The sun is plasma not fire.
Really? That's the hill you want to die on? Sure, I can oblige.
It's a rhetorical device. English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?
The Big Bang is just the currently leading theory of many.
...uh, no. We're debating what happened before the Big Bang, whether it had happened before, whether it will happen again, or if it might be different than what we initially thought. But no one's contesting that the Big Bang happened.
Entropy is only a universal constant under the assumption that the universe is a closed system.
No, entropy is not a universal constant of
any kind. The only time entropy is constant is when the system is closed and all processes can be reversed. Firstly, the universe fulfils the first qualifier, I'm not sure about the second, and I'm not qualified to make a statement about that. But given that the general consensus is that the heat death of the universe is a thing, I'm going to assume no. So it's not even a constant in that regard.
And Einstein has been wrong about a number of things.
The most famous was his idea about the cosmological constant, which he ended up having to throw out after it was discovered that the speed at which the universe was expanding is actually increasing.
Uh huh. Look to my above quote about not being disingenuous. You knew perfectly well I was talking about relativistic physics. One of Einstein's most famous quotes is 'God does not play dice with universe' when asked about quantum physics, and look at where the field is now.
Of course all this is meaningless, because we aren't dealing with a long term abstract theoretical, but an immediate possibility that includes the words "If the assumption is wrong a lot of people might die horribly."
Then why are you bothering to counter? You clearly didn't see the point of my response, which was to poke a hole in your fallacious logic, as I said. You were using the classic argument from ignorance.
And on a note, there's no down side to assuming you might be wrong, other then not being able to sound like the smartest person in the room by claiming a theory as absolute fact.
Let me think for a minute. Yes, ignoring verified research from multiple trustworthy sources, some of which have access to more than a millennium of academia on the subject, when on a time-sensitive mission, on the extremely negligible chance that he might be wrong is the right thing to do.
So, lets sum it up. You missed the point by a mile, went on to counter my off-the-head examples, and the completely wrong part of the example to boot,
incorrectly, then lampshade the pointlessness of your own post, and top it off with a classic that can compete with Lewis Caroll and James Joyce in surreality, without any of positives.
Why do I even bother?
And Paul has no way to check every single possible use magic to see if there's one that might allow it.
No, of course, one of the fundamental rules of magic established in the story might be wrong due to MUH HEADCANON. Magic is part of the system that generates it, and can no more violate that than energy be created.
