JustinW

Okay, on second thought it probably doesn't jive with physics. But it's just as far fetched as saying nothing does or doesn't exist.

Let's go ahead and call it being the measurement between distance of movement for the sake arguement. It does if you look at the universe as a closed system

Or you could look at it this way. Due to resistance, the energy of the entire everything will at some point wink out of existance. There for becoming nothing. So something could turn into nothing, but does that mean that nothing could also turn into something?

I would like to know how you came by the information that the universe is losing pressure. I have been looking for such information. I would say that depends on what forces are at work and where they are applied. Since we don't know that we only have what we observe to go by.

I thought space was acted upon by gravity and that light travelled through the space being acted upon by gravity? Also I'm a little confused about space vs. sapcetime. I see space as the entity that gravity affects and spacetime as the corrolation between time and place. If space is not an entity, then how come it can be bent by gravity? Which is represented by light curvature. Edited for afterthought.

I think first you have to decide if nothing exists in the first place. And if it does how would you know? If you can see nothing then it is obviously something and arguably has potential. If nothing exists then it would seemingly have no potential and something cannot be born from it.

I consider myself one these too. Having a thirst for knowledge that, until the last few years, have had little resources to obtain it. This is why I asked for opinion based on others experiences as in my reply to Phi above. I knew this was a large generalization and that there would be a large margin for confusion. I just wanted to know what others thought and if they had any ideas on if these kinds of outburst can be labeled to one generality or another. If they think their generalities differ from others then they can be more specific. I could have gotten more specific, but I thought others might chime in more if I left out specifics. Well, when I thought about how much discussion there was on politics everyday I came to the assumption that the population for these kind of experiences were probably fairly large. You make me smile. In possitive reflection I can't imagine someone who doesn't enjoy reading being on a forum that requires reading to be a part of. Aisle/Philosophy, got it.

The emotional feeling toward policy concerns is necessary I believe, just as iNow mentioned above. But my origional point was directed more toward unwarranted personal attack. I have the frame of mind that can be changed by logical arguement. If most of the people that have put me under the gun would have simply explained their position, I might have been persuaded to change mine if theirs had seemed more reasonable. But alot have just exploded and didn't give me or anyone else a chance to ask for explanation. This is more along the lines of what I wanted to know of what other people thought from their own experiences.

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+atheist&qpvt=definition+atheist&FORM=DTPDIA http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+agnostic&FORM=DTPDIA Oh I don't know what was so wrong about my definition. This is where I got it. To have an agnostic atheist, with hindsight on my part, is feesable. Not believing and also believing that your belief cannot be proved.

Yes I could see that. I'm willing to bet a system like that would have voice of reason and influence around the world. I wouldn't say that you had to be a member to have access to peer review though. There can be a lot of discovery missed like that. Say a janitor has an "AHHA" moment but can't gain access to such a committee without the propper funding or associations. His AHHA can be easily swept under the rug.

I do believe I know the difference. An agnostic believes that there is a creator, but cannot be proved or found. An athiest, by definition doesn't believe in god period. Maybe there can be an agnostic theist, but it would be a little difficult to believe there is and isn't at the same time. Please, further explain our misconception on this matter. http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+atheist&qpvt=definition+atheist&FORM=DTPDIA http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+agnostic&FORM=DTPDIA

I appologize for not seeming as smart as you would like. I'll try harder not to pry on your patience in the future. This makes a lot of sense, but you would figure being in a science forum where logical discussion plays a big role that one would not be as quick to make assumptions, and be more willing to discuss rather than bicker. Yes, but for those who enter into a discussion it should already be a given that they would have to explain. Especially since they are probably talking to different people than in previous discussions. If someone doesn't want to explain their position in a informative manner then why get into the conversation at all? I wouldn't say vague absolutes, but rather observed generalizations. I understand emotion plays a big role in policy making. Maybe I need to clarrify. I meant which one yells the loudest "so to speak" in a way that hurts their persuasiveness Some of my comments might have been viewed as such though I've never thought of myself as such. Alot of times in certain discussions I will use other views to make a point even if it is not my own personal view. Then it's too late, someone has already labeled me and won't be persuaded otherwise. I agree. There are alot of people that split the difference depending on the subject. This is how I've always seen myself as a matter of fact. I may have a biase depending on the topic and may disremember some things. I'll have to think about that. But I don't consider political decision as an us/them collaberation. The only reason I used the term right/left was for the fact that this topic can only be discussed using generalizations. I can probably guess, but it would still be a premature assumption.

Not to mention the emotional stand point of the people. This is where politics has a part to play, instituting the will of the people. It's not a bad idea though. for a global scientific committee to have a powerful influence and to give a credible incite to help form policy around the world. And why I only say influence is for the fact that science always has room for change, and may not always be best for the concideration of different people. By your quote above the scientific community would have the power to force the regulatation of births. I don't know if a people would go for that or if it is even ethically sound. It is arguable to say the least. But I agree with you to the point that a scientific body that can share and provide general consensus on a subject should have more influence on policy makers.

Well spoken. Same here. I always thought there had to be something in the nothing to create something. If that makes any sense.

I don't know if this is a phylosophical, ethical, or plain political topic, so it might be moved. I was wondering which side of the isle argues and politics more on emotions. It seems that one only has to say a phrase or make one comment that could be construde as not agreeing with someone's political view and someone will surely start a personal attack. This may lean more towards a phylosophical debate. But here recently I was told to move to the political forum where I could get with all the other George Bush wanna be's. It was that uncalled for outburst that brought this question to mind. When people make personal attacks, is it because they can't argue their point logically? Is it because hatred and frustration towards other view points have built up to the point of trying to emotionally cripple the opposition instead of trying to influence their views through logical discussion? And what are other people's thoughts on which side of the isle use emotion and personal attacks to direct policy? My personal experience is that the left have attacked me more than the right. Not to say that I'm right wing or to say anything necessarily bad about the left. But when I bring an arguement to the table that may be different than a right wing view, I've noticed that most of the time the people that lean towards the right may get emotional, but they still try to explain their position logically. I have some left leaning friends that do this also, but when I'm attacked for expressing a view (even if it's not my personal view) it is usually those from the left. Please don't get me wrong here. I know what this topic could lead to. I'm not inviting name calling, just logical discussion on the way political emotion is viewed.

I thought a vacuum was created by taking matter out of space. Not space out of space, or space into matter.

It would be pretty difficult to wield any kind of power. Scientists work to better our way of life and to further our knowledge of what is, but if they go on strike would it have a immediate effect? That would be the only way a union can wield any power. For so many to get together and say "this is how it's going to be or we won't do it". You get enough people that have an immediate effect on a company, or in this case the government, then they'll listen. But until that happens I don't think a scientific union will be able to demand policy. Maybe it would be better to think about influence rather than allowance or demand.

Sorry I meant Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:22-24 ESV) Edited to add: Thanks for the correction Phi.

I heard something about this. That they were trying to detect residual gravity waves left over from the BB, or something to that effect, but have yet to detect them. Which brings up the question, do gravitational waves decay over time? Or does space have a counter effect on gravity? Not to suggest an opposite effect like dark energy, but just some sort of resistance. I'll try to find a link to where I saw that study. It was pretty interesting.

Phillipeans ch.5 verse 22-24, just don't let her read past that.

Bilko, How was anything I said off topic? Have you even read the thread? The OP was about power and money making people corrupt. I believe that polititions and the ideological status of governments and markets fit in with power/money. Not to mention the fact that I wasn't the one to bring up capitalism in the first place. Maybe I don't articulate well enough sometimes to explain my views in a way that is fully understandable. I wasn't in any way trying to say that making money is more important. I was trying to say, with my right wing claptrap, is that solutions have their own consequences and all positions are open to corruption. You seem to be misleading yourself as to my opinions and ideology. I think you should go back and read the thread before you start making assumptions and telling people to get out of the forum. Now I'm off topic.

I do believe that I agree looking at it like that. Something that came up recently here in the states didn't make too much sense to me. Opposition for building the pipeline from Canada. Now it seems to me that that pipeline would provide a ton of jobs over several years or more, but it is opposed for environmental reasons. I didn't quite understand the logic of opposing. It would seem that there would be more pollution put off by the trucks that have to ship it now. The pipeline would eliminate the need for all of that haulage. And if maintained would seem like a cleaner solution from an environmental stand point.

Please feel free to join the conversation Bilko. It has slightly turned toward corruption among different political ideologies. I may be wrong, but it seems I may have said something to make you angry...awww. How unfortunate. If others think that I have high-jacked this thread, please let me know and I'll stop, but the first line in the retort of Bilko says it all for me. Taking a crack just because my answers weren't liked.

It is my understanding that anything with mass at least holds potential energy due to gravity.

I would say they look like it. With the quartz deposits being an exception.