A Tripolation

No. Just...no. There's so much wrong with what you think that I don't know where to begin.

Is your conversation/thoughts in any way analogous to this?

...there's no disagreement to it. Scale doesn't matter. The only reason you notice gravity is because we live on a huge rock orbiting an even bigger ball of gas. You're lucky atoms don't rely on gravity to keep them from flying apart. I thought it was even more than that. But I could be wrong. Yes, you did.

You're still wrong. Gravity is BY FAR the weakest of the four fundamental forces.

Even better, maybe he got Quanatum Field Theory on Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics.

...my, oh my. Which Ph.D to believe?

Not the point, man. Being moved to "Speculations" is not a punishment. This is speculation.

I think it's pretty easy to tell when someone doesn't have a Ph.D in physics or math type stuff. I don't quite understand what you're saying.

Yes, but this is not congruous to the statement that matter is reality. No one knows this for certain. It's an open question in cosmology. Time is a dimension. Matter is...stuff. There are no similarities. Yes and no. That's a *very* simplified explanation of it. It really is based in quantum mechanics. That's part of the "What the Bleep Do We Know" series. But the good thing is it ISN'T all you have. The internet is full of wonderful resources, like the Khan Academy and MIT OpenCourseware. You can also order physics textbooks from Amazon and do some self-study. You seem like a reasonable person, so I'm glad that you recognize this. You are attempting to jump into fields that are subject to poor analogies and popular misconceptions. It takes 3-4 years of dedicated study before you can really start getting into the meat of quantum. Special relativity is a little more friendly, but general relativity is as formidable as quantum. If you're truly interested in these subjects, then you might think about pursuing a formal education in physics. Yes. It is a very good fiction movie.

1) That's not what the "thought experiment" is going for. Also, you don't have a theory. 2) Reality is not "made up of matter." There is such a thing as empty space. 3) "There are an infinite amount of ways that reality can be interpreted". No. There is an objective, observable reality. 4) "Time is like matter". Erm. No. 5) "Reality is a weird form of infinity." This doesn't even make sense. 6) You keep misusing the term "infinity". 7) The double slit-experiment does not prove that "matter isn't matter until you look at it." 8) Your understanding of the double slit experiment comes from "What the Bleep Do We Know", which isn't a very good source for quantum mechanics. It's quite hit-and-miss. Conclusion: You cannot learn complicated quantum mechanics and relativity from watching bad science shows. You must get a formalized training in the matter. Sorry.

I don't agree with some of what Obama has done, but I'd rather have him for another four years than any of those GOP f***tards. And, yes, I am a conservative.

This is a very good question. Most of what I know on this topic comes from my father who is a farmer, receives subsidies, and closely follows the economics of the trade. I'll ask him to point me to some reading I can do to see if I can answer this. But IIRC, the market prices for stuff like grain is mostly controlled (check that, dominated by) the price of fertilizer. Fertilizer increases yield to astronomical levels. And it's pretty much all of the perennial overhead. I do not think subsidies are in control that much so that a completely free market system would result in lower prices. The subsidies we receive are from everything to using more environmentally-friendly farming techniques (because they are a tad more inefficient) to setting a certain amount of acreage aside for produce (other than the more profitable things like tobacco). None that are comparable to cigarettes. The tax on one pack exceeds $6.00 in New York.

I'll buy a copy on Wednesday when I get paid! I buy far too many books as it is, but I figure an entire book at three bucks is a steal.

I know this is off topic, but I'm tired of people bringing this up. Almost all of these verses are out of context and aren't properly interpreted. I'm not one to scream "That's out of context", but it really is in this situation. Yes. The pharisees told him he was disrespecting an ancient law. He then pointed out that they disrespected ancient laws as well. In what world does that mean that he supports that? It just means he was showing them the extent of their hypocrisy.

See DH's post above. Gravity doesn't explain electromagnetism just as Rhetorical Analysis doesn't explain Dynamo Theory. So simply saying, "I have a doctorates in blah blah blah" will help to convey more trust than explaining the subject in a clear and concise manner?

What do credentials have to do with anything. Either the person is wrong or they are not. Credentials not needed.

Understanding =/= Gullible. Electricity cannot explain orbital dynamics. That "theory" is garbage.

I've seen your posts about the electric universe garbage. You're honestly so stupid about it that I think you're trolling. Ergo, I deemed not to waste my time explaining precisely why you're stupid.

In a few months, I'll graduate with a degree on Physics, concentration in Astronomy, and a degree in English, concentration on technical writing. I am not an "expert". But I've taken enough physics and maths to know when someone doesn't have the slightest clue what he or she is talking about. This is your only logical point. But in the context of this forum, it's completely irrelevant. If some whack job starts writing psuedoscience, he is almost *immediately* straightened out by a member of the staff or an "expert" in the field. So tell me again: Why is it a good idea to mandate that the mods and experts disclose their credentials?

This is completely unnecessary and superfluous. You can't "act" like you know science. Sooner or later, you'll say something stupid or you won't be able to address the issue with the math. I can tell Swansont is a physicist because he *talks* like a physicist. I can tell John Cuthber is a chemist because he *talks* like a chemist. I can tell you're an architect (not architect, specifically, but someone not in a field of the natural sciences) because your speculation and opposition to certain subjects has a very "layman's" tone to it. I do not mean to be degrading or insulting; I'm only saying this to reinforce my original idea. You could not pretend to be a physicist. It would be very easy to see through. An avenue already exists for people to discuss their qualifications. Let's leave it at that instead of some wild mandate about posting personal information.

Yes, but it's more like everyone is subsidized for a certain thing and that includes the super-rich farmers that don't need it. I can understand being upset with that. But the movement isn't to refine the subsidies. It is to end them completely because they're "pork". That is ridiculous. There is a reason that Americans spend less than 20 cents of every dollar on food. It's, in large part, because the government helps to keep prices down. You're good at finding figures, so I'll let you look it up. The amount of corn used to make corn syrup is negligibly small. I completely agree. It is being done with cigarettes. I don't understand why they don't do it with alcohol though. I largely suspect it's because the majority of adult Americans drink while a minority smoke. Seems quite hypocritical to me.

It it is, I misinterpreted, and my apologies. This would be most excellent. And there wouldn't even need to be an increase in the number of farmers. Most small farmers have contracts with the mega-corporation farms (notably: Tyson) where they sell their locally raised product to the big boys just so they have a buyer. But, here's where I don't understand. People keep screaming about cutting the subsidies for farmers and such. Making them pay carbon tax for their cattle and tractors. I ask you, how is that progressive to expanding local farming services to the actual locals? The cost of fertilizer has made small-farming (500 acres or less) economically irrelevant. And people want to get rid of the subsidies that make it relevant. Doesn't make sense to me. Fuel price increase (which is directly correlated to fertilizer prices) would be worse for small farmers than factory farms. They can weather the storm. We can't. Oh, sure, there are some successful farmers' market where a group of guys will get together and make it, but how many of those do you see? Trust me, we hate doing business with the factory farms. My dad loathes having to sell his cattle because he knows that they won't be treated as they should. If farmers could sell to their community, they would. But, honestly, we can't compete with the price of entities like Kroger. Something tells me that if this causes food prices to go up, it won't pass at all. That and the time to prepare the meals is all I can think of why people wouldn't want a true garden fresh salad with their meal. Or fresh cilantro thrown into their selection of sauteed vegetables. Mmmmm. I wouldn't normally agree with this since it's far too Big-Brother-y, but hey, since they're doing it to cigarettes, I don't mind them doing it to junk food.

You are under the mistaken assumption that grocers buy from local farmers. This isn't so. Kroger, Wal-MArt, etc, import produce from mega farms that sell by volume. There are some stores that have a "local farmer" section. But those prices are higher than normal. They have to be. There are organics stores that sell local produce. But they are incredibly expensive. Small local farmers cannot compete with the mega-farms, even if their product is better. Find a way to cheapen the cost of fertilizer per tonne and lessen the cost of diesel. Food prices will go down.

I'm glad you mentioned these examples, ajb. It seems that far too often we have people that think science has proclaimed people like Einstein to be gods without flaw. Hopefully this will get the point across about Tesla's ill-developed models.