But is it constant across the universe? Where is it? What is it? Emergent? Coalescent? Decaying? Quantum? Stringy? Loopy? Roll of the Dicey?
Einstein was smart enough to give it a placeholder, I credit him that. 95% leaves a lot left to figure out. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > Einstein's Biggest Blunder? Dark Energy May Be Consistent With > Cosmological Constant > Date: > November 28, 2007 > Source: > Texas A&M University > Summary: > Einstein's self-proclaimed "biggest blunder" -- his postulation of a > cosmological constant (a force that opposes gravity and keeps the universe > from collapsing) -- may not be such a blunder after all, according to the > research of an international team of scientists. > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127142128.htm > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the >> missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart >> guy. >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> 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'. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
