oh, FFS...
time, time is not on your side!!!
-If time has a start, you cannot say anything about causation prior to time's existence. Cause and effect requires time... your G=0 is the best answer.... instead, since you want G to be non-zero, you try to define another kind of time, name it p, and say it attests for the dynamic nature of G... what does dynamic mean, here? -.-'
-If time doesn't have a start, then your proof crumbles away.
It all stems from your faulty definition of time as a series of finite events...
There, your "proof" is refuted. enjoy.
time, time is not on your side!!!
-If time has a start, you cannot say anything about causation prior to time's existence. Cause and effect requires time... your G=0 is the best answer.... instead, since you want G to be non-zero, you try to define another kind of time, name it p, and say it attests for the dynamic nature of G... what does dynamic mean, here? -.-'
-If time doesn't have a start, then your proof crumbles away.
It all stems from your faulty definition of time as a series of finite events...
There, your "proof" is refuted. enjoy.