toastywombel

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Wikipedia definition of general welfare, "A General Welfare clause is a section that appears in many constitutions, and in some cases in charters and statutes, which provides that the governing body empowered by the document may enact laws as it sees fit to promote the health, safety, morals, and well-being of the people governed thereunder (also known as the police power). Such clauses are generally interpreted as granting the state broad power to regulate for the general welfare that is independent of other powers specified in the governing document." Furthermore, the following is from here http://law.jrank.org/pages/7116/General-Welfare.html "United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison's philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress. In its opinion, the Court warned that to challenge a federal expense on the ground that it did not promote the general welfare would "naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress." So why would the constitution have to be changed, when we have ruling like this. According to this Supreme Court decision, the federal government's limitations are left to the desecration of congress. Furthermore, I think it is hard to prove that there is no reasonable possibility that universal healthcare provides for the general welfare of the public.

No, no one at wikipedia is obtuse. We are talking about the density of a black hole, from observation. We use the part that is black as the boundary of the black hole, and measure the density inside of that. That is why its called the average density. Of course the density most likely isn't evenly spread out, but it is really an unknown. There is no way to prove or disprove that there is a singularity inside of a black hole, this is one of the mysteries of science. Many scientists doubt that there is a singularity of infinite density. You cannot prove that there is a singularity inside of a black hole because you cannot observe anything in a black hole without being in the black hole. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I would also like to note, that it is currently an unknown whether black holes recycle matter. Hawking Radiation seems very possible. And again, you cannot prove that black hole singularities have a density of infinity or that they don't, but I think many scientist don't neccesarily believe there is an actual singularity. A singularity is what is implied by relativity, but a singularity may be a part where relativity breaks down, and quantum mechanics is needed to understand it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well I would think that it is more shades of gray, as a hypothetical observer moves from the boundary, the density would be increasing as it approaches the center of the schwarzschild radius. Whether the increasing density is gradual or not is really an unknown.

So I am aware that the human nose and ears grow a whole life, so when one is older by consequence, one has a larger nose and ears. I was wondering if this might be natures way of some what compensating for hearing loss and lower lung functions that occur often in old age.

And it is good to note, they have the most weapons because God gave 'em to them because they are the ones who are right. ,

I don't know if there is a maximum energy density in space, but energy is really present in any given point in space. But it would seem that even if there were, a black hole would never reach that because it simply becomes less dense as it grows. Now this is only average density, so there could be a singularity, but I don't think there is an upper limit, simply because it is widely accepted that black holes may give off energy through pulsars, jets, and hawking radiation.

That is more along the lines of what I think. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I am not saying stay away from religion. What I am saying is that religion has no place in science. Scientifically, religion is really pointless, if we can, say, explain ghosts then what does it matter a given religion's beliefs in ghosts. I understand religion encompasses a large portion of many people's lives, but that does not make it scientific. Science shouldn't stray from religion, but more religion has no place in science, we shouldn't try to inquire about questions posed by religion, instead, we should try to answer the questions, and ignore the fact that they may be posed by religion.

No I did, but I would like to say that to a new viewer, it may look somewhat ridiculous. I guess it makes the post provoking though.

Agreed, PHP probably has more potential, I don't see a bright future for Microsoft as a network system company, with open source starting to gain a lot of steam.

No they aren't completely, of course somethings are speculated, but we can observe black holes and how they interact with the matter around them. Here are a couple lists of potential black holes that are being observed. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativity/bhctable.html http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_holes From observing these black hole candidates as they move through clouds of matter, we can determine certain properties.

No the properties of black holes are not purely theoretical, there is some we know. This is from wikipedia, "Despite its invisible interior, a black hole can be observed through its interaction with other matter. A black hole can be inferred by tracking the movement of a group of stars that orbit a region in space. Alternatively, when gas falls into a stellar black hole from a companion star, the gas spirals inward, heating to very high temperatures and emitting large amounts of radiation that can be detected from earthbound and Earth-orbiting telescopes." Many of the properties of black holes are calculated through equations, but many of these equations have been validated by observations. The properties of a black hole can usually be categorized as mass, spin, and charge. "It is now widely accepted that the center of every or at least nearly every galaxy contains a supermassive black hole.[76][77] The close observational correlation between the mass of this hole and the velocity dispersion of the host galaxy's bulge, known as the M-sigma relation, strongly suggests a connection between the formation of the black hole and the galaxy itself."[76] and, "In 1967, astronomers discovered pulsars,[10][11] and within a few years could show that the known pulsars were rapidly rotating neutron stars. Until that time, neutron stars were also regarded as just theoretical curiosities. So the discovery of pulsars awakened interest in all types of ultra-dense objects that might be formed by gravitational collapse" So as you see the properties of black holes are not neccesarily just based of speculation. Maybe some, but not all. As far as the question posed by the op. .. . 1. Is there any information regarding the ratio of how much matter/energy supermassive black holes swollow in relation to how much they eject in the form of plasma jets (blasars) or any other radiation. Not that I know of, but the second question is really the key here, 2. Will black holes ever reach a "maximum" filled state where it cannot consume anymore due to space energy density limits , and then only spew out these jets we now observe in blasars. There may be an effective upper boundary ( radius) as to where black holes cannot grow larger. No, generally the more massive a black hole, the less dense it is. This is from wikipedia as well, "Since the average density of a black hole inside its Schwarzschild radius is inversely proportional to the square of its mass, supermassive black holes are much less dense than stellar black holes (the average density of a large supermassive black hole is comparable to that of water).[65] Consequently, the physics of matter forming a supermassive black hole is much better understood and the possible alternative explanations for supermassive black hole observations are much more mundane. For example, a supermassive black hole could be modelled by a large cluster of very dark objects. However, typically such alternatives are not stable enough to explain the supermassive black hole candidates." Hope this helps.

Is this really a topic, "Which religion is right?". Thats like asking what pro-football team is right.

Jackson33, if you are arguing that the constitution has no ability to be added upon, in the cases of general welfare for the public? Or that it limits the federal governments power to what is listed on the constitution. If so, how does it seem reasonable to you that we follow a document written 200 years ago, by men who have only a fraction of the knowledge all of us have today. I mean look at the 2nd amendment for example, sure citizens have the right to bear arms, but back in the 1700's there were no automatic machine guns? That was not taken into consideration by the founders, it couldn't of been. My point is, we cannot run an effective, modern government, based on strict rules that were devised over 200 years ago, its just not practical in an ever-changing world.

I know, it seems lately that every body is talking about ministers, sinisters, banisters and canisters, bishops and fishops and rabbis and pop eyes,

Well it is observation that changes or breaks the entanglement right? One has up spin, one has down spin, neither particle completely decides until one is observed.

I think it would be nice if they somehow designed the cells to duplicate and heal themselves, or reproduce themselves if they get damage.

I think it may be best if you watch video. It is often hard to explain the dimensions to people in words, it takes a lot of time to try and get the point across, so forgive me for my laziness.

This is an interesting idea, I would be willing to give it a go, but I don't really know who I would debate with.

I need to expand it a bit, I already started working on that, making it work with the page. I am pretty sure I can do it easy. As far as a known glowing version for shirts, I'll get that up asap. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWell I took a few seconds to try and give everyone an idea of what it would look like on the forum. I think in this case it is a little cramped. It also needs to be aligned on the left margin, but again just an idea.

"It would have zero momentum, the same as the universe. The objects would have a range of velocities, thus it would not be still relative to them. It could only be motionless relative to all things if they too were motionless." An object could be appeared motionless to other objects, and both could be moving in the same trajectory all at the same speed. But really it depends on how you look at it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If space is not curved by mass, why have we observed light from stars bending around the sun on their way towards Earth?

Okay so I added the HandelGotligt and kept the lens flair effect, lowered the glow on the text a little bit. I can do this in any color possible btw. . .

Well I think some Christians could be considered extreme, Pat Robertson to name one of them. I mean the Mormon is a sec of Christianity, a perfect example. If one followed the teachings of Joseph Smith and then one decided to have multiple wives, that would be considered extreme. When everyone uses cell phones, computers, and other various technology, and the Amish still live roughly and rurally, that could be considered extreme socially, but not violently extreme. It is okay to say that some secs of Christianity that are extreme and others that aren't, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. I guess if you are saying that atheism is extreme, maybe in this day and age socially yes, violently extreme, not the majority. But of course not in all cases and probably not in most cases here in the United States, it is all shades of gray really, you can have an extremest from any religion or non religion, but I think what the OP is implying that more strict adherence to a religion leads to extremism. And I think that could be more simplified, strict adherence to any 'manifest-destiny' ideology can lead to extremism.

Who is deciding on the winner of this contest?

I think if you asked most people they would think that the lifestyles of the Amish are actually quite extreme Jryan.

I don't know, is there? That is why I brought this up. Skeptic seemed to support the idea that a 'no-comment' position on religion is the best scientifically because it leaves one more open to other ideas and therefore they have a greater chance of coming to a correct conclusion. (this is of course assuming that a religion can possibly be correct). I on the other hand think that science should be secular, and by being secular that does not mean ruling out any possibilities. Religions are systematic belief systems that are usually not backed by evidence and they are usually set in stone. Religion is often associated with 'knowing the truth' instead of finding out the truth and being able to explain it. Therefore, I believe, science should be secular, and separate from religion.

Featured on Science Daily, really good article. "If harnessing the unlimited solar power of the sun were easy, we wouldn't still have the greenhouse gas problem that results from the use of fossil fuel. And while solar energy systems work moderately well in hot desert climates, they are still inefficient and contribute only a small percentage of the general energy demand. A new solution may be coming from an unexpected source -- a source that may be on your dinner plate tonight." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100304112237.htm