PocketMatrix

Long story, I had even forgotten about it until I just got an email again today. I went to some DrDino's website, I don't even know how I found it, maybe Chuck lead me onto it, and anyway I was reading the section on Dinosaurs being alive today, about the plesiosaur that washed up on the SoCal beach, and the "dragon" that a Japanese fishing boat caught. They also had pictures of the Loch Ness Monster, and they had posted a picture of the Loch Ness Monster that is known to be, or atleast generally held to be, a fake. So I just kindly clicked the "contact" button on the bottom of the page and told him that an astute observer would notice the "fake" image of Loch Ness and that that image may end up hurting the credibility of his entire website.

Well his next show is going to be about my email, and they offered to have me call in. I probably won't, because I have nothing to say, but isn't that neat?

Here's the info on the show:

ohh my god!!! ohh my god!!! CAN I GET AN AUTOGRAPH FROM THE MOOSE!!!

Chill, dude. I'm not that famous.

[edit] But sure, here you go:

Hey, this is interesting:
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=21

If the Universe takes up a limited amount of space (I doubt there is infinite mass, so I'd say this is a pretty safe assumption), and assuming that the beginning of the Universe was created in 6 days, as the Bible says, then according to Einstein's theories of relativity the outer edges of the expanding Universe would experience time dillation in the exact amount for distant stars to be billions of years old, yet for the Universe as a whole to have been formed in only 6 days. I'd have to say that's pretty awesome. I may have to check out Dr. Humphrey's book and read up on physics to find out if that really is plausible.

No, the Hebrew word is clearly for a period of 24 hours. And it doesn't ONLY say "the first day" the "second day" it says "there was morning and evening - the third day." The Bible clearly means a time period that we today know as a single rotation of the earth.

Here, try this one out:
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=2

All of these articles are quite compelling. This one takes a long time to pick up but has some good points, such as:


It's all got such mathematical and evidentary backing. Kind of an interesting read regardless of what you believe. I'm finding it enthralling, quite honestly. Tons of articles on that site.

just because the universe is billions of years old doesnt mean the moon is.

That's where that time dillation comes in. Because of the expansion of the Universe things that are expanding outward toward the edge of the Universe would age very rapidly and would actually be very old because time passed more rapidly for them. So the Universe may be very old, but only relatively and not absolutely.

i dont think a velocity of 136m/s causes any time dilation

time dilations are negligible until .86c

I haven't done the math, but I'm assuming those are numbers you've found regarding the speed of the expansion of the Universe? If that were the case I'd reply by saying that still fits in with time dillation, assuming that it took 6 days from the reference point of the Earth for the Universe to expand then along with relative time comes relative speed. But I have no clue, buy the man's book, it's bibliography is on the bottom of the first link I posted.

Here's another interesting fact I found. A gold chain was found embedded in a piece of coal which was carbon dated to 236 million years.


This is indeed quite the curious website.