Re: God=G_uv no Proof of 40k BC Creation

From: Tom Capizzi (tom.capizzi_at_verizon.net)
Date: 01/07/05 

Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 05:40:11 GMT

"George Hammond" <nospam1@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:8KnDd.2872$W32.1368@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Tom Capizzi" <tom.capizzi@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:07jDd.18$7b.8@trndny02...
>>
>> "George Hammond" <nospam1@nospam.org> wrote in message
>> news:D%hDd.2587$W32.1364@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Tom Capizzi" <tom.capizzi@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> > news:0qeDd.24128$152.19602@trndny01...
>> >>
>> >> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1105017491.88635ad3fc5a2123eb1ee84b3085806e@teranews...
>> >> > "Kamerynn" <idon'tdoemail@sorry.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:10tq3jt8ut49i2c@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The alleged fact that "reality" is *both* 40k years
>> >> >> old *and* 12 billion years old!? Of course I'll never
>> >> >> understand how that can be. Those two possibilities
>> >> >> are *mutually exclusive*, George.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Not at all. Anyone with a smattering of knowledge regarding
>> > relativity
>> >> > knows that time is not a constant, but changes with acceleration /
>> >> > deceleration. Therefore depending on the difference in acceleration
>> >> > /
>> >> > deceleration between one scientist, and another and as observed by a
>> >> > neutral
>> >> > observer, the atomic clock of one scientists measures 12 billion
> years,
>> >> > whereas the another's measures only 40K years. And that is not even
>> >> > considering quantum time.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Technically, according to relativity, time changes with relative
>> >> velocity,
>> >> even when there is no acceleration. And in that context, if two
> observers
>> >> of the same events disagree as to the duration by the amounts above,
>> >> it
>> >> means that there is a difference in relative velocity between the two
> of
>> >> >
>> >> .99999999999444..... c. Since time dilation only slows down its
> passage,
>> >> the observer with less time on his clock must be the one speeding
>> >> along
>> >> near light speed, while the other is planted in the real world.
>> >
>> >
>> > [Hammond]
>> > Actually the scientific proof of God involves a GRAVITATIONAL
>> > TIME DILATION not an SR time dilation.
>>
>> Care to explain what size gravitational source accounts for a time
>> dilation of 12 billion to 40 thousand, and where it is?
>
> [Hammond]
> I just explained it to you.
> I just told you that the 12G/40K disparity is NOT explained
> by a "Relativistic time dilation" (you snipped the explanation).

You called it a "GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION" and then
went off on some wild tangent. I take it back - tangent implies too
much relevance. You disappeared into the Twilight Zone and
spouted some mumbo-jumbo that you wish you could pass off
as science.

>> The Bible is a fairy tale written by illiterate sheep herders.
>

I should have said authored, not written. It didn't get into print
until many centuries later.

>> [snip rest of crap]
>>
>> Maybe you can peddle this evangelical crap to the president. He's
>> a moron too. It doesn't belong in sci.physics.relativity. Too bad
>> we don't have a moderator.
>
> [Hammond]
> Yeah.. keep that in mind... we DON'T have a moderator.
> And by the way, this is a physics newsgroup and I'm a
> graduate physicist (M.S. 1967) and God=G_uv is a
> physics theory that has been published in the peer
> reviewed journal literature

Which one? I question the credentials of any peer who would
give you a soapbox. In any case, I wouldn't want to waste my
money on any publication that you are in. Good thing USENET
is free.

> I'm willing to bet you don't have any
> credentials in Relativity. What are YOU doing here?
>

Where do you get credentials in Relativity? At my school
they gave me a Bachelor's Degree in Science. I have actually
read Einstein's own books on the subject. I don't claim to be
an expert, but you seem to have forgotten everything you
might have learned 40 years ago.

> AND BY THE WAY... DON'T
> *** WITH THE HEADERS!

Or what? You won't reply?
I refuse to give your bs theory a free ride by repeating your header.
And while we're on that subject, from out of what dark hole did you
pull that figure of 40000 BC?
As long as you continue to clutter my inbox with your off-topic
spam, I'll do whatever I want to the header.

Quantcast