(March 31, 2013 at 8:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Ah.... "your time"!!!My definition is much better; why?
And here I was thinking we were talking about standard universal time...
Oh well, another looney trying to redefine things and coming up with his own version of the world.... -.-'
Have fun with "your time".
because it is a partial definition of time
It is accepted by all people
The universal definition of time, is not even definite or agreed on.
So just analyzing the sequence of events is better than using the whole definition of time which is not universally agreed on.
Quote:It is impossible to demonstrate an infinite, but there is no theory (that I'm aware of) which ends up with a finite spacetime as a result.Now there is! mine
Quote:Your proof is erroneous and looks a lot like an assumption.Empty assertions!
Quote:Just in case you missed where the error was... after some 10 pages, someone is going to show it to you.Is this a belief?
Quote:You defined Set1 as a finite set.I didn't
Quote:because of something no one understands related to set1... what does set1 have to do with set2?Members of set 2 must start after (before in time) members of set 1
Quote: How likely is it that you'd find 3 in a straight line? Damned difficult to find, but not impossible.My proof doesn't include any probabilities.