Yes. Please send my Nobel Prize by mail.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:48 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > 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'. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
