DrP

I still cannot find that you-tube vid that claimed that the Russians had this new tokomak that promised producible fusion power in a few years... I suppose it could have been a hoax or Russian propaganda, but the documentary has been taken down since (or I can't find it at least). It was very small in comparison to JET or ITER.. sort of room/lab sized - the more I think about it the more I reckon it was wishful thinking on my part to see it as anything but a fake or a Russian dick waving exercise. The program claimed new improved magnetic shielding which could hold a plasma at sustained fusion temps for ages. Still looking out for it.

How would they find out? If those involved had of kept their traps shut how would anyone know about the leak. Do we even know what info was exchanged?

They may be at risk now that the whole world know about it! No-one needed to know that the exchange took place - if the POTUS can't have a secret meeting with a foreign head of state without the content of the conversation being publicised globally then I do despair at the state of things. I am not wanting to defend him - I was a big fan of your last pres - I liked the fact he bought in an affordable health care program that helped those that needed it the most. I despise the fact that (although it wasn't perfect) it has been cynically ripped apart and thrown out as socialist or communist junk.... to be replaced with what? A total joke.

I love the US - You are a great country. No one is perfect. I am not talking world government... but we do have the UN - which is a good idea. I like your idea of more power to local areas, but I also think there should be an over all organiser of things globally... otherwise what? we just sit by and let the suffering and the starvation and the slaughter of innocent people by tyrants and religious groups worldwide continue...? as long as we are OK then who cares eh? We have international laws for a good reason. I want the world to be a better place... not just my back yard. Respect. Peace out!

I see those points there Delta and Kip - but to play advocate for a second I would say that no-one even needed to know that he shared anything at all with the Russians. He could have shared the intel for the good of everyone (the Russians ARE on our side against ISIS afterall) and kept quiet about it and the source would be none the wiser if the Russians were discrete.. but having this plastered all over the world's news is a total disaster. It globally publicises the whole affair - which imo should have been kept quite in the interest of national security.

I don't think the US should take on that responsibility either. ;-) but standardising a percentage that EVERY country pays into an international fund would be fairer than what we have now. Although, I'm not really talking about international aid here, as the OP suggested, the fact that you (the US) 'seem' to give more in personal charity might be because you give very little in taxes towards social care... thus you NEED charity as your government or the policies of your country fail people in such a way as that they need said charity in the first place.

You can still keep your freedom... a small tax increase pays for a lot and helps a lot of people if it is costed fairly and spent wisely. I was in a supermarket a couple of years back and an old lady was collecting for Kent Air Ambulance... she said they needed £3M to keep it going each year. I donated a pound, but muted that I thought the government should pay for something that important so people wouldn't have to beg for it. If it is that essential then why not add it to the list of essential things and tax accordingly to pay for it. She looked at me as if I was a total asshole that didn't want to give to charity.. That wasn't my point - my point was that it could be paid for by everyone (to spread the cost out).. not just the people with bleeding hearts. My suggestion that the government should pay seemed to anger her greatly. Maybe I am just an asshole after all for wanting the cost of these 'essential' programs to be costed fairly by spreading the cost to all through fair taxing

...and they are also capable of withholding said checks from people they think do not deserve it, even if the person really needs it. They can still donate if they want to whatever cause they want... but if the only social safety nets are people's private hand outs then god help us. The point of nationalising it removes an individual's personal prejudices so that ALL that are in a certain group that need charity receive it by entitlement rather than having to beg or die.

Depends on your definition of charity - I still think of foreign aid as charity. I do not think it is unrelated as you are saying at all. Foreign aid (charity) is not the end of it though, contributions from taxes were mentioned several times in the thread by people other than me.... even in the OP.

Personally I think this recent Russian meeting is overblown. Why wouldn't the POUS share intel about ISIS with the Russians? They are supposed to be allies in the fight against ISIS no? If the POTUS deems it relevant to share military intel with the enemy of their enemies then, imo, he should do so (probably after some kind of defence meeting with his Generals though).

True - but I still don't see it as totally irrelevant. What is foreign aid if it is not charity? Also I think, as stated by a couple of different people in this thread already, the tax system in the US isn't really aimed at providing cash for social and health care systems. Maybe they just like to 'feel' they are giving more by having the individuals choose which charities they give to out of their own money, rather than paying into social care schemes which could be a safety net for everyone. I was challenging the way the stats are reported here - to say 'the US gives the most' doesn't take into account what they are NOT giving in taxes to look after the sick and needy or to the starving and dying in other parts of the world. Personally I think the money would be better managed and the system would be fairer if the donations were government managed - i.e. I think you should pay more tax and sort out your health care system rather then just sticking 2 fingers up to the poor and claiming that you give more to charity than anyone else. Kip - no-one pledged that for the US - they opted out... most of the other UN countries nominally pledged to 'try' to increase to 0.7% GDP. Some have been doing it a while, we have only just got there after 40 odd years. I think it is a nice sentiment that says that we care about the world.

QUOTE " I will provide the explanation... of God's existence.... best I can" "God is the best explanation why anything exists..... Contingency argument." That is not an explanation of why he exists - it is just stating "God exists" with nothing to back it up. It is SO weak an argument a\s to be completely ignored by any rational thinker imo. I used to believe in God - but not by just saying "well I can't think of any other reason, so it must be true!".. You do the argument a disservice surely? There are many better explanation for existence... no one can prove any of them. Just repeating, "but HE is the best explanation" is no argument at all. Sorry if I missed the point, but it doesn't add up - God is clearly not the best explanation based on what we observe in the universe.

I think that's a good idea... Physics, for example takes both extremes on your scale.... while biology deals with the living matter, Chem with everything from the electrons up to the biology. ...and of course there are overlaps. ...and 'planets' are complex... geology is both chemistry and physics... and you can add biology on planets that hold life. Astronomy and Cosmology are areas of physics (and there is some chemistry involved). PS - .... and I could be wrong... but I do not see any of this as 'meta'physics at all... and you labelled the lot under that heading. ;-)

Yea - I tend to agree. It shows a misunderstanding of what 'matter' is imo. Although I suppose it is nice idea to list things out from small to large... the fields of study do not match up - size doesn't really come into it.

I don't like the heading 'Matter' for cells and organisms... they are living matter - what about all the non living stuff? Also - all of it is matter, from the sub atomic particles to the planets. I would also list the elements in the order they appear on the periodic table rather than alphabetically. ... er - and I am not sure how any of it is meta physics at all anyway - you are listing the make up of matter in the universe from what I can see, how is that meta physics?

well, yes - one of the first things I ever learnt in church was to listen with the guidance of the holy ghost - you pray before any bible study or sermon that you would only hear the message god wants you to hear so you sift through the dross and personal drives of the priest. I always held to that, but it gets taken literally... even though the man in the books speaks in parables and proverbs... which clearly aren't meant to be literal. Some of it is supposed to be though. You listen with your 'spiritual ears'.

I'll admit that the existence of god cannot be disproven, as you say, but the non - existence of any of the gods claimed by all of the existing religions are pretty easy to disprove. The god of the bible, Koran, tora, hindu books etc just cannot exist in the way they are portrayed in the respective books and it is pretty easy to show that just by reading the books and comparing what is written to reality.

I think that angle thing is right. It used to be thought that in more affluent societies men found skinnier women (and presumable butts) more attractive and in places where food was scarce it was the fatter body type that people craved. This however, could just be another one of those many myths I learnt at school which turns out to be bolax. I'll do some research into women's butts later when I get home from work to check it out... in the interest of science of course!

Pretty sure the nuclei that are lined up get knocked about and the magnet will loose it's strength slowly with time as it is being used to pull up the ball. That's what they told us at school anyway... but that was over 20 years ago and things may have changed since then - I have been wrong before by quoting what I was taught at school.

Even if you did get the set up to turn and spin unaided it would be slow and any power harnessed would not be enough to remake the magnet once it's field had depleted.

If time is being slowed down.... which is then measured by the clock going slower... why on earth would your body ignore that and 'speed up' it's aging process so as to ignore it's surroundings and match it's aging with reference frame of people on earth rather than that of any other planet or place in the universe? We know this happens - it has been tested and proven to be fact.

K-thanks. That's kind of what I thought. The photon is probably totally destroyed when absorbed imo and a new one is formed if the electron drops back down again, even if it goes to the exact same energy level. I doubt it would ever be the same photon. As you said - it's impossible to tell. I guess we could say it has died then after absorption, but it obviously isn't really the right terminology as it has never really lived as such.

out of interest.... I do not suppose it is the SAME photon that gets emitted... Swans, do you know? Is it more like if you add 10 ml to a litre of water and then take 10 ml out later, you won't have exactly the same molecules of water extracted. What happens with the energy in the system that is the atom when it absorbs a photon... does it re-emit the same photon with the 'same' energy, or is the energy just taken from the pool?... I would expect that we do not know the answer to this fully. What do you think swan?

It can emit photons - when it drops down in energy levels. It Goes up energy levels when it absorbs a photon of the exactly right amount of energy to make the jump. It depends on the energy different between the orbitals it jumps between as to whether it emits a photon or an x-ray for example.

I don't think so - we see photons that were emitted a very long time ago from galaxies far far away. They can be absorbed, giving an electron higher energies for example - but I don't think they decay. (sorry swansont - simultaneous postings)