Email? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/ed/20131011153017!Nobel_Prize.png
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
