toastywombel

Carbon. Definitely carbon.

I was hoping someone mentioned Carbon:doh:

Well, Jefferson is definitely an interesting figure to be sure. He is a "Christian" insofar as he believed the moral code spelled out by Jesus in the New Testament was the purest path to human happiness as can exist, but he also did not believe in the Resurrection, walking on water, and other miracles in the same text.

 

So on one hand he was a Christian in that he truly did believe that the teachings of Jesus were the salvation of mankind.... and on the other he wasn't a Christian as he didn't believe in the original sin from which Christ (read: savior) purportedly saved humanity.

 

As such, and as a Christian myself, I must laugh at the fact that Jefferson was a better Christian in many respects than many professed Christians! Of course, he was also a slave holder, so he wasn't that great of a Christian either.

As I recall the bible says nothing about how it is bad to own slaves.

You seem to describe Jefferson's beliefs accurately, but I don't think Jefferson truly considered himself a Christian.

On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

http://www.monticello.org/reports/interests/religion.html

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

In private letters, Jefferson refers to himself as a "Christian" (1803),[7][8] "a sect by myself" (1819),[2] an "Epicurean" (1819),[9] a "Materialist" (1820),[10] and a "Unitarian by myself" (1825).[11] While many biographers have characterized Jefferson as a Deist, nowhere does he call himself a Deist, though he does praise Jesus for what he (Jefferson) considered a form of deism in an 1803 letter to Priestley,[12] and again in an 1817 letter to John Adams.[13]

Jefferson considered much of the New Testament of the Bible to be false. He described these as "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture".[30] He described the "roguery of others of His disciples", [31] and called them a "band of dupes and impostors" describing Paul as the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus", and wrote of "palpable interpolations and falsifications".[31] He also described the Book of Revelation to be "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams".[32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion

People report psychological problems like insomnia, hallucinations, and full-fledged psychotic episodes without ever having LSD. You are completley full of it, you are just spouting the anecdotal evedince which is laughable to say the least. LSD has never been shown to have any long term side effects.

 

This is the equivilant to saying people who drink alcohol get herpes. just because some of them do doesn't mean that the drinking caused it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Dangers

There is some indication that LSD may trigger a dissociative fugue state in individuals who are taking certain classes of antidepressants such as lithium salts and tricyclics. In such a state, the user has an impulse to wander, and may not be aware of his or her actions, which can lead to physical injury. Anonymous anecdotal reports have attributed seizures and one death to the combination of LSD with lithium.[55] SSRIs noticeably reduce LSD's subjective effects.[56] MAOIs are also reported to reduce the effects of LSD.[55]

There are some cases of LSD inducing a psychosis in people who appeared to be healthy prior to taking LSD.[58] In most cases, the psychosis-like reaction is of short duration, but in other cases it may be chronic. It is difficult to determine whether LSD itself induces these reactions or if it triggers latent conditions that would have manifested themselves otherwise. The similarities of time course and outcomes between putatively LSD-precipitated and other psychoses suggest that the two types of syndromes are not different and that LSD may have been a nonspecific trigger.

"Flashbacks" are a reported psychological phenomenon in which an individual experiences an episode of some of LSD's subjective effects long after the drug has worn off, usually in the days after typical doses. In some rarer cases, flashbacks have lasted longer, but are generally short-lived and mild compared to the actual LSD "trip". Flashbacks can incorporate both positive and negative aspects of LSD trips, and are typically elicited by triggers such as alcohol or cannabis use, stress, or sleepiness. Flashbacks have proven difficult to study and are no longer officially recognized as a psychiatric syndrome. However, colloquial usage of the term persists and usually refers to any drug-free experience reminiscent of psychedelic drug effects, with the typical connotation that the episodes are of short duration.

Although lcd, is not the most harmful drug, to say that lcd, "has never been shown to have any long term side-effects" seems somewhat misleading"

I probably shouldn't mention the pure gold embroidering then.

Hahahaha

Merged post follows:

That actually made me laugh out loud.

IMO, the problem isn't whether or not these tax cuts are maintained. Regardless, the root problem isn't fixed. The problem is that government cannot stop spending.

 

I think both Democrats and Republicans have yet to learn that big government spending on pork doesn't buy as many votes as they think. With the possible exception of the new Health Care Bill (as we have yet to see how that will play out), when was the last time you voted for a particular candidate because they supported a new spending program (I cannot think of any for myself)? Any instances of when you voted against a candidate because of this (I can think of several)?

 

Perhaps true fiscal conservatism would serve well whichever party actually adopts it (but I won't be holding my breath for this to happen).

Here is an idea of how much money pork barrel spending costs each year,

That's the assessment of Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), which has been crunching the numbers on congressional pork each year since 1991. Its annual "Congressional Pig Book," released this week, reports $13.2 billion in pork-barrel spending for the current fiscal year, down from $29 billion in 2006.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0309/p02s01-uspo.html

So here is the cost of the total federal budget for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for comparison

2006: 2.66 trillion

2007: 2.77 trillion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_States_federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_budget

Obviously pork barrel spending is not the problem, considering it only accounts for 1.1% percent of spending in 2006 and 0.4% percent in 2007.

Merged post follows:

Nice op btw Pangloss. This is a good example of what many Americans, including myself believe. We can cut the budget in so many places yet still offer effective social programs.

considering that a gravity field in fluctation will produce a gravity wave, will a gravity wave contribute to the formation of a stellar mass collapsing to a neutron star? how?

If you are proposing that a gravity wave from another object would cause a massive star to run out of fuel, collapse in on itself creating a Supernova, and then compress the remnants into a neutron star. I would say no.

As the core of a massive star is compressed during a supernova, and collapses into a neutron star

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

Firstly, you use the word tachyon to describe backward in time particles.

All antimatter moves backward in time.

You have just used one word to identify different antimatter particles that will react differently. Take care to be more specific in the future.

 

Secondly, I belive these backtons (good name) must take energy from the present to account for its backward travelling nature.

It may also be possible to to use backtons to incite a flow of positrons, similar to a solar panel effect.

 

Thirdly, the wave-antiparticle duality of it would cause backton waves to propagate towards its origin, no?

 

Fourthly, don't you think Chronons sound so much cooler??

Antimatter does not move backward in time.

I have my doubts about colonizing Mars to begin with, Antarctica would be much easier but no one seems to be lobbying to live there.

I agree with this. It would be easier to expand human habitat/civilization to harsh environments on earth, as opposed to harsh environments of a foreign planet/body/object.

The ocean floor is another possibility as well.

Oh come on, is that what The Daily Show is? Stephen Colbert? Lighten up, he's trying to be tongue and cheek with his audience and tweak sensitive media and I really think you're just feeding the troll, so to speak.

The difference between the Daily Show or Colbert Report cracking ridiculous jokes and Rush Limbaugh doing it is this.

The Daily Show and Colbert Report are comedy shows, featured on a network called Comedy Central. Jon Stewart has mentioned countless times, that his show is a comedy show, one including an interview with Bill O'Reilly.

However, on Rush Limbaugh's website, under the about me, says this,

The Rush Limbaugh Show is the most listened to radio talk show in America, broadcast on over 600 radio stations nationwide. It is hosted by America's Anchorman, Rush Limbaugh, also known as: America's Truth Detector; the Doctor of Democracy; the Most Dangerous Man in America; the All-Knowing, All-Sensing, All-Everything Maha Rushie; defender of motherhood, protector of fatherhood and an all-around good guy.

 

There is a "consensus" among the American people, who have made this the most listened to program, that it is also the most accurate, most right, and most correct.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/about_the_show.guest.html

Now compare that to the Daily Show website's About Me,

Tired of having your news spoon fed to you by big network suits the and the smaller, chattier suits on cable news? Join Jon Stewart and the Best F#@king News Team Ever as they bring you the news like you've never seen it before -- unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/about

The the Daily Show, has admitted to being a comedy show, and is arguably admitting to being a comedy show by the tone in the above. On top of that, they directly say that this news show, "is unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity, or even accuracy."

However Rush in his about me is implying that his show is the "most correct" and that he is also known as the "truth detector". This obviously is intended to communicate the the message that Rush's show is an accurate description of reality, and really the best description of reality offered by any show.

Both Stewart and Rush are selling snake poison, but at least Stewart labels his product as snake poison, while Rush labels his poison as vitamin tonic. If I recall correctly Stewart used that exact metaphor in the same interview with O'Reilly, comparing himself at the time to Fox, not Rush. Anyway, point made.

hi,

I was wondering, if the vacuum of space (theoretically) consists of virtual particles. When in the picture of traveling through a wormhole by means of connecting 2 points or locations of space and bending them into one thereby allowing the instantaneous travel of a vast distance. In the concept of actually bending space-time. Since the space itself is perhaps made up of virtual particles, as i mentioned. Does/wouldn't this mean, in order to (physically) bend space, it would require some sort of manipulation of the virtual particles themselves, or for generalized sake, whatever makes up the apparent nothingness of space ?

Well, space in this sense, would be better if it is unified with time, spacetime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime.

For matter or energy to travel any given distance lets say point A to point B

(A-B)

must take up as much time equal to or less than the time it takes light © to travel that same distance, if of course, the matter or energy is moving through spacetime.

(A-B)/t </= (A-B)/c

If, by chance something were able to travel faster than light from point A to point B, that object/energy would be going back in time, relative from an observer at starting point A. And, that object would be coming from the future, relative to an observer at point B.

But, if you imagine space time as a two dimensional, flat sheet, you can fold the sheet over itself in the higher dimension, or as we know it, the third dimension. This brings the two ends of the sheet, which were previously far apart, together instantly.

The ability to do this with spacetime (fold it through the dimensions above, 4th, 5th, or 6th) would make it possible for one not only to transport vast distances instantly, but it would also cause he/she to go back in time (relative from point A).

The problem that comes about from the above and what you described, is it really possible to go back in time? If so, what are the repercussions? What would it take to do this?

Let us consider if one were to transfer from Earth, to a point twenty light years away (lets say point z) instantly. Once he/she arrived at point z, it would take twenty years for a radio signal sent by him/her, to arrive to Earth, from the perspective of an observer at point z.

However, from the perspective of an observer on Earth, her signal would arrive right after he/she left to point z.

How would it be possible to effectively communicate with the limitations given above?

Furthermore, how would it be possible to navigate such movements? It would be much like diving into a black pool. It is impossible to see what is in front of you, because you are travelling faster than light can transfer data from where you are traveling to.

As far as what it would take to bend space time, well according to m-theory, it is very likely it would take more than our ability to manipulate virtual particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

See, according to m-theory, which is a form of string theory. Subatomic Particles can be viewed as strings. These strings are either open or closed.

Open strings are what make up the world we can observe. These open strings can interact with each other, because energy can transfer along the open strings and out the endpoints, to other open strings.

Of course there are spacial restrictions to how close the endpoints of different open strings have to be within ,each other, in order for them to interact. Because there are these spacial restrictions present, we can state that these open strings exist within a p-brane.

(A p-brane is one type of brane, but all types of branes represent the dimensional and spacial restrictions of interaction between endpoints of given open strings)

If an open string (A) is outside of the p-brane of open string (B). It is impossible for open string (A) to interact with open string (B). For open string to interact they must share the same p-brane.

Shortly after Witten's breakthrough in 1995, Joseph Polchinski of the University of California, Santa Barbara discovered a fairly obscure feature of string theory. He found that in certain situations the endpoints of strings (strings with "loose ends") would not be able to move with complete freedom as they were attached, or stuck within certain regions of space. Polchinski then reasoned that if the endpoints of open strings are restricted to move within some p-dimensional region of space, then that region of space must be occupied by a p-brane. These type of "sticky" branes are called Dirichlet-P-branes, or D-p-branes. His calculations showed that the newly discovered D-P-branes had exactly the right properties to be the objects that exert a tight grip on the open string endpoints, thus holding down these strings within the p-dimensional region of space they fill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory#Strings_with_.22loose_ends.22

So what does this all mean. You and me are made up of open strings, the world directly around us is made up of open strings. Therefore we are confined not only to our dimension, but to the p-brane we exist in.

So to fold space-time would require the ability to manipulate/interact with particles outside our dimension, and outside our local brane. This would violate the above concept.

Not all strings are confined to p-branes. Strings with closed loops, like the graviton, are completely free to move from membrane to membrane. Of the four force carrier particles, the graviton is unique in this way. Researchers speculate that this is the reason why investigation through the weak force, the strong force, and the electromagnetic force have not hinted at the possibility of extra dimensions. These force carrier particles are strings with endpoints that confine them to their p-branes. Further testing is needed in order to show that extra spatial dimensions indeed exist through experimentation with gravity.

The above is from wikipedia as well. It says, that the only shared basic force between the dimensions is gravity (because the graviton is a closed string and can travel through multiple p-branes). This means that folding spacetime, which could only be done through a higher dimension, would require us to understand the laws of physics, governing a part of our universe, that it is physically impossible to interact with.

The in-ability for us to interact/observe strings outside of our local dimension would make it very hard or impossible for scientists/ engineers to develop technology that would allow them to manipulate these strings in such a way that would allow for the bending of space time.

Possible? Maybe, but even if so, it is a long shot, and would require much more than the manipulation of virtual particles in our dimension. Here are some more related links you might want to check out. Hope this helped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory (less technical explanation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-brane

I think it was probably largely suspected, so not a lot to build steam up on =\

If you read the articles, Goldman executives and lawyers had been in negotiation with the SEC months before this happened, and they didn't expect it the whole time.

Why does windy weather seem to impact digital TV signals? Since we went to digital signals I have noticed the weather has a big effect on Digital TV signals but I can't explain why wind on a clear night seems negatively effect TV signals?

I didn't look up anything to answer this, so I am posing a hypothesis.

Wind picks up uncountable numbers of particles and suspends them temporarily in the local atmosphere. Because the transmission of digital signals depend on light waves being transferred through the atmosphere, the particles could possibly reflect/distort the transmission of the television signals in the localized area.

But why digital more than analog? Well I know this, digital doesn't allow for ghosting of images like analog.

In the US, DTV uses the 8-VSB Standard, which is more susceptible to reflected (multipath or ghost) signals than the COFDM standard used in many other parts of the world. If you see ghosting on analog reception, it is possible that DTV reception will be impossible in both standards, but especially so with 8vsb. When looking for an antenna to receive 8vsb, give special consideration to rejection of signals off from the main direction. Try to get polar charts of the antennas you are considering purchasing. Look at how well the aerial will reject signals from the side. No big deal, though. Excellent analog and reliable DTV call for large, outdoor antennas, and where transmitters are in different directions, add an antenna rotator to your purchase list.

http://www.kyes.com/antenna/dtv.html

I am really surprised this story hasn't picked up a lot of steam.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36597290/ns/business-us_business/

NEW YORK - Goldman Sachs Group was charged with fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over its marketing of a subprime mortgage product, igniting a battle between Wall Street's most powerful bank and the nation's top securities regulator.

 

The civil lawsuit is the biggest crisis in years for a company that faced criticism over its pay and business practices after emerging from the global financial meltdown as Wall Street's most influential bank.

 

It may also make it more difficult for the industry to beat back calls for reform as lawmakers in Washington debate an overhaul of financial regulations.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/sec-charges-goldman-sachs-fraud/?test=latestnews

In its complaint, the SEC alleges that Goldman failed to tell investors in a collateralized debt obligation that a major hedge fund that helped choose the portfolio had also placed bets against it.

 

FOX Business Network has learned that Goldman was completely surprised by the timing of the charges.

 

People close to Goldman say despite months of dealings with SEC investigators, the company was not aware the charges were imminent. A person close to Goldman described it as a"politically inspired hit" to propel the administration's financial reform bill through Congress.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/sec.goldman.fortune/index.htm?hpt=T2

The SEC's civil fraud complaint alleges that Goldman allowed hedge fund Paulson & Co. -- run by John Paulson, who made billions of dollars betting on the subprime collapse -- to help select securities in the CDO.

I am sure the timing of this is political, as implied by the above articles. This could turn out to be a big deal though. Goldman says they are going to fight the charges. This move by the SEC could turn years of de-regulation on it's head, if done correctly of course. Here are some other links from different sites to the same story.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/goldman-sachs-fraud-expla_n_540938.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_bi_ge/us_sec_goldman_sachs_charged

http://www.timescolonist.com/Goldman+Sachs+accused+subprime+mortgage+fraud/2919560/story.html

Top Wall Street bank Goldman Sachs has been charged with financial fraud in a move that raises the prospect of a wider crackdown on firms that bet on the collapse of the U.S. housing market.

Coming upon this story was quite nice. I devoted tonight to watching Capitalism: A Love Story. I have heard a lot about it, but I am not much of a watcher of anything, I prefer to read my news, so I had not seen yet.

And you know me, after watching it I got into an anti-capitalist, socialist, liberalized frenzy of anger. I wanted to take Jackson33 and Jryans pie and give it to my comrade down the street Joe Stalin or my other buddy Bum Unwelfarr (he's from Iceland).

The movie finished and I took a gander at the news and saw the above. It made me a little happier.

I know I am probably hoping for too much, but what do you guys think about this story?

Here is a chart that relates to the topic. http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

Merged post follows:

You nee dto recheck your numbers and conclusions there, Mr. Womble. Your still not comparing the same things.

Its Mr. Wombel, and I did correct everything and even pointed out that you were the one who pointed out the correction. I don't have to re-check my conclusions, the conclusion is the still the same.

Debt increased nearly eight times as much under Republican Presidents since 1978 as opposed to Democratic Presidents since 1978.

Again, I ask you, can you not concede this point Jryan?

Merged post follows:

Jryan re-read my last post, I corrected it before you responded, I knew that number was too good to be true.

Merged post follows:

I guess that is a no?

im relatively new to the whole quantum mechanics and quantum physics and everything, i was wondering if anyone had any ideas for books i can read or websites i can look at to help with my basic knowledge of this whole broad subject. im trying to teach myself the basics, and i apologize if i put this in the wrong forum

Well you can go with wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_concepts_of_quantum_mechanics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics

The above are non-technical, and an easier read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

This one involves the math and technicalities, a more difficult read.

http://www.newscientist.com/topic/quantum-world

This link is a collection of recent news articles relating to quantum mechanics.

I would also recommend several books one being,

the Quantum World

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-World-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691023883

A Brief History of Time, and the Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking.

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nutshell-Stephen-William-Hawking/dp/055380202X

Also there are some great Youtube videos, you can just go to Youtube and do a general search, but below is the link to the SFN youtube channel. I have a Quantum Mechanics playlist that includes full lectures from MIT and Stanford plus some other good videos.

http://www.youtube.com/user/scienceforums#p/c/328F3DF13C3BDF90

Here are some other good links.

I hope this helps.

Paranoia you make a great point,

With that in mind, we see disarming the citizenry, as asymmetrical to human nature. Government has earned no magical benevolent status just because we're in the 21st century and life in america is so technological and seemingly civilized - we're just animals in pants, like the commercial says. We could have a Nazi Germany equivalent tomorrow, all we need is the citizenry to idolize their leaders, give them the power to increase their economic and social security and then rationalize the oppression of a minority group - like the rich.

This is one reason, why I am a big supporter of second amendment rights. If we are eventually disarmed as a society, it leaves us very vulnerable to a centralized government like ours.

The words "at least" are an indication of agreement with your premise, which I subsequently agreed with again. And there's no need to be rude -- we're not that far apart.

 

 

 

 

I agree completely, and it is one of the main reasons why I voted for President Obama.

 

 

 

 

I didn't say it started under Clinton, I said he pushed it. Which he did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22

 

 

 

 

Here's a typical example of the kind of politics that were revolving around the program in 1999:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/july99/fighterjet22.htm

 

 

 

Politics is more complicated that Democrats good, Republicans bad.

I agree, it is more complicated than that. I was just trying to point out it wasn't just Clinton who was pushing the production of the f-22 and f-35. It seems the article you cited says the same thing. Although, I will concede it was mainly Clinton who did push the f-35. Sorry for the implied rudeness, it was more an attempt to prod you to present an opposing argument because I love debate but again I apologize.

But I think it can be said that most of Bush's defense budget costs were independent from anything Clinton proposed.

Merged post follows:

That isn't Debt/GDP that is debt growth.

Oh you are right Jryan

It is debt growth not debt/GDP. Well my mistake, I apologize. When one is looking up a lot of data and links, then copy and pasting it, it is easy to move too hasty.

I calculated the debt per GDP increase as of 1983 though and I came up with around 5%. So you are right Jryan, however that still does not change the fact that Under Republican Presidents since 1978, debt per GDP has increased nearly eight times as much as debt per GDP under Democratic Presidents. Can you not concede this point?

As a quick response, the 11% is not comparable to the any of those numbers by year as all of them are for 4 year stretches. His numbers won't look very good if the economy doesn't do an about face in the next 12 months. He could hit 20% in just two years.

Isn't it always a quick response with you Jryan, where instead of conceding an obvious point, you instead pick something insignificant out and critique a small point. I almost included the below information in the above post, because I knew someone like you would say something exactly like that.

Ah, but I am glad you brought that up Jryan let us compare the first year of Obama (11% increase) to some of the individual years by Reagan for example

*correction pointed out by Jryan, this is debt growth not debt per GDP

1983 15% increase in debt per GDP

1985 12.3% increase in debt per GDP

1986 13.9% increase in debt per GDP

All three of these years Reagan, posted a higher increase in debt than Obama has in his first year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Federal_spending.2C_federal_debt.2C_and_GDP

Maybe Jryan you should take a look at the links before you make a misinformed comment like the one above? Furthermore, that is besides the point. Even if what you said was true it doesn't change the simple fact that under Republican Presidents since 1978 the National Debt per GDP has risen about eight times as much as opposed to the National Debt per GDP under Democratic Presidents since 1978.

At least until Obama, who just submitted a budget that spends at least $1.56 trillion more than it takes in. Assuming no other spending will be necessary for that year.

 

But I guess that is the conservative bias of life.

That is one Democratic President, furthermore, you cannot judge Obama on this graph yet, National debt per GDP, the GDP might grow in the time he is in office.

And how can you blow off the entire graph on and just point to Obama, I mean seriously. Do you just block these facts out of your mind?

Furthermore, the Democrats aren't really known for a platform of reducing spending, yet Republicans are known exactly for that, they run on it every single election. The problem is it is so obvious that every Republican President including Reagan and after have not only increased spending per GDP, but have raised the National Debt per GDP.

Also lets put that figure in perspective Pangloss, 1.56 trillion deficit for the 2010 budget. The GDP this year is projected to be 13.271 trillion. That is a 11% increase in National Debt per GDP.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/gdp_2050_projection.html

Now lets compare that 11% increase in debt per GDP (just one year) to the other Presidents, and we will go term by term.

Reagan 1981-1985 10.8% increase in Debt Per GDP

Reagan 1985-1989 9.3% increase in Debt Per GDP

George Herbert Walker Bush 1989-1993 13.0% increase in Debt Per GDP

Bill Clinton 1993-1997 0.7% decrease in Debt Per GDP

Bill Clinton 1997-2001 9.0% decrease in Debt Per GDP

George W. Bush 2001-2005 7.1% increase in Debt Per GDP

George W. Bush 2005-2009 20.0% increase in Debt Per GDP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Gross_federal_debt

So how is it okay for Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. to post deficits comparable, if not greater than Obama, but its socialist when Obama does it?

Finally I would like to point out that it is not just tax cuts that caused those Republican deficits.

Years Party of President % Increase in Spending % Increase in Debt

1978-2005 Democratic 9.9% 4.2%

1978-2005 Republican 12.1% 36.4%

So under Republicans since 1978 there has been a 12.1% increase in spending, opposed to 9.9% under Democrats. And spending is the big issue many of these Republicans run on. I love the increase in debt number though. Under Democrats it is 4.2% increase in Debt, under Republicans it is 36.4% increase Debt.

That means under Republican Presidents, the deficit has been increased around eight times as much as it has been increased under Democratic Presidents.. And if you include Obama's first year the debt under Republican Presidents has still increased twice as much as under Democratic Presidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Federal_spending.2C_federal_debt.2C_and_GDP

Then also compare the difference between Democrats and Republicans being President, and increase in GDP.

1978-2005 Democratic 12.6% increase in GDP

1978-2005 Republican 10.7% increase in GDP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Federal_spending.2C_federal_debt.2C_and_GDP

Merged post follows:

I agree with the carry-over premise, I just think it's got a couple of blinders attached to it (one for each eye). One of the reasons defense spending is so high during the Bush administration is that so many programs were pushed by the Clinton administration (F-22, F-35, etc). By avoiding making a decision he couldn't be accused of killing those programs, but he greatly increased the costs, especially when looked at per unit.[/Quote]

 

Eh, it seems you are being too fair to Bush.

 

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Tuesday signed legislation allowing $612 billion in defense spending for the 2009 budget year, including a pay raise for troops.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,438006,00.html

 

"President Bush's defense budget request of $481.4 billion -- an 11 percent boost over last year -- pushes U.S. defense spending to levels not seen since the Reagan-era buildup of the 1980s."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020501552.html

 

"Figures for the regular military budget exclude the costs of the current wars that the United States is engaged in. A proposed supplemental appropriation to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq of $141.7 billion brings proposed military spending for FY 2008 to $647.2 billion, the highest level of military spending since the end of World War II - higher than Vietnam, higher than Korea, higher than the peak of the Reagan buildup. There will also be a proposed supplemental of $93.4 billion added to this year's (FY 2007) budget, bringing the total for the year to $622.4 billion."

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0210-26.htm

 

Okay and lets put the above articles in comparison with the costs associated with the f-22 and f-35

 

The f-22 development didn't start under Clinton, it started under Reagan first of all,

 

"In 1981 the United States Air Force (USAF) developed a requirement for a new air superiority fighter, the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF), to replace the capability of the F-15 Eagle, primarily the F-15A, B, C and D variants. ATF was a demonstration and validation program undertaken by the USAF to develop a next-generation air superiority fighter to counter emerging worldwide threats, including development and proliferation of Soviet-era Su-27 "Flanker"-class fighter aircraft. It was envisioned that the ATF would incorporate emerging technologies including advanced alloys and composite materials, advanced fly-by-wire flight control systems, higher power propulsion systems, and low-observable/stealth technology."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

 

The production of the f-22 did not start until 1997 though,

 

"The production F-22 model was unveiled on 9 April 1997 at Lockheed Georgia Co., Marietta, Georgia. It first flew on 7 September 1997"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

 

So for you to imply that it was Clinton pushing the production of the Raptor, well first it was already in production for the last three years Clinton was in office, plus the plans had existed since 1981. Of course Bush wasn't going to cancel the spending on it, but it wasn't just Clinton pushing for that spending.

 

Finally lets get to the numbers,

 

The United States Air Force originally planned to order 750 ATFs, with production beginning in 1994; however, the 1990 Major Aircraft Review altered the plan to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. The goal changed again in 1994, when it became 442 aircraft entering service in 2003 or 2004, but a 1997 Department of Defense report put the purchase at 339. In 2003, the Air Force said that the existing congressional cost cap limited the purchase to 277. By 2006, the Pentagon said it will buy 183 aircraft, which would save $15 billion but raise the cost of each aircraft, and this plan has been de facto approved by Congress in the form of a multi-year procurement plan, which still holds open the possibility for new orders past that point. The total cost of the program by 2006 was $62 billion.

So the total cost of the program as of 2006 was 62 billion. That means the whole cost of the f-22 raptor project, from 1981 to present, was about one tenth of Bush's military spending just for 2008, which was in the range of 647.8 billion.

 

So it seems disingenuous to say that much of Bush's debt increase was due to the f-22 raptor being pushed heavily by Clinton. Not only because the raptor had been a project since 1981, but also that the entire cost of the raptor project from 1981 to now totals 62 billion, when Bush put up 400-600 billion dollar per year defense budgets.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Now onto the f-35,

 

The Joint Strike Fighter evolved out of several requirements for a common fighter to replace existing types. The actual JSF development contract was signed on 16 November 1996.

The contract for System Development and Demonstration (SDD) was awarded on 26 October 2001 to Lockheed Martin, whose X-35 beat the Boeing X-32. According to Department of Defense officials and British Minister of Defence Procurement Lord Bach, the X-35 consistently outperformed the X-32, although both met or exceeded requirements. The designation of the fighter as "F-35" came as a surprise to Lockheed, which had been referring to the aircraft in-house by the designation "F-24".[16]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II

 

If you read further on the same wikipedia article,

 

Total development costs are estimated at more than US$40 billion

 

So even that, total development cost (remember we only have 13 flight tested f-35, and 15 on hold at 83 million a piece) is 40 billion, the production costs so far have been minimal.

 

Again that 40 billion total developement cost is less than 1/10 of Bush's 2008 defense budget, and about 1/10 of Bush's 2007 defense budget.

 

So again, how can you say,

 

I agree with the carry-over premise, I just think it's got a couple of blinders attached to it (one for each eye). One of the reasons defense spending is so high during the Bush administration is that so many programs were pushed by the Clinton administration (F-22, F-35, etc). By avoiding making a decision he couldn't be accused of killing those programs, but he greatly increased the costs, especially when looked at per unit.

 

If you subtracted the total cost, all time, of the f-22 and f-35 together, it would be around 100 billion, even if you subtract the total production cost from Bush's defense budgets, his defense budgets are still 300-500 billion dollars for each year. And those figures aren't even including the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

So if you wan't to elaborate on the 'etc.' Pangloss, I would be happy to educate you on that as well.

I enjoyed this:

 

 

 

 

Bush went his first 6 years in office without ever vetoing a bill. It was only when Democrats began to retake Congress that any vetoes started to happen whatsoever.

 

You're seriously giving Bush a bye here, and making excuses for him. If you were legitimately concerned about government spending you'd concede he did an absolutely horrible job managing the federal budget:

 

 

Republicans presidents have a terrible track record on the national deficit. You're criticizing Obama for spending intended to curtail the nearly complete global economic collapse years and years of deregulation and a "hands off" approach to managing the financial sector.

 

Bush cut taxes and started an expensive, unnecessary war, and sat idly by while the financial sector collapsed. He is far and away responsible for the present deficits, and a substantial chunk of the national deficit.

 

All that said, if you're legitimately concerned about the national debt, why in the world are you defending Bush? You should be heavily criticizing both Bush AND Obama...

Well said, and excellent graphic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

And this table from wikipedia, showing National Debt as a percentage of GDP seems to agree with the trend of the graph bascule provided.

Every Democratic President since FDR (including FDR's last term) have experienced reduced National Debt, by percentage of GDP in the time they were in office.

Six out of nine Republican Presidents left with an increase in debt per GDP. George Bush experienced a +20% increase in debt, per GDP. That is the most out of everyone on the list.

But I guess that is the liberal bias of life.

Okay this might sound stupid, but I am really unable to figure this one out.

 

 

What I know: Water dissipates, condenses again in the atmosphere, creates clouds, which will condense more and create rain. volume of rain=volume of dissipated water.

 

Question:

Since more water dissipates in the summer(heat and all) than in the winter, why doesn't it rain more in the summer? The sky is always filled with clouds in the winter, but there are barely any clouds in the summer...

 

I'm sure the answer is pretty simple, and I'm just clueless.

 

Thanks in advance,

Agony

Well, that is not true in every place. It might just be a climate type in your area. Weather is always changing. It really depends where you are on the planet. Also remember when it is summer in the Northern Hemisphere it is Winter in the Southern. So again, really all of this is relative to where you are.

Here in New Mexico for example winter is usually cold and dry, and it is not until spring and summer that we begin to get a lot of rain.

The multiple universes hypothesis states that, anything that can happen does happen in one of the alternative universes.

 

It is also my personal belief that, if these universes exist, we should be able to travel to them, for practical or vacation purposes. It seems, to me, to be a mere matter of tapping into the eleventh dimension.

 

So, if the multiple universes theory is true, then there must also be a universe that plays out exactly like ours, but get started at a different point in time. For example, there might be a universe where George W. Bush is being sworn into office, not nine years ago, but as we speak. For a visual picture of what I'm talking about, open up a youtube video. Then, copy that URL, and open that same youtube video in another tab or window, without taking down the first one, and without pausing the first one. The exact same video is playing, and the video will play out exactly the same way, but they are a few seconds apart. So, there might be a universe out there that took place exactly five minutes after ours did, but other than that, has the exact same course of events, meaning that, as we speak, I am sitting down to write this thread.

 

So, if we can tap into the eleventh dimension, perhaps we could use that as a ghetto form of time travel by traveling to a universe that plays out exactly the same way ours does, but a small amount of time apart. It's April 15, 2010 for us, but it's July 4, 1776 for the destination universe that the tourist went to to witness the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

 

Do you think that might be a plausible option, provided we can find a way to tap into the eleventh dimension?

The multiple universe's hypothesis? I have never heard of that one, maybe you mean the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

The many world's interpretation stems partially from Feynman's Sum over histories, or Path integral formulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation

The idea that any quantum state from A to B takes every possible path or history. This formulation isn't referring to universe as much as the particles in it though. So according to the more widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation, it is the observation that causes the wave function to collapse, and bring about the reality in which we exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

Furthermore, transferring through these universe's would be impossible, by definition of the word universe.

For example, in the many-worlds hypothesis, new "universes" are spawned with every quantum measurement. These universes are usually thought to be completely disconnected from our own and therefore impossible to detect experimentally

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

A universe is a closed system, and encompasses everything in that universe, so it would not be plausible to think we could travel, in a controlled fashion or at all, between universe's.

Now you seem to have blended the many worlds interpretation with string theory. Specifically it seems you are talking about m-theory.

Which describes our universe as having ten dimensions that started from the big bang. The eleventh dimension is the link between different big bangs, and different existences.

Furthermore, according to m theory, if there were a lower/higher dimensional universe it would be folded up in a closed string, comparative to us. This string does not exist in any brane (a dimensional bubble per say. That allows open strings to interact with other open strings) because it is closed. The universe might also exist in a higher brane (membrane or dbrane) but according to string theory, only gravity can travel through branes that are not part of the same dimension. (membrane, dbrane, brane) all refer to different dimensions)

So far the whole big idea around m-theory (string theories in general) is to unify the forces of nature. We have been able to unify them all except for gravity. String theories state that gravity is the only force that can travel between dimensions/membranes/dbranes/branes, which is why the force appears so incredibly weak.

So between all the dimensions the only known shared law of physics would be gravity. Other than that, we have no idea about the environment or nature of these dimensions. Finally, if the only force that can travel between these dimensions is gravity, than there is no way we (beings comprised up of matter) could reach these other dimensions or even attempt to understand them.

The many worlds interpretation is just that. An interpretation among others that stems from quantum mechanical laws. String Theory is totally different. I would suggest reading up on the two topics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

String theory is of interest to many physicists because it requires new mathematical and physical ideas to mesh together its very different mathematical formulations. One of the most inclusive of these is the 11-dimensional M-theory, which requires spacetime to have eleven dimensions,[8] as opposed to the usual three spatial dimensions and the fourth dimension of time.

Compare this short tidbit from the many worlds article and it is obvious these are different topics.

Many-worlds is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the wavefunction, but denies the reality of wavefunction collapse. It is also known as MWI, the relative state formulation, theory of the universal wavefunction, parallel universes, many-universes interpretation or just many worlds.

Didn't intend for it to be interpreted as such.

No I know. I think maybe we should avoid people from posting more evolution vs. creationism threads, at least in Earth Science. I mean technically they aren't even comparable theories.

Evolution explains how life on our planet became diverse and adapted to their environments.

Creationism explains how God created everything.

I noticed that the premises of the questions were somewhat vague. It also seem to be implying that a lack of moral authority can lead to hypocrisy, and lack of morals. Therefore, I wanted to point out that the questions could really be applied to all groups, including theists.

1) As an atheist or theist do you see a higher moral authority than yourself?

An atheist and theist would both answer yes, because answering no obviously sets one up to look like he/she has an extremely inflated ego. The question does not really dive deeper than that, but I'll indulge.

A theist would be more likely to respond that his/her moral authority is God, now God can mean a lot of different things to different people, so that can also serve as a vague term.

An atheist might imply that society is his/her moral authority.

I would imagine, that society and God serve the same purpose to many atheists and theists.

2) If no, how do you regulate your own moral compass? Also, do you think it is possible for you to be hypocritical?

One regulates his/her moral compass through signals that are sent through the brain. This moral compass can be effected though by inherited traits (such as sociopaths or psychopaths) but it can also be effected by outside stimuli as well.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125304448

These traits were not obtained by humanity through some divine intellect. It is evolution at it's finest. Essentially societies that had a strong moral fabric were more likely to help each other, work together, and therefore grow. Societies that had a weak or no moral fabric were more likely to cause harm to each other, not work together, and therefore not grow.

Everyone regardless of what/who their moral authority has the possibility of being hypocritical, this is because we are always balancing our self needs/wants/feelings with what is morally right, either according to God or society.

3) Do you lean towards Humanism or Environmentalism? Do you have examples for when you would choose Humanist goals and when you would choose the environment?

Humanist goals should correspond with environmentalist goals, this is because humans are of course part of the environment. I don't think they need to be set up as competing concepts.

This is a very interesting conversation, I refrain on commenting further because I have not read the entire thing, but this is what a really love about SFN, when it comes down to it. Talkin' 'bout spacetime, photons, theoretical physics, advanced geometry, and all that other good jazz.

Haven't read what your talking about Iggy, but those diagrams looks mean!

Merged post follows:

I know this,

No, the quantity of matter shouldn't change over time. The density in a four dimensional volume would be a density of events--I should think.

It is good to note over enough time all matter breaks down and decays. But that is probably off topic. So ignore that.