zapatos

That is tough to parse. I think what they mean is: You see earth nine years forward of your depararture date, but by the time you get one light away, your departure date was 10 years ago. So you are still not seeing into the future. I think the point was that since you are travelling 0.1c for 10 years, over the course of the trip you have stayed ahead of one year's worth of light coming from the earth, so even though you travelled for 10 years, you see the earth as it was 9 years ago instead of 10.

Well, not everything. Just those things that you are moving very fast relative to. If something else is at rest relative to you then their clock does not seem to be running slowly. To another object you may be moving at .05c. What do you mean by 'see into the future'?

So you insist you are right and it is not just a difference of opinion. No, you are indeed naive. You aren't able to see things from another's point of view. It is not necessarily important to agree with another but it is important to understand their perspective. If you don't try you will not grow.

Ok, I'll go along with a difference of opinion. For me though I would never try to convey my feelings on choosing the lesser of two evils by saying it is something I want (or the synonyms: wish, desire, or like). I just can't get myself to say I wanted my colonoscopy.

You are remembering cosmic inflation. My understanding is that the mechanism for inflation is not well understood. Someone else may be able to supply details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

I know, but it implies the administration did something wrong, even though you did not claim they did. If conjecture has no impact, then you shouldn't mind me asking the question "What role did Rigney play in the molestation of the 10 year old girl at St. Mark's school on April 23rd of this year? Is Rigney hiding something? Why haven't we heard from him on this issue yet? Has he gone through a police lineup yet? Why hasn't he submitted to a lie detector test? Is this a first time thing? Has Rigney ever done this before?" Simply conjecture. No harm in me asking, right?

I was not poking fun. I was trying to show that in the absence of evidence, asking questions like that makes the questioner seem biased. My question about the Republicans is a valid as your question about the Obama administration. In other words, a misleading and biased question.

Do you think the Senate Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence pack up and go home because the Democrats are in the majority? Since the Republicans are on the committee and are known to be looking for opportunities to make Obama look bad, my question is, was there information the Republicans might have know that could have prevented such an attack, but rather than acting on it the Republicans decided to let innocent Americans die, simply for political reasons?

Well, best of luck finding out 'why' space and time act as they do, but perhaps an explanation of 'how' the speed of light is observed to be independent of reference frame would be of interest if you are not already familiar with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

I'm happy to have anyone correct any errors I make here, but... I think the point Janus was trying to make was that a photon does not experience time. Since you cannot actually travel at c this is not an issue. I think the issue is that it is not really a cause and effect situation. Going faster does not actually change distance and time, it changes the way you measure distance and time. An object travelling at near c relative to us measures our clock to be slower than does an object travelling at a velocity of 0 relative to us. Our clock is not actually doing two different things simultaneously. It is just viewed differently depending on relative velocity. The realization that light travels at c to all observers led to the realization that time and distance must not be constant as was assumed. There is no reason 'why' this is so, it just is. No one can answer why gravity has the force it does either. But experiments have verified that time, space, and gravity act as they do.

The real question is, Was there information the Republicans knew, but didn't take steps to possibility avert a terrorist strike on the Benghazi Consulate?

Let's look at some examples. Does the parent who tells the doctor to separate their conjoined twins, knowing one will die, do so because they want to? Does the person who has to choose which of the two drowning victims he'll save, do so because they want to? Did I tell the doctor I wanted him to stop treatment of my mother and instead ease her pain because I wanted to? Did I punish my children because I wanted to? Does a jury decide to be responsible for a man's death because they want to? Does a soldier send his men into certain death because he wants to? Does my brother still smoke after his heart attack because he wants to? You seem to be incredibly naive.

I really have no idea. Why do you think an unruly civilian mob and terrorists both sound like lies? What might be a more likely scenario for what happened?

What has the cabinet said that does not ring of the truth to you?

I can't say that I've ever seen windows in aircraft lavatories.

I tried, but I couldn't find the point you were making. Are you saying I cannot request evidence of a premise in order to determine if an argument is sound? Maybe I'm using the terms incorrectly or am asking a recursive question? The point I was trying to make was that the premise (a negative emotion can be prevented) is possibly not true. And until we know it is true, the argument cannot be considered sound. Can you please restate your post?

So does that make you gullible, or small minded?

You skipped my questions too.

I am philosophically opposed to the idea that you can develop a sound argument prior to showing your premises to be true.

I believe you are liberal or conservative based on your position within a group. I may be liberal compared to US citizens but conservative compared to EU citizens. Very (and maybe too) simply, I view liberalism as 'allowing' and conservatism as 'restricting'. I consider myself socially liberal, especially when it comes to the rights of individuals. I lean toward giving individuals the right to do whatever they want within reason, whether it be abortion, gay marriage, smoking, sex with inanimate objects, or eating food that is bad for them. I consider myself conservative (that is, more restrictive) regarding fiscal policy, business, and personal behavior. I tend to support the monitoring and restriction of business activities, do not support spending more than we earn, and things that I would allow others to do I might not do myself (e.g. abortion, eating bad food, and sex with most inanimate objects). I find Democrats in the US to be generally socially liberal and business conservative, while I find Republicans to be generally socially conservative and business liberal. I find both parties to be fiscally irresponsible.

I'm curious as to how you reconcile your two different stands. On the one hand, "life starts at conception" and "every life matters". Yet you also state that with a valid reason, snuffing out life is just fine. If life matters, how can you justify ending it just because of the circumstances of its origin? By what reasoning do you put the rights of the woman ahead of those of the embryo? Who gets to determine what constitutes a "valid reason" for ending life? It sounds as if you think that your opinion of 'valid reason' is more important than that of the opinion of the pregnant woman. If you are going to open the door to allowing any abortions at all, then you are not really in a position to say your valid reasons are better than the woman's valid reasons. It is very paternalistic of you to decide that one circumstance (having a baby after rape) is too much for the woman to bear, yet another circumstance is not. It is also naive to think all pregnancies resulting from rape are more of a burden to women than all pregnancies in some other circumstances.

I like Discover and Science News.

Sometimes I'm a little slow on the uptake. When in the OP you said... ...I thought you meant if I disagree with something that I should comment. If you just want responses from people who are in awe of your pronouncements, you should state that a little more clearly. Ah yes, the religion gambit. "To truly understand you must submit yourself completely. Accept without question. If you don't understand, the fault is with you for not trying hard enough." Nice. Rather than answer the question, simply attack the questioner.

Can you provide evidence to support the claim that emotions can be prevented? As far as I can find, emotional responses can happen even before the conscious mind knows why. I'm particularly interested how you might be able to stop your glands from releasing hormones that are a part of emotions. http://www.loc.gov/loc/brain/emotion/Damasio.html