JustinW

I agree. But wouldn't you agree that energy holds mass? And that you can't have mass without energy? I believe the question was, if you could project mass to twice the speed of light, would it turn into a form of energy?

If determinism is the reality then the choice has already been made, lik e you said Tres, by cause and effect. And any alternative is just wishful thinking on our part. Looked at that way I agree there would be nothing supernatural about it. It is kind of ironic how free will and religion fit together. Sure your options are molded by circumstance. But your free will can't be. If you are walking down the street and have to change your direction to keep from getting run over, your options are then weighed upon by circumstance. But your options are only molded because you want to survive. You still have the free will to make the decision to stay on the road and die. So it is your choice to weigh the options. The boundaries are the illusion because you have the option to accept those boundaries or change them.

I would have to disagree swansont, if you are referring to energy not being a physical thing. But if you are referring to joules, kilo-watt hrs, etc... then I would have to agree. This has always interested me from a distance. E=mc2, to think that mass traveling that fast would be pure energy. I've always wanted to ask those who believe in time travel if they thought the mass that energy is, is traveling backwards in time. I've also wondered what energy is. Is it anything that gives off heat or exzerts force? Is it just molecular reaction and we just generallize it by calling it the same name no matter from what source it comes from? And what about the sources of energy that we don't fully understand, such as gravity or field energies period. To be defined as energy it would still have to hold mass at twice the speed of light, wouldn't it? Being a distant observer there are probably answers to these questions and I've just not gotten around to finding them.

Agreed.

So the question in this thread is between whether or not we have a choice on our own or that the reason we make that choice is, because in reality it's the only choice? Determinism by definition is making a choice because there is no other. I found it interesting in the link that was provided in the 1st post. The psychologist had asked people to make a voluntary movement and observed that there brain sent the message for movement before they were concious of the decision. I could understand using this to base an argument against free will if the brain signaled before he asked for the movement, but as soon as he asked, the brain already new what it's job was. And to say that we only choose our actions because there are no other options would make 2/3 or more of our reality fiction. If given three options, by definition of determinism, 2 out of the three would be imaginary. Not to mention determinism or fate or whatever you want to call it is kind of supernatural. If there is a determined path, then a higher power with infinitely more insight than us would have to determine that path. Now that I look at it that way, those who don't believe in a creator of some sort should automatically believe in free will.

Well the problem I had with the thinking on expansion is the vacuum of space. If SPACE is expanding then it would be detected through a change in vacuum. I haven't been able to run across any information on wether or not the vacuum is increasing at the rate of expansion. If space as a whole were expanding then one would think that the pressure of spaces vacuum would strengthen accordingly, but I cannot find any record of this type of change. My thoughts on the movement of galaxies were that if we can tell that galaxies are moving faster than our's by a red shift, that it might be able to be explained by an orbital path. If we are coming into a part of the orbital path that reaches a higher velocity then the observable would look like it is expanding. And also account for acceleration of the observed expansion.

Yes I agree. I was basing my questions on the more popular models and understand that they are incomplete and unreliable until a new model comes out that can explain these things. Yes I've done a little reading on the subject. The theory couldn't be true just on the basic definition of how a vacuum works. When matter is removed from space, it creates a vacuum. The more matter that is removed the greater the vacuum. If space were expanding then the vacuum of space would grow equal to the rate of expansion. And until further proof of expansion is known, I don't see how we can favor expansion over just plain movement. (via red shift)

That depends on product and application. I'm not sure what kind of chemicals or the application for use that is being discussed, but you can see a perfect example of the reuse of fuel exhaust, while in the system, when you look at the tier 3 exhaust systems in motor vehicles. From my understanding it utillizes exhaustion bey reburning the fuel that is left in the exhaust after the initial burn. Making the emissions lower and getting a better fuel economy.

Expanding or just moving? Outward from what? Out from the Earth? Out from everything? I had posed this question in another thread. If the universe is flat then wouldn't dark energy have to be a directional force? And if it's not a directional force and just pushing expansion outward in all directions then we could assume the universe is spherical. Let's say there is a point at the center of the universe that we orbit around. It would account for the universe being flat in shape and also account for the detection of movement observed by red shifts wouldn't it? I'm sure there are alot of holes to be poked in this idea. Just some musings of an interested observer.

From the way I understand dark energy, which is little, is that it's not a matter of an overly powerfull force. It's like a small force exerted over a long period of time. Someone will probably correct me and I hope someone will if I'm thinking and repeating something that isn't true. If dark energy were a powerfull force we would feel it and observe it having a larger impact on gravity. I have my own question on dark energy and the shape of the universe. If dark energy is the cause of the movement we believe is expansion and the universe is believed to be flat, then the force of dark energy is directional right? If it's not exserting it's force in any particular direction, just out, then we could assume that the universe is in the shape of a sphere. But the math that supports the cosmological constant wouldn't add up, right? A comment in the OP also brings a thought to mind about a centripedal force at the center of the universe. If the universe is flat and we know is moving, why couldn't we explore the possibility that we are in orbit around the center? It might explain the red shift movement if other galaxies reach a point of an orbit that has a higher trajectory.

Hind sight's 20/20 there, fella. Why anyone would build a city by the ocean on a piece of land that's lower than sea level never made since to me. Can you please explain what you mean by emotionally instead of rationally? Of course they were responded to differently, the only thing they had in common was the loss of life. The government wasn't prepared for either event, even after they were warned about both. I think everyone can agree that the response to Katrina was lacking. I can see where you can make a comparison of the allocation of funds, but I still can't see where one can compare the responces. The mind frame on the two were totally different. I live one state over and we didn't get the information to know exactly how bad Katrina was until it was already too late. So yes, preperation was lacking.

What do you do about another person's morale compass pointing the wrong direction? Especially if that person holds the power. If you have something that can be denied of you, once it is taken away, do you still have it. And as to the question origianally posted, Who draws the line? Do the people in power, the individual, or the masses themselves decide what a human right is or should be? And what if the rights decided on affect others in a negative way? So yes this thread has gotten a little off track. But the two questions I had intended to clarify in my mind were, Who decides what it is and can it only be given by those who hold power? It's pretty much been the general consensus on the thread that the idea of human rights should be a moral obligation to the world. But it was my assertion that they can be taken just as easily as given. And who's to stop those who envoke their power to abuse. Just like Michel123456 said about war being wrong and there are no right sides... Would going to war with someone, who's goal is to abuse those who can't defend themselves, be the right thing to do? My other assertion was that once those kind of people are defeated, it would be the place of the victor to reinstate the so called human rights of the abused. So the power to do so is on the beholder.

Only if you had brought enough supplies to maintain until the coal could be mined. What would they do for fuel until then? With no outside help, this doesn't seem a likely scenario on the short term.The OP suggests NO outside help. This would kick the techknowledgy back to a more primative form.

So your saying that dark energy is kind of like an ion propultion. A little amount of force applied constantly can increase speed to such a rate as the current expansion? (assuming it is expansion instead of just movement)

Alright... I can follow, but have my doubts. Once this GLOBAL GOVERNMENT is established how long do you think it will take before it maneuvers it's way into a position of no checks and balances? Who's going to speak up then? I can say that I do not enjoy the prospect of a world government.

_ War may be wrong, and sure conflicts can be solved by peacefull means. Sadly the way things should be and the way things are are two different realities. You can say that we should condemn war but war(or at least conflict) is still there and will always be. So should we turn our heads to reality and nit pick the reality of war just because we think it's wrong. It's like the topic of this thread. Human rights are something we all feel should be a reality, but is it? Were we to sit around putting sanctions on Hitler while he kept slaughtering by the millions. War may be wrong, and we know we should find more peacefull solutions I we are able, but I wouldn't say that there are no right sides.

Point B is inacurate. Sports does benifit society. It's entertainment for the world, setting up social activity and comradery between those who enjoy the same activities. No matter where they're from, what religion, or nationality, they can find common interests. I do agree they get paid intirely too much. As far as the distribution goes, as an American I am adamently against the redistribution of other people's private property. Whether it be money or anything else for any reason. As a free person you have the choice to make the right decisions in life. And the amount of money one pays an employee is obviously based on the amount of money brought in by product or service. The fact that an employer wants to pay a certain price for one job while another employer wants to pay a lower price for another job isn't the fault of the employee. We all make desicions about where we want to work based on afew things such as skill and enjoyment, and money plays a big role in our employment aspirations. If you redestributed the money of higher paying jobs people would only aspire to be what they enjoyed doing. No one enjoys refuse. You could say they might if they were getting paid more, but I would say they wouldn't if they could just as easily get paid for doing something they enjoyed. I don't have any quick fix ideas for solving the worlds problems. But what I do know is the more of people's property that gets redistributed(forcibly taken) the less free those people are. Where would the funding from research come from? That could be something else for a government beaurocracy to run into the ground. Picking which research gets funded depending on the ideology of time.

Of all the developed countries in world, look how many are touched by recent economic strife. Like having your own countryman's problems to deal with isn't enough, now they want us to shell out money to them to redistribute how they see fit? Give up our defense programs so they will get the chance to be the biggest super power in the world? Next they'll ban weapons altogether and invite us over for a bar-b-que. None of this will ever fly in america. If we need to give money to a good cause then we probably would, and we're fine with that. But try to push something down our throats and we tend to get a little stubborn. ahhh, sweet independance, it's candy for the soul. Okay, lets say for some unimaginable reason this thing is passed in the future. The UN will be allowed to allocate the funds, but who will be held accountable for making sure it gets spent properly. Does anyone here believe that a country, like North Korea or Iran for example, would spend money on carbon emmisions rather than more nuc's. I think it's outrageous to want to give someone so much power over the world even if it's for the "greater good". I've said it before and I'll sasy it again, One man's good intensions can easily become another man's nightmare.

I was commenting on the use of "torture" by the U.S. at Guantanamo. I don't believe it should be labeled as such. All the techniques used were to either scare or to make someone uncomfortable. If we started breaking their bones or spilling blood to get information during an interrogation, I would concede to the fact that it would be torture. But what I've heard so far on the subject only amounts to annoying a prisoner into giving up information. War is brutal. The more brutal a war is, the quicker it is over. I think it was General Patton who said that and I believe it holds true. It might be a naive notion for peace around the world, but the idea is commendable. There will always be conflict as long as two people remain on this earth. Banning war is impossible. When enough people are prepared to give up there lives for a cause, there is little anyone can do to change it. Putting a ban on war around the world would take a new world order that can dominate and police every country. That in itself would insight global war. One man's good intentions can become another man's nightmare. The best we can hope for is that our society, when in conflict, does it for the right reasons.

The U.S. constitution is not a World constitution and so doesn't apply to foreign nationals. Only to provide protection for those who live under it. The department of defense has the jurisdiction. The only law under the geneva convention that prisoners at guantanamo bay applied was article 3. That I didn't agree with either and didn't think it fully applied to our cituation. Not to mention that humane and war only conflict with each other. War is ugly no matter who is fighting and is impossible to be humane by definition. I do concede on the point that cutting a head off would be murder, not torture. But personally I would rather be put in a position to be uncomfortable than have my head cut off.

I can see the glass the glass half empty side of this subject, but I prefer to use a different size glass. With the technological advancement of the past century or two I believe we have a good chance of surviving. Whether it is colonizing other planets or living on an ever growing space ship, all things can be possible. (hopefully) We just have to keep heading in the right direction.

Yes I believe I understand the fundamentals of the theory, but since we can measure the negative pressure of space's vacuum we should be able to tell if it is getting stronger. Which is how vacuum would work if space were expanding. Am I right or did I misunderstand how a vacuum works? Another thing bothered me about black holes forming in the primordial soup after the big bang. It was said there were densities great enough to cause black holes which they refer to as primortial black holes. Wouldn't a primortial soup give black holes enough material to grow until almost all existing material had either fallen in or had been suspended in the event horizon.(minus that which would be ejected) And if there were a black hole that fed off of primortial soup wouldn't it be larger than anything that we know exists? If this were true it would be seen in the cosmic microwave background? If not, then either primortial soup didn't exist, black holes weren't formed in it, or there has to be another reason for the black holes not to grow and be shown through the cmb. I would love to hear some feed back on this. And if anyone knows if there were ever any studies done on changing vacuum strengths in space, I would be interested. My thoughts now after reading about the cosmological constant is that if vacuum isn't getting stronger, then it might make better scince that the universe might just be moving instead of expanding. My knowledge on these subjects is lacking due to just recently taking an interest, so please correct me when I'm painfully wrong.

I don't know much about survival in that sort of climate, but the first thing that comes to mind would be a problem with providing a and maintaining a heat source to stay warm. Then the only thing to use for warm clothing would be seals, pinguins, and such. You might catch them fairly easier if not near the water, but near the water the odds would drop dramatically. With a source of heat that can naturally be found on the continent it might be possible, but extremely hard.