"You responded to BDBDBD with a false equivalence."
can you describe logically what i'm equating?
"I don't think you know what a strawman fallacy is. I didn't rebut something you never said. I'm saying you lack subject matter knowledge which means your position on the subject is based on a faulty premise which is leading you to a faulty conclusion."
i've quoted experts in the area to back what i've posted
you didn't rebut anything i said, can you for one quote a physicists who says that the laws of physics are perfect as they are and will never be modified as we learn more?
secondly i called your post a strawman because you are claiming that i'm saying that we have to change our laws of physics to accommodate singularities, when i'm actually saying that its a possibility and its also a possibility that they do not even exist
"Again, we do not need to change our laws of physics, only add to them. This again shows you are not well versed with the modern model of physics."
so... you think our physics laws are perfect right now and we'll never have to rethink anything we think we know right now... well that's amusing i guess
this is the same as that other guy telling me that no aspect of evolution can be debated... you guys have a funny understanding of science for sure
Do you not understand the difference between rewriting something and adding to something?
Relativity didn't rewrite Newtonian physics. It added to the overall body of knowledge of physics. M-Theory is a solid candidate for answering questions beyond the Standard Model but it doesn't rewrite it. Again, the fact you think they will be rewritten suggests you don't understand physics. A meter is still a meter. Gravitational lensing is still gravitational lensing. The laws that mathematically describe those aspects of physics do not require a rewrite simply because we develop an equation adequately describing physics in a singularity. It simply becomes an added chapter in our body of knowledge.
Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."