npts2020

Martin: The clarifications are nice and help toward having a more exact understanding of what is being talked about. Cosmology is, imo, a very interesting subject that really goes to the heart of what science is all about, describing the world around yourself from observation and experiment. Many things are universally well defined and understood from this method but more than a few are not. Who has ever seen a universe created to know if there was time before it? We are getting close to being able to see the creation of our own but I am skeptical as to how definitive the findings from things like LHC and W-MAP are going to be. The exciting part of these projects to me is that they will almost certainly rule out some if not all but one of the scenarios. But isn't that the fun of cosmology, wild speculation, within the limits of applying what has been observed and is known to be true?

I believe that to be the case. If one cannot act ethically within their own moral code it is usually called hypocrisy and would infer to me that there is something lacking in that persons moral view. Firstly, I thought you were talking about anyone in general taking him for treatment but even if we only consider doctors, wouldn't it be a violation of personal ethics to take an oath that you knowingly couldn't live up to? Would it not be immoral to take up a profession that contradicted your own ethical world view (eg. a doctor who knows he would not treat a homosexual)?

CaptainPanic: You could power your entire country with a walkman............for maybe an attosecond.

Well, cosmology (and much cutting edge science as well) is by its nature speculative and imo impossible to discuss without some resort to speculation. Personally I know so little about time that I haven't decided whether it is an intrinsic property of the universe or a completely artificial human construct or even if one or the other matters. However, with my meager knowledge of the subject, I would speculate that time extends well beyond human perception, seemingly infinite, but not so in fact. How's that for waffling? SamWalker: Run along now. Don't forget your pitchfork and torch on the way out.

Thanks for the clarifications. I really have no concrete opinion about time before the big bang even though I don't particularly like the idea of infinity applying to the real world. However, IMO if you obviate time before then, some sort of explanation of how time comes into existence is desirable. Is time finite in one direction only, both directions or not at all?

Americans just have lots of laws. Most felonies are drug related and the majority of them never go to trial as the offender will "cop a plea" or agree to plead guilty to a lesser offense without a trial, eg. a drug dealer may agree to plead guilty to possession with intent to distribute instead of going to trial for running an ongoing criminal enterprise (the penalties vary state to state but the later will recieve a harsher sentence in almost every case). In other words you take a lighter sentence or take your chances on a trial. Considering well over 80% of adult Americans have done an illegal drug sometime during their lifetime........well you get the idea. IMO the "war on drugs" is far more about making money than helping anyone. Kinda makes you wonder why the rate isn't more like 1 in 10 huh?

I think a better discussion would be what is the best mix of socialism and free markets. For instance, why is it necessary to have a profit motive for things like banking, basic health care, or insurance? I don't think anyone here is ready to give up government altogether but if its job is to look out for the citizenry what kind of interventions are needed to do this and to what extent?

Hitler is a poor example in this case because in a world where the accepted protocol for imposing your will over an irreversibly intransigent opponent is by killing him, I fail to see how letting him die would be unethical. Also I don't believe that ethics has much to do with thoughts, only actions and as you say usually involving other people. Isn't it unethical to do that which you yourself consider to be immoral (by lusting am I not being both immoral and unethical if I am in fact being either)?

I kinda like the U.S.ofA. but I can think of a few I wish would emmigrate. Trouble is that no other place would likely accept them.

Good discussion. One thing I would definitely call finite is our ability to percieve and understand the universe.

So you are claiming either no time exists before the beginning of our universe or that time was created with our universe? On what are you basing this?

In some states you have to go so far as to petition the governor for re-enfranchisement and may still be turned down then.

CaptainPanic: In the primaries during the spring (different dates for different states, hence the long time for deciding between clinton and obama) you may only vote for your own party candidates with a couple of exceptions (virginia allows cross-party voting during primaries, most don't). Sometimes people do exactly what you describe and vote for the worst of the other party but the numbers generally are supposed to be insignificant. In addition to president every 4 years, every member of the house of representitives must run for re-election every 2 years and senators every 6 years (or about 1/3 of the senate this year). Depending on your state and locality you may be voting for someone for everything from governor or (state) supreme court judge to prothonotary or town council representitive. Then you have ballot initiatives which may number from zero to a dozen or more and address almost any topic you can imagine government being involved in. Ballot initiatives generally only allow a yes or no vote. All of these things will be on a single ballot but you are not required to vote on everything (or even anything, there have been blank ballots turned in) but you may still only vote for one person for each vacant office (otherwise they disqualify your vote). Ballots will list the names of the candidate for any party, even third parties, that has met requirements for being listed (usually just collecting enough valid signatures on a petition) but you may also write in the name of anyone for any office if you wish to do so. I have never heard of a write-in candidate winning anywhere but the smallest of jurisdictions and under exceptional circumstances. I hope this brief summary helps.

Pangloss: The director of ACORN was on the Diane Rehm show on NPR yesterday and said that all of the members of their organization ever convicted (I think she said 6) of voter fraud were done so with the help of ACORN. The interview was quite interesting and she really took the man claiming voter fraud to task over lack of evidence for his claims. I don't doubt that everything possible is being done to try to "rig" the election but if it was ACORN doing it I would think the case would be much more straight forward and easier to prove, considering the number of people and methods involved. john5746: It has been done before and will probably happen again. Get caught though and you will go to jail. BTW ID and voter registration cards are easy enough to fake if required.

Can unethical behavior ever be considered moral?

If you can figure out exactly how energy is not conserved, you may have the basis of a perpetual motion machine. Personally I like the laws of conservation of energy, momentum etc. They fit the observed phenomena soooo well.

First learn about reactors and reactor configuration, that will give you an idea of minimum size and weight requirements to sustain a fission reaction. Afterwards you can work on miniaturization of other components. It was quite an engineering feat to make a usable one small enough for a submarine. I am not one to often call things impossible but in order to achieve anything close to what you are talking about, it will require overcoming technical hurdles that have confounded others for decades. BTW submarines already use HEU so you will not gain much from further refining.

Catharsis: You have begun to try to understand something that scientists still are researching aspects of. Don't give up if you can't understand everything at first, it is not as easy as watching "Ameican Idol" (not to imply that you do). The concepts you are asking about are important for understanding many areas of science.

Part of the question comes down to the definition of infinity. Is it merely any number so big as to be incomprehensible or is it an impossible concept (what is infinity plus one)? By the first definition I would certainly say the universe is currently infinite, the second is far less certain and borders on impossible IMHO.

Arch2008: On what basis are you saying time is finite?

Put a crisp new $100 dollar bill in an envelope and send it to me. I will see to it that the asteroid does not collide with the earth on that day.

Why would distance between objects or mass make any difference then?

Actually federal judges are nominated by the president and approved by a simple majority of the Senate (which in reality needs more support if a filibuster is threatened). Every state has its own system though, some elected, some appointed.

Personally I like the idea of free markets but there will always have to be some limitations, e.g. you can't allow someone to build nuclear bombs and sell them to the highest bidder. Regulation implies government and some sort of ethical judgments about what is to be allowed or not. Some economists like to claim ethical neutrality but in reality they make all sorts of ethical judgments to reach their conclusions (a good one is how much is a future life worth compared to one today). The problem comes when two people disagree about what comprises "ethical" behavior, this is a cause of much disagreement in economics and one reason I can think of why economic models don't work as well as we would like.

Pangloss: And you have not seen me comment about the effects of an open border, which is quite different from allowing any qualified applicant to gain citizenship. The problem comes when you don't inquire any further what "qualified applicant" means and assume it means anyone who applies. The current definitions used by DHS, are what I am talking about unless stated otherwise. I am probably a little slower than some but I still don't see where this sort of immigration has been discussed in most of the posts (not just yours) so far.