1,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31:
Line 31: + + + +
Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be? (view source)
Revision as of 00:18, March 9, 2007
, 00:18, March 9, 2007no edit summary
I'm assuming that is meant as a goad? :^) It's a simple inertia problem. If you'd like to bone up on your Inertia studies, let me in turn invite you to do a little exploration on your own: [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]
I'm assuming that is meant as a goad? :^) It's a simple inertia problem. If you'd like to bone up on your Inertia studies, let me in turn invite you to do a little exploration on your own: [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:Did it occur to you that in a collapsing Universe, precisely the phenomenon Einstein describes there leads to radiation pressure opposing that collapse?
:There are good reasons to reject the old bouncing models, but this isn't one of them. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)