4 ms·
To those downvoting me, you're welcome to speak up. This is a game of logic, and I was hoping that this community could keep the religious knee-jerk reactions d
by itistoday 16y ago
To those downvoting me, you're welcome to speak up. This is a game of logic, and I was hoping that this community could keep the religious knee-jerk reactions down to a minimum. :-\
- yafujifide 16y agoFWIW, I did not downvote you. But you still do not seem to comprehend the fact that the standard theory assumes time is finite. In order to disprove such a theory, you cannot just assume that time is infinite, because you are assuming the conclusion. If you convince me that you actually understand this, I will continue responding to you.
- itistoday 16y agoFWIW, I did not downvote you. I know, HN doesn't allow downvoting of responses. :-p But you still do not seem to comprehend the fact that the standard theory assumes time is finite. Really? I thought I was very clear in demonstrating that I understood this through and through, hence the accusation of faith. I did not simply use an assumption that time is infinite as disproof, in fact I did not disprove BBT at all in my response, but merely gave reasons why I thought it was extremely unlikely to have a start.
- jmathes 16y agoYou sound like a crackpot. You don't sound like you understand physics. You also sound cranky. If you want to have a discussion, you should stop using grandiose language.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- tlholaday 16y agoitistoday, do you agree that atomic clocks appear to run more slowly as the gravitational field gets stronger?
- itistoday 16y agoYes I do, though shouldn't that line of reasoning be another strike against some of the tenants of the BBT? If you have an infinitely dense object that represents everything, time shouldn't pass, so how could anything have ever gotten anywhere?
- powrtoch 16y agoAgain, no t=0. It never was "infinitely" dense, it just approaches this limit.