JustinW

Owl, Have you read the thread opened by Daedalus on a theory of Temporal Uniformity? I'm not quite sure I wrapped my mind around the particulars but it called for some interesting reading on the subject of time and why it is impossible to travel in.

You are nothing. If nothing were something, which would be a different teaser alltogether. Only nothing, used as a noun, can be and cannot be at the same time. One could ask "what is in the box?", you could say "nothing.". Or one could ask "what is in the box?", one could say "you" if what you are is "nothing".

To my way of thinking the OP is looking at fulfillment on a scale of 1-10. It's either a 10 or it's a 1 with no inbetween. I've heard it put this way about depression. Most people that are depressed have to be at a 10 on the happiness scale. If they aren't at 10 then they think what's the use. My personal opinion would be to set a goal of about 6. I think overall it will be more satisfactory. To feel like you've accomplished something without the need to affect everything. And the inbetweens? At least you wouldn't beat yourself up about things you couldn't control, and might maintain some balance.

I believe this was the reason for me to attribute brain activity with personhood. It was an arguement you made. Although I am still not sure that personhood doesn't start before brain activity. When an embrio gets the chromosomes from both parents they have the building blocks that make it an individual. Wouldn't that individuality constitute personhood? Analogies? A pile of building material is not listed as a residence because it can still be built into something else. Ford could have chosen another career path. I doubt a fetus that is concieved by humans will be born anything but a human. Also, the natural abortion by the human body is different from a conscious choice to abort. I don't concider the conscious act of abortion to be natural since it is most likely a reason that could be construde as selfish. China needs to get tougher on their abandonment laws. Abortion still isn't manditory in China to control population. No one can ever know for sure the outcome of a childs wellfare before it is born. So to argue that abortion is ethical on the grounds of eliminating the suffering of a child wouldn't work in my way of thinking.

The house is a box.

Brain activity is detected between the fifth and sixth week of gestation. So by point of brain activity constituting personality, the limit would be 5-6 weeks. Most abortions takeplace after that period of time. Using another analogy on the subject: If a random person went into a hospital room and smothered a patient who was brain dead would that be considered murder? If we allow brain activity to define personhood then someone who has lost brain function would no longer be a person. I think if life starts at conception and the outcome of that life is personhood, then why not define that life as being a person. Probably the majority of the people that argue against birth control do it for religious reasons. I know that catholics have a firm stance against birth control and i'm sure there are other religions that hold similar beliefs.

I was just pointing out the fact that the analogy was putting pregnancy in the same category as STD's. Like a pregnancy was something to be medically treated as such. Even though I believe that was not the intention of that statement. My personal thoughts on the subject is that there is no good excuse for an abortion unless the mother is in a life threatening situation. Otherwise I see the act of abortion as selfish. To terminate a potential life because of uncomfortable circumstances or just because it is unwanted seems flat out self centered. I also think that life starts at the point of conception. When a plant seed begins to sprout it would be considered a live plant wouldn't it? When something enters a condition of growth would be my personal definition of life. The human seed enters that condition at conception.

Yeah it is pretty brief. I looked into it a little more and didn't know how many states had already passed legislation on so called Enlgish-Only Laws. But I agree you have proved your point that 1 regulation so specific is not enough to establish such a thing. Even when I think about it another way, adding an official language either way would be a hard piece of legislation to enforce.

I wouldn't say it is unofficial. It is actually a law that if broken a company can be fined a substatial amount of money for. And, since it is FEDERAL law it would make it official, wouldn't it? You can check it out if you like. It is Title 30 Code of Federal Regulations part 47.42 paragraph (a). A punishable law seems official to me.

The thing I am trying to wrap my mind around is the what. What does does a clock measure? Motion from point A to point B? Is time a physical thing that has substance? A human's perception of motion from point A to point B? Can measurement differ at the same point in space or is it a constant? I saw the science channel doing a show on time. A guy was doing a study on perception. He placed a subject in front of a computer and had them click on a spot on the monitor with their mouse. When they clicked the spot he had set a flash to go of at a fraction of a second after the click. After doing this for a set amount of time he reset the time of the flash to go off at the same instant as the click of the mouse. The subject believed the flash was going off before they even hit the mouse button, and percieved this for another alotted amount of time. Do you guys think that this was a convincing study that time could be more perceptive than a physical state?

I see your point, but time as presented as (past,present,and future), wouldn't mean the rocket showed up in the future. It would mean the inner dynamics or matabolism of the human body slowed to reduce deterioration. (aging) Would you happen to have a link to a study that was performed on this at different intervals and their outcomes? If I understand what you're saying correctly,(not sure), is that time and space have to be proportionate. And the speed limit of information is the speed of light, as far as we know so far. If this is true wouldn't information traveling slower than c ,the limit, proportionately slow down in time. And theoretically anything traveling faster than c, speed up in time. If so anything in between would speed up or slow down in time depending on the speed at which the information was traveling. I think I have started to ramble, missed something, and utterly confused myself. Please ellaborate on this uneducated guesswork I call questions.

I don't think it's a good idea to pair abortion with population control. Next thing you know some government will make it mandatory. This thread did bring a couple of questions to mind on the subject. Why is it that people say "women's right to chose"? I understand that it's a womans body that takes the punishment in childbirth but as they say, "it takes two to tango". Is it ethically right to exclude a possible father from the scenario. And further, would abortion be ethically right since the father is excluded from the decision making? I belive women are educated on birth control. Having daughters I feel maybe a little too soon. But I also believe that it is a parents job to teach these things and instill the morality they want their children to base their decisions on. I don't agree with some but am still a believer. I'm not sure I agree with this either. Looking at abortion as a treatment against pregnancy (something wrong), may be a bad analogy.

A lot of food for thought though. But if it is energy density that slows down time, then it would theoretically be impossible to travel backwards in time, right? And my appologies about the quote. I was in a hurry.

I think your mixing two different things. (Man made and Nature made.) Global warming is not proven and nuclear reaction is found in many different places naturally. And what do you mean by guilty? Guilty of what? I don't understand. Science compensating for humanity? I'm really lost.

Owl, I didn't see that you moved your post untill after I had posted but I have a question. Although I agree with the "making time itself into something" statement, 1 Earth year out and 1 Earth year back still equal 2 earth years. Are you suggesting that age is comparible with the speed in which they travel?

To revisit 'another time, another thread, another thought experiment'...It takes Earth 'a year' to orbit the Sun. But if a rocket blasted off from Earth and went near lightspeed out for an Earth year and back for another Earth year, the rocket's clock/calendar might show that only one 'speeding rocket year' had elapsed, because its clock had slowed down with high velocity relative to Earth. The voyagers would have, I presume, only aged a year as well, while folks on Earth would have aged two Earth years. This is, I think, consistent with relativity without making "time itself" into "something" besides different relative rates of physical motion for Earth and its inhabitants vs a speeding rocket and its passengers. Owl, Although I agree with the statement about making "time itself" into "something", if the rocket went out 1 Earth year and back 1 Earth year it would still equal 2 Earth years. So are you saying that age depends on how fast you travel? sorry for messing up the quotations

I work quite a bit with federal regulations and under the reg for HAZ-COM labeling it states that labels have to be marked clearly and in english. By having a federal law that mandates the use of english wouldn't that indirectly make english the U.S.'s official language.

"No. It happens without regard to the mass — it's been tested with multiple kinds of clocks and with radiation as well. It is independent of the mass or the mechanism, unless the mechanism has an explicit dependence on g, such as a pendulum clock." So what was found was that the affect of time on the mechanism was greater than the affect that gravity would have on the mechanism?

Couldn't time be a constant and gravity just affects the mechanism or substance that is being measured, because gravity affects anything with mass? And, if gravity affects time then wouldn't time itself have mass? If not, then time is a steady constant and everything else is affected. Right?

Ah, well spoken. Although the text books were way out of her league, I understand the implication and should have thought of that sooner. I will start her on an allowance. I believe it may encourage several different life skills. Thank you all for your insite, it has been a help.

wannabe, The middle of the night is sometime after everyone goes to sleep. I have caught her in the "cookie jar" sometimes at 2 or 3 in the morning. Other than this behavior she is fine. A straight A student who never gets in trouble at school and otherwise acts just fine. I thought at first that it might be an attention problem having 2 younger sisters, and it might be to a small extent, but she doesn't show any other behaviors that indicate this. I do like the idea of possitive reinforcement. We have tried that to a small extent and I've always thought that if we were to do this steadily it might have a more possitive affect than punishment. And I'm also inclined to agree with Appolinaria since it is a small amount as to try to be undetected. I've asked myself before "why not?", it's not like she's gorging herself into diabetic shock. I was just concerned that the behavior might morph into something that could get her into trouble later on in life. Her overall character doesn't send up any red flags though, so I will start looking at it from a possitive point of view and give it some time, see what happens. As for not keeping junk food in the house I would have one heck of a time. My wife is a stay at home mom who loves to cook and bake. Even though I say JUNK FOOD, it is not only. Just anything sweet or tasty.

She is perfectly healthy. I have brought this up with her doctor. The stealing coupled in with the dishonesty seems like a bad habit on steroids. I have never gotten a latigitimate reason from her. Just "I was hungry." or "I don't know.". And the junk food really doesn't concern me with her being as healthy as she is. when she does steal it she only steals enough to get away with.(so she thinks) The health factor might become an issue for her later in life, but right now it's the act that scares me. I used to think it was a lack of concern for the consequences. I just hope she doesn't carry the habit into adulthood. As for grandma, It's a shame the human body can't take more amps.

I have an 8 year old girl who is the oldest of 3 girls. A few years back, after visiting her granmother, she started getting into the habit of stealing junk food in the middle of the night. Her grandma started the idea that it was alright for her to have junk food when ever she wanted it, no matter what her mother and I wanted. I believe this may have started something that was easier to start than to stop. We've tried punishing her with grounding, writing sentences, reading text books and the like. None of that seems to work. No matter how well we hide the junk food she seems to find it. I wouldn't say that it is an all around stealing problem because she seems to only steal junk food. I've ruled out a hunger issue because of her appetite at the supper table and after school snacks. I figured for a while she might be getting hungry in the middle of the night. I would appreciate some feed back on the issue.

Would time possibly just be a persons perseption of motion? I've seen a study that was trying to link time perseption in the brain to schytsophrinia. Also told a story of a person who seemed to slow down in time and the world around him was moving impossibly faster than he was. He subsequentially died of a brain tumor sometime later. I also never liked the clock analigy. I've heard people say that the higher the altitude, the slower the clock would tick. I assumed the clock would still be powered by the same battery. It's not like a clock is a time detector. So would it be fair to say that motion is the reality and time is man made?

I guess I'm lost. I think we went from stars being organisms to god creating the universe because he had nothing better to do. Quite a leap.