37 7

"Einstein and Hawking: Unlocking The Universe" produced by the BBC for the Science Channel.

i watched this last night, these guys should have been science fiction writers. They both produced silly theories that many accept as true. neither understood the true nature of time and space.

the truth about the universe is that time and space are infinite - there was no beginning of time - and there is no end of space.

time is a constant, it does not slow or stop.
space extends forever and it does not expand or bend.

there is so much misconception in the scientific community that as a human - it embarrasses me.

By gater
Actions Follow Post Like

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Thanks@ gater.

William77 Level 7 Mar 16, 2019

"the truth about the universe is that time and space are infinite - there was no beginning of time - and there is no end of space."

Apart from the fact that I'd replace "universe" with Cosmos (on the grounds that our Universe is a finite part of a larger Cosmos), I agree with this observation.

"time is a constant, it does not slow or stop."

This requires a clarification. Time is change and change is motion and you can't have motion without having something that moves - in other words physical stuff (matter / energy). But the speed at which things move alters the properties of those things and this has been experimentally demonstrated. Thus, if those properties are altered by motion, then things are not constant with differing speeds, then change changes with differing speeds and thus the concept of time associated with change alters too. In other words, time is indeed relative.

"space extends forever and it does not expand or bend."

This I absolutely agree with.

johnprytz Level 7 Mar 16, 2019

Having read the entire thread, I have come to the conclusions that, a), you’re insane, and, b), you’re insane.

KevinTwining Level 7 Mar 13, 2019

maybe - or maybe im right and you are clueless

infinite concepts are clearly beyond your ability to understand


to clarify, there are only 3 things in the universe - time, space, and matter - of course matter can take many forms. time does not slow or stop, it moves at a constant rate, and it always has - there was no beginning of time. space continues forever, because that is the nature of space.
time and space are independent - time has no effect on space, and space has no effect on time.

gater Level 7 Mar 13, 2019

"time and space are independent - time has no effect on space, and space has no effect on time."

Quite apart from the fact that you need a time coordinate as well as space coordinates in which to navigate your way around with, I totally agree with this observation.


Hawkings books and those about Einstein might help you actually understand what they said and the science that affirms their theories. Just because you are sceptical and can think about it differently does not mean you are correct or that your POV is valid.

ToolGuy Level 7 Mar 13, 2019

"Just because you are sceptical and can think about it differently does not mean you are correct or that your POV is valid."

While this is true, I should point out that this forum exists for those who are skeptical and for those who are freethinkers.

@johnprytz But one would hope that the thinking would not just be free but also grounded in empirical data and logic.

Well I can't speak for the person who started this topic off, but I believe I have made my statements in accordance with empirical data and logic.


Wow! Excellent "points generating" post!!!!
I salute you! smile009.gif

bigpawbullets Level 8 Mar 13, 2019

lol thanks smile001.gif


Yep, and guess what. The world is flat and only six thousand years old, and he sun goes across the sky in a small boat each day and spends the night in a cave.

It may well be that the ideas of Einstein and Hawkins will need to be corrected in the future, that is the way both science and human progress work, but it is unlikely now that they will be turned over completely and they will never be valueless. And to answer one of your questions with one piece of evidence. (Only one because I do not have the time to waste on all of them , not because they can't be answered. )

The reason we know that space bends is because. When objects like planets pass behind other large objects with big gravity, the apparent speed of them can be observed to slow down and speed up as they go in and out of transit. If you wish to obtain your own instruments and make the measurements again, you are welcome. Until then it is best to remember that. "I can't understand it." Is not the same as. Its not true.

Fernapple Level 7 Mar 13, 2019

"The reason we know that space bends is because. When objects like planets pass behind other large objects with big gravity, the apparent speed of them can be observed to slow down and speed up as they go in and out of transit."

And all that this states is that objects with gravity affects other objects with gravity. It says absolutely nothing about space bending. You don't need space bending in order to explain gravity.

@johnprytz True, but it is not the planet which speeds up and slows down, only the appearance, the photons follow a curved path, and photons have no or next to no mass.


Photons have no rest mass. And gravitons (the particles that convey the force of gravity) have no rest mass. But that doesn't mean that gravity (gravitons) has no influence on electromagnetic energy (photons). Light from a distant star (photons) is deflected by the Sun's gravity (gravitons). That says nothing about space bending. You don't need a bending space for gravitons to influence photons.


So cool that you are a better scientist than Einstein and Hawking. Where do you have your academic appointment? Where do you publish?

Stephanie99 Level 7 Mar 13, 2019

"Silly theories"???

So you, with your intuition and common sense, and perhaps some YouTube videos, have disproved Einstein's theories. Congratulations.

OldWiseAss Level 6 Mar 13, 2019

Einstein’s theoeries made prediction that we’re later proven true by experiments. Relativistic effects have to be taken into account for the calculations used to maneuver space probes that have been sent out across our solar system. An atomic clock on the ground compared with the same type of clock that travels around the globe on a jet then is returned to the same earthbound location as the ground click shows a difference in time. What is your explanation?

jmac63 Level 2 Mar 12, 2019

you are referring to the effects of time dilation - which is the effect gravity has on clocks


@gater Sorry no. Gravity does not affect atomic clocks. Time dilation is a relativistic effect predicted by Einstein’s theories.

"Sorry no. Gravity does not affect atomic clocks."

And I believe that you are totally wrong! Atomic clocks that are synchronized and then separated by altitude - say one remains on Earth at ground level while the other travels on an aircraft / spacecraft or is placed say on the lunar surface in a reduced gravitational field - will not remain synchronized.


"there is so much misconception ... - it embarrasses me."

I recommend you learn to live with your embarrassment.

TheAstroChuck Level 8 Mar 12, 2019

in time all of humanity will accept what im saying as true - im just way ahead of the curve.

@gater Sure you are. Sure you are.

@gater You are truly deluded. I suggest a little lie down, perhaps for a long time. Forever would be good.

@KevinTwining "You are truly deluded. I suggest a little lie down, perhaps for a long time. Forever would be good."

Don't you think that that was just a little bit uncalled for? Really? Further, it was totally nonconstructive and contributed absolutely nothing to the topic that was raised. What would have been interesting would have been detailing exactly why you felt the poster was "deluded" with hardcore data and logic to back you up.


@johnprytz Only just a little bit uncalled for (i.e. the bit about "forever" ). Otherwise, I'm in full agreement with @KevinTwining

Otherwise, I'm in full agreement with Kevin Twining.

That's your privilege. But I would have thought put-downs might be beneath the dignity of an actual scientist. I mean you wouldn't use such put-downs in a formal reply to an academic peer-reviewed paper even if you personally thought your scientific colleague was an absolute moron.

@johnprytz Lighten up John. It will be OK.


You're right, but you need to back your assertions with some kind of argument.

The Twins Paradox is the main tool you need to analyse this. Here's a version of it using a speed of 86.6% the speed of light for the trip and a pair of twins aged four. One twin stays at home while her brother goes off at 0.866c (c being the speed of light) for a year as measured by a clock that he takes with him. He then turns round and comes back again at 0.866c. By the time the twins are reunited, the girl is 8 years old and her brother is six. The speed of travel that I chose leads to the moving clock running at half the rate of the stationary clock. The functionality of the travelling twin is also slowed to half the rate of the stay-at-home twin. Speed of movement through space slows functionality, and we can see this in action with particle accelerators where short-lived particles last much longer before decaying as a result of their functionality being slowed by their high speed of movement through space.

The big argument is about how or why this should happen. The simple answer is the one provided in the way I worded the paragraph above; that moving fast through space slows functionality. Time is not slowed by this movement, but clocks merely run slow. You can see the simple mechanism for this by imagining a light clock which functions by sending out a pulse of light to a mirror and back to a detector next to the emitter. Every time a pulse of light returns, a new pulse is sent out and the clock registers a tick. If you align this clock perpendicular to its direction of travel through space, the light pulses aren't going to and fro between two points, but are following a zig-zag path, and the faster the movement, the further the light has to travel through space to complete each tick. If the clock is moving at 0.866c, then the light has to travel at 60 degrees to the alignment of the clock. Sin 60 = 0.866. Cos 60 = 0.5. The clock ticks 0.5 times as often at this speed as it does at rest.

So, we have a simple explanation that works fine. Why do we need an alternative one? Well, we don't. Everything fits fine. There is a complication called length contraction, and you can see this issue if you align the light clock with its direction of travel instead of perpendicular to it. At 0.866c, the length of the clock has to contract to 0.5 times its rest length. Is this a problem? No. It simply contracts in length. Why should it contract in length? Well, relativistic velocity addition provides the answer. I'm going to use unrealistic numbers here, but the principle is valid. Imagine a star moving through space at 0.866c while a planet orbits it at 0.866c. During part of the orbit, the planet will be stationary in space. At the opposite part of the orbit, it would be doing 2 x 0.866c, which is a lot faster than the speed of light. Velocities don't add like that though - its real speed through space at that part of its orbit would be 0.99c. The reason for this is the amount of energy that needs to be added to increase speed by a given amount, and the closer to c you go, the more energy you have to add in for the same speed increase. To reach c, you have to put infinite energy in. Our orbiting planet in the system moving at 0.866 must follow an elliptical path, and it will slow down and speed up as it goes round its star, it's maximum speed and its minimum speed being at opposite points on its orbit where it's furthest away from its star. The orbit is length contracted. When you apply the rules for this at all scales, you find that you must get length contraction on light clocks too. There is no mystery here.

Einstein never understood the mechanism behind length contraction. He called it "ad hoc". The result of this gap in the picture for him was that he was keen to find an alternative view of what was going on. His initial attempt was awful - it generated an infinite number of contradictions. Lorentz stuck to the old mechanism in which there's an absolute frame of reference - a way of putting a coordinate grid to space relative to which light is travelling at c in all directions. The trouble was that this frame couldn't be identified - an infinite number of differently moving coordinate grids could be imagined which light could be travelling at c relative to in all directions and there was no way of measuring which of these was the absolute frame. Einstein decided that because the absolute frame couldn't be identified, it didn't exist. In simple terms, he decided that if object A and object B are moving relative to each other, you can sit on object A and declare that light is moving relative to it at c in all directions, and then you can go and sit on object B and declare that light is moving relative to it at c in all directions, and both of these claims would be equally valid. Minkowski thought he was mad, and he was right. However, Minkowski then rescued Einstein by coming up with a mathematical abstraction using 4D Spacetime which hid the problem by getting rid of the speed of light altogether. In this non-Euclidean geometry, light reduces all of its paths to zero length and takes zero time to cover them (although it doesn't really cover them, because it never moves at all). Many people dispute that this is a property of 4D Spacetime, but it's easy to prove them wrong. They agree that a particle with mass which moves at nearly c will reduce what appear to be great distances to near zero length and can cover those distances in next to zero time, and all we need to do is look at particles moving closer and closer to c to see the path lengths and times tend to zero. At c, the paths are always zero length. We can then show by the simple application of mathematics that every point in Spacetime is zero distance away from every other point in Spacetime, and this reveals just how contrived an abstraction we're dealing with.

But let's get back to the twins paradox. Lorentz said that the functionality of the moving clock and twin was slowed down by their movement through space. Einstein, once he'd moved to a 4D model to avoid the contradictions of his original model, asserted that the travelling twin travelled through less time than the stay-at-home twin, but here again we have a mechanism that depends on an absolute frame to decide which twin is taking a shortcut into the future and which isn't. This can be hidden though by moving to a static block universe model (still 4D). Once you get to this, the most extreme model of all, time no longer runs, but you have genuinely got rid of the need for an absolute frame. The trouble is though that with this model there is no longer any causality - all the apparent causality written through the block is necessarily fake because the future was never generated out of the past and nothing in the block caused the shape of anything else in the block. The only way to create a block universe rationally is to generate it in order of causation, and when you do that you find that causality and time are tightly locked together - run one of them and you are necessarily running the other. When you run them in order to generate the block, either you will get event-meshing failures that disprove the model, or you have to put back an absolute frame of reference whose time governs the unfolding of events on different paths, and that time is quite additional to the "time" of the time dimension. Einstein's models simply don't work as claimed on the tin - no one has ever simulated them without cheating by smuggling in an undeclared kind of time to coordinate the unfolding of events on different paths which is explicitly banned in the models.

It's shocking that such a fraud still has the backing of the scientific establishment when it has been torn to pieces by mathematicians.

David_Cooper Level 6 Mar 12, 2019

Well you geniuses better tell NASA it's fake because

I agree - there is no evidence - none, to make the claim that you don't age travelling at the speed of light, approx. 670,000,000 mph. if you are on a space ship traveling at that speed, it will feel like you are standing still.
just another silly theory.

@Biosteelman Every time an experiment "confirms" Einstein's theories, it also "confirms" LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) which makes the exact same predictions, covering the same ground as STR and GTR but with a rational explanation instead of an impossible one.


Sorry, you just don't understand what they are saying. Time is not constant, and space does bend, whether you believe it or not.

Bobby9 Level 7 Mar 12, 2019

alright - you keep believing that

@gater Thanks for the permission. When you have proof of your "point" let me know.

@Bobby9 why don't you offer proof that time is not a constant, and proof that space bends? I could use a good laugh today

@gater YOU made the initial statement, therefore it is up to YOU to justify it, I am merely saying I don't believe you.

"Time is not constant, and space does bend, whether you believe it or not."

Time is not constant because motion is not constant and therefore change is not constant and without change there's no valid concept of time, BUT space does NOT bend. If you insist that space bends then you are insisting that space is an actual something. Now, that being the case I insist that you tell all of us what space is composed of! What is the chemical formula of space? If space isn't composed of anything then it can't bend.

@johnprytz I and many very knowledgeable astrophysicists insist space bends. You comment is noted.

"I and many very knowledgeable astrophysicists insist space bends."

Yet not one single astrophysicist can actually identify what space is composed of! If space bends it MUST be composed of something. Since space literally surrounds you and everybody else, how effing difficult can it be to pin this down?

@johnprytz Inability to identify what space is composed of merely means we don't know. We don't know a great deal of what makes the Universe tick. Additionally I have never read anything that says space in empty, quite the opposite.

"Inability to identify what space is composed of merely means we don't know."

You're assuming there is actually something to know! We don't know that there aren't actual faeries at the bottom of gardens, but do you want to spend time looking for them? As I've already said, since space is literally surrounding you right now, how difficult can it be to pin it down?

"Additionally I have never read anything that says space in empty, quite the opposite."

And I've never said that space is entirely empty. What I'm saying is that, for example, you have this hydrogen molecule in space, and you have another hydrogen molecule in space, but what is between them? Absolutely nothing - total emptiness.

@johnprytz Are you assuming there is nothing more to know? Even if you are your assumption is just that, and assumption. As I previously said, since we are referring to the unknown, there is no reason to continue. You speculation is no better than anyone else's. Bye.

There is no unknown here. Space is not composed of anything. Just wishing space to have an actual composition doesn't make it so. If I'm speculating, then you too are speculating. But at least my speculation is based on what we do know, not what we'd like to know.


The only time I have ever seen the word, "silly" used is as a derogatory term. I would not characterize either Einstein or Hawking as "silly". If you disagree with their theories, perhaps you should say, "I disagree with their theories in the matter of..."

dahermit Level 7 Mar 12, 2019

Time is a measurement to the fact that things happen. Something occurs and has a duration. Time measures this. If nothing occured, that in and of itself would be an occurence with a duration that could be given measurement, but if NOTHING is occuring that means you nor any one is standing by with a stop watch scaled to measure the duration of "nothing" occuring.

Antifred Level 7 Mar 12, 2019

you are close - time is essentially the natural advancement of the universe.

@gater you might say that. no universr, still "time". just nothingg by which to measure or standardize

@Antifred you are right

@gater I know, but i tried being wrong once but it turned out to be the right thing. Just being so good just is like so natural, i just can't do anything about it.

@Antifred some have an innate ability to see past the bullshit and to recognize what is true. this requires abstract reasoning.

@gater antispace get people to think about bang theory. there was antispace? then bang and space pushed antispace away?


I have been try to tell people this for eons but no one listens to me.

Antifred Level 7 Mar 12, 2019

you can tell some people the truth about something, like evolution, and they will never accept it. all you can do is offer them the truth, its up to them to accept it. either way - your understanding of truth does not depend on others agreeing with you.


Even Athiests and Agnostics can have irrational beliefs like infinite or that Time is real.

Biosteelman Level 6 Mar 12, 2019

Are you saying there is nothing that is infinite? Cause pi would beg to differ.

@FatherOfNyx Perhaps there is, but I'd like to see you prove it.

@Bobby9 Pi has been proven to be an infinite number. Well, proven to the best of our ability. Even if we calculate it to the trillion trillion billion trillion million decimal place, anyone can say "well that doesn't prove that it doesn't end beyond that". At that point, it's just willful ignorance.

@FatherOfNyx Yes, math can produce infiniteit numbers. I thought you were referring to something else.

@Bobby9 numbers are infinite

@gater I just said that, see above

@Bobby9 I was responding to his implication that there is no such thing as infinite. It's impossible to prove the universe is infinite, or even finite for that matter. Have to rely on logic at that point.

@FatherOfNyx PI is an irrational number and finite as it is definitely smaller than 22/7.

@Biosteelman It's an infinite decimal.. There's no way to twist it to make yourself right, the digits go on forever.

PI is the mathematical expression of a circles corner. In other words the same place infinity exists your imagination.

@Biosteelman Mankind didn't invent or imagine math, we discovered it. It's values to describe reality. We can keep going round n round so you can keep trying to not be wrong, but the rest of the world knows that pi is an infinite number. Whether you want to cop out and say it's simply your imagination or not, it's still infinite. While the term pi might not continue, it will exist long after humanity is gone. Any intelligent species in this universe that discovers math will discover pi.

@FatherOfNyx You're wrong on so many levels it's just amazing.
But you're right if an intelligent species decides to use base 10 to describe the corner of a circle they will find it never has a definitive corner. Which isn't the same thing as infinite but I guess in this day in age where nuance is gone it's the same.

@FatherOfNyx Pray tell how you would prove it either way. What test could you employ?

@Bobby9 Like I said, it can't be proven. There's an observational limit to the universe.. and even if we could travel at light speed, everything beyond the observational limit is expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. Even if we could instantly warp to any distance, no matter how far we go, no matter if we see an end, anyone can deny it and say that you can't prove that there is or isn't anything beyond. Granted at some point, most reasonable people will accept the evidence of what they're seeing, anyone can reject it in light of the possibility of what's beyond.

@FatherOfNyx Those are my thoughts exactly.

@Bobby9 Kind of sucks really, but that's the nature of the universe. All we can do is try to form a logical argument. For me, I apply Occam's razor and come to the conclusion that it's infinite. That ends up being the theory with the least assumptions.

@FatherOfNyx A question that certainly won't be answered in my life time.



ElusiveMoby Level 5 Mar 12, 2019

@gater -- You have not presented a theory. You have made a posit. Show your work.

evidentialist Level 8 Mar 12, 2019

theories are necessary when you're not sure of something - like the Big Bang Theory, or Special Theory of Relativity. I am sure time and space are infinite.

@gater If you are sure, then you should at least be able to explain it. That's what a scientific theory is, it's a model of explanation. All you're doing is making claims with no explanation. Come on man, if you're able to put this much effort in.. take it one step more and actually explain yourself. That's why you're getting so much push back, you're not doing shit other than making claims. Claims with no explanation are empty.

@FatherOfNyx alright that's fair, but its kind of like taking a test and you have the right answer but the teacher won't accept it because you didn't show your work. I wish I had the words to make it clear for everyone.

@gater -- No, it's not like taking a test, having the right answer, but being marked down because you didn't show your work. It is apparent you don't truly understand what the word theory means when used in science. What you have done here is more like this:

A young man was working away in the patent office one day when a brilliant idea popped into his brain. Immediately he raced out into the street shouting the German equivalent of eureka.

A policeman, upon seeing the wild-eyed young lad accosting people at random, stopped him and said, "Young man, why are you running about and shouting at the townspeople?"

"Because I've found it."

"Found what?"

"Space-time. It's ... it's a continuum, you see? Light is constant and time and space must comply with local acceleration."

"What on earth are you babbling about? Explain yourself."

"Well ... damn it man ... it's logic. Don't you see it? We've missed it all these years. All those great men of science haven't seen it and it was dangling there in plain sight for all to see."

"No, I don't see it, nor shall I see it until you explain yourself. What I can tell you is this, if you continue bothering people, I shall be forced to take you in until you calm down. I hear there is a man in Vienna who might be able to help you. I believe his name is Sigmund ... uh ... Sigmund Freud."

"Bah! That blathering baboon wouldn't -- couldn't understand. He doesn't see it either. Why are all of you so ... so dense?"


A theory describes a phenomenon, describes it thoroughly, and shows all the work used in the process. If a theory works, it can make predictions based on the description presented therein about future effects of a given phenomenon.


@gater Being sure is not proof. Theists are sure there is a god.

@Bobby9 no - theist depend on faith

@gater They are sure of their faith.

@Bobby9 no - that's why its called faith - faith is believing in something that you have no evidence or proof of.

@gater Not worth bickering about. You "point" is semantics.

@gater -- And you, Sir, have given no evidence or explanation for your posit. You have made the assertion, now provide the support for the assertion.


Where is this trend coming from? Did I just miss it before? Is this just a part of agnostic I've (thankfully) missed?

People making basic assertions and disparaging great minds because they think it makes them look profound? I mean, just look at this Youtube video! Complete with more basic assertions pronounced like a Confucian monk passing on the mystic arts in the comments:

You learn about time from clocks, and about ants with a magnifying glass.


You have nothing to prove here. We do not measure IQ points. You don't get Agnostic karma from trying to look like the smartest atheist. If you get to Level 8, you can get a T-shirt. However, you can do that just by commenting "lol" on a lot of posts, probably.

These types of posts aren't making you look like a genius science-man with a big ol' brain. They make you look like someone who thinks they're smarter than they really are.

Xuande Level 7 Mar 12, 2019

you learn about time from clocks??? lol wrong


How do you know this? Did it come to you in a dream? Who else knows this?

Jay1313132018 Level 6 Mar 12, 2019

I analyzed all the data available to me, and I constructed an accurate model of the Universe. anyone that thinks space expands or bends does understand what space is.

@gater I think that you're trying to "pull everyone's leg". Good one.

@Jay1313132018 lol no - im trying to share what I know is true. I was raised a Christian, it took years of analysis to understand that evolution is true. since then I learned that everything needs to be questioned and analyzed. In a college physics course the professor tried to teach something that was mathematically impossible, I called him on it and proved he was wrong. question everything - don't accept the BBT - its wrong.

@gater your arguments are "religious like". You're expecting others to believe you on "faith". You offer no rational, let alone scientific, justification other than "I've figured it out. Take my word for it". Maybe, you've not quite outgrown religion.

@Jay1313132018 maybe everything I said is true but you lack the ability to comprehend infinite concepts - isn't that a possibility?

@gater Now, you're trying the "I'm rubber you're glue defence". How funny and a little sad.

@Jay1313132018 no - im asking you if you believe theres a possibility that im right.

@gater you haven't provided enough (any) detail in order to access your proposition.

At first, I really thought you were trying to "pull our leg" by arguing about space-time in a similar way that a religious person might argue about the existence of God. You argue that it's true because you have special knowledge that is apparently beyond explanation and that we should believe you on your word. Also, that one day everyone will know it and it's best that we jump on board now.

Now, from what you've posted it seems that you do not have any higher level training, either informal or formal, in science. Therefore, it's difficult to have a meaningful conversation, on this topic, with you. I don't say this to disparage you. I'm trying to explain why, in my opinion, are getting such push back on this post.

"How do you know this? Did it come to you in a dream? Who else knows this?"

The idea that time and space are infinite are in the former case based on the First Law of Thermodynamics which states that matter / energy can neither be created or destroyed and therefore have always existed - and if you disagree then demonstrate how you can create something from nothing - and in the latter case logic dictates that if space is finite then there is a boundary enclosing space which now requires you to answer, what's on the other side of the boundary? More space?


Read "A brief History of Time" It puts much of what you eschew in layman's terms. Einstein's original brilliant deduction on space/time (E=MC2) changed physics and the world we live in. Hawking expanded our understand of the relationship of building blocks of the universe. Both made errors, Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics and Hawking made early mathematical errors, most he corrected himself.

clarkatticus Level 7 Mar 11, 2019

the Big Bang Theory is flawed and inaccurate.


What is its nature? to understand something you must understand its nature.

​ time has its own nature, space has its own nature. the fact that time passes in space is incidental.
gater Level 7 Mar 11, 2019

This is just about what i expected from this group - infinite time and space is an abstract concept that is absolutely true. to understand this you 1st must understand the true nature of time and space.
this is where the scientific community fails.

gater Level 7 Mar 11, 2019

42 has always worked for me smile009.gif

@powder Yep and time is an illusion - lunchtimes doubly so smile009.gif


Let me get this straight, you watched a two hour documentary and discovered, hitherto unknown, flaws by two of the top scientists of the last century. My you are some genius, I wish I had that kind of insight, if I did I would be putting it to good use and not on here making rash statements that makes one look stoopid.

GothRik Level 6 Mar 11, 2019

no - ive known for years that time and space are infinite.

Write Comment

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

Similar Posts

Share this post


Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer
  • Agnostic.com is the largest non-profit community for atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics and others happy without religion!