EdEarl

Room for improvement is a human condition. It shouldn't be used as an exclusive reason to abandon something in need of improvement.

Texas politicians are mostly god fearing, and trying to change school curriculum to exclude evolution and include creationism (demigod...demigism) and we now have a law that allows one to carry a gun almost anywhere to protect themselves from citizens (i.e., social studies target practice).

The government in Taxachusetts is demigism, and to get an A in social studies requires five out of five bulls eyes on the final.

I'd check out the mountains of Honduras, where one can have eternal spring.

I think picking on bureaucratic inefficiency is a convenient political tactic that a challenger can use against an incumbent. The government is large. All large organizations have inefficiencies. Since corporations aren't the responsibility of an incumbent, it is not possible to blame an incumbent for corporate maladies. Their problems don't become public knowledge very often, but governmental problems are frequently news. Unfortunately, I fear gross governmental inefficiency is a straw dog.

What role should bureaucratic efficiency play in determining whether a program is passed to a corporation (or not), whether a program is established, continued or abandoned, whether funding is increased or reduced, etc? Moreover, how does one measure such efficiency? In the past, mental institutions existed to house people who were incapable of caring for themselves or who were a danger to themselves or perhaps to others. For several reasons they have largely been shut down and patients released onto the streets. Now, mentally incapable people are living in various places, including prison, homeless, or family. Is it right to force a mentally incapable person onto the streets, leaving them with no recourse except begging and theft to survive, and when they are caught stealing food prosecute and imprison them? Is lack of care for mental patients really an efficient use of funds? Is it really cost effective to keep a non-violent mental patient in prison rather than a mental ward? Is it ethical? What are the ramifications of forcing families to house mental patients, especially if they have small children? Why consider efficiency when mentally incompetent homeless people die from exposure, neglect, or police bullet on a regular basis? Who are we? Is Scrooge our role model? It seems to me there are way too many emotional sound bytes, and too little rational thinking about social programs in the US.

During the Cold War our adversaries was the USSR, a socialist country, which led to the word socialism being maligned US. I know new generations have grown, and the word may not be as tainted. I suspect it still is to a lesser degree. In addition, the GOP is typically against social programs. Social programs are a necessary part of government policy, and if you believe people should not suffer then more programs are needed. IMO the critical issues relate to child rearing. There should be no latch key kids. Mothers and children should be supported to assure no child lives in poverty so severe they are hungry, ill clothed, without shelter or in need of medical care. I have a neighbor, a veteran of WWII, who is in his 80s. He faces living in a substandard nursing home, because our social services are poor. He has a home, and prefers to live there, but cannot get the help he needs to stay there. IDK what will happen to him. I think he will end up in a nursing home he feels is degrading, and will become depressed and die sooner than if he had good care. We are giving huge sums to corporations and rich people, instead of taxing them, and allocating vast sums to our military, when there should be no wars, spending atrocious sums on the war on drugs that makes drug abuse worse, and other insanities.

Socialism is such a broad topic it is impossible to discuss in this forum and do it justice. Moreover, no president could possibly change the US system to socialism.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/mindfulness-meditation-associated-lower-stress-hormone http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2009/issue61/ http://commons.clarku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=surj I searched and found some, but I have not read them critically, just scanned them.

I think many regular posters on this forum are already rational, mindful thinkers. Many of us would say there are things about themselves they are working on changing, and many things they have already changed. For them, adding meditation to their lives probably would not make big transformations. For those who are not as rational, the changes would be bigger because mindfulness teaches rational thinking. gtg...later

If you are referring to my three examples, none of them practiced mindfulness meditation AFAIK. I merely said people change gave a brief description of how they changed IMO. In two cases, Temple and John, documentaries about their lives said they worked toward making those changes by conscious decisions. They aren't scientific studies. However, what they did is similar to a person who has been driving to work on the freeway for twenty years, deciding to take a side street and drive through a city park because the beautiful park makes them feel good; whereas, sitting on the freeway in gridlock makes them feel bad. The difference is that changing ones route is a physical action that is obvious; however, changing a motivation is not obvious, except to the person making the change. And, it is difficult or impossible to scientifically study whether someone changes their motivation or not.

I believe it does. Of course, everyone changes over time, and it's possible to change in many ways. Temple Grandin's mother helped Temple, who is a high functioning autistic, function in the world, and Temple became a world renounced PhD. John Nash, Nobel Laureate in Economics, professor of mathematics who is schizophrenic taught himself to ignore the people his mind imagines and know who real people were, which allows him to cope with little or no medication. Hitler changed from rebellious teenager to international criminal. These are extreme examples. Doing mindfulness meditation means one examines their own life, the actions and motivations, and one decides to change wherever warranted. Buddhist philosophy teaches living an uncomplicated life that focuses on learning to be content with oneself and kind to others. One meditates to become aware of things that will change life for the better, and over time, those changes become systemic and automatic; thus, transforming one's life. It is such a simple prescription that it may seem like it cannot work, but studies show it does.

I ask ajb to help. He is assistant professor at the Institute of Mathematics of the Polish Acadamy of Sciences at Warsaw. I sent him a PM. Hope he will help.

There is no Doppler in you system. You misunderstand what you read in Wikipedia.

I understand why he is confused. redkiss, When the perpendicular motion is in a straight line, the observer and light source get further apart, and that causes Doppler. However, your pictures are different, your light source and observer stay a constant distance from each other; thus, no Doppler.

What paper is that from? Taking a sentence from a paper tells me nothing. He said again, there is no Doppler produced according to your pictures.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you are trying to do. Write in your native tongue what you are trying to do and I will translate it using Google, and see what I can. I think you are trying to do the MIchelson-Morley experiment, which is a failed experiment that detected no Doppler effect, and you believe it will produce a Doppler effect for you.

Michelson-Morley did not work because of no Doppler effect with v=0, and there is no such thing as aether.

Probably an observation mistake. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

I know John, there's all kinds of Doppler radar, but he wants to measure the speed of the Earth, rotation I think, and I'm trying to keep it simple because of the language barrier. AFAIK, he cannot measure the speed of Earth rotation, orbit, or solar orbit about the galaxy with a light source on Earth using Doppler.

Redshift means light source and observer are moving further apart. The moon is not moving away from the Earth...maybe 1cm/yr.

Simple Doppler: Need: 1 Light source and 2 observer 1 and 2 move same speed and direction--no Doppler. Same as not moving. 1 moves away from 2--red shift. 1 moves towards 2--blue shift. Light source on Earth cannot move away from Earth and cannot move towards Earth--no Doppler.

Light source on Earth = no Doppler. Vacuum irrelevant. Light not on Earth, maybe Doppler, depends on motion of light and motion of Earth. Tolman surface brightness test; results confused by star light Doppler. No Doppler from light on Earth. Doppler effect diagram Another diagram

Light sources on the Earth do not have Doppler effect. Light from stars have Doppler effect.

redkiss QUESTIONS edearl answers L= 1 metr L= 3000 meters ( LIGO LAB ) DO WE HAVE DOOPLER ? no HOW DEEP RED we have ? 1 meter arm please compare to 3000 meters ARM please study very very slowly RIGHT DOWN CORNER http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00765/8g7j8biccn4d.jpg what will be if ROTATION is CONSTANT and I changing only distance SOURCE ----SENSOR Fact A = we have ZERO inside DARK BOX true Fact B = we have RED SHIFT inside DARK BOX false Fact C - more long arm is giving more DEEP RED false A ) true/false ? B) true/ false ? C) true/false ? Fact D - Michelson Morley saw ZERO true D) true/false Homework : I already made test .. I can show You resoults ... ( I hope You will evaluate all without real datas) I'm sorry I don't know what I measured ( I not joking ) I need help someone need explain me what see sensor !