There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment. So... your point is? You have a problem with Einstein?
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: > Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I >> think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably >> accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is >> 100M years old. >> >> Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A twin that >> steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, >> comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same >> period. And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only >> lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went >> from milliseconds to seconds. >> >> So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days >> creating the heavens & earth. Do we have any reason to think that He is >> limited to going only the speed of light? Nope. He undoubtedly zipped >> around the universe at far faster than the speed of light. From His >> perspective, it took 6 days. From the perspective of someone sitting on >> the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years. God's own little twin >> paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago. Pretty >> amazing. >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> wrote: >> >>> I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio >>> Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or >>> there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that >>> radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. >>> >>> I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in >>> different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. >>> Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong >>> with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. >>> >>> While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on >>> Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics >>> that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally >>> correlated with Egyptian history. >>> >>> Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a >>> convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset >>> the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'. >>> >> >> >
