toastywombel

I do not have the privileges to have a blog I guess, might I ask why?

Well the energy being transferred in the form of heat causes the motion, but when you are working on the microscopic level you leave classical mechanics and enter quantum mechanics. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFurthermore, heat itself is just kinetic energy being caused by the vibration of the molecules and atoms. As they vibrate they bump into molecules and atoms next to them causing them to vibrate. Which also leads to expansion, which is why all substances expand when they are heated.

Audi has already made a car with magnetic suspension and I think Cadillac is working on one too.

Lol the last time i checked the dark stuff it was mystery meat too mmmmm mystery meat. Sorry that statement just made me laugh, thanks . lol

you are assuming that there is/was a void.

I feel as if you are ignoring the links that many on this forum have posted (including me) pointing out how Fox is not just biased, they twist, distort, and make up news. That alone discounts it from being a legitimate news organization. Furthermore you cannot say that the mainstream media glorifies obama, when Fox is the most watched news network. Fox is the most watched cable news network, therefore it is the mainstream media. So obviously the mainstream media does not glorify Obama. You cannot have it both ways.

define "free energy".

I think it can be concluded that the math introduced by the OP is most certainly flawed.

Not really they have 58 seat majority, with two independents. One is Barry Sanders (self-labled socialist) and the other is Joe Lieberman, and Lieberman might caucus with the Democrats but he might as well be a Republican.

The belief that the most common atom in the Universe, hydrogen bombarded solid blocks of frozen oxygen. This has been tested and water has been formed this way. It is believed this may be a possibility of how water is formed in space. It may also explain why water in space is mostly amorphous. Furthermore hydrogen and oxygen are some of the most common elements in the Universe, because they form bonds easily this makes H20 very common in the Universe.

I think we must remember the positivist approach. We will never know if a theory is accurate, only if it works. If everything is shrinking, it most likely would not be because of gravity, because gravity is much weaker than the other three forces. But even if everything is shrinking so it appears that the Universe is expanding it is a mute point. Mathematically, if we are shrinking it would be the same as if Universe is expanding. The theories behind the Universe expanding work with our current observations, that is why it is accepted. Whether it is all matter shrinking or the Universe expanding is impossible to answer. Ex) If you and I were in a void and you grew 10 times my size it would be the same as if I shrunk 10 times your size. There is no constant to compare to, so there is no way to tell the difference.

Yes, but if the nursing home only carries a cable plan in which Fox News is the only 24 hour news network available, the people in the nursing home only have one choice among the cable news networks. But, I agree both factors apply.

Electronic signals travel from neuron to neuron at about 200-400 milli-seconds according to a study from John Hopkins University using a PET to study electrodes traveling along the surface of the brain. It could be argued that an increase in adrenaline could cause the mind to fire these thoughts off quicker, but another argument is that the brain utilizes more of its available 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses. Either way your brain could possibly process more information in a given time when stimulated by adrenaline. This may cause time to slow down, only relative to the observer though, because the observer's brain is processing much more data than that observer is usually used to. Of course this is speculation and there is no scientific research to prove this. One question I have is if (somehow) the brain used a fiber-optics system that allowed the mind to process data at or nearly the speed of light would that allow for an infinite or nearly infinite amount of thoughts to be processed in a given time. This would have many implications, such as making time slow down relative to the observer drastically. Maybe this is more appropriate for a new post but any initial thoughts?

I would agree with that, but the fact that Fox is broadcasted on more outlets alone gives it a larger audience.

Air America has gained popularity continually, and to say they have failed to make profitable shows is ridiculous. Rachael Maddow and Ed Shultz both started their careers on Air America. Both beat CNN in ratings and are rising. Furthermore, to call Fox a News Company, as pointed out by others, is like calling the WWE a professional sport. I don't even think I should have to justify myself on how many times I have heard Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly directly or in-directly imply that Obama is a Communist. Watch Fox News from 5 pm et to 9 pm et. If you want to know how Fox News lies here is a link to a Huffington Post video showing the top ten lies that Fox News puts out. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html O'Reilly on the View called Obama a communist last October. Beck has said that he feels like he is living in Mao's China this October. (if that is not implying that Obama is a communist I don't know what is) As for Hannity, do you ever watch the guy? Furthermore, it is Ailes who runs Fox News, but it was Murdoch who writes Ailes' paycheck, so I think it is completely fair to blame him for the lies that Fox puts out. Note: Murdoch is not only the CEO of News Corp, he is also on the Board of Directors of Phillip Morris. News Corp also own the Dow Jones Industrial. Finally, I would love for you to point out one time that Hannity or Limbaugh criticized Bush Jr. about faith-based initiatives. Beck has been critical of Bush in the past true, so has O'Reilly but only on a very small scale. PS: You said Fox must be considered a viable News Network in the United States. On what grounds? Is it simply because they have more money behind them and are therefore able to broadcast there shows on more outlets, thus getting more viewers?

Sisyphus, you asked me to prove my points earlier with links. This is from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch "Murdoch made his first acquisition in the United States in 1973, when he purchased the San Antonio Express-News. Soon afterwards, he founded Star, a supermarket tabloid, and in 1976, he purchased the New York Post. On September 4, 1985, Murdoch became a naturalized citizen in order to satisfy the legal requirement that only US citizens were permitted to own American television stations." And on the allegations of Acorn voter fraud here is a link to factcheck.org explaining my point. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/acorn_accusations.html

The article you cited to support your argument is essentially the blue-print for Hayek Economics. Hayek Economics has failed over and over again. Just like most people on this forum have already mention it creates a short-term boom of wealth, then a long slump which is again followed by a short-term boom of wealth. The boom and bust cycle leads to the wealthy becoming wealthier and the poor becoming poorer, because the booms and busts hurt the poor much more than they hurt the wealthy. Just look at the largely unregulated free-markets around the world. These countries have weak central governments and strong corporate control. -Mexico -Haiti -Bosnia -Zimbabwe (along with most of Africa) These are failed states with hardly any effective social policies, and they are among the poorest countries in the world. Hayek economics came back to America with the rise of Ronald Reagan ("We are going to let the bull loose") and the Neo-Conservative/ Neo-Liberal Free-Market movement. These policies continued with Bush, Clinton (NAFTA), and George W. Bush (CAFTA). Since 1980, the average salaries of United States citizens has remained the relatively the same, while the cost of food, energy, and health care have risen dramatically. Furthermore because of these free-trade/ free-market policies the amount of jobs in the United States has not kept up with population growth at all. Clinton was aware of this, which is why he re-wrote the laws for tracking unemployment, so that only people collecting unemployment benefits were counted. The unemployment rate (which is around 9.8%) is actually much greater because of this. However, because of the large increases in the major stock market indexes (Dow, S&P, and Nasdaq), many believed that the wealth being created, by the wealthy investors, in the stock-market would balance out the job losses and lack of wage increases. The flaw behind this economic ideology (even admitted by Alan Greenspan) was the belief that the wealthy would re-invest the wealth they make back into the public, this never happened and the bubble eventually busted open. The Hayek system greatly benefits the wealthy, but does not benefit the majority of society, the whole idea of its success depends on the generosity of the wealthiest members of society. How is it logical to base an economic system on an assumption about morality of the most powerful people in the society? It isn't.

The Fox Acorn story was blown way out of proportion I hope you know. The allegations of voter fraud were totally ridiculous. Acorn had volunteers that registered voters. When Acorn officials found voter registration forms that seemed fraudulent they reported those forms as fraudulent, then Fox attacked them for the forms they reported as fraudulent, claiming that they filed fraudulent voter registration forms. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush furthermore do not fit the definition of conservatives or traditional republicans. Any real republican would have opposed much of what the Bush Administration did as far as war spending and spending in general. Those three fit the definition of party loyalists who have unwavering loyalty to the Republican Party. Of course there are other political loyalists on the other side such as James Carville or Paul Begala, but I don't know of any Democratic Party Loyalists who have their own shows. Furthermore Czars are not something specific to the Obama Administration. It is misleading when Fox attacks Obama for having czars, yet they fail to point out that Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan all had czars. Finally, your last statement is a total farce. None of the health-care bills that are in the Senate or the House are proposing a tax specifically on the middle class to give health-care specifically to the poor. On to the original post I think it is totally justified for the Obama Administration to take on Fox News. Fox has lied, mislead, and unfairly labeled the president as a communist and un-American. It is funny that Fox News would label Obama as un-American, when the company that owns Fox News (News Corp) is owned by Rupert Murdoch. An Australian citizen who gained US citizenship solely so he could open up a Cable News Network in the United States.

iNow I agree we do have a great forum where these ideas can be expressed without name-calling or labeling, most of the time

No, I don't think so, which begs the question, why did you post it on a science forum?

Its all about free-markets! We need a flat tax! And less government so that wealth can grow! jk jk jk jk lol I agree redistribution of wealth through taxation is a more effective way of stimulating the economy than printing large amounts of money and giving it to the population, as in Keynesian economics. Although, I would argue that Keynesian economics is a much better system than laissez fair capitalism, which is the system that Keynesian economics replaced in America. We must remember that the reason Keynesian economics was accepted by the FDR administration was because at that time the redistribution of wealth through taxation would of been labeled as communism, out of fear. Remember, the Soviet Union was gaining power rapidly at that time. Much of the American elite feared Communism. The problem with Keynesian economics is that the more money the government prints, the less that money is worth. Meaning the more times you implement that system the less and less effective it becomes. Essentially it turns out to be a flat-tax, because it diminishes the value of everyone's dollar equally.

True but there is no way to prove it either way yet, I just used "point of singularity" because he was referring to that point as the center of the Universe. Good to point that out though

Thats not true, and syntax has a point. This is from wikipedia Very-high-density amorphous ice Very-high-density amorphous ice (VHDA), was discovered in 1996 by Mishima who observed that HDA became denser if warmed to 160 K at pressures between 1 and 2 GPa and has a density of 1.26 g/cm³ at ambient pressure [5]. More recently, workers at the University of Innsbruck have suggested that this denser amorphous ice was a third amorphous form of water, distinct from HDA, and called it VHDA [6]