jackson33

I'll try to explain two examples; In Detroit hundreds of homes that no one would buy 5 years ago were selling for five times there real value to people who would live in them. The values didn't change but access to them did and artificially raised there values. In the meantime all associated cost to ownership was rising, taxes, maintenance, utility cost and interest. When these home owners defaulted, usually just walking off, they could not be resold for anywhere near the original price and for the most part remain vacant today, where all those cost continue to grow. Anyone, including government is subject to those cost while holding the property or any prospective new owner. This has happened in many specific areas around urban USA during the past two years. We have record numbers of retiring people in the US, who have been moving to Las Vegas, California, Florida, Arizona, Texas and others to lessor degree. Many purchased homes during the past five years, paying the what was probably a fair market value, but borrowed on the EXPECTED equity which did happen and now has reversed. In many cases these are 250k up homes, where the owners have no place left to go to pay for what should have been expected increases in that cost of ownership and unable to make the basic payment. I have deliberately left out the extended arm, sub-prime principle because it really make little difference. That is just another area the market has suffered from, but ignorance whether by fraud (not explaining correctly) or some true deception... What Government is doing is exactly what caused the original problem, propping up ownership for some temporary relief, which IF housing corrects itself in 2-3 years will still have suffered the expenses. If it does not correct, allowed to be purchased at market value, re rented, fixed up and sold at fair market values, your talking about 4-5 Trillion to patch up problems and end up in the same place. Not that many years ago, urban areas would buy up such neighborhoods and build some road or Interstate through it, allowing markets to remain stable. Retiree's will continue to move to those same places and have a shot at some recovery, but during the time it takes, government is going to pay the cost future buyers will make. Its not a Libertarian (Ron Paul) thing, rather basic economy 101. I live in SE New Mexico, where ten or more once thriving towns are deserted. By todays values were talking billions in real estate, still standing but the people are gone and whoever those people were have no current stake.

The investor shifting into panic mode came after Paulson's revaluations and the failures of several major financial concerns, including two basically Federal Institutions (Fanny/Freddie). They were already concerned, starting with New Housing permit cut backs (near two years ago) and the rising interest rates causing the extended arms to take hold and an increasing failure rate. The Federal Reserve, in over reacting once again by cutting rates and flooding the Reserve Banking system with dollars (not used) stimulated the panic and todays actions are curing nothing. Were now talking about losses to investors into the trillions (est. 5T from highs) in market values and worldwide probably much more. IMO, if they had simply let those home owners that made bad deals (all levels of society), fail and let the home markets drop to whatever level they would have then, none of this would have been needed. The reality they will anyway, but the total home market mortgage system is ONLY about 12T and well spread out. Now, the one thing that concerns me above all else is HOW/WHY, Henry Paulson convinced the Fed Reserve and Bush Administration that these actions were needed in the first place. Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sach's on one side, but is also well versed in US/China relations and has been there nearly 100 times, no doubt an influence on China's purchase of a great deal of our National Debt. Said another way, markets go up and down all the time, many times in percentages seen today. The Tech Bubble cost investors about 5 Trillion in todays dollar value, the Savings and Loan problems of the late 80's not much less, but never has government or its spokespeople literally yelled wolf, and then with no definitive mention of who/what the wolf was/is.

Banks barrow from the Federal Reserve passing assets held for security. I don't know what the percentages are today, but there is plenty of cash in the Federal Reserve. All assets held by banks are then partially liquid and banks don't run around borrowing from each other. Equity is by far another issue. All loans are based on the value of an asset at the time of the loan. If that asset becomes worth less then the bank is required to call that loan, if nothing else to the new value of the asset. Equity being the cash value (liquid) over that of the loan or whats owed. Stocks, Bonds, Commodities and yes home values have been dropping. As these values dropped and continue to drop, your broker or banker are calling these loans or selling the asset, giving the loan holder the remains. The process on homes requires a process, where other assets are under agreements and mandated to be held by the lender, but all subject to sale of the asset. All in all, your talking about 20% of the value held by individuals being wiped out in recent weeks. You also have a loss in faith of the financial system, for people to buy anything on credit. There is plenty of cash/money available to borrowers including California Government, but the requirements now asked by lenders has gone above the level of assets held. Its a chain reaction and will not correct itself until the bottom of a 'deflationary' cycle has been reached or the value of assets stabilize. If the Federal Government had stayed out of this current bubble pop (housing/financial), IMO this bottom could have been reached much sooner, if in fact had not been already reached. Prolonging attention to the cause in an effort to protect a few in an election year has been destructive in turn to a world economy, which many very large international investors (some governments) hold US assets or are in nature international concerns. Based on actual P/E ratios (price earnings), values of most major concerns other than financial/housing, employments stats, inflation figures, orders for services/products...the economy is not in crisis. There is no reason the markets are in free fall, other than some panic mode by investors. This will not continue and IMO with in a few hours or days, you will see a giant increase in stock market values. As for the Lehman CEO or any publicly owned CEO-CFO, the stock holders and their board of directors are at fault for pay packages, not the person. There are causes for all this and its my hope the actual reasons will be released over the next few months. IMO, it stems from both political parties and from some sense of redistribution of wealth or the attitude all should share in some pie, whether any participation in building that pie is required...another subject.

There is no reason for a consensus to form, while most don't understand just whom or what is being bailed out, or in fact from what they could be bailed from. Fanny/Freddie are GOVERNMENT entities, Fanny set up in 1938 as an Agency in the Federal Government with both being set up in 1970 as privatized government enterprises, under the control of Congress to set up loan standards by any bank or lending agency in the country. There is no bail out possible but an obligation of Congress to correct, take control or figure out a means to convert their responsibility to private industry. Private industry or investors, which bought into the system are failing as well under the weight of bad debt created by falling (deflationary) values and no one is interested in new investments until the floor has been established. The floor can't be established, certainly not by government and the general attitude that those that made loans are somehow going to maintain them in a falling value market with increasing cost, defies common sense, aside from the fact they have or are defaulting. This is not all poor people, but people in all ranges of income who simply over paid for housing. Even if values stabilized, other ownership cost HAVE to increase, to cover loses currently being sustained. Taxes, Insurance, Maintenance are other cost are continuing being paid by somebody or will be due if any one invest in any one property. Many more people who have been making payment, paying taxes and maintain their own property are also being squeezed, probably half the total home owners in this country, at least to some degree. This is where frustration of the general public has come in: Knowing that one person will some how be assisted and knowing that person has already failed and that person will with out question fail again, while they have been paying the price for that one failure, want nothing to do with the next or the one after that... As for the Senate Plan passed and the House expected to vote on Friday, its now 451 pages, with near 300 pages of 'extenders' to grant credit or remove grants (social engineering) or just pork spending, much of which has recently failed for a variety of reason and thought will please specific members of the House. Even the 'raising of National Debt Limits' to 11T from 9.8 Trillion (plus 1.2T) for a 700 Million Dollar plan, stinks with motivational agenda. Its my opinion, this is a massive step into socialism and beyond my understanding why this administration or the Republican Candidate (McCain) apparently have signed on to the plan.

Fanny and Freddie are basically government entities backing loans they make and are under the oversight of the Congress, no less than any government entity. You can argue, donations made to Senators which are all primarily Democrats (who happen to control Congress and there operations), the presidential candidates last seen at McCain 169k vs. Obama 16k or the Rick Davis angel (payment for service) but in the end the money has gone to the individuals in control, no less than any business would do...Remeber those two Corporations came from government, Fanny was an agency of government 1938-1968 and in 'privatizing' an obligation, remain responsible for those duties performed. Having said that, the problems seen by the Administration, IMO are further down the road and probably in the 'faith' of the American Dollar or the ability for investment and/or loans from investors to American Business. Tens of thousands of folks have money in the American Banking System, globally, even some governments. FDIC backs these deposits to 100k and all above is based on that faith in the institution. This flow out of Banking has been going on for weeks, maybe even near over now, but the ability of those systems to continue to do business (to make money) has been stopped in there tracks. There is plenty to worry about, but I do not believe any bail-out, however constructed will correct the actual cause for the problems. That is the people that made loans, which have been defaulted on or will soon (not all poor people) will still have the problems that caused them (not all interest rates) and the new investors (where ever from) will not pay the original inflated values for years to come, if ever in the life of the product (homes and they will devalue short of maintaining/paying due taxes and so on). Then no one bailed out the hundreds of tech firms that lost many trillions in value, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of small company's and additional trillions to the larger firms, many still no where near their high market cap...ie, what happen then has to happen in the housing and financial markets. This is my personal overview, but I have no idea what they should do...Congress or the Executive branch. I sure don't like what I am hearing, but based on my overview. Postponing an outcome to influence an election (either direction) make no sense....

Most folks will judge according to preconceived conception or along party lines. Hear what they want, so to speak... I saw nothing to indicate either was what different to my conceptions. I thought McCain appeared knowledgeable and understood issues in depth, where Obama appeared to be answering a quiz, taking an oral test or giving the Democrat viewpoint. Interesting, but nothing decisive.... Any your winner and why???

If your passion is Physics, then you are answering you own question... As far as work or a job...my guess is, that will be lined up long before graduation...Good Luck.

For some time, Elliptical Galaxy have been thought to be older than, say Spirals. They are more populated, seem to have less gas/debris to form new stars and have some rather large core bulges. Spiral, tend to have Molecular clouds around them, less of a core bulge and arms extending or not filled in. Since we need to stay with Big Bang Theory in understanding age, its thought our Milky way formed along with most in the Universe and are for the most part 13.2 Billion years old, at least according to Wikipedia. I don't know if this is still applicable, but BBT at one time implied the first stars should have been giants, compared to todays stars. Those stars if existed, would not have had time to form large or complex galaxy, but could have been in the various Dwarf styles we see today, with current stars. The larger the star mass, the quicker they burn out the core fuel etc... Our little galaxy cluster group of galaxy are primarily dwarf, which are probably much younger than our Milky Way or Andromeda, which are both Spiral and our only two majors. Andromeda twice our size. The 18 or so dwarfs in our group, if allowed time will join one of these two spiral. One expected join MW, in 25k years and another in 100k years or so. Large galaxy also are known to combine, after a form of collision. NASA has recorded a couple and its thought Andromeda will collide or orbit into or consume the MW, in 4-5 Billion years. Google, *Galaxy Formation Age* to get much of this or any number of related items...

Nothing sudden, but many feel the moon's orbit has increased since formation, from about 24k miles to todays 240k mile average. We do know it moves away about 2 inches per year or so... On a reverse idea; Some suggest that Venus had a moon some time ago, while rotating pretty much as earth. That a large object or objects, with a certain trajectory hit Venus, changing its rotation, actually reversing it, which over time caused that moon to fall to Venus.

I have not said, gravity is NOT important to an atmosphere, in fact it is. What I am saying is that one can exist on smaller objects, whether called an atmosphere or a halo. I also believe the MF is important to maintaining that atmosphere, where solar winds or solar energy can effect. (Interaction) Venus, is effected by both with its lost MF, as is Mars suffering decay. Venus atmosphere is extremely think, has a natural mean to maintain its CO2 based atmosphere and rotates very slow. Venus takes about 243 Earth days to rotate one time, actually retro to ours, the sun and 6 other planets. Solar winds/energy effecting the sun side only, where build up can occur on the dark side. Its BP's are (I think) 90 times ours, making it as a near solid to those effects. There are many articles, suggesting what would happen if Earth loses it MF, nearly all suggesting atmospheric decay, over time. Some even suggest that losing MF is in progress or that a shift, which should occur, will not this time. Its certainly off schedule.

The said, current theory says a star will change its attitude by its current core (by age) structure. As it gets lower on hydrogen, more helium, it will expand, allowing hydrogen back in (effectually), again shrinking and so on, at least a couple times. My point was and is, that hydrogen is somewhat depleted, certainly from what it was when formed, probably to a much greater degree than you all are suggesting. Since regardless, how I stated the scenario, I had little doubt in getting any confirmation on the 'potential' restructuring of elements in the formation, to allow for what our system had to form from or what may occur in all new stars. Its my understanding atmosphere can be, with less mass, but will be limited to the gravity by distance from the surface. Also that magnetic field, in effect protects solar activity from there destruction. To some degree the limits of an atmosphere are found on earth, with some being obvious about 500 miles out, with our gravity and a still rather sound MF. Mars on the other hand, percentage wise less distance out and being torn apart by solar activity, having lost its MF. Think the our cores completely gone or at best patchy. There is also a natural loss, from velocity of the orbit or the trail effect, which requires a natural production, which small objects and small planets or moons may not or do not have.....IMO.

Interesting, I happen to agree for the most part, but wonder if you agree with yourself... When a star dies, turning to debris, wonders through space picking up other such debris, eventually the process to star formation should begin. I also feel Molecular clouds even the GMC are generally found around galaxy for that same reason. Our star being the results of that process. The problem is, when a star burns out, its a result of depleted hydrogen, there is very little left to become part of the remaining cloud ie nebula. This is where I feel sure we differ. IMO, of elements can breakdown in the formation, where heat and pressures could be extreme even to what creates the star. Any other explanation, would infer untold planets or other junk in the new system, which is still a possibility. Today however and presumably near in formation our star makes up 99.95% of all mass in our system and at one time predominately hydrogen... One question, are you saying no 'tidally locked' moon cannot have an atmosphere or just ours. Doesn't our moon have a day/night or rotate to the suns effects, or are you suggesting as most would its long lost its magnetic field. To the author of the thread; This same subject and method offered have been made on many forums and over many years. If there is a point to the offering, I have yet to see it...but looking forward to one.

Eric; I don't know where your going on this, but GR does offer a theoretical differential on time under the *Twin Paradox*. Where one travels at C for years and the other stationary on earth. The traveler/observer part of dilation. If your simply questioning the 'Atomic Clock' experiments, you are probably justified. When talking *Nano* seconds your talking billionths of one second. I have no idea how the 7 or 10 NS could be attributed to error, but a good drown draft, friction created on a westbound trip over eastbound or differentials in take off or landings could effect an outcome. I also kind of wonder, since the earths rotation is involved, where the speed of earth around the sun, the speed of our solar system around the galaxy core or even our galaxy groups speed in the Universe are considered. Any one of which dwarfs the small 1000 mile per hour rotation. There are other grounds for considering time slows at C, including NASA's observations of time, after take offs and while orbiting. The question I have always asked, is why the by stander should continue aging, when the traveler would not. Even now with this new 'space/time' fabric stuff, it would seem the by stander would experience less time than the traveler and certainly the traveler would arrive back in less time passed from where begun, then his experienced time...

Actually, that is the point. If we see as clearly as is hoped, galaxy should be more defined in much greater distance. If we can see a galaxy 13 billion years out there, that existed those 13 billion years ago and is close to what ours should look like, how could the universe have formed and settled down in 2billion years. If the unexpected is seen and light is observed from an estimated20 or 30 billion years ago, as we now see it from 10-13 BY, that would make BB much older, or that we may indeed be a very old SSU. My personal expectations; We will see very clear to further distance, but little to no additional distance will be observed in the 'light range' energy, probably do to distortion or limited waves. JW, will have a variety of energy detectors which could reveal some interesting data. They also hope to link the other existing telescopes (Including Hubble).

IMO; The topic, BB is wrong, really cannot be address in the way your requesting. Any one can google a number of issues and find reputable authors of suggested opposition, but to many of us, who where educated during the times of Sagan, Hoyle or even Einstein (influence) hold open minds to BBT or SSU. We have lived through the times ideas, which made little to no sense, where placed ahead of those that would seem more accurate. Michael Goodspeed (Thunderbolts.com) 12/2007 and Adrian Bjornson- Mythology of MODERN Astronomy, are a couple examples. Your forum and many other science/physics oriented forums, are visited by would be future people in those fields. Generally they are searching for answers or possibly just throwing an opinion out there, which they want to explore. GR, Einstein's "physical reality" singularity and many things being stated as the BBT, are not usually given in the explanations for the current theory, at least that I have seen. Even more rarely mentioned is the "Steady State Universe" which still has a following, with back up arguments. The pending 2013, James Webb Satellite Observatory, alone could validate SSU, to a degree, possibly even making BBT obsolete, by finding clear examples of galaxy similar to ours or Andromeda, much further out there than should be.

1916, GR, Einstein knew his formula indicated an expanding Universe, which in turn meant from a starting point. Yes, the BELIEFS/CONVICTIONS of the day, where in a eternal Universe and yes George LeMaitre and Ed Hubble came into the picture in the late 20's... Einstein, born Jewish and indications are died believing in that religion. However he was a self professed Agnostic. He was also very active in his research and/or correspondence/visits with Catholic Clergy, who were involved in mathematics and science. His many quotes referencing social-religious-ethical idea's infer a sense of obligation to these groups. You can take this to his later days when expressing he wished he had not become involved in the Atom Bomb Program or his advise to FDR, to build one... Religion and or social needs, influenced this man no less than many who preceded him or that have followed. Whether in Science, Politics or any other field, it should be accepted as a natural human response, with the added need to be accepted by those you work or live with. However its just as important to note its influance...

I am curious, as to why you think energy waves expand with space expansion. The normal ant-BBT would argue a shrinking, if anything. I also question BBT, which is most certainly a theory and the one most accepted by the science community. GR, is/has/will be used to explain uncertainty, which itself is being tested to legitimacy, by doing so. As suggested, by jeff M., your in for a trip if you argue with the folks on this forum. They would seem to have a version of BBT, which if agreed on by them is not that of the consensus. Unfortunately, they are not by any means, stupid, ignorant or with out substantial back up. They are however arrogant to any opposition. I might also add, they know exactly where your coming from and have fought off hundreds, who have and will continue to question BBT. Martin; Are you saying that its impossible the religious consciousness has never been a factor n the formation and evolving of BBT. Didn't the creator of relativity, admit later in life that he altered a formula to conform with his conviction. thedarkshade; The Big Bang didn't happen. If anything an expansion of some imaginary conception of a singularity did. Think thats what its called here. If there is a solid problem with BB, it is the base.

If everything was proportionately 10 times larger today than yesterday or for that matter smaller, wouldn't the pictures we receive from space, which are from earlier days, show this in some way. We are fairly sure stars that were 100k, a million years ago were very much like what we have for a star or easily see 5-40 or a hundred years ago.

Not really; If you take a one inch round patch and place it central on a 10x10 inch picture frame, you get a visual concept of size. Take the same patch and place it on a 10x10 foot frame it would appear much smaller. When we observe the universe as was, say in images 5 billion years ago, there is no indication anything is proportionately different, yet the volume with in the BBT universe has certainly doubled. I have trouble accepting Big Bang, this just one small issue. Think your explaining Newtonian Gravity opposed to Einstein Space-Time Fabric, but under either, effects would not change, IMO...

Before giving up (never a good idea), you might google *Dr.Ronald Mallett*, a University of Conn physics professor with a 30 year study on the subject, with an interesting story as to why... Surpassing the speed of light is by no means the only possibility for those involved in such studies. Warping space-time via a machine, in short is his and one of many. He goes so far as to predict, testing his machine within ten years. An interesting read, if nothing else... Personally, I doubt 'Time Travel' will ever be a reality, at least for people. Einstein felt it could be possible someday, but visualizing a different time, not. You would need to involve dimensions to our reality, which many feel is pure Science Fiction...

Actually I don't either, but then I have trouble with most of BBT. It is covered in your article 'space.com' stretching reality. Its a quote think the author is mocking. Light we receive from the known universe, is said to be constant C in all cases. When arguing BBT, I use the surface of what should be the shell, of what expansion should now be....Sphere surface= 4 x 3.14 (p) x RSq. (Radius squared)...It does double quite often, but why would the mass of anything be different or the speed of light. A billion pound object would then, would still weight a billion pounds now or a 100 billion years in the future, but would appear smaller. Think some one has figured energy waves would be likewise effected. This is speculation on my part, since IMO, everything is pretty much the way it was 50 billion years ago or much, much longer... If your interested, I would also think, Andromeda, a Spiral Galaxy a couple million light years out there would never make it projected collision with our Milky Way in 5 billion years or so, because the total volume of space now between, will have more than doubled by then....if BB is correct.

Think that figure 156, is calculated on the principle light (energy) has traveled at different speeds, when the universe was smaller. If we see light from 13.7 LY away, then what created that light was has increased via expansions in higher numbers. 186kmps just what it is today. Something like that... Doesn't BBT, suggest where ever the universe is expanding from, nothingness is what its expanding into. No space, no time, just nothing.

Under BBT, as I understand it, Laws of Physics (special relativity etc) did not exist until after BB. The singularity, suggest, space was part of it. Nothing escaped, but expansion of, began and continues today. Space then part of... Give your idea, which would allow a directed response. Big Bang is very complicated....

In short, I offered both sides on *Animal Suicide*, not intending to be precise on any one issue. I do feel "reasoning" a human trait, is not one animals display... Yes: Elephants after about six sets, lose their teeth. The would be tusk or in some cases the tusk, however I am not sure how they could ware down. The legends of *Elephant Graveyards* are still being discussed (argued), many feeling are where older elephants gathered was for softer food, etc. I could give alternative reasons for sea life beaching as well, but my point was; some people think this is animal suicide.

Animals IMO, probably cannot commit suicide as humans do or reason death for emotional problems. However one human reason, possibly most often, is ongoing pain. All warm blooded life, suffer pain, at least are thought to. Incapable of reason, animals would not understand the pain would stop, if they just ran off some cliff, ram its head into a rock or any of the limited ways an animal could. The art of reasoning, then the question... Having said this, long before PETA, or ocean sonar activity, dolphins, whales and other sea life have been known to beach themselves. Elephants w/o question, in old age simple quit eating and often go to places others have gone to die. Many animals that fight to mate, must have some idea they are to old or weak to overtake the rival, dieing as the result.