JustinW

Easy there DDT. Wrong topic to vent your anger in. Please read the thread and comment on the subject if you're interested. If there is no door on the right side of the room, then the first door on the right is always the last door on the left. My meaning is that it is all in where you're standing at the time.

I've been wondering about the expansion of space and the relation to the pressure of space. After reading about the cosmological constant and other things I had questions that I have been unable to find an answer to. I was wondering if the expansion of space and the pressure of space were related? If they're not then why not? I can't seem to find any information about the measurements of the vacuum pressure over an extended period of time to indicate any change in that pressure. To my way of thinking the pressure should correlate with the rate of expansion.( Assuming the two are related. Which I can't see why they wouldn't be.) I was also thinking that gaining an accepted measure of study on pressure changes would tell us what the universe is doing as whole. Not just in our range of observation. It would make sense that if the pressure was to grow stronger (more negative) then our universe is expanding. If the pressure grew weaker (more positive) then our universe is contracting. If the pressure stays the same (with reasonable fluctuations) then we could assume that our universe as a whole is static, but that with in is just in motion. Now all of this is under the assumption that pressure and expansion are related. The reason I believe they are is because the way a vacuum is created. The less matter you have in a space the more of a vacuum is created. We know that space has a vacuum energy, so it could be assumed that that is because of the amount of matter that is in the space. Possibly created in the original expansion. If it is space that is expanding, then the less matter should be in that space as it grows, therefore should affect the pressure of that space. At least up until an absolute perfect vacuum is achieved. Let me know what you all think about this assertion and if there is any info out there related to this connection.

You don't see a problem with the NEED to be treated? Just because a problem is easily treated, it is still a problem. Would treatment in general override any possible evolutionary change that is needed? Could we have possibly already done so with childhood vaccinations and regular treatment of common situations? Would our bodies have adapted to some of the issues that we now commonly treat?

So you're saying that there was no energy before the big bang? And no space to contain energy before the big bang? Why does 0= no God anyway? Couldn't it be just as easy to say that 0=God? If some theists are right and god is in everything, then it would be a true statement.

I just asked to see where the conversation would go in the first place. I've noticed when talking with smart people that you have to be specific or the conversation could go anywhere. It's fun reading though. It's interesting to see how many different sides there are to a simple arguement that seems cut and dry.

Looks like someone has never dug a hole. If they did they would know that there is not the same space in the hole that there is mass in the pile. You can easily come up with your own conclusion when you fill it back in. As for the God topic....who said he has to be provable? Alot of religions say that God is all there is and all there will never be. That you look upopn Him everyday, everywhere, as long as you are looking. The Alpha and Omega. The beginning and the end. I've always questioned the beginning part though. If God exists then who created God? And so on and so forth...bla, bla, bla..... I'm one of those friendly agnostic believers. This existance around us had to started from something. The big bang theory has to be founded on the assumption that there was something there to cause such a reaction and something before it to provide the action. Since, as some say that it can never be determined therefore is irrelevant, I say it was a diety. Does that mean I'm right? I will either find the answer when I die or not at all. I choose to hope that I will find the answer or that at least that death is not the final chapter of what is me. The consciousness that I have and share with other consciousnesses. Something that has meaning. What is this life for if it ultimately has no meaning? Are we to believe that we are here on a fluke? Are we to pass along to our offspring that only matter to the here and now. Not to anything else throughout the overall picture of existance. That is a depressing outlook. Why care about anything?

But what is getting me is that I can't find any information, one way or another, that says if the vacuum pressure of space is changing. If there was it may give a further indication of what is happening with the universe as a whole.With a vacuum pressure that is getting stronger(more negative) we could assume that the universe is expanding. With a vacuum pressure that grows weaker(more positive) we could assume that the universe is contracting. If the pressure of the universe stays the same that either means there is an outside constant that we have yet to discover or that the indications of expansion that we have observed could just be movement along an eliptical orbit or something of that sort. These questions could probably be punched full of holes, but I haven't found any information that disputes them yet.

Yes I can see what you're saying. When I wrote that post I was wondering what it would be like if our oceans and atmosphere changed its composition. Maybe we could adapt over time, but would we if we were treating the symptoms? It was just an imaginary scenario playing out in my head at the time.

Yes I agree with the consensus on this. But as far as pressure goes... I can't seem to find any information on the subject that either supports or denies my way of thinking about it. It drives me crazy when I'm left to wonder.

Perhaps if there would have been adequate testing in the 1930's it wouldn't have been developed as an insectiside. This is why I asked you if there was some kind of test that could account for every possible affect that a product could have on anything. I do believe over the past half century or more there have been advancements in the regulatory process of harmfull products. As there are medical boards for drugs, there are also boards for toxic chemicals and other hazardous products. What is it about recent techknowlegy that accountability knowingly falls through the cracks? DDT was produced before there was any oversight of hazardous chemicals. It can't be used as a reason to have oversight and accountability now. So if there is a reason for further accountability, lay something down for us that can be applied to todays processes.

What are the stipulations of the atmosphere?

It does make you wonder if our modern medicine will have any affect on future developement and evolution. It's a kinda scary thought when you think about it, because evolution is a natural way to make something more compatible with it's environment. If things change for the worse we might medicate ourselves right out of existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT_and_malaria Here's is some info on the subject. I don't believe you should use DDT as your base argument for this thread Greg. It was first compounded in the late 1800's. Try to hold that guy responsible. It was found to be a popular insectiside starting in the 1930's. Hard to hold those responsible too. Not to mention that there are only connections (not proof) between that drug and illnesses in the regions DDT levels were over normal. I'm sure you could find similar connections like that all over the place. Secondly, those medical boards do not regulate the science behind the drug itself. Before a drug can be cleared it has to undergo a battery of tests to decide whether or not it is harmfull to the general public. I belive it is the drug company that brings it to this point and not the particular scientist. As we've found out through trial and error, there are no sure ways to cover the scope that a drug or chemical may have. How would you propose to come up with a test that says this product will not hurt anyone or anything EVER? It's impossible. We have to look at the general field that a product is applied to and go from there. The only way to hold a company at fault would be if they knowingly withheld information or were negligable when announcing a products use. Then it would amount to a criminal misdeed instead of an unintentional oversight. People being held acountable for wanting to know how the world works is an absolutely rediculous thing to want. It's like saying that Newton is responsible for every plane crash and dumbass that jumps off a bridge to their death. It's like saying the inventor of rope should be accountable for inventing a way for people to off themselves throughout its existance. Or maybe the companies that make rope should be held accountable. I'm sure we could apply some sort of sciences to the application of using a rope for hanging. Therefore it would fall into the catagory of science, and is to be held accountable for future incident. Make sense?

Agreed.

Okay...... Something would have to stop or reach v=0 before changing a trajectory that is either up or down with no curvature to its motion. If the trajectory were more circular when changing it's path from up to down someone could say that it didn't stop before changing direction. Since we are talking about a piston which can only move on a vertical path, up or down, then it would have to come to a v=0 state in its direction change.

Why is it that I get poked fun at for making lite of global warming(really no need to answer that) when the general consensus is that it is happening, but consensus ends there? There is no consensus on cause, outcome, or time the non consensus forms of cause will affect the nonconsensus forms of outcome. Although there is general consensus that it is happening, no one can agree on anything else? If we see something happening is it really so vague as to not know the direct cause or the direct outcome? So pardon me for making lite of a situation that no one seems to know about. And I don't even fully understand the consensus on man made climate change. There has been warming and cooling trends since the beginning of time on earth hasn't there? So why isn't the consensus that it is just a period more extreme than those that have been observed through soil samples? Or is it really that pliable to relate the amount of co2 in the atmosphere with this extreme trend?

Is there such thing as an agnostic athiest? By definition an agnostic believes in a creator but allso believes that a creator isn't provable. An athiest by definition doesn't believe in any form of diety. So how can the two be compatible?

Even if the instant is infinitely small it is still an instant.

Put that way it does. But didn't the Taliban hold a significant amount of political power? It is understandable that we went to war with these people, but does seem a little strange that it took so long and cost so much. The length and difficulty may be attributed to how well they were able to hide, and the cost can be somewhat attributed to the length. But you would think that someone could derive a certain tactic that would be more effective. I'm not necessarily sure of the numbers of these groups or the problems that the military have run into. So I might be misspeaking if I give too much of a possible explanation.

This was percisely my point in asking. Like michel123456 said above about the when distance increases so does velocity. But why is this if the expansion rate is the same throughout? Galaxies closer to us should expand from us at more than the SOL if the galaxies furthest from us are expanding at more than the SOL. I understand that we would observe the farther galaxies at the rate of expansion in corrolation to the time they emitted the light, but it still doesn't explain why the explansion is more than the SOL in some places but not in the others. Or am I missing something?

Everything you've said Phi makes sense to a degree of potentiallity. But the fact remains that this law hasn't been exploited yet and there is no reason that we need to see it as a law that will stifle assembly and free speach. I don't see it working in that manner. How could it. The scenario you layed out had one guy taken not a whole crowd. They would be crazy to use this law against a crowd. It would amount to political suicide of anyone who was involved. How can this law stop the voice of these protestors. If anything it would just make them louder and I think that is apparent to those in office. If that was ever their intent. Which we have no reason to belive it was. I believe this is correct. And yes the wording of the law, if not the law it self, needs to be done away with or rewritten in a way that protects the American people from potential abuse. It is just the assumption of intent and the likelyhood of its use for denying free speach and assembly that I'm arguing here.

I agree, but most social relation doesn't have to do with government. I was referring to government in the capacity of dependance, and relying on their policies to provide for everyday necessities. Over time it seems that the government gets more and more involved in the everyday aspects of living. It is understandable that people are and always will be apart of my life. It's expected and welcomed. It's not like I want to be a hermit and rely on no one. I just don't see the need for that someone to be any form of governing body. These are necessities for sure. At the finer points of these programs government is not the key factor. These things are passed down by the knowledge of one individual to the next. Just because the government is involved to help them run better doesn't mean that the government is a necessary factor to get these things accomplished. If the government wern't involved in these aspects I am sure the public would find a way to obtain this knowledge. But with that being said, you are correct that these programs are relied upon by the masses and that is why we pay taxes. These programs benifit our society and I have no problem with contributing to the betterment of our society. If you read back you'll see that I wasn't talking about the social aspects of people. I was talking about people relying on government to provide for them their every day needs. Also don't misunderstand that. I think Phi said it best when he said that he would never like to see a struggling mother and her kids do without when they can't do for themselves. I ABSOLUTELY agree with that sentiment. Although these things used to be taken care of through the good nature of society, it has now become a cesspool of those who wish to abuse the system. I've seen people that make more than I do getting food stamps and medicaid just because they can lie about certain things on the application to get it. If I can see the amount of people I've come across do this in small part of Texas that I live in, I wonder how many do it across the country. This is why these programs are unsastainable and looked upon badly by those who feel that these are just entitlement programs. It defeats the good nature of the program itself. Well...thought inspiring to say the least. When using that premiss I would have to say that if it is an absolute certainty that it WILL happen, then I believe it would be in our best interest to be at the forefront of such actions. It's like they say "If you fight progress you'll wind up on the wrong side of history". But it doesn't mean I have to like it or think that it is a good idea. The bigger the government, the bigger the problem, given enough time.

Because in the scenarios that were layed out, you had all of these people working together to stifle the assembly and free speach of those protesting wall street. I found that to be misleading and speculative at best. Like a conspiracy theory you hear about on one of those mystery shows. The wording is bad and gives the potential to use this law in the wrong way. But the intent of the law was either misrepresented or purposely overlooked here. I know how a government works, but you would have to have all of these people in bed together with the common goal of smothering the people's right to free speach and assembly. I don't think that's the case and without some possitive connection to the contrary that is where I'm at on it so far. It will have to be more than made up scenarios that get me to assume the intent of the law is more than what was origionally stated.

Who are you commenting to? I wasn't insinuating that the pressure change causes an effect, but quite the opposite. That the effect of expansion should cause a pressure change. There is a vacuum in space because the matter is unproportional to the space that it occupies. With the expansion, space grows more unproportional which should be reflected in a proportional change in vacuum. At least that is what would make scense to me. Unless there is a reason the two are not connected.

Which may also trigger responses in reproductive compatabillity right? I may have misspoken about the acceleration. I was basing that statement off of memory which I find to be lacking sometimes.