Meltdarok wrote, On 8/26/2008 9:21 PM:

Correction:
That's silly.

Meltdarok aol.com> writes:

So do you want me to tell you what "null infinity" actually means?

Or do you not want me to tell you?

Or do you just want to continue writing inane gibberish, poorly disguised as
intelligent conversation?

HG wrote, On 8/27/2008 3:52 AM:

"Meltdarok" aol.com> wrote in message
news:qbctk.54136$C65.37348@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...

The problem with cut-and-paste answers is that they are clearly written in
another voice. Thus you end up sounding like a parrot instead of a
thoughtful and informed person. You're uncomprehendingly repeating what
you've heard.

So you're answer really is "Squawk! Pretty bird!"

And there it is. Your real answer. "I believe."

Meltdarok aol.com> writes:

HG wrote, On 8/27/2008 3:59 PM:

"Meltdarok" aol.com> wrote in message
news:2mltk.34480$3I2.27664@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...

But not her *credibility* with anybody except for one silly kook who can't
spell, let alone understand physics. Then again, it's no badge of honor to
have *you* regard someone as "credable"

Meltdarok aol.com> writes:

HG wrote:

Even if the known universe is already inside a transcendentally hugh
black hole?

Joseph Littleshoes isp.com> writes:

That speculation/theory is irrelevant when using the model that uses "null
infinity" as a convinient term. It does not care about it. Like it doesn't
care about the existence or nonexistence of God.

HG