gre

What are some supporting arguments/facts for "space = time" (from general relativity, etc)?

Are there any theories out there that consider space a field (or Field-Like? If space can't exist without matter and vis versa, wouldn't that imply they are somehow tied together?

If a single particle/mass existed in an area without space, maybe a specific quantity of space would exist around that particle/mass?

Are there any theories out there that consider space a field (or Field-Like? If space can't exist without matter and vis versa, wouldn't that imply they are somehow tied together?

If a single particle/mass existed in an area without space, maybe a specific quantity of space would exist around that particle/mass?

Welcome to reality.

 

Because there are situations in which that simply cannot work. What if you're 4 months along, and suddenly you lose your job and entire financial support network, and will be utterly incapable of raising a kid? Sucks to be you?

Simply cannot work? Why? If you don't catch the pregnancy until after 60 days, or lose your income, or whatever might change someone's mind about raising a child, they could use adoption.

Merged post follows:

Here are some more hypothetical questions for the anti-abortion folks...

What is worse having 10+ children or one abortion? Would you sacrifice a fetus for the quality of life of others (avoid future widespread disease and famine)?

I would be against this use of abortion just as much as I would be against killing baby girls to meet child restrictions.

Interesting.. Is this a common attitude amongst pro-life folks? It is just as bad to abort a 2 month year old fetus (to prevent over population) as it is to kill a 2 year old (to prevent overpopulation)?

Strange

It should be easy for people to simply use condoms. I managed to use condoms and while being sexually active I have never produced children I was not ready for thanks to them. They are easy to obtain and with a few simple guidelines to stick to completely make this problem for the most part go away.

 

Though condoms do not protect against sexually transmitted viruses.

 

Using abortion in this manner would simply be gross. Overpopulation is a real problem that needs to be addressed in a manner that does not involve abortion being a contraceptive measure on any scale, that simply makes humanity more like pond scum, no offense to pond scum.

Ok, just to make the above senario less "gross" lets say a special magic pill that makes the fetus just disappear. Btw, use of condoms wasn't a part of my hypothetical question.

Here's another hypothetical question for the pro-life guys...

Let's say some country in Africa is having a food shortage & disease problems, lots of people sick and dying... suffering basically due to over population.. Then all of a sudden, this country has the option to have free abortion clinics and start offering free abortions (edit: or a "magic" pill that makes the fetus disappear) for women who want them to significantly reduce future suffering due to overpopulation.

Would you still be against abortion in this case?

Why can't the pro and anti abortion folks just come to an agreement in-between.. How about after 2 months... no abortion. Why can't there be compromise?

And really, where do you draw the line?

How do you know aborting a fetus of 2 months is so much worse than ejaculating and killing 1 billion+ sperm cells? How do you know the sperm cells (1/2 a person?) don't have a will to survive (or whatever a 2 month fetus might have)?

The Japanese had a pretty relentless mind-set at the time and something huge was required to intimidate them (like a nuke). The nuke targets probably weren't ideal, though, but I doubt the nukes were a political move or anything shady like that.

Daily show isn't news, It's just a comedian making fun of the news (or clowns like glen beck) .

 

Here is the links where I got my information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBR_%28company%29

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/houppert

http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/10/senate-passes-amendment-that-would-allow-kbr-rape-victims-the-right-to-sue.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/

Wow, I wasn't aware of any of this. I guess you could say the 75 percent of Republican Senators sponsor terrorism.

"Good god almighty!" -- Glenn Beck

What will Glenn Beck say about this? The Obama administration is secretly trying to brain wash kids through sesame street now? Indoctrination? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPMnbyX5C4w ...

How important is deception (and fear mongering) to our political parties success? These are just observations/opinions.

Here's what I can come up with for republican voter mentalities:

- The US economy is a "Natural System" that will just run its natural course and fix itself without any liberal intervention. ("Wall street is just having a hangover" - G.W Bush)

- Global warming is a hoax designed stimulate the "green industry", we're really experiencing global cooling (as seen on Glenn Beck's show)

- Reforming the health care system/industry is a bad thing (brought to you by the health care industry/republicans)

- The democrats/obama will take my guns away (the NRA)

- War is good for the USA, and economy.

What about the deceived democrat mentality?

I'm pretty much convinced the GOPs survival is (and has been historically) based on twisting reality, and exploiting (and promoting) ignorance... What are some other issues they like to twist?

The "L" word mentioned above.. Why is it bad, exactly, to be a "Liberal" and spend Tax payer money on government programs?

They cater to the religious groups (mostly ignorant) who want to force their values on others .. Gay marriage is bad, abortion is bad (but having 20 kids is OK), stem cell research is bad (but millions suffering is just fine)

The poor/middle class who vote for the GOP for economic reasons have been deceived into believing the GOP represents their economic class.

War is good for america, the economy, and spending trillions on war doesn't make a republican a liberal?

When is the public going to get a clue they're being taken for a ride?

You know some people are saying Fox is not a reliable

 

 

That was my argument against Fox using the Beckism Method.

Lol.

Well, I'm peeved because I'm going to be one of the people stuck with paying the bill, and I'm particularly peeved about who the bailout money went to. And I'm not convinced that the bailouts were necessary, especially in the long term as it sends a very clear message as to how we deal with risky behavior that results in losses.

I think the white house will sooner or later lay the smack down on the execs and folks responsible for screwing up the economy (irresponsible bankers)... But their first priority was to stabilize the economy, which they've done for the most part, imo.

Lots of people seem to opposed to government spending (and economic stimulus), these days ... decisions based on ignorance, most likely.

So, I'm wondering.. What would have happened if the government took the republican approach?

What was John McCain's proposal to fix the weak economy? (I could not find this on Google)

If there was no government stimulus (spending) ....

Would the economy be worse off than it is now?

Would the DOW be the same?

How can the growing national debt negatively effect the USA/economy? Will it?

Thanks.

can't it just be considered changes in mass?

For entertainment.

Hmm... Lets see here...

What would you rather have in your area? 10,000 people drinking alcohol or 10,000 people doing acid.

Which side has the best economic philosophy?

It seems like the right favors a "natural" economy and believes in 'trickle down' economics, and the left likes injecting (investing) money into it's own economy and favors more grass roots economics.

How could you calculate a specific pressure between two D atoms?

Is there a cetain distance that will cause two deuterium nucleui fuse and make He, if pushed together? I have a feeling this can occur without an external heat source.

A little off topic, but can pressure alone cause nuclear reactions? How much pressure is required to fuse Hydrogen atoms?

edit: Two deuterium atoms rather.

My skepticism of MSNBC is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The white house did not have a political right (or otherwise) to label Fox News as a propaganda machine or whatever it is they called it.

 

Who cares what they think, it's not their job to take things personally.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I believe the white house said fox news isn't a news organization as much as it is a perspective. (which is true)

Then why attack Fox specifically? There are many other organizations who put just as much spin on the news as they do, nobody's talking about those though.

 

It's always Fox. Would anyone like to explain the excessive bias?

Because FOX news is setting a trend of twisting the truth for ratings, and they're pushing the envelope more than any other organization... Over time this will cause problems for the US.. News shouldn't be about twisting the truth. But the GOP (fox) has to do this to keep the poor-middle class on their side, but it gets old after a while... We have enough GOP related conspiracies out their already ("the dems will take my guns", etc) .. The public doesn't need some clown convincing people that Obama is a racist, and his birth cirtificate isn't valid, and the cars.org site will steal your personal information and ruin your life, or whatever the fox news losers are talking about.

Fox news is pretty much a GOP(aka the wealth) propaganda machine served as "news", who'll take shots at the white house/dems whenever they get a chance. The white house has the right to fight back.