JustinW

Do you believe it can't or won't happen? I'm just saying, when I only have a cardboard box to live in, I will likely share it with another down and outer, but sure as hell not with some jerk too damned lazy to find his own. Now, if that's paranoia, I'm him.

You still haven't answered my questions. I can see what you think, but my curiousity was leaning more towards, why?

What happens at the center of a black hole and the black hole iself are not the same thing. As I said multiple times, all we know is that`s where our mathematical models breakdown. We cannot say anything more than that and hope to remain correct. However at this point it feels that we are now hopelessly beyond the actual topic of the thread.

Agreed, I think to continue this particular discussion any further it will have to be in speculations since this scenario of likelyhood can't be pinned down to absolution, which seem to be what is required.

As I said previously, singularities almost certainly do not exist in nature.

 

Ah you're of the notion that blackholes do not represent what could be considered a singularity?

Does it have to be an outside force? Couldn’t it be that it reached a critical mass?

If it IS all there is in existance how can it GAIN anything.

 

 

A black hole continuously sucks in (for want of a better word) matter or photons that cross the event horizon, at some point could this not be the reason for the reaction rather than a creator?

If it was all there is in existance then what could it suck in? An even further problem I have when thinking about this, is how could IT even exist, when there is nothing to feed it?

 

 

iNow,

 

No, we really cannot. Your premise is invalid. All we know is that is where are models currently breakdown. That is all that can be accurately said.

So that's it then? There is no room for reducing a scenario down to a reasonable likelyhood? And there is no likelyhood that the models break down because that is where a singularity exists? It is just a coincidence that this singularity can be broken down the same way as those observed? GR tells us that singularities are unavoidable as long as conditions remain satisfied.(which they have so far) Do you think that singularities are just GR's breaking point and that GR is not an accurate model of the universe?

 

 

And also "that is all that can be accurately said" is not so. Things are known such as charge, structure, size, strength, shelf life, formative origin...guess no of that matters though.

May I ask what you meant by the following statement JustinW? Quote: Paranoid much? Why do say that?

Hey, I asked first. I wasn't quite clear on exactly what you were talking about. Who's digging the basement, how, and why? How are people's possessions being taken? A knife or a pick would seem a little insufficient to protect against most things now a days. Why do you see that kind of need for protection coming on?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann%27s_entropy_formula this in no way states that "Stuff just wants to mix". What I got from it is, entropy corrolates with quantity and he came up with a formula that describes this. How does this compare to a buildup of moisture in a french fry? And is it not plausible that any entropy built up in the fry could be transfered through the package in the form of heat. Since there is no excess volume in the package, I would say that it would, rather than react to anything within the fry to cause a buildup of moisture.

Israel could hold the Muslim's Dome of the Rock shrine in Jerusalem as hostage, but the Jews themselves consider the Temple Mount (called the "Noble Sanctuary" by Muslims, on which the shrine rests) as their holy ground, same as the Muslims, so that's pretty much out of the question.

True, but I don't think it would have a dampering effect. I think that would kick off a real war. Plus I think to get Israel into a nuclear fight there would have to be a real good reason. They aren't the ones who antagonize and threaten total destruction, so I think they would act with caution when it comes to considering nuclear action.

Fair enough, though this answer is the same as a mountaineer saying “because it’s there” when asked why s/he climbed the mountain, it’s more of an evasion than an answer.

Guess it boils down to self satisfaction.

 

 

As far as I’m aware at the present time maths breaks down at the point of a singularity. Speculation as to its nature isn’t the same as the fact of its nature.

 

True to a point. We know that singularity is there BECAUSE the maths break down at that point. We can reasonably deduce the nature by examining other singularities (or the stuff around them). But even that tells us a lot about the nature of the beast. And as I stated before, this is not something I'm claiming to be 100% accurate. It is just what can reasonably be deduced from what is known and has been observed. People just tend to freak out when the word "creator" pops up. My comments weren't intended to be fully directed at a creator, but instead in the conditions that are necessary for one to exist. Something had to ocurr with that singularity that was outside the realm of its existance.

Appropriations bills get passed that favor one company over others, due to the efforts of that company's lobbyists. I don't know about you, but I don't want my taxes spent that way, especially when many of these companies are dodging taxes and employing fewer Americans in their American company. A level playing field means companies compete on their merit and market capabilities and not based on how many politicians they have in their deeper-than-ever pockets.

Sounds great, but there's one problem. I can't seem to find anything in the appropriation bills that directly reflect on a company's profit. Unless you are talking about a defense contract or something like that. I found where certain amounts are alotted to the states and districts to be used towards social security and the like. Most others deal with defense budgets that tack on stipulations for the use of that funding. Maybe I've missed something though.

 

I did however, find corruption and scandal wrapped in appropriations for some other countries. Messy, messy.

 

 

Firstly, only 13% of US workers belong to unions.

And how much money do they spend on political causes? How much stink do unions stir up when they want to? By saying "they're only 13% of the workers", is like saying "that don't hurt" when a train falls on you.

 

Second, I'm against the whole concept of already successful companies lobbying for special favors from our government representatives. It's nothing more than legal graft to me.

And you probably would not be surprised at how much actual illegal stuff goes on behind closed doors provided by lobbying. I fully agree with you on this issue.

 

 

 

And who controls the nation right now? Corporations.

You're going to have to get a little more specific before I'll believe that one.

 

I'm stunned that you're blaming "the nation" for driving companies to sacrifice their integrity.

Easy there, no need to have a heart attack. First of all, if a company sacrifices it's integrity I don't blame anyone but that company. That's one of most important things children can learn when their younger isn't it? That no one is responsible for their actions but themselves? And I may have worded that badly, but like I've said before, business is business. And companies will go where they can make the most profit. That's the nature of the beast. When we make policies that restrict that profit, companies will look somewhere else. You can say that they may be morally bankrupt when making these kinds of decisions, but you have to take into account why they are in business in the first place. It's to make money. National prosperity is just a by-product of them that provide those jobs and though it's important, it is still not the main goal or origional purpose of establishing those businesses. So I see nothing wrong with a company choosing to go where the profit is, at least from a business standpoint. From a national stability standpoint I think it ultimately falls on policy makers to encourage these business to stay. And I also agree this is a tricky thing to do without comprimising our ethics. Situations can arise that may lean towards pandering to companies and I would say that we can't do this either. But we also shouldn't create situations that we know will force companies to make the decision to leave. I think that most companies do not decide to leave on a whim. If a company leaves over seas, it's usually because the cost of staying GREATLY outways the cost of leaving. And ultimately I think we can come up with solutions to prevent alot of this.

 

 

 

But it still remains true. Congress can fix plenty when they're motivated. Why don't they fix the infernal labyrinth that is our tax system?

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure. I'll would have to hear some of the reasoning involved.

 

Do you mean business at any cost? The founding fathers were so afraid of the powers of corporate charters that they regulated practically everything about them, from what they were allowed to sell, where they could sell it and even how long they could sell it. Over the years, corporations have always tried to get away with more and more, and we've always been able to rein them in again by strengthening the regs that get weakened. But now lobbying and PACs have become so good at what they do it's tipped the influence businesses have over our laws and appropriations. Is this really what YOU stand for fundamentally?

The founding fathers were afraid of corruption and theivery. Corporations still have to file charters to exist. If they are found to be fraudulent or corrupt in their ways, then there should be no good reason why their charter shouldn't be revoked. You have a good point there, and maybe states should take a closer look at their charter laws if they think these companies are giving them the shaft. But I would think about what it is that they are actually doing. Are they doing things in a fraudulent manner? Are they stealing from the nation? Lobbying seems to be the only legitamate gripe that I've heard so far about the way that corporations do business. Also I have mixed feelings on the whole charter issue. On one hand it is sound practice to be able to do something about companies who cross legal lines. But on the other hand the stock that shareholders obtain can be looked at as private property and shouldn't be taken lightly when considering adjustment or absolution. It flies in the face of freedom once a governing body can decide whether you keep what's yours or not.

 

 

 

They're advantages NOBODY should have. Are you really OK with people being able to pay for special favors from our elected officials?

No, again I may have worded that wrong. There will always be advantages. And those who have the money will more than likely always be better equipped to obtain them. But I don't think our government should be the ones to provide them. I would also have to think long and hard about what kind of regulating happens also. Considering personal property and freedom to make sound business practice with the resources that are present. It is when someone creates an unnatural resource that I think ethics are comprimised and doors that lead to corruption are opened.

 

You've got me thinking about this a little bit more. What is it that corporations do besides lobbying that isn't condusive to good business practice? Other than lobbying. Are most people just angry about the amount of money they make? Isn't there anything specific that could justify such an uprising? Or is it just the fear of what might be if someone doesn't put them under the thumb?

 

rigney,

 

What the hell is a level playing field? When the ground has been dug below basement level, you're right; there will be no advantages. No one will own a damned thing, other than the gun, knife or pick handles used to protect their families and themselves.

Paranoid much? Why do say that?

Please, don't let me stop you. I know that you have never submitted a post that wasn't spot on topic to the OP. And if the originator of this thread is willing to address the question, why should it be a problem with you?

Because I see this too often and don't think it is detrimental to an enlightening and knowledgeable conversation. I will be the first to admitt that I have done this also when in a cheeky mood, but have recently come to the conclusion that it is not condusive to good behavior.

 

The fact of the matter is that if we had more conversations about the merrit of the text rather than the context we might gain more from it.

Plus I had some actual question dealing with the merrit of the thesis.

 

And I don't think you could stop me if you tried. I'm rather stubborn.

Wages and benefits have been stifled over the years while profits have been increased.

How have they been purposefully stifled?

 

 

It's not just inflation that has caused most families to require two incomes.

I specifically stated that inflation wasn't the only cause. I'm quite sure there are many other reasons. And when considered at a cumulative level should corollate wage rates not matching up to current standards of living.

 

Again, when I say fair, I don't mean evenly distributed.

Okay, fair enough. (no pun intended)

 

 

I mean having a level playing field and applying the laws even-handedly.

Are there laws that don't apply to everybody? And what do you mean by "level playing field"? This could get awfully close to fair distribution.

 

 

 

I mean NOT stacking the deck against small businesses by using no-bid contracts, or buying political favors with your campaign contributions to skew things in your favor.

 

It seems that I recall this happening with unions, companies like GE, and community organizations like ACORN during the last election if I'm not mistaken. Of course I never heard an uproar over that one.

 

 

 

or sending their jobs overseas so you can make more profit.

Completely within their rights and fits within the free market business principle. If this nation wants to do something about that, they should not make policies that drive companies into this sort of practice.

 

The IRS is a perfect example of something that the vast majority of We, the People see as needing fixing, yet it continues to get worse, so someone out there is making sure it stays broken for a reason.

This could be said about alot of things that include both sides of the political ideolog.

 

I once heard (a while back) that if we had a flat 12% tax with no exemptions or credits, we'd have all the money we need to run the country, and a completely level playing field with regard to taxes. I don't know if that still holds true, but it sure would be interesting to hear the arguments against it.

I agree and thought it was a hell of an idea when I first heard it. I would even go as far as to up the anti in hopes of a surplus sometime in my future. At the rate we've been going over the past decade or more I don't see that happening even in my grandchildrens future.

 

 

 

Look, the bottom line is that business is business. And that's not likely to change unless dictated in an official sense, which would go against the grain of everything We stand for fundamentally. The best we can do is try to weed out those policies that present an "unlevel playing field" (if I understand your sense of the situation) and to put a flat tax on every single citizen based on general income to insure that everyone is putting in at a rate that they gain.

 

I have thought about what you call an unlevel playing field and have come to the conclusion that you mean: advantages that some can afford while others can't. If I'm incorrect please explain your take on it.

Instead of directing this conversation away from the subject by discussing press releases and style of writing, why don't we actually discuss the plausibility of the thesis?

 

As the quantum world produces these leftover forces, they randomly combine into a vast variety of configurations. “Think of this as the primordial soup before the rise of our cosmos,” adds Greer. “Some combinations attract, some repel, some explode, some cancel back out into nothing to name a few of the possibilities. Those that attract, they do so in varying degrees. If we simulate an explosion among particles of varying gravity, you should see the particles that attract too strongly collapse back into the center; Particles that attract too lightly fly off into space; Only the ones with just the right level of attraction successfully remain, orbiting each other in balance. Repeat this cycle over and over and the amount of particles that attract precisely grows as sort of a natural selection process. This is how gravity as we know it might have evolved.

You say those that attract do so in varying degrees, but wouldn't the same apply to those that repell also? And in this thesis, what implications would that have on the outcome of the particles with little repulsive force? It seems that there would be a window of those that remain, not just a cut and dry "stay or go" scenario.

 

Also you mention that one should see particles that attract too strongly collapse back in the center. The center of what? The center point between them?

 

And, if gravity is in the form of particles... why would they automatically only apply to things with mass? And apply their strength according to density?

 

What’s more, the theory predicts the universe should forever grow larger and larger. In other words, from the edge of our universe, we would see more stars, galaxies and big bangs. “I believe big bangs may be tied to the explosion/inflation of a black hole. Inflation could be triggered by a tipping point, as stars have”, Greer speculates. “Black hole big bangs could be as common in the multiverse as exploding stars are in our universe.”

 

What would cause a blackhole to explode or inflate? Did they encounter something they couldn't swallow (so to speak)? In the notion that the hadron collider can produce tiny blackholes, it is assumed that when having more material than it can consume, it would wink out of existance. (purely speculative and recently debunked) But on the other hand, Hawking had suggested that a black hole will eventually decay into nothing, for two simple reasons. First, a black hole wil not consume any material that is not caught in it's event horizon. Second, all black holes emit radiation, so eventually will shrink due to only having a certain amount of mass and energy to consume. And in fact the smaller they get, the faster they will shrink.

Entropy? Huh? How do you consider entropy to be a cause? "Stuff just wants to mix" doesn't even come close to describing entropy.

 

I might could see capillary action if given enough time. But the subject doesn't give enough time for the slight amount of moisture to allow such capillation.

The "Shared prosperity" in the context of the show implies that there are those taking the chance of prosperity from others. Where is that happening? Maybe you could shed some light on opportunities that have been purposely blocked by the top 1%. Why don't you give some examples that couldn't be construde as " the name of the game".

 

Shared prosperity, where we make a wage that lets us be involved in our own economy and political structure instead of working two or three jobs to make ends meet while your kids wonder when you'll have enough energy to play with them.

We already set a wage. It is just that "some people" keep purposely driving inflation and the wage can't keep up do to all the red tape. There are other reasons as well, but to say that this world will ever be fair or that we should have an agenda towards such a goal isn't copasetic.

 

 

It's fair business practices and integrity in lawmaking

Here we go with that "fair" stuff again. Speaking of patterns.

 

Integrity is a matter of opinion, though in mine I believe you're on to something.

 

 

Also, to me, if you want everyone to pay their "fair share" it would be reasonably simple. Set up a flat income tax without exemptions. Sounds pretty hard doesn't it? I wonder who will fight something like that in congress, and also who will start the yelling first.

WHY try?

Why not?

 

And you're wrong about knowing nothing of singularities. Actually a book was just reffered to me co-written by Hawking on the subject of the singularity before the present expansion. Although boreing in places, and being rather long, it lays out the math and subsequent observations that lead to the high probability of the existance of a singularity. The only thing that is stated in that book that can even come close to contradicting my thoughts on the subject is that they couldn't tell if the initial singularity was stable or not. To me it would seem that, if that singularity was "all there is", meaning no space-time, that it would have no choice but to be stable. This has been my point all along. The name of the book, if you're interested, is "The large scale structure of spacetime" and the explanation for the singularity at the beginning of the BB starts on ch.10 page 348. I won't go through the trouble of providing the links for the BB theory where it includes this singularity, since it is real easy to find and states it in every copy I've found thus far.

 

It's rather amussing that people just state "you're wrong" without doing even the slightest amount of background reading to make such a claim.

 

 

mooey,

 

How am I misrepresenting what a singularity is. Why do you keep saying these kinds of things without even mentioning how? It's almost like I read iNow always saying to people. That there reply equals an "uh uh" and that's the end of it. If I'm misrepresenting something why don't you lay out the basics of how instead of just saying it. If I am, then I will have learned something. Maybe the math says something the words do not. I'm willing to change my thoughts on any subject, but have to have a logical reason for doing so first, and you or anyone else has yet to give me one, other than "nuh uh, you're wrong". That's the type of behavior that makes me hard headed and doesn't go anywhere toward a possitive learning experience.

 

 

 

Just sayin'.

DrRocket,

 

As a start this is how that source begins:

 

" Einstein's General Theory of Relativity leads to two remarkable predictions: first, that the ultimate destiny of many massive stars is to undergo gravitational collapse and to disappear from view, leaving behind a 'black hole' in space; and secondly, that there will exist singularities in space-time itself. These singularities are places where space-time begins or ends, and the presently known laws of physics break down. They will occur inside black holes, and in the past are what might be construed as the beginning of the universe. To show how these predictions arise, the authors discuss the General Theory of Relativity in the large. "

 

Hmmm, let me read this 300 and some odd pages and get back to you. As of now I don't see how it is going to differ from my origional thinking and since this book was published in the 70s you might think that others writing on the subject would have corrected their interpretation by now. And FYI, I would appreciate it if in the future you notice I don't understand something, that you might explain how I may be misinterpreting an idea or theory. I still don't know where you think I might be misinterpreting this theory, and you have yet to lead me in the proper direction other than to say I'm wrong and every other link popularizing this theory is also. You just say the links are wrong and I don't understand without any reason as to why or how but I reckon I'll figure it out once I read this. (hopefully)

 

It's an interesting book, though I had to skim through some parts and am still working my way through the rest.

 

Exact text ch.10 page 348 say's " The initial singularity in the universe. The expansion of the universe is in many ways similar to the collapse of a star, except that the sense of time is reversed.We shall show in this chapter that the conditions of theorems 2 and 3 seem to be satisfied, indicating that there was a singularity at the beginning of the present expansion phase of the universe."

 

How does that not fit with what I've stated about the BB theory? I'll keep reading though, if only to satisfy myself that they will not change their minds towards the end.

 

The only thing that might be construde as not matching with my thoughts on the subject of singularities, is the statement that they didn't know whether or not an initial singularity would have been stable or not.

 

Without space-time or matter or anything but the singularity one would think it would have no choice but to be stable.

 

 

I'll wait for your rebuttle.

 

moonjelly,

matter can neither be created nor destroyed...think about that

What about matter/anti-matter annihilation?

Of course there is the possibility of a creator in there someplace, there is the possibility of a hyper intelligent shade of the color purple too but there is no good reason to assume it it is true...

Alright fair enough, I guess. For Now(imagine Dr. Evil laugh following)

 

 

Anyway, what's singularities have to do with religion?

Read the posts. It's got to do with creation/creator, etc...

</body>Phi,

 

Your chart is for perception of corruption. I'd like to know how they rate those perceptions. Their parameters are probably for things like officials taking bribes rather than politicians working corporate-favorable legislation into bills. Corruption perception may not include lobbyists working within the legal parameters established by corrupt politicians.

 

And perception doesn't reflect reality? Bad policy, though bad enough, is not corruption.

This is what you said:

I think you simply don't want our corruption to be worse than other nations our size, but I'm afraid we're the frontrunners in that respect.

The frontrunners in bad policy maybe. But not corruption.

 

 

Now THAT is a specious argument. You know I advocate government control only where profit motivations are in direct conflict with the interests represented. I don't know where you get off claiming that's an ideological change. I'm closer to being an Eisenhower Republican than I am an ultra-liberal Democrat like Michael Moore. Eisenhower warned us about trusting the military industrial complex.

Sorry Phi, didn't mean you personally. That was more of a rant towards the ideological movement that wants this change for our own good. And THAT movement isn't only conscerned about conflicts of interest.

 

 

I never said corporations are evil or rich people are bad and you damn well know it, yet you keep misrepresenting what I've said.

You have never said it outright. But to hear you tell it, sometimes I wonder. Maybe I just had a misperception from the overall content of you're arguements. When someone's arguements tend to lean towards a certain topic, then it starts to look like a pattern.

 

from the link provided by iNow,

The struggle of ordinary people for a decent living, for security, is as old as the republic, but it's taken on a new and urgent edge. Instead of shared prosperity our political system has now produced a winner-take-all economy.

Does anything seem wrong with this statement? Shared prosperity? That whole thing is a crock. It may have some truths mixed in with it, but so do the best lies.Just another cheerleading for the "spread the wealth" activists. They even went as far as saying "well hollywood saw it coming". If I have to rely on people like saun penn to predict future events I might as well give up the ghost now. I'm exasperated

DrRocket,

 

So this is wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang, and this http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm, and this, http://big-bang-theory.com/. I could go on but do I really need to. Spacetime? indefinite? What are you talking about? Who said anything about spacetime being indefinite? There would be no space time with the singularity, because space wouldn't exist. Which automatically prevents movement which is necessary to establish time. Am I wrong? If that is what you are assuming that I have claimed please show me where. And please let me in on my "criticism" of this theory for I was unaware of any that I have stated.

 

 

Let's see here what wiki says about the theory. " According to the most recent measurements and observations, this original state existed approximately 13.7 billion years ago,^[2][3] which is considered the age of the Universe and the time the Big Bang occurred.^[4][5] After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles. It would take thousands of years for some of these particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons) to combine and form atoms, the building blocks of matter. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Eventually, clouds of hydrogen would coalesce through gravity to form stars, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae."

 

and to support the mainstream part, " The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model."

 

And wiki is not the only place this is stated. If this theory has been changed and there is some secret place that I need to look to get the real theory then by all means tell me where the real theory is.

 

 

Before you criticize a theory, the first step is to understand what that theory actually says.

As you can see, I have clearly read this theory from several different perspectives. Is there something you would like to further inlighten me on about the theory?

mooey,

 

We do NOT allow for non mainstream science theories as answers in MAINSTREAM science threads. This isn't a request, it's our rules, and we don't need to go and point at every individual to make them stop doing it.

 

Get back on the scientific topic, please.

The singularity theory is MAINSTREAM science. The OP was "what was before the BB" and what does mainstream say about that? Let's see if we can present the meaning of what is thought to be before the big bang: http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm and http://big-bang-theory.com/ , which clearly states : " According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago."

 

 

Even Airbrush mentions that a reputable scientist touched on it here,

 

Just this morning on the Science Channel (my favorite) a reputable scientist spoke of the universe coming from "nothing" and that the entire universe was smaller than an atom at the moment of the Big Bang.

although he didn't call it by name, that pinpoint smaller than an atom refers to the singularity.

 

 

Again, I don't see you jumping on Moontanman for presenting a theory that could be considered to be held by only a select few and is nowhere close to being a mainstream thesis as an answer in this thread. And that was even off topic since this thread is about the BB theory.

 

 

So don't tell me that's enough. You can jump on me about the rules once I've broken one.

As said before, it is not homogeneous to start with: just after frying, moisture is found only at the center of the fries, not the outside... If you give it time (like a few hours), it will distribute itself also to the outside.

How does this redistribution occur? Is there some internal force acting upon the moisture to drive it from the center?

mooey,

 

The fact you can't think of possibilities does not mean they don't exist. No one could think about the possibility that mass twists space, either, 200+ years ago. That doesn't mean that the option itself didn't exist, and that it shouldn't have been searched for.

I thought it was rather cut and dry. I didn't know we were going to start redefining the characteristics of a singularity or what may result from one being the only thing in existance.

You would think that people who have so many unknown possibilities would include a creator in there somewhere, you know, since "unknown" is so conveniently accepted.

 

You keep throwing these definitions about flase dichotomy, but where is the logical fallicy in assuming that a singularity is something that can't act upon itself if it is the only thing in exsistance? I think it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that fits within the realm of science.

Phi,

 

I think you simply don't want our corruption to be worse than other nations our size, but I'm afraid we're the frontrunners in that respect. It costs us twice as much to do things when, due to our size and affluence, we should be paying less. Did you ever see the breakdown on what Bush's no-bid Iraq War contract with Halliburton cost us? You'd think a single company doing EVERYTHING would be able to lower costs as opposed to multiple companies each doing a portion of the work, wouldn't you? We paid almost double in every instance, from craft services to oil well firefighting.

 

 

No body wants their country's corruption to be as bad as others. Here is where we rank with the rest of the world: http://chartsbin.com/view/nz2

And that last part of what I have quoted above seems suspiciously like what the government has always done. I think the hollering about corporate corruption has gotten you off track with how our problems stack up when compared to the rest of the world.

 

 

Other countries may have corruption as well, but the US does it through channels and gets We, the People to sign off on the graft via patriotism, buried bill provisions and spun media stories.

All the more reason we should let the government make ALL of our decisions so we at least have someone besides ourselves to blame. Apparently We as a whole are incompetent in matters of making our own decisions in life. Let's go ahead and shout out for an ideological change that was the key in allowing dictators to gain so much control over people. That sounds like heck of a thing to champion in the shouting arena of today. At least we will know that if we can get all of the country to suffer under a tyranical torment then more than likely those nasty corporations will finally get what they deserve. I don't know why I felt the need for a sarcastic paragraph, but there it is.

 

 

Again, this "share the wealth" crap is propaganda

Like this "evil corporation", "evil rich people", "health care for all", "koombaya" crap isn't. Eye of the beholder I guess.

 

 

Are you really going to make me look up your responses to health insurance for profit?

Go ahead, but I don't ever recall agreeing that everyone should be ENTITLED to healthcare or free healthcare or whatever it is those wierd ass activists chant in the streets and shout at anyone who even remotely looks like they're listening. Propoganda works both ways I tell ya. All that shouting is going to do is drive away anyone who will listen, especially once all the intrecate little fallacies start building up to discredit such a movement. Legitimate problems will be swept under the rug because of a false premiss that "rich people bad"- "middle class better"-"let's make them rich bastards pay" ideology can't stand up to the plate without a dictator to lead it.

 

Not to mention the fact that the creation of crisis is how to get things done under such a political ideology isn't it? The more you stir people up and pander on their hype and hysteria the more an activist can get done. Am I wrong?

 

Entitlements and restrictions for "our own good" will be the downfall of this nation. Not corruption and greed.

Juicy,

 

Do you not feel that you have missed out some possibilities here?

What possibilities can come from a singularity? If a singularity is all there is in existance then it has no potential at all, because there would be nothing for it to act upon and nothing to act upon it.Where is the grey area?

As I said before there not necessarily a singularity and no one knows what a singularity can or cannot do if one existed.

What do you mean no one knows. If it can do anything then it is not a singularity. And they do say one existed and in fact was all that existed before the BB. It can never be proven scientifically (convenient, i know) because you can only get to a certain point before the physics break down. The reason they do that is because they don't apply to a singularity. There is nothing to apply to it. It is singularly all there is. It's the point where physical laws were created, because before that certain point nothing existed accept the singularity.

 

 

Please provide some evidence that a singularity acts the way you say or even than a singularity even exists.

We know singularities exist. Just look at the core of a black hole. But a beginning singularity that is all there is wouldn't act, or move, or do anything for that matter, because it would have nothing to act on.

 

Here is a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Just to assure you that current popular theory states that the universe came from a singularity.

 

 

Again what evidence do you have to back up this assertion you keep making about singularities?

WTH do you think a blackhole is man? The only reason the singularity, that is the blackhole, reacts with stuff around it is because there IS stuff around it. If that singularity was all there is, there would be nothing to act upon. Does that "assertion" make sense now?

 

 

 

The idea that the universe had to be created by some intelligent creator is bogus and just as subject to being wrong as the idea that lightning is the wrath of the creator...

Not really. It is still the infinite question even in the theory you laid out. I think I stated before that my logic on this matter was cohesive with the BB theory. Which if I'm not mistaken is the most popular theory at present. And I'm not saying I'm 100% right on this thing either. I'm just stating that logically one has to assume that to have a singularity in the beginning would require something outside of the realm of existance to act upon it. So since the popular thought includes that singularity, then my assertion is rellevant and sensical.