JustinW

I always confuse myself when trying to explain things like this. I think the expanding dotted balloon analogy is a good one, except there is always a dot on the balloon that stays in the same place. Esspecially if you concider the universe to be flat. And the fact that the outer dots from the static dot move faster.

There is also another problem to look at that are not blades of grass. If the global government laws take precedent over laws of nations then any conflict incited by a nation against the global government could result in world war. What are nations to do once they feel that a global government is getting too corrupt. Once you impliment a global government there is no going back. I don't want to seem like a glass half empty sort of person, but you can't look at the positive without looking at the possibility of the negative.

Alright I can get the jest of what you're saying. When someone says that the outer galaxies that we observe are receding at twice the SOL, how do they know that they are moving that fast and not us moving that fast relative to their past observable location? It was a nice example and it is probably something very simple, I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. How can an outer observer see that our galaxy and the one next to us move apart at the same rate as we observe his galaxy and the one next to him if they're moving faster than us? It would seem that if an outside observer were moving that much faster than us, he would be able to tell by observing the relation to things around him compared to the relation to things around us. Is that how we know how fast the expansion is at the outer part of our light cone?

Yes, I see what you're saying Phi, but I still don't see where that applies to our constitution. There is a need for the things you've mentioned and things do seem lop sided when you look at our waste compared to others needs. But the fact remains that the provisions necessary to help the growth and unity of the world don't need to come froma constitutional change. They can just as easily come from a change in foreign policy and the way that we deal with the world. Sorry, when I went to it, it said there was a problem with the site's security certificate. Probably just a safe gaurd on my end though. This also brought another thing to mind. How would this affect the global market? I could see it helping the poorer nations that have something to trade, but I could also the market in general crashing hard over something like this.

For the sake of argument, if you can make the bike levitable with enough energy to support it, I would think the max speed for an open cab, feet forward vehicle would be as fast as you could breathe at. Without a source of oxygen the resistance of the outside air itself would stifle the driver enough to not be able to breathe. Of course a source of oxygen and a windshield could solve this problem. That is to say that they can maintain control at such resistance in the first place. It would seem that the more corrections you make for such problems, the less and less it would look like a bike.

Sorry I must have been typing while you responded here or I would have waited with my last post. With a new convention it would either mean other countries would have to change their fundamentals , we would have to change some of ours, or both. I don't see the US changing ours and even bbroadening our would be a matter of foreign policy not constitution change. Plus I don't see where other countries would adopt our fundamental principles. Yes I can take into concideration the movements that have risen up lately. Is Egypt a shining example of a non fundamentalist group taking power of government?The last I heard the brotherhood was on a rampage. I still haven't heard anyone come up with a reason why we need to broaden our constitution rather than change our foreign policy. Maybe the question to this thread should be 'Do we need to change our foreign policy"

Although different, it is still the foundation and basis for those laws. Do you think the world would bend to our way of thinking when it comes to equal rights or the freedoms provided in our constitution... such as free speech, freedom of assembly, the right to bare arms, freedom of religion, etc...Would other countries institute their laws that follow those values?

I have recently watched a talk given by Strauss called "universe from nothing". It was pretty insightfull but brought a question to mind about the expansion of the universe. In the talk he layed out a scenario of what hubble observed with a grid of dots. Every dot represented a galaxy. When overlapping a grid that was observed at a later time with a grid previously observed you could see that the dots expanded outward from our galaxy, and that the further out the galaxy, the greater the rate of expansion. He showed that this was true, not just from our galaxy's stand point but with observing from any galaxy. Giving the effect that whatever galaxy the observer stood on would seem as though it were the center of the universe. Since the outer galaxies are expanding at a faster rate, by his explanation, one standing on one of the outer galaxies would observe our galaxy expanding at this same greater rate. This doesn't add up. Because if someone were standing on one of the outer galaxies looking toward earth we would look like we were moving outward at more than the SOL and the galaxies around us would be also. But this isn't the case. The galaxies around us are not moving away from us at that speed, are they? If not then why would an observer at the outer point of our observable looking in observe this? So is the expansion rate the same throughout the universe? Or is it greater for galaxies on the outer edge of our observation cone? I don't see how it can be both and was hoping someone might be able to explain. Also, if the speed IS greater the farther out the observation we could pin point the location of the center of the universe? Which by Krausses explanation would be our galaxy. This is the talk by Krauss. It is a long video but the grid and explanation is in the first ten minutes I think. I hope I didn't confuse anyone too much. The picture in my head was a lot simpler than when I tried to put it in words.

No that isn't what I meant. (there i go again) I meant trade agreements and such. Incentives to strengthen their economies. I believe if a new convention were proposed, it would be with incentives to make money that would get most to listen. And I should bold the world listen. Just because the incentive is given doesn't mean that a country will agree. Another question I have is once this new constitution is in place, who'll will police it? Who will make sure that it is abided by? I'm going to have to think about the percentage you've given. It seems awfully high. Just of the top of my head things like womens rights, governing ideology( as per religion), laws that go against a lot of Americans morals such as mandatory population control, child labor, freedom of speech and assembly, and there are some more I'm sure I could think of given some time and thought. It seems like redoing our constitution using such general outlines that wouldn't cover the irresolvable differences would be pointless and harmful. The rights given in our constitution do not have a global consensus, and to comprimise on such things is to go against our founding principles. And as to doG's reply, I tend to agree. You would also have to look at environmental aspects, along with equal rights to everyone no matter what race, religion, or ethnicity. Some of these things, as Americans, we cannot comprimise with. There is no inbetween.

That was an interesting talk by Krauss. It answered some questions I've had, and brought about some new ones which I will ask in another thread. Essentially I think Sorcerer's opinion of nothing was more feasable as to the philisophical question here. The term nothingness that Krauss uses (empty space) is still actually something, because it has energy and weight. Empty space is still space, so it is something. So although it can be the "nothing" that which the universe was created, it cannot be the true form of nothing. So the question still stands...Does nothing even exist? And if empty space, as observed, has energy then where did that weight and energy come from? Something or nothing?

If someone didn't have the means to experiment or the knowledge to explain in the mathematical language would they automatically be viewed as a crackpot or would it depend on if what they were saying was logical? And, if someone didn't have the education needed to prove and test a theory or discuss an idea, would their idea become inadicuate for discussion? It is understandable to dismiss those who argue their way of thinking against all evidence to the contrary, but I believe that if someone has an idea that hasn't been tested or explained mathematically, if theoretically possible, should be allowed to be discussed without being written off as crackpottery. Although I haven't seen this happen too often since I have become a member here. I have seen that generally people are more than happy to explain and share their knowledge with those who are les knowledgable. Another reason that I think discussion is valuable, even from those who aren't as knowledgable, is that you never know where an inspiring idea may come from. A discussion sparked by a crackpot may lead to a ground breaking idea from someone who gets involved in the discussion.

I could see that. Or how about taxing us for what we exhale? I've heard they have already started to tax for the flatulence of livestock in some countries. I would have to disagree with this in a way. I know that in some ways you are judged by your criminal background, but it also depends on who is doing the judging. I can't speak for anything but personal experience on this though. Where I work I am involved with the hiring in some aspects. We hire tough people to do a tough job, so although we do look at a criminal background it is not a deciding factor by any means. In fact I would say a good majority of the people we hire have at one point or another been in some trouble with the law. I guess the point I am trying to convey would be that I can see the point, but I wouldn't portray it is an undeniable fact. Oh, I agree. Maybe I should have worded that differently. I meant revenge through punishment within the bounds of justice. If that makes any sense. Sometimes the way I voice my thoughts doesn't make sense to a whole lot of people. I also should have worded this differently. By using the word unforgivable I was intending to convey the harshness of a crime, not to imply that the justice system should act with a level of emotion. Also my choice for the word of revenge would be a personal vandetta for the families harmed through the crime, not an act to be lifted from the bounds of true justice. I believe in what they say, that justice is blind. If it truely is...it should be. So your point is well taken.

I don't think it was a dodge at all. We have different rules, values, and governance than a lot do around the world. It is because of who where we're from. We are molded by these things along with life experiences to make us who we are. Are we just going to pick and choose which values get put in and left out? We as Ameriacans may want women to have equal rights in all aspects of life, do you think others will want the same? And if they don't can you see us bending on that value? I don't and that is just one example. If another convention were held I'm sure there would be plenty more just like it. The first thought that came to mind was MONEY, of course. You know the saying, money talks and bull**** walks. I think that the approach that you are thinking of wouldn't need threatening as a means to get countries to at least listen. Though I won't say that it might not cause some conflicts with some. But it would essentially come down to money. That would have to be the argument you would have to make in order for the poorer countries to listen. Edited for spelling(might have missed some)

Sorry for the interuption, but in reading the OP I got the impression that the question was about square seconds not seconds^2. Square meters would still be the measurement of an area, but what would square seconds? I thought this was the question that michael123456 posed. If there is some demension to time that can be applied to square seconds? As applying area somehow to time.

Agreed. It was not meant to be a generalization. If you could put in place a system of rehabilitation for lesser crimes it would be step in a possitive direction. But for the more heiness crimes I think would have to be judged on more of a case by case basis so that the level of magnitude can be determined by the judges discression.

Why, culture, history, and basic commradery of course. A fundamental feeling of pride for your fellow countrymen and the land we live in. I know that people in other countries share these things with eachother also, but I was talking from the perspective of an American about America. That wasn't exactly what I was insinuating. The protestors get shot in the streets in contries like Syria, Iran, etc... When people get together in mass in some parts of the world to protest their government it tends to get nasty sometimes. I was even further talking about countries like Iran and North Korea. I doubt they would follow anything we have to do with and further might give them an excuse to get hostile.

iNow, Before I read your link I will say, although you might already cover it there, I think it's important that we differentiate between mediocre criminals and those who deserve punishment and revenge. I believe that some crimes are unforgivable and should be treated with a level harshness that fits with those crimes.

I this first quote was what made me start thinking that way. But if you notice in the last sentence of my last post I caught myself. So I really wasn't talking about a specific regulation. I was reffering to it more in a general way. I've heard you talk about this privatization of prisons before. I don't remember when I heard this but it was a while back. Has anyone been talking about it recently?

Sure, I was reffering to volume and pressure as a coupling. By saying that we are LOSING pressure, do you mean that the vacuum pressure is getting stronger or weaker? If space is expanding it would cause the vacuum pressure to get stronger, right? If you have any links to this it would be appreciated.

Yes,but doesn't a company's profit also reflect the market therefore creating considerations for it's growth, stagnation, or downgrading? That would have to depend. Solutions have consequences too. For instance,I wouldn't push a regulation that would cause job loss in the middle of hard economic times. But I haven't heard anyone mention regulations that would affect a company in this way yet. Sure, someone could argue that environmental regulations might create a loss in profit, but I would have to consider the reason for the regulation and the effect that it had on those involved. And it would have to have undeniable proof of harm to people or environment before I could back a regulation that would create job loss under a hard economy. But as far as regulating lobbying and demanding personal liability, I don't see that being a burden to the average worker in any way. And I believe it is something that needs to be done. I wasn't saying a corporation should be given the rights of a person. I was saying that those people that make up a corporation shouldn't be taken as lightly as I hear talked about. I haven't heard a whole lot about the large amount of people that are apart of those businesses. Businesses that put food on the table for a whole lot of people in this country. Not to mention the other businesses that do thrive off of services provided to big businesses. I was just saying if you stifle the business you stifle the people that it feeds. But so far it is a pointless arguement since I have heard no one state any regulations that might harm job markets. Sorry if it seems drawn out, I didn't have much time to put my thoughts together.

But it does make about as much sense. To me this is a dizzying conversation. (not that it's hard to make me dizzy ) Is it even a consensus that nothingness actually exists? Or is it just an imaginary phrase brought about to explain the state of something that is absent.

Are you saying that they are not? That downgrading a companies profit wouldn't directly affect it's workers? I agree here. I always get tired of seeing corps and unions advertising for polititions. They do it in the name of their employees and members but have no clue as to how the majority of their employees/members might lean. Even if the majority do agree it still isn't fair to those who oppose who can't even have a say in it. If these are the type of regs you are talking about I'm all for it. Maybe the names in the act give it less influence. I haven't heard too much about this so I'll have to do a little more reading befor I can seriously make any comments. I'll have to brush up on my history here, but didn't a private banker out of New York bail out the entire country around this time. Maybe it was sometime after. I'll have to look it up now out of sheer curiousity.

That makes sense. I never thought about it from that angle, but it does seem like the path of least resistance and a reasonable solution. As for the barons, they might not take too much heat, but what about the smaller farmer? From what I've read on the subject the top 10% use over 70% of the subsidies. That to me seemed outrageous even considering that the top 10% probably had more operational costs. But you would figure the other 30% of subsidies might help out the small farmers. They might have to switch cash crops if the programs were ever abolished. Assuming that they couldn't hold out through the turmoil. I also wanted to comment more on the subject of this thread. Why in the world would we ever want to frame our constitution around building policy with the rest of the world? I know it seems like a nice idea to have the whole world together in unity, but I'll have to agree with a point DoG made above about other countries wanting to impliment ideas and ways of life that don't exactly jive with the US and our principles. It would be hard no matter how much pressure was put on them by the rest of the world. Some would definitely not give in without a fight and it would give some others an excuse to fight. I mean, you see how pressure from the public is taken by some of the governments around the world now. This seems like it would also put us on the path to some sort of new world order, which would make me nervous. Me as an American, and more so as a Texan, feel that our independence and diversity from the majority of the world is something to be proud of. I would have to have a darn good reason to want to go in that direction. Sorry iNow will get back on topic. I don't see why foriegn policy needs to be included in the constitution any more than it already is. We can change the way we do business without having to change our constitution.

This is where I always get caught up. Who's going to do the picking and choosing on who gets the shaft? Is it going to be those who make a certain amount annually no matter how they got to be in their position or what they do with their money? And whose to say that if you do cut the profits of the higher ups in the corporations that they won't pass it down to the average worker with cuts in pay, cuts in benifits, lay offs, and relocation alltogether? They are in business to make money in the first place. If you take that away, then they will ultimately find a way or place that they can. Not to mention that it would be a blaitant disregaurd for private property and personal freedom. And on another point I think the average worker wants their company to grow and turn a profit. If the company didn't, the workers future would start looking pretty bleak.

It seems that the US isn't the only ones that do this. The EU also have their hands in the perverbial cookie jar. What do you think? How bad would it hurt or help the US agriculture and manufacturing markets of these products if we abolished these subsidiary programs? If we cut these subsidies it isn't likely the manufacturing of these products would grow before we felt the impact on the agricultural market.