toastywombel

I was hoping someone mentioned Carbon:doh:

As I recall the bible says nothing about how it is bad to own slaves. You seem to describe Jefferson's beliefs accurately, but I don't think Jefferson truly considered himself a Christian. http://www.monticello.org/reports/interests/religion.html http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Dangers Although lcd, is not the most harmful drug, to say that lcd, "has never been shown to have any long term side-effects" seems somewhat misleading"

Hahahaha Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThat actually made me laugh out loud.

Here is an idea of how much money pork barrel spending costs each year, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0309/p02s01-uspo.html So here is the cost of the total federal budget for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for comparison 2006: 2.66 trillion 2007: 2.77 trillion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_States_federal_budget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_budget Obviously pork barrel spending is not the problem, considering it only accounts for 1.1% percent of spending in 2006 and 0.4% percent in 2007. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNice op btw Pangloss. This is a good example of what many Americans, including myself believe. We can cut the budget in so many places yet still offer effective social programs.

If you are proposing that a gravity wave from another object would cause a massive star to run out of fuel, collapse in on itself creating a Supernova, and then compress the remnants into a neutron star. I would say no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

Antimatter does not move backward in time.

I agree with this. It would be easier to expand human habitat/civilization to harsh environments on earth, as opposed to harsh environments of a foreign planet/body/object. The ocean floor is another possibility as well.

The difference between the Daily Show or Colbert Report cracking ridiculous jokes and Rush Limbaugh doing it is this. The Daily Show and Colbert Report are comedy shows, featured on a network called Comedy Central. Jon Stewart has mentioned countless times, that his show is a comedy show, one including an interview with Bill O'Reilly. However, on Rush Limbaugh's website, under the about me, says this, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/about_the_show.guest.html Now compare that to the Daily Show website's About Me, http://www.thedailyshow.com/about The the Daily Show, has admitted to being a comedy show, and is arguably admitting to being a comedy show by the tone in the above. On top of that, they directly say that this news show, "is unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity, or even accuracy." However Rush in his about me is implying that his show is the "most correct" and that he is also known as the "truth detector". This obviously is intended to communicate the the message that Rush's show is an accurate description of reality, and really the best description of reality offered by any show. Both Stewart and Rush are selling snake poison, but at least Stewart labels his product as snake poison, while Rush labels his poison as vitamin tonic. If I recall correctly Stewart used that exact metaphor in the same interview with O'Reilly, comparing himself at the time to Fox, not Rush. Anyway, point made.

Well, space in this sense, would be better if it is unified with time, spacetime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime. For matter or energy to travel any given distance lets say point A to point B (A-B) must take up as much time equal to or less than the time it takes light © to travel that same distance, if of course, the matter or energy is moving through spacetime. (A-B)/t </= (A-B)/c If, by chance something were able to travel faster than light from point A to point B, that object/energy would be going back in time, relative from an observer at starting point A. And, that object would be coming from the future, relative to an observer at point B. But, if you imagine space time as a two dimensional, flat sheet, you can fold the sheet over itself in the higher dimension, or as we know it, the third dimension. This brings the two ends of the sheet, which were previously far apart, together instantly. The ability to do this with spacetime (fold it through the dimensions above, 4th, 5th, or 6th) would make it possible for one not only to transport vast distances instantly, but it would also cause he/she to go back in time (relative from point A). The problem that comes about from the above and what you described, is it really possible to go back in time? If so, what are the repercussions? What would it take to do this? Let us consider if one were to transfer from Earth, to a point twenty light years away (lets say point z) instantly. Once he/she arrived at point z, it would take twenty years for a radio signal sent by him/her, to arrive to Earth, from the perspective of an observer at point z. However, from the perspective of an observer on Earth, her signal would arrive right after he/she left to point z. How would it be possible to effectively communicate with the limitations given above? Furthermore, how would it be possible to navigate such movements? It would be much like diving into a black pool. It is impossible to see what is in front of you, because you are travelling faster than light can transfer data from where you are traveling to. As far as what it would take to bend space time, well according to m-theory, it is very likely it would take more than our ability to manipulate virtual particles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory See, according to m-theory, which is a form of string theory. Subatomic Particles can be viewed as strings. These strings are either open or closed. Open strings are what make up the world we can observe. These open strings can interact with each other, because energy can transfer along the open strings and out the endpoints, to other open strings. Of course there are spacial restrictions to how close the endpoints of different open strings have to be within ,each other, in order for them to interact. Because there are these spacial restrictions present, we can state that these open strings exist within a p-brane. (A p-brane is one type of brane, but all types of branes represent the dimensional and spacial restrictions of interaction between endpoints of given open strings) If an open string (A) is outside of the p-brane of open string (B). It is impossible for open string (A) to interact with open string (B). For open string to interact they must share the same p-brane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory#Strings_with_.22loose_ends.22 So what does this all mean. You and me are made up of open strings, the world directly around us is made up of open strings. Therefore we are confined not only to our dimension, but to the p-brane we exist in. So to fold space-time would require the ability to manipulate/interact with particles outside our dimension, and outside our local brane. This would violate the above concept. The above is from wikipedia as well. It says, that the only shared basic force between the dimensions is gravity (because the graviton is a closed string and can travel through multiple p-branes). This means that folding spacetime, which could only be done through a higher dimension, would require us to understand the laws of physics, governing a part of our universe, that it is physically impossible to interact with. The in-ability for us to interact/observe strings outside of our local dimension would make it very hard or impossible for scientists/ engineers to develop technology that would allow them to manipulate these strings in such a way that would allow for the bending of space time. Possible? Maybe, but even if so, it is a long shot, and would require much more than the manipulation of virtual particles in our dimension. Here are some more related links you might want to check out. Hope this helped. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory (less technical explanation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-brane

If you read the articles, Goldman executives and lawyers had been in negotiation with the SEC months before this happened, and they didn't expect it the whole time.

I didn't look up anything to answer this, so I am posing a hypothesis. Wind picks up uncountable numbers of particles and suspends them temporarily in the local atmosphere. Because the transmission of digital signals depend on light waves being transferred through the atmosphere, the particles could possibly reflect/distort the transmission of the television signals in the localized area. But why digital more than analog? Well I know this, digital doesn't allow for ghosting of images like analog. http://www.kyes.com/antenna/dtv.html

I am really surprised this story hasn't picked up a lot of steam. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36597290/ns/business-us_business/ http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/sec-charges-goldman-sachs-fraud/?test=latestnews http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/sec.goldman.fortune/index.htm?hpt=T2 I am sure the timing of this is political, as implied by the above articles. This could turn out to be a big deal though. Goldman says they are going to fight the charges. This move by the SEC could turn years of de-regulation on it's head, if done correctly of course. Here are some other links from different sites to the same story. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/goldman-sachs-fraud-expla_n_540938.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_bi_ge/us_sec_goldman_sachs_charged http://www.timescolonist.com/Goldman+Sachs+accused+subprime+mortgage+fraud/2919560/story.html Coming upon this story was quite nice. I devoted tonight to watching Capitalism: A Love Story. I have heard a lot about it, but I am not much of a watcher of anything, I prefer to read my news, so I had not seen yet. And you know me, after watching it I got into an anti-capitalist, socialist, liberalized frenzy of anger. I wanted to take Jackson33 and Jryans pie and give it to my comrade down the street Joe Stalin or my other buddy Bum Unwelfarr (he's from Iceland). The movie finished and I took a gander at the news and saw the above. It made me a little happier. I know I am probably hoping for too much, but what do you guys think about this story?

Here is a chart that relates to the topic. http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Its Mr. Wombel, and I did correct everything and even pointed out that you were the one who pointed out the correction. I don't have to re-check my conclusions, the conclusion is the still the same. Debt increased nearly eight times as much under Republican Presidents since 1978 as opposed to Democratic Presidents since 1978. Again, I ask you, can you not concede this point Jryan? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJryan re-read my last post, I corrected it before you responded, I knew that number was too good to be true. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI guess that is a no?

Well you can go with wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_concepts_of_quantum_mechanics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics The above are non-technical, and an easier read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics This one involves the math and technicalities, a more difficult read. http://www.newscientist.com/topic/quantum-world This link is a collection of recent news articles relating to quantum mechanics. I would also recommend several books one being, the Quantum World http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-World-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691023883 A Brief History of Time, and the Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking. http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168 http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nutshell-Stephen-William-Hawking/dp/055380202X Also there are some great Youtube videos, you can just go to Youtube and do a general search, but below is the link to the SFN youtube channel. I have a Quantum Mechanics playlist that includes full lectures from MIT and Stanford plus some other good videos. http://www.youtube.com/user/scienceforums#p/c/328F3DF13C3BDF90 Here are some other good links. I hope this helps.

Paranoia you make a great point, This is one reason, why I am a big supporter of second amendment rights. If we are eventually disarmed as a society, it leaves us very vulnerable to a centralized government like ours.

I agree, it is more complicated than that. I was just trying to point out it wasn't just Clinton who was pushing the production of the f-22 and f-35. It seems the article you cited says the same thing. Although, I will concede it was mainly Clinton who did push the f-35. Sorry for the implied rudeness, it was more an attempt to prod you to present an opposing argument because I love debate but again I apologize. But I think it can be said that most of Bush's defense budget costs were independent from anything Clinton proposed. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Oh you are right Jryan It is debt growth not debt/GDP. Well my mistake, I apologize. When one is looking up a lot of data and links, then copy and pasting it, it is easy to move too hasty. I calculated the debt per GDP increase as of 1983 though and I came up with around 5%. So you are right Jryan, however that still does not change the fact that Under Republican Presidents since 1978, debt per GDP has increased nearly eight times as much as debt per GDP under Democratic Presidents. Can you not concede this point?

Isn't it always a quick response with you Jryan, where instead of conceding an obvious point, you instead pick something insignificant out and critique a small point. I almost included the below information in the above post, because I knew someone like you would say something exactly like that. Ah, but I am glad you brought that up Jryan let us compare the first year of Obama (11% increase) to some of the individual years by Reagan for example *correction pointed out by Jryan, this is debt growth not debt per GDP 1983 15% increase in debt per GDP 1985 12.3% increase in debt per GDP 1986 13.9% increase in debt per GDP All three of these years Reagan, posted a higher increase in debt than Obama has in his first year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Federal_spending.2C_federal_debt.2C_and_GDP Maybe Jryan you should take a look at the links before you make a misinformed comment like the one above? Furthermore, that is besides the point. Even if what you said was true it doesn't change the simple fact that under Republican Presidents since 1978 the National Debt per GDP has risen about eight times as much as opposed to the National Debt per GDP under Democratic Presidents since 1978.

That is one Democratic President, furthermore, you cannot judge Obama on this graph yet, National debt per GDP, the GDP might grow in the time he is in office. And how can you blow off the entire graph on and just point to Obama, I mean seriously. Do you just block these facts out of your mind? Furthermore, the Democrats aren't really known for a platform of reducing spending, yet Republicans are known exactly for that, they run on it every single election. The problem is it is so obvious that every Republican President including Reagan and after have not only increased spending per GDP, but have raised the National Debt per GDP. Also lets put that figure in perspective Pangloss, 1.56 trillion deficit for the 2010 budget. The GDP this year is projected to be 13.271 trillion. That is a 11% increase in National Debt per GDP. http://www.photius.com/rankings/gdp_2050_projection.html Now lets compare that 11% increase in debt per GDP (just one year) to the other Presidents, and we will go term by term. Reagan 1981-1985 10.8% increase in Debt Per GDP Reagan 1985-1989 9.3% increase in Debt Per GDP George Herbert Walker Bush 1989-1993 13.0% increase in Debt Per GDP Bill Clinton 1993-1997 0.7% decrease in Debt Per GDP Bill Clinton 1997-2001 9.0% decrease in Debt Per GDP George W. Bush 2001-2005 7.1% increase in Debt Per GDP George W. Bush 2005-2009 20.0% increase in Debt Per GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Gross_federal_debt So how is it okay for Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. to post deficits comparable, if not greater than Obama, but its socialist when Obama does it? Finally I would like to point out that it is not just tax cuts that caused those Republican deficits. Years Party of President % Increase in Spending % Increase in Debt 1978-2005 Democratic 9.9% 4.2% 1978-2005 Republican 12.1% 36.4% So under Republicans since 1978 there has been a 12.1% increase in spending, opposed to 9.9% under Democrats. And spending is the big issue many of these Republicans run on. I love the increase in debt number though. Under Democrats it is 4.2% increase in Debt, under Republicans it is 36.4% increase Debt. That means under Republican Presidents, the deficit has been increased around eight times as much as it has been increased under Democratic Presidents.. And if you include Obama's first year the debt under Republican Presidents has still increased twice as much as under Democratic Presidents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Federal_spending.2C_federal_debt.2C_and_GDP Then also compare the difference between Democrats and Republicans being President, and increase in GDP. 1978-2005 Democratic 12.6% increase in GDP 1978-2005 Republican 10.7% increase in GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Federal_spending.2C_federal_debt.2C_and_GDP Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,438006,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020501552.html http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0210-26.htm Okay and lets put the above articles in comparison with the costs associated with the f-22 and f-35 The f-22 development didn't start under Clinton, it started under Reagan first of all, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor The production of the f-22 did not start until 1997 though, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor So for you to imply that it was Clinton pushing the production of the Raptor, well first it was already in production for the last three years Clinton was in office, plus the plans had existed since 1981. Of course Bush wasn't going to cancel the spending on it, but it wasn't just Clinton pushing for that spending. Finally lets get to the numbers, So the total cost of the program as of 2006 was 62 billion. That means the whole cost of the f-22 raptor project, from 1981 to present, was about one tenth of Bush's military spending just for 2008, which was in the range of 647.8 billion. So it seems disingenuous to say that much of Bush's debt increase was due to the f-22 raptor being pushed heavily by Clinton. Not only because the raptor had been a project since 1981, but also that the entire cost of the raptor project from 1981 to now totals 62 billion, when Bush put up 400-600 billion dollar per year defense budgets. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNow onto the f-35, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II If you read further on the same wikipedia article, So even that, total development cost (remember we only have 13 flight tested f-35, and 15 on hold at 83 million a piece) is 40 billion, the production costs so far have been minimal. Again that 40 billion total developement cost is less than 1/10 of Bush's 2008 defense budget, and about 1/10 of Bush's 2007 defense budget. So again, how can you say, If you subtracted the total cost, all time, of the f-22 and f-35 together, it would be around 100 billion, even if you subtract the total production cost from Bush's defense budgets, his defense budgets are still 300-500 billion dollars for each year. And those figures aren't even including the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. So if you wan't to elaborate on the 'etc.' Pangloss, I would be happy to educate you on that as well.

Well said, and excellent graphic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms And this table from wikipedia, showing National Debt as a percentage of GDP seems to agree with the trend of the graph bascule provided. Every Democratic President since FDR (including FDR's last term) have experienced reduced National Debt, by percentage of GDP in the time they were in office. Six out of nine Republican Presidents left with an increase in debt per GDP. George Bush experienced a +20% increase in debt, per GDP. That is the most out of everyone on the list. But I guess that is the liberal bias of life.

Well, that is not true in every place. It might just be a climate type in your area. Weather is always changing. It really depends where you are on the planet. Also remember when it is summer in the Northern Hemisphere it is Winter in the Southern. So again, really all of this is relative to where you are. Here in New Mexico for example winter is usually cold and dry, and it is not until spring and summer that we begin to get a lot of rain.

The multiple universe's hypothesis? I have never heard of that one, maybe you mean the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation The many world's interpretation stems partially from Feynman's Sum over histories, or Path integral formulation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation The idea that any quantum state from A to B takes every possible path or history. This formulation isn't referring to universe as much as the particles in it though. So according to the more widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation, it is the observation that causes the wave function to collapse, and bring about the reality in which we exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation Furthermore, transferring through these universe's would be impossible, by definition of the word universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe A universe is a closed system, and encompasses everything in that universe, so it would not be plausible to think we could travel, in a controlled fashion or at all, between universe's. Now you seem to have blended the many worlds interpretation with string theory. Specifically it seems you are talking about m-theory. Which describes our universe as having ten dimensions that started from the big bang. The eleventh dimension is the link between different big bangs, and different existences. Furthermore, according to m theory, if there were a lower/higher dimensional universe it would be folded up in a closed string, comparative to us. This string does not exist in any brane (a dimensional bubble per say. That allows open strings to interact with other open strings) because it is closed. The universe might also exist in a higher brane (membrane or dbrane) but according to string theory, only gravity can travel through branes that are not part of the same dimension. (membrane, dbrane, brane) all refer to different dimensions) So far the whole big idea around m-theory (string theories in general) is to unify the forces of nature. We have been able to unify them all except for gravity. String theories state that gravity is the only force that can travel between dimensions/membranes/dbranes/branes, which is why the force appears so incredibly weak. So between all the dimensions the only known shared law of physics would be gravity. Other than that, we have no idea about the environment or nature of these dimensions. Finally, if the only force that can travel between these dimensions is gravity, than there is no way we (beings comprised up of matter) could reach these other dimensions or even attempt to understand them. The many worlds interpretation is just that. An interpretation among others that stems from quantum mechanical laws. String Theory is totally different. I would suggest reading up on the two topics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory Compare this short tidbit from the many worlds article and it is obvious these are different topics.

No I know. I think maybe we should avoid people from posting more evolution vs. creationism threads, at least in Earth Science. I mean technically they aren't even comparable theories. Evolution explains how life on our planet became diverse and adapted to their environments. Creationism explains how God created everything.

I noticed that the premises of the questions were somewhat vague. It also seem to be implying that a lack of moral authority can lead to hypocrisy, and lack of morals. Therefore, I wanted to point out that the questions could really be applied to all groups, including theists. An atheist and theist would both answer yes, because answering no obviously sets one up to look like he/she has an extremely inflated ego. The question does not really dive deeper than that, but I'll indulge. A theist would be more likely to respond that his/her moral authority is God, now God can mean a lot of different things to different people, so that can also serve as a vague term. An atheist might imply that society is his/her moral authority. I would imagine, that society and God serve the same purpose to many atheists and theists. One regulates his/her moral compass through signals that are sent through the brain. This moral compass can be effected though by inherited traits (such as sociopaths or psychopaths) but it can also be effected by outside stimuli as well. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125304448 These traits were not obtained by humanity through some divine intellect. It is evolution at it's finest. Essentially societies that had a strong moral fabric were more likely to help each other, work together, and therefore grow. Societies that had a weak or no moral fabric were more likely to cause harm to each other, not work together, and therefore not grow. Everyone regardless of what/who their moral authority has the possibility of being hypocritical, this is because we are always balancing our self needs/wants/feelings with what is morally right, either according to God or society. Humanist goals should correspond with environmentalist goals, this is because humans are of course part of the environment. I don't think they need to be set up as competing concepts.

This is a very interesting conversation, I refrain on commenting further because I have not read the entire thing, but this is what a really love about SFN, when it comes down to it. Talkin' 'bout spacetime, photons, theoretical physics, advanced geometry, and all that other good jazz. Haven't read what your talking about Iggy, but those diagrams looks mean! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI know this, It is good to note over enough time all matter breaks down and decays. But that is probably off topic. So ignore that.