JustinW

After reading a little about vacuum and expansion of the universe I came across some things which I didn't quite understand and couldn't find an answer for. If space is a vacuum and is expanding, shouldn't the vacuum of space grow proportionately to that expansion? It seems to me that if space between matter grows to cause the negative pressure in a vacuum to grow, then the universe would somehow have to cyclically feed itself to keep a somewhat steady measurement of vacuum. Even allowing room for fluctuation. This is of course assuming on my part since I couldn't find any information on the changes in measurement for the vacuum of space. Just what the measurements were, so I assumed they were somewhat constant. Another question is, how is it possible for dark energy to have no effect on the attraction of gravity on one scale but have such a big inpact on a cosmological scale? You would think that dark energy having an effect that we can see and measure in the cosmos would also have an identical effect on a galactic level or smaller.

I hold the same belief on child education, and all of academia for that matter. Universities lean hard toward certain ideologies too. Although it could be said that it's been that way for a long time. As far as the moral and ethical argument goes, there is always and has always been such an argument. But the point I was trying to make was that in reality, just because things SHOULD be a certain way doesn't mean that they ARE that way. So just because they ought to have rights doesn't mean they have them. The UN does use force pretty often and that force is backed and funded on large by the US. My point there was about the tactics that can be applied without the use of force. It might have been a bad analogy on my part about the one holding the gun, but in reality it is ultimately true. The part I have bolded was the part in which I didn't really agree. I don't believe making someone uncomfortable should be classified as torture. If we were to start breaking bones or cutting peoples heads off, (like some of our current enemies have done in recent past) I would say it's torture. Civil courts are in place for criminal acts. As both sides have DECLARED war, I would say that it is beyond criminal, and there for in the jurisdiction of the military. Even with all of that I still believe we are and will remain in the forefront of protecting the treatment of those around the world.

I also do not believe the universe is expanding or will expand infinately. I have heard dark energy used to explain the expansion, but there is the fact that something will have to produce that energy. If that energy is not being produced then it will eventually be depleated allowing the gravity from within the universe to cause contraction. I have also thought; if the universe is expanding on such a scale, then maybe it could be caused by vacuum greater than that of space by whatever it is that surrounds the universe.

I believe concept is the key word here. The acceptance of the lowest level of treatment will only work if the one holding the gun accepts the limitation. But as zapatos mentioned the choice of morallity is on the one with the most influence whether it be power, political influence, or control of commerce, etc... How can one still have a right when that right can be denied. Again like zapato had mentioned, it is not only those that can defend by force, but those with the weight to influence. It doesn't necessarily mean power of force. The U.N. uses it's influence all the time without force. But yes, if some are stubborn it ultimately will come down to a show of force. Many people may believe it's up to the larger society to defend the defenseless, but the rest of the world doesn't feel that way to the degree of doing something about it. There are too many examples around the world to think otherwise. I think this could get us into another debate entirely. First it would have to be debated if the authorized treatment of those prisoners can be concidered inhumane. And what rights were broken in the treatment of those prisoners.

This was along the lines of my thoughts on the subject. Strength determines the rules and adherance of those rules. So can one use the infringement of "human rights" to a make a ligitamate argument about the treatment of POW's?

I have been musing over the legitamacy of "human rights" after running into the term on several occasions throughout different conversations. Questions always come to mind such as ; What are human rights? Who decides what rights to give? And if they are legitimate or not? Can human rights only be given by those who hold the greatest power over those to whom the rights are given? If human rights are given with the intent of good intentions can and will it disperrage others who feel differently, thereby conflicting with their want of certain rights? In the constitution of the United States it speaks of God given rights. These rights can also be infringed upon by a power that is greater than the people who claim these rights. So the question remains. Is there such a thing as human rights as being self evident or is it just a gift of those who hold power? This was most recently brought up in a conversation on prisoners of war. It was said by others that a prisoner of war had rights. But my first thought was that that depended on who held the prisoner. That a prisoners rights are determined by the captor? People argue about where the line is crossed. I'm wondering who draws the line in the first place. I am also wondering if human rights were to be such a thing there would have to be a world government to police these rights. I know that the U.N. has touched on this subject before, but they hardly qualify as a world government able to ensure such rights, even with the policing they are apart of around the world. I would like to have a dialect on this that may bring me to a better understand of "human rights" and if they are feasable or just a bunch of babble for people to bicker about.

I will have to think about this a little. I have heard mathematics referred to as language and being such should grow universally to explain things around us. For that reason it should grow with discovery. Once solution to discovery is established it remains a true statement and can only change or grow when the entity being evaluated changes in some manner. Then the language only changes to xplain that change. This is how I see it anyway. I'm not currently up to date on the limitations of mathematical physics, so I will have to take your word for it.

I think he was using the time analogy as a refrence to mathematics being man made. Although mathematics aren't made up of physical elements does not mean that mathematics are not real or constant. Things in the universe change, changing the math that is applyed to them. But the math is still consistant and real without having to have physical properties to touch.

As to the OP, since you can get meaning from some languages that you can't from others, wouldn't it make since that this influences our thought processes much like the events of life influence our actions. Sure you might can think of all possibilities no matter which language you use, but the way you think about it might ifluence your thought path in a certain direction depending on language(meaning). Thought about in this context it could be an enabler when it comes to higher thought. But it could also work the other way and give one a path to higher thought or cognition.

I would agree with you on this if it were an individual or select few that do the act. It is not the case with the current "War on Terror". This is several organizations, who themselves make a declaration of war against people of certain countries, ethnisities, and religions, who have a certain goal in mind. Just because they do not have the man power and resources that we do as a whole they have to revert to tactics we classify as acts of terror. If they did have the capabilities and man power to engage us in a more frontal way, I am pretty certain they would. So with that being the case I would not classify that as only criminal but also as an act of war. I don't see your point here. I don't remember the media glorifying terrorism before 9-11 and that was definitely an escalation of violence. I'm going to have to give this one some thought. I can't say I agree completely, but I also do not disagree. I can understand and half heartedly agree with you. This is what I was saying before in my previous post about having to decide if the precieved outcome is worth giving up our freedoms( or convenience on the lower end of the spectrum) to avoid. And my father didn't vote, but he sure had a loud opinion that I only agreed with 50% of the time. edited for spelling

If I've given up any personal freedoms as a result of terrorism and our policies concerning terrorism, then I haven't noticed. I believe we have given up more of our freedoms through policies that have dealt with other subjects, far more than we have as a result of our terror policies. Policies are always made that infringe on our liberties and freedoms for the so called "greater good". But I personally have felt no affect on my freedom as a result of our anti-terrorism policies. Or at least not yet. Things always have a way of getting out of hand I suppose. I guess you could argue that point by looking at airport security and such, and you would have me there. But we should be judging every other policy in the same way. Those that are supposed to be for our protection as a whole, we need to ask ourselves if the end result is a good enough reason to give up our liberties. I see your point. It does seem obsurred to hold someone so long when evidence was at hand and facts were obvious that the man was in custody for the wrong reasons.

Let me explain the reson for making this comment. I meant that they wouldn't label someone as a terrorist without having a reason. I was unaware of the cases like this in other countries. We were commenting on U.S. law, and as far as I know there have been no such cases in the U.S. It seems this is wrong. They didn't just call him a terrorist, they had connections between people he knew that were extremists. They seemed to have a reason even if they didn't tell the public what those reasons were. So I don't think it's fair to say that they just call someone a terrorist. It makes it sound like governments are just pulling people off the streets at random. Ah, imatfaal I concede and stand corrected. But I will also have to say that a prisoners rights are still in the hands of the captor. Just because most countries try to follow international law doesn't mean that everyone does. I'm not sure I agree with this one Captain. Just because more people die of other things doesn't mean we need to ignore terrorism as an "insignificant" problem. When someone declares war on you or your country I think it is a problem that needs to be adressed and taken seriously. If previous presidents here in the states had taken a tougher stance on terrorism in the past, we probably could have avoided as big a cotastrophy as 9-11. By treating terrorism as an act of war instead of a criminal act, we can use better resources and make a stronger stance in preventing future attacks that may be as bad , if not worse, than 9-11.

That doesn't say anything about someone's civil rights being changed in the U.S. That was just a list of articles talking about human rights. Which can also be debated but I think might get us off subject. But as far as civil rights in the U.S., I don't think the recent war has done anything to go against them. Name one incident where something like this has happened. An enemy combatant has never had a civil trial or civil rights. If someone is fighting for the other side why shouldn't they be treated as such?

or you could measure distance with a clock. I don't know... It was just the first thing that popped into my head while reading the question. It makes scence to me, but you could only start measuring once the sphere reached terminal velocity. Not to mention it would have be one hell of a long ruler or time would stop. (figuratively speaking)

I don't know... mine has a droopy looking stare that makes me wonder. He just might be judging me but doesn't care enough to say so. Sure animals have emotions. I had a dalmation as a kid that was digging a hole out in the front yard. I came around the house and she turned to greet me when she tripped in the hole she had just dug. She sat down abruptly and it was the first time I had seen an animal actually look embarrassed.

An excellent idea I think. Maybe since the cost is so high to imprison we could fight it in other ways. The first thing would be to flat out deny benifits to those who are found to be abusing the system. Then we could think about enforcing some sort of judicial punishment such as fines and probation to pay the money back that was defrauded from the program. Like you said, the cost would be substantial. But the overall outcome if successful would be benificial towards gaining acceptance and willingness to comprimise from both the right and left sides of the isle.

They would still have follow a certain criteria when labeling someone a terrorist. They can't just call someone a terrorist a detain them. I haven't heard of a protestor yet that has been labeled as a terrorist for speaking against the government. I don't recall this. Who's civil rights were changed back then? As I recall an enemy combatant being held by the U.S. has never had civil rights. We've always held prisoners of war without giving a specific detention time. As far as citizens that are labeled as terrorists, there would have to be evidence to back up the claim. Once there is sufficient evidence to support the claim then they should be treated as such.

After reading conversations on the subject of public or private I can understand the points made by both sides of the isle. The first sentence of your last paragraph I think is spot on. I would have to add something to the second line of the paragraph though. It is true that nobody gets where they are without the help of others. What I would add is that the burden is theirs and theirs alone to make the right decisions to get them in a position to be helped by others. I think this is a key factor in the debate of intitlement programs and privatization. Alot of people don't want to pay in to help someone that won't help themselves or haven't made the right choices in life. And don't missunderstand, I believe there are those out there that do need help and some that may be in a bad position through no falt of their own that need help. But there are also alot of others that take advantage of such programs and it is these kind that make people feel that way. But a stricter enforcement of laws against illagitimate claims and fraud would go along way towards making the programs more fiscally sound and acceptable to those on both sides of the argument. I also don't believe in privatizing libraries and such. It should be up to a community to pay for places that enrich the lives of the people that share that community.

I agree. Kind of like day dreaming while you sleep. I think I remember something along the lines that people only dream at the most wakefull stage of their REM cycle.

Maybe because 2 D's might cross at the same T disrupting the outcome of the D you're looking for at the T you're looking for it. Unless I misunderstood.

Superball, You still don't tell us how you have come to these predictions. Sure you give a list of probabilities(although without percentage) and possible causes for stress on the Earth's crust, but you still haven't explained how you can put the two factors (or any factors) together to base a prediction off of. The amount of earthquakes that happen with that magnitude or greater in a ten day period does have relevance with the prediction. It would establish percentages to base predictions from. Since you have not provided enough information to link between probability and cause it is quite difficult to understand the method in which you are using. Even if you can somehow calculate the levels of stress that affect probability, you would have to reveal your secrets to get me to think that you didn't base your prediction from the percentage of ocurrance. According to the USGS Earthquake maps there were 18 earthquakes with a magnitude of 4.98 to 6.6 since the 13th of Nov. So percentages are on the side of the predictor who is predicting a mag.6 earthquake will hit within 10 days.

The company I work for contracts to a resource company such as that. I don't know how far around the globe their reach is, but I bet it's pretty far. Still under Phi's 51% proposal they would have to pay a foreign tax and would not be able to influence U.S. law makers and regulatory agencies. I say that, but everybody knows that money talks and BS walks.

I dont' think that could have been said any better. That's funny that you mentioned GE. I was just having a conversation about how they corner their markets by using the EPA and other environmental agencies. GE spends alot of it's efforts on environmental enginuity. Once they achieve a level far greater than the ability of their competitor ,they then go to the regulatory body and suggest that their level of quality set the standard. Which forces others out of the market for the lack of technology to achieve that level of standard. Sure the technology is there to learn and be used by others, but by that time GE is already at the head of the market. So do you think that their spin on taking an environmental stand point is about environment or buisness. I've heard some wierd things about, GE such as their tax write -offs. It would be interesting to see how many taxes a company that large has to shell out.

I also agree that we shouldn't police the world. But we definitely have to have a strong stance when the outcome of another country's dealings have a direct affect on us.I too can understand removing cannibus from the Controlled Substance Act, but I think it's easier said than done. A reform to medicaid and social security is an absolute necessity. The amount of fraud throughout those programs are running those programs into the ground. We need to better control those programs and defend against fraudulent claims that take the resources away from those who actually need them. Should monopolies be regulated to remain honest? Regulation of buisness can come from both ends of the spectrum. Government puts regulation on buisness to protect against corruption, but the public also regulate by not buying into the buisness once it's found to be corrupt. Then it will eventually fail or it's competetor will rise. So I guess the question that I'm asking myself is, should the Federal Government regulate morallity?