padren

Gravity is considered weak when compared to the other forces, and understanding why it is so much weaker than the others is considered a dilema of sorts in physics. - Wikipedia

Does that make you paleo-agnostic? I do love how the video presents the stories of heresay and paintings as "new mounting evidence" ready to challenge classical theories - I don't think the author or his collegues ever even tried to comprehend how much evidence goes into any of the theories in natural sciences.

I am not sure if this can work mathatically. Gravity appears to have a consistant strength at any distance according to the inverse square. If the expansion factor would have to be exactly inverse square as well, and neither force would dominate, or it would have to have something other than an inverse square strength of effect so that at a great distance it could be more powerful than gravity. If the latter is the case, I don't think gravity could follow the inverse square law as it is observed to. Unless there is a mathmatical formula that matches inverse squared perfectly for a large portion of the function and then suddenly veers off at a specific value (to account for expansion effect deluting then dominating gravity) or gravity cannot be 1/d^2 based. And if the latter is true in that case, you would still need a formula in which the sum of gravity attraction and spatial expansion is a net 1/d^2 perfectly then veers off to allow expansion to dominate. I don't know complex math, or even what many would consider fairly simple math, but I am suspect if a single formula can appear to be 1/d^2 exactly for a large portion of the function and then veer into the negative (ie where expansion is greater than attraction) to successfully describe the effect you are contemplating.

I believe he is referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

I think it would be fair to engage in stopping piracy, there are a few legal issues. What if hostages go down with a pirate ship? An outraged family could have been getting a random together for their daughter's release, and suddenly she is lost when a Navy gunboat takes potentially suspect aggressive actions. If the family is another nationality it could be even more difficult of a situation. I am not saying we shouldn't try to take action, but I think it would be smart to use the UN to determine the legal implications. It could also lead to the practice of pirates taking on hostages of children as human shields, and again I am not saying we shouldn't try to solve the problem, but we should be prepared for how complicated it could get.

I can't imagine how anyone could consider it a marriage given "Cindy's" incapacity to comprehend the ceremony or its purpose past "the nice lady is giving me more fish." I especially like "Zilber accepted the challenge and "talked the idea over with the fellow," who apparently consented." which IMO means "Zilber accepted a large check to tell Tendler what she wanted to hear." I am suspect though, I think she may be marrying him for Israeli citizenship.

I searched and found this thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=15918 somewhat helpful, but there is a lot I don't understand so I have a few questions: Schrodinger's cat: I've read about this in wikipedia and looked at the Copenhagen interpretation as well as the Everett many-worlds interpretation, and there is some stuff I am having trouble clearing up. I think I may have read too many sources with "journalistic interpretation" throwing things off. First, in the Copenhagen interpretation, the term "observer" is not nearly defined well enough for me. I believe the principle is that when you deal with anything Really Really Small the only way to observe it is to hit it with something (like a photon) which changes what the subject was up to in the first place. If this is the case: Isn't there a risk of naturally occuring photons altering the experiment in the same way, that are not part of any attempt to make an observation? In the Schrodinger cat experiment, wouldn't the component in the experiment that "triggers the apparatus" imply an automatic observer system within the box? I know it is observing the radiated particle and not the not-decaying/decaying nucleus, but isn't it effectively observing what state the nucleus was just in if it can detect an emmitted particle? Is a superposition a literal state, or a way of mathmatically coping with the fact we can not observe the literal state and must deal with the probable range of states something can be in? (This is something I want to understand the most) I know the double slit experiment allows a photon or buckyball to act like its in two places at once, but is that the literal photon particle or the wave effect influence of the photon that is in two places at once? Did Everett really say something to the effect that "when the box is opened, the universe is split into two separate universes, one containing an observer looking at a box with a dead cat, one containing an observer looking at a box with a live cat" and wouldn't that mean that every time any atom does or does not decays anywhere in the universe at any moment and is observed by impacting something else - that both possibilities would exist in seperate but existing universes? Is there anything mathmatical on this, because it really sounds like a brain failing to cope and going semi-mystical, but I have trouble assuming Everett would say something like this without being able to back it up. When people talk about quantum cryptography, is it effectively simular to writing a note on highly sensitive photonically/electron-ically combustable paper, where any reading device would cause the section read to burn and be destroyed as quickly as the text is determined? Couldn't this be corrupted by any micro-interference that has the same overall effect of an observer, since an observer is not actually "a guy with eyes" in the literal sense?

Yes, but you need a radio transmitter for that - you need special gear at the source. I am referring to a passive system, involving naturally emmitting light radiation (infrared light due to heat loss) from the source object. I am curious if the sound vibrations from within the source object could induce this condition naturally in the infrared light waves it is emmitting. Would there be a micro-effect of the vibrations causing alternating red-blue shift in the light waves, that could be deconstructed to reconstitute the original sounds that induced them?

To express the dangers of dehumanizing your enemy you have to show your enemy's human side, which induces sympathy, and because many people view the world in a very strong absolute good/evil/right/wrong manner, may loose perspective on the original crimes of terror. Many contend OJ Simpson got away with murder, because the jury saw racism and potentially planted evidence on the part of the police. Personally though, I think its important to challenge people to see the shades of gray whenever possible, though I haven't yet seen this film.

In God We Trust

I am aware of that element. Infrared heat/light does though, and since sound induces vibrations in the mediums that radiate infrared light, could the disturbance in the stream of photons that are caused by the vibrations sound induces in the medium be detected and used to reconstruct the causative sound waves? You can "see" a tuning fork vibrate even though its in a vacuum chamber - could the correct detection equipment recontruct the tone from observing the fluxuations in the light bouncing off that tuning fork?

I have no idea if this is ludicrous or not - I don't know anything about the underlying science. I am curious, about the ability to passively detect sound through a vacuum like space through the aid of specific devices. In short, if you had a metal module in space, with mechanical elements clanking away within it, and it is radiating infra-red heat, could the disturbances and minute vibrations that the sound waves were causing in the metal structure of the module be detected remotely with correct sensory equipment to detect the fluxuations via the light radiation and reproduce the sounds through speakers?

I think the problem is there are some Israeli military members that believe genocide and indiscrimenant use of force is the only solution, just as some palestinian leaders believe the same against the Israelis is the only solution. The more the violence escalates, the more people with that line of thinking become influencial, because its easier to dehumanize the opposing side as the violence and brutality escalates. Getting hung up on which side deserved to be dehumanized more is a route that cannot help to understand the problem better, nor rationally lead towards solutions. Its a bloody mess in the truest sense of the term, but most people on both sides just want to be able to live their lives without fear of being victimized, and don't know how to achieve that. I am sure if this was going on in the US, and terrorists were hiding and launching attacks in Connecticut, that citizens would be more than a bit upset if as many accidental civillian deaths were occuring in the process of hunting them down. That said, the palestinian terrorists are not going out of their way to avoid civilian palestinian deaths - they are often hiding in very densely populated areas, creating a nightmare for the Israelis trying to pursue them without innocent casualties. Again, I am pretty sure most Israelis including those in the military do not want civilian palestinian deaths as they feel it can only worsen the divide, and some others believe that enough civilian deaths can "bludgeon" and break the palestinians as a whole into submission. In the end you can't get sucked into the conflict on these terms, the Israelis will never crush the militants militarily nor will the militants ever influence Israeli policy in the manner they want via acts of terrorism. Every bombing is criminal and the Israelis have to deal with it militarily, and as long as there are Palestinians that feel the Israelis won't let them live as people, they will keep attacking. Until people on both sides believe that progress is hurt by the widescale violence more than they believe the escalators can beat the other side into submission, there will not be advancement towards a resolution.

I do think we are limiting it to everyone in this country, not that visitors can wander in from anywhere and get state of the art cancer treatment for free. Personally I wouldn't use the term "right" myself, but its a matter of symantics, because I do believe healthcare merit should not be tied to personal savings or ability to get into debt, and we should as a nation do our reasonable best to ensure everyone gets medical attention they need regardless of financial position. My word this sort of thing makes me rather sick. I'd love to debate the whiney spongey easily offended politically correcties and their narrow view of approved industries and social order' date=' but the thin skins of conservatives is not what this thread is about. Do you really think for a second that any healthcare provider will descriminate against you and not provide healthcare? The point of a federal system would be to streamline the process, not [i']increase[/i] the costs by poking through a patient's work history and voting records. Could you imagine the lawsuit that would result? Imagine a student being kept out of a University because they are contraversial - there would be a total fiasco, and thats only a government funded institution.

The question raised was not about the healthcare crisis or how to address it it was: That is what I wanted to address - there's isn't any guilt by association just an examination of some points of view. As for the writing by Leonard Peikoff, its a complete diatribe. It lists lots of scarey problems threatening America, without providing any basis for any of their validity or cause, then once it pumps up the emotion it moves on to blame government for inflated health-care costs again without giving basis, and then makes room to demonize the government's means of aquisition. As for the actual question raised in the OP, the reasons I mentioned are the ones I've heard, and so far I've only heard conservative/libertarian reasons given for why healthcare should not be universal.

That "healthcare is not a right" has very little to do with the topic of healthcare and has a lot more to do with peppering a statement with as many emotional hooks to resonate with a select group of people as much as possible. 1) We are endangered. 2) What was ours first is endangered 3) We are endangered! 4) What was ours first is endangered!! 5) We are endangered, and what was ours first is endangered!!! If those ideas resonate with your views, you should be worked up enough to buy the BS about healthcare in the second paragraph... And let me say I am not contending this is a specifically conservative instrument when it is definately used by various people on all sides I think most people who are against universal healthcare are afraid the abuses would cost society so much that people are better off with free market solutions. That, and the conservative view point seems to hold that those without healthcare now need hardline welfare to work programs to make them productive enough to afford private healthcare. Though I think the precepts that lead to that conclusion are flawed, I suspect in most cases people believe in them and are not trying to be heartless. On the bankruptcy note, I recall reading in the paper somewhere, where people do declare bankruptcy due to medical costs, 25% of those had insurance at the time they became ill. I think private healthcare is currently as abhorent as private utilities, where private corporations gain local monopolies on essential services people need to survive.

If I understand what you are saying, matter in the universe "repels" itself by one force, similar to like-charged elements, and we measure gravity as the slim net degree by which it is stronger? If that is the case, then this lesser expansive force must also have the same x/d^2 factor that gravity has to maintain a constant net difference, or one of the forces would become more dominate at some distance. That may be totally off, especially if you differeniate that some areas are expanding while others are contracting due to enough matter within a region which implies these two forces are not perfectly syched and balanced. All the reference frame stuff is over my head.

His account reads "suspended" now so this may be useless but: 1) Take your paper, mail it to yourself by certified mail, do not open it, and place in a safety security box. If it becomes an issue, you can prove in court you wrote the original document by a certian date by having it opened in the presense of a judge overseeing the dispute. At least I think that works in Canada as a "poor man's copyright" and should give you basic protections I'd assume in the US too. 2) The fear of having an idea stolen is often the fear of having it torn apart in disguise. I invented lots of stuff when I was young, but all of which exceptionally basic. I "thought about inventing" many other things from perpetual motion machines to submersibles to rail gun systems etc, around when I was 12 or so I guess. In other words I drafted plans and schematics but never produced functional prototypes, and there is a huge difference between that and inventing stuff. I assure you, when you say you "invented" a perpetual motion based car, you did no such thing. Either you don't understand the word "invent" or the term "perpetual motion" or you are just lying. I am not saying brilliance cannot come about in humble ways, Tesla was apparently mocked and told he had dreamed up a perpetual motion machine that could never work by his professor when he designed the basic alternating current motor we still use today. That said, beware the seduction of "seeing how things click" in your head as a sign of understanding how things simply work dispite a lack of education in a field. Chances are, its an abomnination that would make M.C. Esher pale. The devil is in the details, and its brutally hard to get anything at all to work in this rather unforgiving physical universe. If you want to see it in practice, build an actual prototype of anything you've designed. Or, if you don't have the economic situation to do so, get into software design. Its free, only costs you time and research, and is a great example of how much the details can bog you down.

That Mail on Sunday article seems to describe the worst case senario pretty well. If done right, I have no problem with it morally. If you would ban a service like this, then would you have to arrest a women who has a one-night stand to get pregnant? IMO, a bad father can be far worse than no father, and there are far greater disadvantages you can impart on a child. Statistically, poverty is far more likely to be deleterious than being raised by a wealthy single mother. Should we ban the poor, ban alcoholics, or no good dirty liberals from having and messing up kids? The only way any society can survive is if stability is emergent, not designed. Social engineering schemes always give me chills. (side note rant: I find ulta-conservatives who hate liberals like me are always the ones that seem to think we should encourage marriage to provide type-A family units etc, ban gay marriage due to its lack of such a contribution etc, and are the largest closet socialists I've ever run across. /rant) Personally, I do think it would be worth government oversight to ensure such businesses do keep full medical records, and have a donor ID number that can allow the child not to track the parent, but ensure the person they may marry does not have the same donor ID number. It would be fair too to keep the ID number so that if the donor later in life gets various genetic illnesses that could not be detected earlier, that without the identity, that the child could be informed of the medical history which can strongly influence what medical plans will be willing to pay to test for routinely in the child. Regulations though would limit the financial options for people, but it is a medical situation with long term health implications for both the buying party and a third party not-yet-concieved individual, so I definately think the health angle needs to be covered.

Well, there really is no reason for corporate adoption to even be a factor. Truman could have been Christof's own son for all intesive purposes in the movie, without it making a difference. You could propose the child is being forced to work, due to being on the TV set 24 hrs a day. If it was filmed in the Caymen Islands or somewhere such things were legal, it would still likely make US TV. We don't let 8 yr olds make our T-shirts here, but we sure do wear the ones made in India without thinking twice. Also, you can teach your child that the universe was created by monsterous pasta, that foo ball is the work of the devil, and even to hate people with different skin. In a legal sense, I can't see any reason such a thing could not exist, because we outlaw acts, not intentions, and we allow people to do horrible things to the minds of their children due to twisted yet well intended lies and manipulation. In a moral sense, I'd say it should never be done, because I honestly don't think a person can gain a meaningful understanding of the world. How messed up would a person be if they spent years taking bad actors at face value? We need to be exposed to honesty and deciect to learn, often the hard way, if someone wants to harm or take advantage of us. Being deprived of that to me, would be as chilling as getting a labotomy.

Some animals will eat until they die, others got successful enough at gaining food sources they had to evolve to survive large quantities of food. If given the opportunity, most men will not have sex to the point of fatal physical exhaustion, (though I do have friends that I'd wonder about) but we do see narcodic addictions that effectively kill people. In the end, even if humans underwent mass extinctions from over satisfying the pleasure responses, would the result be better for human kind? Would it require genetic evolution or could some humans already be geared in such a way that they would surivive this well, resulting in a humanity that was not obsessed with pleasure seeking but also not lacking it? As for its current implications, I'd say slavery is a huge risk factor. Also, constant repetition is never good, carpel tunnel etc proves even the most mundane harmless things when repeated too long can cause injury. I have a hard time telling people what they can't do, I'd only like to see that if it was allowed, that it not be controlled by mega corps in a highly regulated manner, but was very easily accessible by adults. The dangers of everyone using it would be far less than the dangers of people jumping through the hoops of a select few for just a controlled taste.