Good enough. Now if I could just get a few million others to accept that I just won a Nobel Prize, life would be golden.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:52 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > 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'. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
