JustinW

Don't really have one. I'm a mere layman good sir. But thinking about it, could it not be a negative pressure that holds an atom together. I'll just be talking out my hind end till I read up on the accepted atomic model. I'll have to get back to you on that.

Alright, but in 1917 the Balfour Declaration was viewed by Arabs and Jews alike as being a promise for a National Home for Jews in Palestine. So what it amount to is that the British occupied Palestine and ended up giving some of that land to the Jews, and Palestinians have been pissed every since. Right?

The reason that the US backs Israel like it does is because if you look back through the timeline of the conflict it pretty much amounts to Naziism by the Palestinians. And in fact there has been a proven connection between Palestinians and Nazi Germany during the time of the haulicaust. The PLO was founded with the with the specific intent to destroy Israel in 1964. In 1968 the Palestinian National Charter officially called for the liquidation of Israel. There is a lot more examples of the threats and actions that were taken to wipe Israel off the map. All of this because of their religion and the land they sit on. The only times in recent history that Israel has struck first has been when there has been a significant amount of threat to their well being. As for land. . .These days Israel has a significantly less amount of land than they held in 20's and 30's. All of this they gave to Palestine as peace offerings. They had best claim and hold what they have already or they won't have a pot to piss in if they don't. If you can actually imagine how small the piece that they already sit on is, it is a wonder that they are still there considering that everyone around them is a potential enemy.

My point exactly. I want to know why it is that we only use estimates for the vacuum of space and not an actual physical measurement. Surely we are capable of such an achievement. We seem to be spending most of our time with what we observe rather than what we can test. I just had a second thought. Pardon me for being a lack wit. When someone tests light in a vacuum, at what level of vacuum do they test? And does that have any coorolation with the vacuum of space?

ewmon, I wonder if marriages started becoming contractual/legal procedings because of authoritative laws against stuff like incest, multiple spouses, etc... I could be wrong on this because I haven't done any historical research on the subject, but it would make sense that that is the reason that a secular form of authority plays a part in marriage. If you notice under the reasons for divorcing there isn't an actual breach of contract compared to the vows you exchange. I wonder why that is. You would think that from a legal stand point that a breach of contract would have to be fairly specific when it comes to the lettering of the contract. It's given me something to think about anyway.

Yes, I've heard this a time or two. This is why I have doubts about there being a cosmological constant and even doubts about the universe expanding. I know that the expansion has been observed. But the fact is that if expansion doesn't directly coordinate with the pressure of space then by rights there should be another explanation for what we've observed, or there should be an explanation of why the pressure has no connection to the expansion. I wasn't meaning to imply that negative pressure drives expansion. I was looking at this in a way that the pressure of space was a result of expansion, instead of a cause or fuel to the expansion. My general thinking on this still allows for the theory of dark energy or anti gravity as a means of driving the expansion, but that expansion itself would have a direct effect on the overall pressure of space. Like in the Cassmir effect experiment or the mechanics of a pressure chamber. To create a negative pressure you would have to remove matter from space. Looked at from the view of an expanding universe we are essentially doing that by a growing amount of space to matter ratio. (Assuming that the universe as a whole is a closed system) Wouldn't that have a direct effect on the pressure of space and therefore be measurable? If this was the case then it would tell us how our universe is acting as a whole, and not just in what we are able to observe.

Due to the lack of response to this topic it seems as though this topic is either lacking in substance or lacking in some other ways. I just recently had a conversation that might have changed my views when looking at space and pressure and the relationship between the two. Someone was trying to argue that space was a physical entity, which I don't necessarily agree with. But it seems that the relationship between space and pressure are one and the same, and that in fact space defines pressure. The less space you have in area the more possitive the pressure is, and visa versa, the more space you have the more negative a pressure is. If this is true then it would fall back to my origional question above as to how this relates with the expansion of our universe. Just some extra thoughts I had about space and pressure being a reflection of one another. Comments are welcome.

Charles Brough, So do you think that the failure of our secular system gives some validity to religion as far as non believers are concerned, and as far as religious connection to building civilizations and establishing moral and ethical stability is a more acceptable way than most unbelievers would admit? There is a couple of things that I don't agree with you about here. Are you saying that we did these things for oil? I don't believe we invaded anyone for oil. I do agree with you that we interfere politically, but that can be classified as us trying to strengthen our foreign policy through democrtatic processes. When did we assassinate scientists? To lay the blame of the last Iranian nuclear scientists at the feet of the US is a bald assertion and unproved assumption. Who have we bombed for oil? Yes we have bombed countries that have oil, but to assume we were there for the purpose of attaining oil is also a bald assumption. We imposed a Judaic government? Some would say that it was a reinstatement. No matter how you see it they had to have somewhere to go, and no, we can't just exterminate them and be done with it. So far as I've seen Isreal has been fairly decent in how they deal with the muslim population compared to how the muslim population would treat them if the situation were reversed. I don't recall Isreal ever threatening to wipe people off the face of the earth. I cannot say the same for Iran. The reason we allowed Isreal to build nuc's and not Iran was because Isreal wasn't the ones making threats and trying to push their weight around between the two. If Iran would have promoted peace and prosperity with both Isreal and the US it probably wouldn't have been a problem them making nuc's. Not only does the US and Isreal not want Iran making nuc's, but others in the world are just as opposed. Maybe this is too much off topic, so if this looks like you might have a lengthy retort we might think about moving it somewhere else to keep from getting crossways with the Mods.

doG, Sorry, I somehow got the notion that you were asserting that there was such thing as empty space, but reading back I guess that was just an assumption on my part. I appologize. When defining "space" when looking at it from a different aspect than volume, could we say that space is that which reflects pressure? This still wouldn't make it a physical entity, but might give a different perspective on what space is and how it is thought of.

paronoid much? Overall I thought it was a good speach and gave a positive message toward our future. It did seem like he either changed direction or changed his attitude towards a couple of issues. And there were a couple of things that were instituted in one area that should be instituted the same way in other areas. I'll give you some of my origional thoughts though I haven't had time to inform myself to any great length. It seems that he has at least started thinking about drilling for natural gas in a new light. A couple of years ago he was sending resources to south america for exploration and development of natural gas while not allowing the same within our own country. He denied renewals on off shore rig's drilling permits during the BP spill which put a good number of workers out of a job temporarily. And the support for pipelines recently hasn't been what it should if he does support the field of natural gas development. But that being said I think it is a good thing if his actions can backup his words on this issue. Being in this particular industry for the past few years we have been up in the air on whether he supports the industries growth or not, and it would be a possitive if we had some confirmation on his stance. We have had doubts about his stance and wondered if he would pander to the environmentalists who have been protesting against these drilling and frac companies. I had a slight issue (but not a big one) with the way he talked about the "American promise" as if it no longer exists and needs to be restored. He states that the defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. Then goes on to say how the private sector has gained over 3 million jobs. I don't understand how this could be the defining issue of our time when the issue wasn't the "American promise", but was how to strengthen that promise. I don't believe that was the defining issue of our time when there were so many other issues that were just as relevant. So, not a big deal, it was mostly the wording that I had issue with. He talks about fairness as being an American value and restoring an economy where everyone gets a fair shot. A few questions here. Why does he think that not everyone gets a fair shot? And when did fairness become an American value? If fairness is to come into play in our economy where would the line be drawn? I think he could have explained these comments and how they originated a little better. He had said "We LEARNED that mortgages had been sold to people that couldn't afford or understand them". At the risk of getting into our previous debate on the subject, I will restate that the government (at least in part) mandated this sort of practice. He talked about not backing down from letting health insurance charge women differently than men. I have a problem with that on a personal level. Recently I was paying a little over $500 dollars a month for my family medical insurance. Last quarter that price rose to a little under $850 dollars a month forcing me to drop my wife and find her coverage elsewhere. After dropping my wife but keeping my 3 kids on, the price dropped to a little under 300$ a month. I asked why the price was so different and the answer I got was that a part of Obama's healthcare law went into effect. Now to be fair, I just took this answer for granted and didn't check into the validity of it. But just the price difference alone argues the validity of Obama's statement in the adress. He talks about instituting a Financial Crimes Unit to combat fraud. I think this is fine and somewhat necessary. This is where I think he should institute a similar practice in other areas. For example when he talks about strengthening medicade and social security. Wouldn't a similar institution to combat fraud in those programs be a big step toward strengthening, reining in cost, and insuring that these programs remain a gaurantee for those who need them? As for taxes on millionairs and such, I don't see why a fair tax or flat tax wouldn't be a step toward resolving this issue of class warfare and making those pay their fair share. What do you think about it? It seems that just picking a number on income that is taxed seems as unfair as anything. And for a president to say that fairness is an American value, he could do a little more to make it fair across the entire board instead of picking one number over another. He talked about his "iron clad" commitment to Isreal's security, but not too long ago was caught mocking and calling a liar of Isreal's prime minister with Russia's president. So is our commitment "iron clad", or is it "iron clad" but with reservations. So it seems that his past actions haven't met up with his present phrasing of issues on somethings, but others I thought to be a possitive message. Points like American innovation and research, support of higher education and skill building, immigration, too although he didn't seem to go in too much detail with or I might have began to disagree. But I think the points I raised were small compared to his overall message. So I think it was a decent speach. Let's hope his actions back up his words. Let me know what you think of this assessment and if I might have "jumped the gun" on my assertions.

Okay, but to say that our population would have dwindled from a lack of a ceromony or (something close) is absurd. Marriage ceromonies (or something close) wouldn't have had that sort of effect on our sexual activity. Just because we wouldn't have had a ceromony ( or something close to it) wouldn't mean people would stop having sex and procreating. That was what I was trying to express, strawman or not. iNow, that was some good information. I had figured it was something like that even though it felt, to me, like there might have been a decline over the past couple of decades or so.

Anything that is not occupied by matter is space. So yes there is space inside the chamber, but it is the removal of matter that creates the vacuum. Not the removal of space. The way I'm saying that space is an entity is not the same as saying that it is a physical property to be removed from somewhere. You cannot remove space unless you occupy it with something. That would creat a possitive pressure which is the opposite of a vacuum. That would cause the chamber to explode instead of implode. Show me empty space and I'll show you a perfect vacuum. Empty space would create an absolute vacuum but there is no such thing as empty space. There are areas so vast to be considered mostly empty, but considering the bigger picture of the universe can never be considered totally empty. As it stands now deep space is the closest thing we can come to an absolute vacuum. But still is not a perfect vacuum.

Wait a second. . . Did someone say that a vacuum causing a chamber to collapse is because of the outside pressure? I would say the chamber collapses due to the negative pressure of vacuum inside the chamber being stronger than the structure of the chamber is able to withstand. A vacuum inside a chamber has no influence on the pressure outside of the chamber. You cannot remove space either. Vacuum is created by the removal of matter from space, not the removal of space. The only reason I say that space is an entity is because of the fact that if you remove all matter from space you would still have the force of vacuum, which energy can be measured and observed. If someone thinks I have misspoken on this matter please correct me, for I am just a mere layman and correction is needed in most cases.

Yes to some degree. If a law is brought to the polls that goes against a person's religious beliefs, do you think that person will vote in favor of it? Or a politition that openly says they will do things against peoples religious beliefs, do you think those people will vote for that politition? Even though people say that religion is seperate from state doesn't mean that religious beliefs do not play a part in the laws that are instituted.I don't think it is just small town America that is majorilly religious. Just look back a few years ago at California and the voting of the same sex marriage law. Even being a mostly progressive/liberal state, religious ideology still won out over secularism, unless you can point me in a direction that states another cause for that state voting against the bill. I do believe that a majority do want the seperation of church and state, but not in the way that it is stated by a lot of those I have heard (mostly atheists). The reasoning that I have is that the seperation of church and state was meant to protect the church from abuse by the laws of the state. Also to protect one religion from abuse by another should that religion hold a majority in Congress. Government should have a secular stance when it comes to religion. But it is still influenced by those who decide their moral and ethical problems based on their religious beliefs. So religion will always play a role in making laws though it may be indirect.

G_Sherman, True, but still a stretch. Just because someone names a false statement false, doesn't mean that the false statement can grow any truer. The statement naming the false statement false has no bearing on the validity of the false statement.

A perfect vacuum would still be something. It would have pressure and potential energy. Some have talked about the possibility that the big bang was created from a perfect vacuum. But to say that space when void of matter, creating a perfect vacuum, is nothing would be incorrect. The fact is that there will never be a perfect vacuum since it is theoretically impossible to remove all matter from space.But to answer the OP, vacuum in itself is a physical thing in as much as gravity is. Invisible, yet the force can be felt and the effect can be measured.

Thanks for the history lesson iNow. It shed a little more light on the subject. CaptainPanic, Good point. I must have reacted off of one part of your post while letting the last part slip my mind. My appologies. It's not very relevant when put that way, but in a country whose majority is religious, I don't think it can be brought to the polls without taking it into account. (as we've seen before in some states) As iNow so delicately pointed out, most religious people do not know their own history. If they did, would it change their way of thinking on the matter though? I would say probably not.

I think you might have this a little confused.If I were to say to you that " I am 200 years old", that would be a lie. If you were to say that "me saying I'm 200 years is a lie", that would be true. But it doesn't give my statement any validity. So my statement has no truth, only yours does. Also you have being genuine and genuine quality confused. They are two different things. Being genuine is a concept, where as with your rockbuilders it is a matter of origin.

If marriages were performed before historical records and before we had laws that entitle the couple to rights, then why have the ceromony in the first place if not for religious purposes? If they didn't have paperwork back then, then what would be the justification for performing the ceromony? Is there an actual recorded time, other than our current secular time, that marriage had nothing to do with peoples religious beliefs? I don't think so. The lack of a marriage ceromony doesn't defeat the general bang rule. You know... bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,bang..... So I don't believe that a marriage ceromony was the one thing that decided our existance.

Not exactly. This would be assuming the velocity created by the big bang had less force than the gravity of masses that were present at the time. That could be argued either way. This would be true if there wasn't a force acting to accelerate. This is where the man-made part comes into play. There needed to be a reason that explained the acceleration, so poof. . . you have dark energy. Man made, yes. Likely to have another explanation, yes. But that theory holds more water than yours does so far, and until you have some documented evidence that can be observed, no one will be obligated to agree with you. As a matter of fact I do. Not everything that orbits around a mass has a trajectory which pulls things into it. Some are pulled into the object, others steady into a locked orbit, while others use the energy of that gravity and are slung out like a slingshot.

But one that is necessary to promote a more stable economy, wouldn't you think?

JohnB, interesting thoughts. I see how that arguement could be effective. CaptainPanic, One thing you left out was the religious aspect of a marriage. When asking what a marriage is, the religious implications cannot be left out, and in a country whose majority is religious it would not be correct to say that a marriage is only paperwork. Most people think of it as a union between a man and a woman in the sight of God. Would they be justified in using that arguement if their religion didn't support such acts? You could look at the argument of the seperation of church and state, but I've also heard that one go both ways also. It could be said that the intention for the seperation of church and state was not to protect the state from the church, but to protect the church from the state. So thinking that way would these religious beliefs have any bearing on laws. I believe that it already does, but just wanted to get some further feed back.

Moontanman, How do you come to this conclusion? Did I miss something in the news?Moontanman No, but it's just as easy for me to say that you could find an atheist that will do that against religions they feel a threat to their way of life. Why is it that atheists try to paint themselves as morally superior to those who believe in God? I'm not a religious person but I also don't begrudge those who are. Moontanman, I think you're blanketing religion with a label that is far too general when it comes to such a topic. Put atheism or science in place of the word religion and you also come up with a true statement. Charles Brough, That is a rather depressing way to look at it.

iNow, If you look back I never said that I thought there inactions didn't play apart as well. But yes, I did say their actions fed the problem. Also I said without those actions the crisis may not have been as bad or even averted altogether. I still say it as a matter of fact. i Now, I never said I believed the market would be perfect without government involvement and if you look back several posts I specifically said as that I probably wouldn't even want it that way. Though I did say as the market would be steadier without that sort of involvement. My arguement was due to the fact that you presented your arguement in a way that seemed as though you thought the only way the government went wrong with that crisis was their inaction to correct the sircumstances. When I was itterating that it wasn't just their inaction but also there actions that fed the fire. Vent and Essay, I will try to respond to you both in in a general way until I get some more time to read your links and think about the information you've provided. I know it may seem as though I do not want government involved in any aspect that may effect our economy. This isn't exactly the case. I believe that a lot of things the government does has a possitive effect on how our economy is able to run. I believe in paying taxes for the institutions and infrastructures that are necessary for our way of life to be what it is. I also am not against certain regulations. As you can see by my posts it is not regulation that I argue against but mandates and aggressive actions. The government was giving quotas, dropping rates of interest, and dropping other rates to provide for people to get these loans that would have not qualified otherwise. I guess my overall point was that governments action and inaction was at fault when looking at how the government may be, at some level, responsible. I think it is absurd to say that government had NO fault though.

Wouldn't expansion be the creation of new space? Or is it just the expansion of what we see moving out through space that already exists? To the question about DE. As my layman way of thinking only provides to me, is the simple understanding that DE is a simple force that is acting on a large portion of matter(superclusters) constantly. A small amount of energy applied over a long period of time can reach very high speeds. Kinda like an ion engine. Anyway. . This small amount of energy is connected with both, the expansion and the acceleration of that expansion, since the density pressure of the universe is at a level close to 1 the expansion should logically slow to 0. Some say this would lead to a big crunch, but I would logically think that that would only happen if everything was close enough to be attracted by gravity. But I am an ameteur thinker, in that I have not been thinking about much of anything until recently. So if I have made an assertion that contradicts mainstream science then I would appreciate any correction.