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 <cheme...@gmail.com> 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 <kevmol...@gmail.com> > 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 <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'. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
