On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 12:57:55 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 5:59 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 10:50:46 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 4:19 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> *Last sentence above: I mean that if it had a "start" with infinite >>>> spatial extent, that would seem to mean it did NOT have an infinite >>>> spatial >>>> extent just prior to the start. For me this seems like a singularity, an >>>> infinite physical process which occurs in zero time. If I were betting, >>>> I'd >>>> bet on a finite closed universe for any universe which "starts", not for >>>> the Multiverse. AG* >>>> >>> >>> You can bet any way you want. I doubt that the universe gives a shit. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> *I'd go further and ask one question: it obviously doesn't. Is this your >> idea of value-added? What I think it displays is your firmly held belief >> that it's flat, and anger that someone might think otherwise. Not your >> finest hour. AG * >> > > Not anger -- just frustration at your intransigence. I don't care what you > think, so why should I be angry? > > Bruce >
*Annoyance is only slightly removed from anger. Maybe you're being intransigent. As Brent pointed out, many origin theories have a "beginning" or "start", so before that our universe didn't exist (not to be confused with the Multiverse). But then, magically perhaps, it comes into instantaneous existence having an infinite spatial extent since it's alleged to be flat. For a genius like you, there's nothing to be explained here. AG * -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe981a09-aeaf-4c5d-9039-ee9180d3ebbf%40googlegroups.com.
