bombus

Of course it's not FREE (hence my use of inverted commas), but I didn't have to actually pay for it myself at the point of delivery. Everyone in the UK pays National Insurance, essentially a tax paid direct to the government to fund the National Health System, welfare payments and govt. pension. For most of us it works out far cheaper than private medical insurance - basically because the NHS is run not-for-profit. As a proportional tax the richer one is the more one contributes so it takes into account ability to pay (even people on welfare contribute). Despite some problems, it really is a fantastic system. Whether you have an ingrowing toenail or cancer, all treatment is 'free'. Re personal responsibility, there are debates about this (should smokers get treatment for lung cancer, or fat people get heart operations etc) but one thing it does do is encourage the government to look at ways of encouraging people to lead healthier lives. It doesn't stretch as far as encouraging people to stop people playing sports or enjoying their lives though!

I think socialism is the answer, and capitalism (in this case a private health system) is a cop out. Good Health Care is a right that should be guaranteed to the people by the government. The British NHS is fab! I have had treatment that that would have otherwise cost tens of thousands of pounds, all for 'free'. Go for it USA, it really is great.

I'm sure you are both correct but I'm finding it hard to get my feeble mind around...

What weight is that? If gravity is zero, there will be no pressure as the pressure is due to gravity. Gravity will also be pulling in the opposite direction away from the core. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Again, your talking about pressure that is a result of gravity. There would be no gravitational pressure at the core of the earth (or less so at any rate), as it would be pulling away from the core as well. Shhhurly no gravity=no pressure

Can anyone with a better grasp of physics than me come up with a mechanism for earth exapnsion based on a thought I have had? Although I have known this for quite some time, it only 'clicked' a few days ago when reading a post by someone on a totally different thread. Gravity at the centre of the earth must be zero, because one would get pulled equally in every direction by the mass surrounding one in every direction. So, gravity pulling towards the centre of the earth must increase as one moves from the centre of the earth out towards the crust. Maximum gravity must I suppose be when one is sitting on top of the crust. So is it possible that the centrifugal force of the earth spinning is stronger than gravity pulling towards the centre for most of the region within the mantle? Could centrifugal force push magma outward towards the crust. Could the earth be hollowing itself, and the more magama that is forced outwards the less is left at the centre, so the gravitational pull from the centre of the earth is continually weakening hence expansion increases exponentially (small at first and then rapidly increasing). Have we a mechanism for earth expansion or am I totally wrong?

I get your point, but it doesn't HAVE to be like that under socialism - or lets call it a planned economy. Remember, the USSR was ahead of the USA in space technology for much of the space race because it put in the effort (although it can be argued without the USA as a competitor would they have bothered?). Also, as a result of a planned system the USSR the state was brought from a medeival level into the 20th Century in about 5 years. If the will is there improvements can occur more rapidly in a planned economy, but without competition would the will be there? I suspect not in many cases. (BTW, I don't think it's fair to base anything on Cuba however, as it's been blockaded for years by the USA which seriously inhibits it's development.)

Whilst I agree with most of what you say, and the comment above is certainly true to a large extent, there is the problem in capitalism of huge waste caused by market forces which do not always make the best choices. A good example of this is VHS vs Betamax. VHS was an inferior system but won the format war through better marketing, and all the energy and resources spent on making Betamax was more or less wasted. Recently the same happended with HD-DVD and Blu Ray. All the resources spent on HD-DVD is now wasted. Similar examples exist everywhere. Whilst communist societies can (and did) suffer from a lack of 'competition' to spur on 'progress', I suspect that free market systems are on the whole not much more efficient, just efficient and wasteful in different ways.

I don't think that's true. Mountain ranges are formed when expansion causes continental plates to buckle (as the curvature of the eart decreases). I'd suggest reading up on EET. In fact, EET gives an explanation of why fossils of sea creatures ARE found at the summit of everest rather than on the sea bed! If people actually WANT a thread on this I'm happy to start one. Is there already one?

I'm not trying to hijack anything. You seem very sure it doesn't happen. When you have lived a few million years perhaps you can show us all proof of that.

Mmm. have you seen my thread on saltwater amphibians (and the EET). Have we a mechanism for planetary expansion?

Plate tectonics does not fully explain the observed phenomena. That's my point.. At least, it does not do so as well as EET. Apart from the (admittedly crucial) missing info on the mechanism of expansion EET seems to fit with the data. If a potential mechanism was discovered, would it change your view? Is the lack of a mechanism your only issue? Maybe this needs a separate thread?

Some of them are true. Thats the big problem. With 911 I'd guess most people know something aint right with the official version, but at one end of the extreme people say that simply the US Govt used it as an excuse to invade Afghanistan/Iraq, and at the other its down to the CIA/Illuminati/Aliens. The truth is probably somewhere along the continuum - but where depends on ones level of paranoia!

It was thinking about amphibians that got me thinking about the EET, but fair call nonetheless.

How about a diminishing gravitational constant?? I dunno! However, it seems to me that the biggest obstacle to the EET is that there does not appear to be a mechanism for planetary expansion. However, all the other facts seem to fit very well, and in some cases, better than the plate tectonics theory. Just becasue we can't come up with a mechanism shouldn't mean the whole theory is dismissed out of hand. I'm not saying I believe in the EET, but I really don't think it should mocked. Remember, Wegeners theory was mocked by the most eminent of scientists at first, and yet became the paradigm. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well, that is a very good question. But maybe rather than dismiss the theory we should figure this out first. Actually, evidence is still pretty scant. It's still very much a theory. Ocean floors are at most only 180 million years old. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Mmmmm. Well, it does seem strange that EVERY saltwater amphibian died out - considering how many freshwater ones didn't, and how many other marine species from all vertebrate groups are still around. The thing with the EET, everyone seems totally freaked by it simply because we know of no mechanism for planetary expansion. I am just not freaked out by it. It is a very big problem to explain, but so is the double slit expt. The thing is that it would seem that the plates fit together EXACTLY on a smaller globe. EXACTLY! If this is true could it really be just coincidence?

Thanks for your answers. However, I cannot believe that all saltwater amphibians would have become extinct. Also, where would these brackish waters in the ocean exist ? I am beginning to wonder if maybe there simply were no oceans, only huge freshwater (or, due to leaching, slightly brackish) lakes. It seems a strange co-incidence that at this time there was only one continent - Pangea. Maybe the expanding Earth theory should be revisited. Can you see what I am thinking...? I have become suspicious of the whole Wegener idea of plate tectonics - continents have to wiggle and rotate in freakish ways order for it to be correct. Using occams razor, the EET is far simpler - and works - exactly. The continents fit together exactly! Few ancient fish fossils have been found on oceans floors - which are between 10 and 180 million years old. Fish fossils are almost exclusively found from contental rocks... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvgJrDH2qXQ&feature=related

If amphibians evolved from fish, which presumably lived in oceans, why are there no salt water amphibians? Or am I mistaken? Or did amphibians evolve from freshwater fish because there were no oceans...?

To Pangloss and Mooeypoo, Thanks for those kind words. Much appreciated!

I think it was wrong for Israel to bomb civilian areas where there was a high likelihood of civilians getting killed. If Hamas had been launching Scuds I might have a different opinion, but the deaths caused by these rockets were relatively few and did not warrant this sort of heavy handed indicriminate action. If Israel HAD to have a military solution they should have used exclusively ground troops with small arms and tanks to take out gunmen. Yes, more soldiers may have been killed - but that's their job! Soldiers lives are not less expendable than civilians, even Palestinian ones. I think that military solutions to such problems rarely work in the long term. If Israel truly wants a just peace it has to start being more civilised, and has to be able to see the situation from others point of view. It must grow a broader back and stop behaving "...like a mad dog" (to quote Mosche Dayan). I think we'll probably have to agree to differ as this debate is going nowhere.

I don't only read stuff from this website you know! My homepage is BBC News Website. I also read CNN, Al Jazeera, Guardian, Times etc. It's just this website often picks up reports that others miss - or that I have missed. It often offers an alternative to mainstream opinion, which enables me to see the other side of the coin. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, I would accept that. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged None? Maybe? But the argument you are putting forward is irrelevant to this recent conflict. Children were NOT being used to fight, and their use as meatshields is very VERY much open to debate. I would even go as far as to say that this excuse has been extremely exaggerated by Israel to justify what they have been doing. There were no gunmen near the UN building, or the hospitals, or the schools, as verified by independent witnesses, yet they still got bombed. See here for the story of the moment: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7838465.stm But as I said earlier, the UK was engaged in guerilla warfare in Northern Ireland for many years and never resorted to this kind of action.

Robert Fisk is a journalist for The Independent. A non-partisan (and proud to be so) quality newspaper in the UK. Its website is below: http://www.independent.co.uk/ Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Err.... No. I was able to show you the opposite, and that few civilized countries would behave as israel has done.

If you look a little closer you will see that many of the articles collated by the website are from 'normal' newspapers - like the Times, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian etc. I think the article I was referring to was from the Independent - a UK quality broadsheet newspaper. Well that's because it is the truth. How could one deny it?

A simple 'No' wouldn't really have cut the mustard would it now. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedA pretty good unbiased article here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21794.htm A very good question asked here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21790.htm Also a snippet from an article from Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/) below which I thought interesting: It was a hot September day in Gaza and I was sitting in the office of a Hamas-affiliated newspaper talking with a senior Hamas intellectual. As the French news crew that had given me a ride from Jerusalem packed up their camera equipment, I took the opportunity to change the subject from the latest happenings in Gaza to a more fundamental question that had long bothered me. "Off the record, lets put aside whether or not Palestinians have the moral or legal right to use violence against civilians to resist the occupation. The fact is, it doesn't work," I said. Suicide bombings and other direct attacks on Israeli civilians, I argued, helped to keep the subject off the occupation and in so doing allowed Israel to build even more settlements while the media focused on the violence. His response both surprised me with its honesty and troubled me with its implications. "We know the violence doesn't work, but we don't know how to stop it," he said.

I'd love to believe this is proof - but it all seems to rely on the testimony of one guy. He could be a nutcase. A doctor yes, but a nutcase doctor...

No, you are correct - but with the information I have I can imagine how horrid it must be.

Of course I condemn Hamas' actions - or at least the actions of the actual people who fire rockets into civilian areas in 'Israel'. If these actions are justified by Hamas I condemn Hamas unreservedly - Just as I condemned the actions of the IRA (whilst generally supporting their cause for a united Ireland). The point is that there are reasons why people resort to these type of actions (be it suicide bombings, planting of bombs, going mad with diggers, hijacking planes etc), and it's usually done as a last resort and in desperation. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just sayng that's what happens. To give you an analogy - if unemployment goes up, crime also tends to go up. So, if one wants to reduce crime, reducing unemployment is an effective measure. I don't in any way condone burglars, but can't deny that a lack of money (jobs, etc) pushes some (more) people into becoming burglars. I don't excuse them for this, but I would accept it as a reason. Simlarly, Israel's actions over the years have caused a reaction - that is militant Arabs/Palestinians etc. Israel needs to understand this rather than proclaim its self imposed right to exist. Only then can they become more humble and start to see things from the viewpoint of the Arabs/Palestinians. Only then will anything approaching peace be possible. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Hamas are declaring victory over the Israeli's. One viewpoint (not necessarily one I share) is shown here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21793.htm Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I think you maybe do not understand the sort of conditions Palestinians live under. These children were unarmed and aged as young as five years old - emerging with a whte flag from a shelter - after being told to leave by Israeli soldiers. I'm not saying this is Israeli military policy - there are always psychopaths in any army - but will these events be investigated by Israel? I doubt it. I am talking about the conflict in modern times - not pre-WW2. I.e that which involved the provisional IRA who became active in the late 60's. In modern times the British never bombed civilian areas. Whilst the British Army were by no means squeaky clean, the politicians at least had the good sense to attempt to contain the violence and keep it as low intensity warfare - and not to respond with a heavy handed military approach. Some civilians were killed during Bloody Sunday, and that caused a major row which is still going on. The idea of the UK behaving like Israel was unthinkable. The Northern Irish conflict was fought by the provisional IRA against the British (not English per se) and involved a lot of violence and many many bombs and killings against British Irish citizens in Northern Ireland. Some actions were carried out on the mainland, but most were against British citizens in Ireland. What about the illegal settlements, the embargoes, the random shootings, the refugees, the occupied land? The word is proportionality I think you misundertood me - I did not claim that, I was referring to Arabs expelled or that had fleed from Israel.