zapatos

How do you know that? It either had a beginning or it did not. What evidence do you have one way or the other?

Thank you for the answer. I guess I was looking at gravity and dark energy as acting independently; that is, mass from galaxies in a locally bound cluster were acting on each other to keep the galaxies bound, and dark energy was acting on space to cause the expansion of space. It now looks to me as if I should be thinking of it in terms of both the mass of galaxies and dark energy are acting on the geometry of space, and that in locally bound systems, the impact on the geometry of space from the mass in galaxies overwhelms the impact on the geometry of space from dark energy. Does that sound correct? As a side question, does mass and dark energy physically alter space? What I'm wondering is if changing the geometry of space is a physical change that can be measured, or if it is a mathematical concept. If it is a physical change, then does that mean that theoretically we could do a test on a volume of space and tell how much the geometry has changed due to expansion? Thanks.

This is a completely narrow minded way of looking at things and is in no way open-minded at all. Why only study the major religions of the world? Are you presupposing that all the minor religions are wrong? What if the one true religion is the one that only exists on a world elsewhere in the universe? How do I refute with evidence that God does not exist? Are you required to show with evidence that God does exist? And I have to make a list of pros and cons, listing what makes sense versus what does not? You seem to have a rather narrow view of how one must do one's analysis. And just to be fair, it would be nice if people weren't indoctrinated into their family's religion be default, and then told they have to do all of this analysis to develop other beliefs. How narrow minded is that?

I understand that expansion would not cause neighboring galaxies to become further apart, and that this is due to the gravity of nearby galaxies overcoming the force of expansion. But what is keeping space from expanding and flowing past the galaxies that are gravtationally bound? Imagine if you had two balls connected by a tether floating is a gas. The gas could expand and flow past the balls without the balls getting further apart. So in the case of cosmic expansion, would you say that the gravity of the bound galaxies keeps the space between them from expanding (that is, in some way acts upon space and stops the physical process of expansion), or that the space can still expand (that is, become less dense) without overcoming the gravitational bond between the galaxies?

If I understand correctly the explanations given, no one ever said that colliding particles are moving faster than c. If they appear to be closing faster than c, that just means the distance between them is decreasing faster than c. No thing is actually moving faster than c.

That's easy... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_New_England_College_of_Osteopathic_Medicine

This is a little creepy, but what you describe sounds a lot like how things are done in North Korea. I hope Kim Il-sung is not up there waiting for us...

I don't think it is a matter of choosing to believe or not. How would one do that? I can't make myself believe. Of course I could say I believe, and go to church and make it look like I believe, but that would not change whether or not I actually believe. Could you choose to believe in the tooth fairy? I am a soft atheist. I believe there is probably no God. (But I could be wrong.)

Great response. Usually when I hear someone say the government is their enemy, they never seem to make the connection that they are part of the government. It's as if the government is some outside force. "It's time to take back our government!" Take it back from whom? Take it back from us? I completely agree that voters can be ignorant, lazy, citizens, and that the worst of the politicians can flourish in that environment. I guess I just don't see it being as bad as you do. People have been complaining that the US is on the fast track to disaster since its inception. I tend to feel that this country can vary between good and bad, but that the framework we are built on keeps us on pretty firm footing. Different situation. Back then we weren't part of the government. If you start a war now, who will it be against? You can't attack "the government". You have to attack someone or something specifically. Who or what would it be? I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't debate intense ideas; anything and everything. The point is that after I've told you that you are completely wrong, I shouldn't end my argument by suggesting that I'm now going to go load my gun. What has loading my gun got to do with, for example, healthcare? That is the part that I don't believe is necessary.

If you are not familiar with rebound headaches, you should look into them to make sure the otc pain relievers are not part of the problem.

What is with your facination with feces? Perhaps you can consolidate all your feces questions in this one thread.

What type of workers are you talking about? Because if you are talking about migrant farm workers or similar types of unskilled labor, I don't think they are viewing their next job opportunity in terms of what benefits accrue to regions that don't share their socio-political views.

I don't view them as rights given to me by the government. As I said the source of our rights is the Constitution. I agree that the rights were ours to begin with, but I believe the beginning was when we decided what rights we were going to grant ourselves and we spelled it out in the Constitution. Until we wrote it down and actively worked to ensure people could exercise those rights, they didn't exist under our government. When I say that rights are given to us, I am not suggeting that they can only be given to us by government. I include that they can be given to us by us.

Ok, your description of the Constitution as a description of limits, etc. is a better way to describe it than what I said. But of course the flip side of the government's limitations, is my rights. So I'll have to stick with my contention that the source of my rights is the Constitution. I recognize that the federal government cannot by itself take away rights. I was including state governments and should have specified.

The opposition to including the Bill of Rights was fear that it would be taken to mean that you only have those rights listed as far as the government was concerned. But the government can at times clarify other rights you have that were not listed in the Constitution. This is done via other methods, such as the courts, for other rights, such as the right to privacy. What rights do I have that are not given to me, via some type of man made legal, ethical, or social construct?

I am not sure what you mean by the Constitution not being a source of rights. My right to free speech is granted in the bill of rights. Without that declaration I do not have that right. And while the government cannot take away a right under the current constitution, it does have a method to take away rights through the amendment process. Meaning that the source of the right is in the Constitution.

In the examples you use, I see rights given to people by the Canadian Bill of Rights and by the ethical theories of Sartre and Heidegger. And the only useful rights are those that can be guaranteed in some way, such as by law. The rights given to me by Sartre do not mean much if I am somewhere that the rights cannot be exercised.

You make it sound like a right is an inherent human trait. You have no rights that are not given to you.

Can you break that down a bit? Are there specific people in your government, which was elected by your friends and neighbors following the rules set up by the people governed, that you believe fosters harmful designs against you? Or is it the government as a whole, conspiring against you? I'm curious because while I dislike much of what the government does and think some of it harms me, I never think they are intending to do me harm. I believe that whatever Obama (or any elected official) does, he does because he thinks it is the right thing to do for his constiutents and/or country (crooks and their ilk excluded). Have you ever seen an argument at a bar, at home, or even on this site start to escalate out of control? Often the argument isn't that big of a deal but if no one dials it back, it can result in a reaction that is way out of proportion to what the conflict is all about. Violent rhetoric is not necessary and you run the risk of reactions out of proportion if you do nothing to control it. If the people arguing in the bar seem to be getting close to violence you don't need to set rules on what they can or can't say. You just ask them to ease off a bit. Everyone knows what that means, and it doesn't keep anyone from being able to make his point. Well, according to jackson33 there was plenty of violence in the 2010 elections and he expects a great deal more in 2012.

Taught me some new things. Thanks!

Many people learn well from flash cards. Netter is an example.

I think we would be if the person in the white house ended up getting shot. And I think that is the only reason the Palin map is being discussed. People use that type of rhetoric all the time and for the most part no one gets too upset about it. Palin was just the only one unlucky enough to have one of the politicians she was 'targeting' get shot.

Is there a tutorial or something on this site on how to use its features?

Maybe I misunderstood you (or am getting in over my head) but embracing the idea of the big bang because it agrees with dogma is not the same thing as changing dogma. I don't believe the church is convening an ecumenical council to add the big bang to church dogma. So if it turns out the big bang did not occur, then the church is not required to change dogma. Christian dogma includes: "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen." If it turns out heaven and earth was not created in the big bang because the big bang did not occur, then the church can just look for some other evidence of the creation of heaven and earth. The dogma does not change.

People look for God in whatever they see. I don't think the idea of the big bang validating God is any more dangerous than the idea of the big bang validating cosmological theory. You could just as well say "If you require the big bang was explained by cosomological theory, what do you do if and when they find evidence that there was no big bang? Do you say "oops, I was wrong, there is no cosmological theory?" or do you say, well no big bang doesn't mean no cosmological theory no matter what I said last week?" Either way you just move on and try for a better understanding next time.