Affirmative. Your nearest college or university book store should have Calculus I and Physics and Astrophysics books available for purchase. Or you could locate the same or similar books at your local city, college or university library available for checkout. If these options are not available due to remote locality, then online purchases may also be available.

Edited by Orion1

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Recommendations would depend on what level you are at and what your ambitions are. Do you want to follow along in a scientific discussion or really understand the details in the mathematical models? Do you want to know generally about physics or go deeper into specific parts such as cosmology?

I want to know all of it, especially the mathematical models. I have always been into this stuff at some level all my life albeit at just the curiosity level such as reading some articles and watching tv on it. But that obviously isn't giving me a high enough resolution picture for me to see the details.

I would need to learn these models to increase the resolution of my overall picture of the universe.

I did find some sources online that meet my level, so thanks again gentleman. I hope the next time I come on here Ill say something that makes sense.

This picture is what I have been envisioning in my head but have only ever seen it depicted on a 2 dimensional plain... the dimensional lines here going toward the earth could technically be drawn from each position around it these vertical dimensional lines is what I was referring to as layered dimensions.

So more or less I was envisioning already existing and proven theory by Einstein... I'm an idiot...

Edited by Jaksonslayer
mispell and missed a word

##### Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jaksonslayer said:

I want to know all of it, especially the mathematical models. I have always been into this stuff at some level all my life albeit at just the curiosity level such as reading some articles and watching tv on it. But that obviously isn't giving me a high enough resolution picture for me to see the details.

Personal opinion, other members may disagree: If you haven't done so already, start by taking a look at Special Relativity. The math is not very advanced and it is possible to understand lots of the details in the mathematical model with limited effort. At least compared to General relativity or Quantum theories for instance. But once you grasp how for instance Lorentz transformations are calculated the math starts telling you consequences of Einsteins postulates. You will look at formulas and see for instance how they will approximate Newton at low speeds or how it is obvious that observers in different frames of reference will disagree about time. Time dilation is no longer some concept heard in a popsci tv program, it will be something you see emerge from the experimentally confirmed model.

##### Share on other sites

For the math part it's a large list.

Calculus 1 and 2

Calculus of variations

Linear calculus

Differential geometry

Those are the main ones for path integrals calculus of variations apply QFT

You can get a handle on tensors by first learning matrices which isn't hard, then dyad's then tensors. Learn Euler Langrene (Calc of variations with differential geometry)

Gauge groups are linear approximations primarily but you will find spinor representations handy. In all cases study scalar and vector quantities focus on the inner and outer product of vectors. You will need that to learn the zero form and 1 forms of a vector. GR uses these forms in tensors.

Statistical mechanics you will also find handy

Edited by Mordred

##### Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jaksonslayer said:

I'm an idiot...

We don't attack people here, so stop this. We attack ideas, to make them stronger, or show they're wrong.

It's always our knowledge that's lacking, and you now see why it's so important to fill the gaps in our understanding with trustworthy information. Without good input, the stuff we make up will always seem right, but just to a single person. Science MUST be able to be shared with peers.

Good for you for recognizing this. Some people keep stomping their feet for years.

I would also add the Khan Academy to the recommendations others have given.

## Create an account

Register a new account