-
AstraphelNoctis4 Astral_Trinity439 AstraphelNoctis4 wrote on Astral_Trinity439's profile.
Hey Astral_Trinity439,
Just wanted to clarify that
Here, he wasn’t talking about the universe not being universal in size. He meant that a universe-sized 'universe ’ can’t fit between stars, so the ‘worlds’ must be planets, since the term ‘interstellar world’ implies something located between stars.
Just wanted to clarify that
And my point is that you're not applying a fact, but simply an argument from tradition. That's the whole point of me raising the fallacy lmao
"A universe sized universe" dude, a universe by default is assumed to be universal size unless strong contradictory evidence exists in-verse. And if claims of those contradictory evidence are debunked, so is the requirement to prove "A universe is universe sized" lmao.
Here, he wasn’t talking about the universe not being universal in size. He meant that a universe-sized 'universe ’ can’t fit between stars, so the ‘worlds’ must be planets, since the term ‘interstellar world’ implies something located between stars.


Reactions: CastoriceTheFifth