Delbert

I think contrary views or opinions of others always are.

I'm well known for irrelevant comments. I'm thinking of making irrelevant my middle name.

Well, there's a lot of responses above, I'm not sure where to start, so I'll just refer you to or repeat what I've said previously. Although I think I need to correct one of my comments whereby I used employee instead of employer (I'd just partaken liquid libation!), but I think you got the message. I think it's clear that you know my position and don't agree with it, which is fair enough. So I think it's best if we leave it at that because we could perhaps go on until the next millennium! P.S. Perhaps you might be interested in the fact that many years ago I was a union rep, and experienced things from a view divergent from the one I have now. If anything, that experience formed my view.

I'm sorry, but you're confusing issues here. An employee's freedom is not oppression to anyone. If you don't like the job then don't do it. And if you don't like any employee's conditions then become one yourself by setting up a business. You don't need much, you could start by opening a market stall. Or, if you don't like that then stick a lawnmower on a wheelbarrow (assuming you haven't a car) and go around mowing lawns. I only mention that as an example because my next door neighbour is currently paying £15 an hour for someone to do just that. Speaking to him he does about three a day and spends two hours at each (he does a bit of weeding as well) . That's £90 a day and he only has to pay for a bit of petrol for his mower. Now there's a reasonable little earner to start with. Workers' rights! What you're really saying is employers' burden. How about workers' duties and responsibilities? Lets get things in perspective here. Businesses are the only activity that generates a country's income. It comes from taxes imposed upon said businesses, both directly and indirectly from wages paid to any employees. Businesses aren't just making profits for themselves, but also providing the money to run the county and livelihoods for their workers. But according to what you've said previously, bordering on - if not actual - slavery. If businesses and the free market collapse, the county collapses. Zero qualifications! I left what was described as a school (not how I described it) just about able to write my own name. Then someone mentioned 'logs' in conversation; I thought he was talking about lumps of wood! Anyway, that was it and off down to the library. And from that I think I'm safe in saying I'm doing reasonably well. It's all down to the individual. And this business about workers having to accept any offer of work is nothing to do with employers. That's politics. That's the state saying that welfare has consequences and is not entirely free. Anyway, that's the conundrum, burden businesses too much and they collapse (I think you even previously mentioned that businesses don't come up to what you think are reasonable expectations shouldn't be operating!), which means lack of choice. Yes, there appears to be one or two things in other places that go too far. I wouldn't condone child labour and the dodgy building that I think we've all seen or read about in the media. But I think you confuse safeguards with this minimum wage business. The freedom to choose an employer and the subsequent remuneration has no connection with slavery as you appear to suggest.

Not quite sure what you're saying. I was answering the apparent statement that gamma ray intensity reduces over distance but never gets to or touches zero. My answer to that was that being corpuscular, granular or whatever characteristic you care to use for something formed of particles (as we understand particles!), there is a point whereby it gets to zero. That point follows when the intensity has reduced to a single particle, and once that decays there's nothing. In other words it will and therefore does reduce to zero or nothing.

Not sure that's right. Not right because gamma rays are corpuscular (as we all know). Once the intensity is down to a single gamma particle it therefore can't be made less - it can only reduce to nothing.

What on earth are you taking about? How on earth can an employer's freedom cause the consequence you describe - you even intimate slavery! I'm sorry, but that's an outrageous conclusion. It's obvious to me that you take the view that an employer has some sort of social responsibility. Sorry, but an employer certainly has no such responsibility, including the responsibility that you appear to describe. It's clear that there's a lack of understanding of how the market works. An employer offers a job; an employee looks at the offer and decides of his or her own free will whether or not to accept the offer. That's how it works. There is no oppression, slavery (salaried or otherwise) or any degradation at all. Again, you're going into hyperbole with this slavery business. You obviously don't understand the situation at all. All you have to do is politely inform an employer that you wish to terminate your employment - there is no compunction at all and certainly no slavery. It seems that there's a view going around that employers are in some sort of special privileged position in life. Well to those who think that I challenge them and suggest they start their own business and experience the position for themselves. Perhaps they'd then experience the frazzled effect upon returning home at the end of a day after dealing with the bills, business rates, rent, Vat man, disgruntled employees, health and safety, the business up the road undercutting you and consequently taking your customers away, complaining customers returning goods after changing their mind and all the other things to numerous to mention. And now according to you, the employer is deemed to be some sort of slave driver! Minimum wage. Who on earth decides that? Presumably some jobsworth sitting in an ivory tower. Tally the rate with inflation! Again, you obviously don't understand the system. Inflation goes up wages go up just repeats which is positive feedback leading to hyperinflation and eventual collapse. Like, what did I hear on the news the other day about a particular country apparently employing policies similar to what you suggest? They are experiencing the benefits of 50% inflation! I'm sorry, but guaranteed wages, a controlled system as you describe is, in the fullness of time, the path to the begging bowl.

If you believe in freedom then an employer has to be free to offer what is best for his business. Freedom can't be one sided. An employer is not responsible for an employee's loans and mortgages. Nobody owes anyone else a job. And what's more, the business finances may well have been secured by the boss mortgaging his own home! In a free society nobody can be burdened with the responsibility to provide others with what they think is their justified working contract. Fairness! How can it be fair that an employer is so straight-jacketed? And as for 'cannot afford to pay', who or what on earth decides what an employer is required to pay? It seems to me you're looking at state control, and I think we all know what happens with state control: destruction of aspiration, destitution, starvation and eventual collapse. So you would have state control over wages but not prices? But do I hear you say that the wage control would be linked to prices? I'm sorry, but that would lead to positive feedback undoubtedly resulting in runaway inflation and eventual collapse. I'm sorry, but once one gets into attempting to control the market like that disaster will, in the fullness of time, be the consequence.

Sleep is the normal condition of the body. The brain cells only engage in the expensive and energy burning business of arranging and organising themselves into a collective orchestrated activity that is called consciousness in order to do all the things required to obtain food, build shelter and reproduce. Once that is done return to the normal state. Perhaps like when we go to work. We go to work in order to earn money to by the things we need. Consciousness is like work for the body. I think we forget that we are a collection of brainless cells effectively holding hands in a way that ends up with our bodies. I've listened to people wonder at the antics of ants and termites when building nests. Like, how do they collectively build such a complex nests with such tiny brains? My answer is that's nothing compared to how our brainless cells manage to collectively organise themselves to form us. Not forgetting the cells of an individual ant!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing them, but companies and banks are run and directed by a board of directors! So presumably you'd lock up the lot. I can still recall a chancellor of UKs previous administration upon opening a new London branch of Lehman's bank, when he indicated that he would like to run the UK economy like Lehman's run their bank!! And as we all know a little while later they went bust and very nearly brought the world economy down. And UK chancellor wanted to be able to run the county like that! When things are running apparently okay, party poopers are ignored. For example, how many people are sounding caution over the current philosophy of QE, or more accurately known as printing money? I think we all know that it can't go on, and as sure as eggs are eggs it will end in tears. It'll only be viewed as a bloody stupid thing when it all goes wrong. Like the guy jumping off a 50 story building, and says as he passes floor 25: well, it's all okay up to now. Hindsight is the only exact science. And a little side issue: I for one would be interested in how much money the average bank has to invest just to run one high street branch. You know something that earns enough to pay the rent, business rates, staff wages, computer system, bills and all the rest. Don't forget this earning will be the difference between the cost of borrowing and the gain from subsequent investment. And of course, the consumer wants free banking.

Yes. I think that's what Einstein says. From our perspective, when we accelerate something it gains mass as per E=MC2. The increase in mass is exponential as per C2. And I think we all know what happens in a graph of y=x2! Such a speed is never reached. Not forgetting time dilation. As far as the accelerated object is concerned, things around not so accelerated will presumably speed up in time. How does this fit with the laws of physics for example? Like, if you or I were on a rocket ship so accelerated, and looked back on the Earth apparently orbiting the Sun much faster, why doesn't it then fly off into space? It doesn't fly off into space because it, and everything associated with it, get or appear smaller so keeping things in order with the laws of physics that we know and love. To summarise: We accelerate something and it gets bigger as per E=MC2. If you or I were on or travelled with that something, we wouldn't feel any bigger, but we would see everything else not so accelerated get smaller! I think someone once said: everything is an illusion. The universe is undoubtedly a strange place - certainly strange to us mere mortals whose brain has evolved to simply deal with survival on this good earth.

Presumably what you are saying is that labour costs should in some way be excluded from the free market system. I'd be interested as to how that would be engineered. A sort of wage control I think was tried a while ago without success. Probably for the simple reason if you can't control costs the market system eventually collapses. Just picture the scene: you're running a business and some jobs-worth comes along and says you have to pay your employees £X. As I think I've mention previously. A friend of mine was thinking of opening a coffee shop. Just a small shop in my local high street. When he discovered rent was £65,000 pa and business rate was £13,000pa (business rate, you know what the local authority wants), he didn't. And that's nowadays. What would it be like with some jobs-worth telling him what to pay an employee? 'Done evenly! Are you saying things aren't done evenly nowadays? "Employers have the ability to use zero-hour contracts" And equally, employees have the ability not to accept zero-hour contracts. As for "should have the ability to move freely from one position to another", what country are you living in? Because over here in the UK, they can move perfectly freely. Join a union, bargain collectively and free to seek work wherever they like. Yes, the consequences of bankruptcy are dreadful. That is the consequence of overspending; the freedom to spend is one aspect the free market. We have the freedom to either be circumspect or the freedom to spend until we enter a dreadful situation. It's called a freedom in a free society. And as for this bank salary business, what sort of salary in comparison to others would you think would be appropriate? Again, the free society. Anything else is state control, and I think we all know about state control. You might not like it (there are lots of things I don't like), but that's how it works. Take it away and the consequences would render the recent bank crisis a mere ripple in comparison I would suggest. No, I'm putting the horse before the cart. He's not necessarily going for the bargains because of low wage because he say's otherwise. It might be in his best interest, but that is not what he says. And as for his job, bizarrely he voluntarily stayed in his job and didn't want the responsibility of a better paid one! And yet he complains about it! But then again, that is the free society and free market. He is free to enter such a contradiction.

I don't understand the objection to this so called 'capitalist' business. Because I suggest, it's something we all engage in and do, but don't like it when others engage in it and we are on the receiving end. Take a simple example: a friend of mine constantly complains about shop prices and will only buy items when he considers them to be the best bargain at the lowest possible price. And at more or less the same time, he constantly reminds me about the low wage his employer pays him. So, why is it he feels it to be perfectly right and justifiable to seek out the lowest price for the most gain, but wrong for his employer to do the same? I've watched the TV when demonstrators are protesting about so called corrupt capital businesses, but doubtless they're doing exactly the same as the corrupt capital businesses with their own interactions in life! Also, I recall not too long ago it was fashionable when personal borrowing got out of control to simply go bankrupt. I know someone who did exactly that. All perfectly normal and okay as far as he was concerned. Never mind about those lost money as a consequence. Again, we like doing these things and feel it's all perfectly okay, but don't like it when others like the banks do it, as appears to be inferred by Tridimity.

But unless it's a superconductor, presumably its resistance will provide a potential (voltage) difference to be produced between two points according to ohm's law. But I suppose unless the two points are equally spaced halfway round, cancellation will presumably occur. As for superconductors (slightly off subject I know), I've always puzzled as to how a supercurrent actually starts. Because when the first vestiges of current start and because of it being a superconductor of zero resistance, presumably a equal and opposite eddy current(s) will also start to flow causing cancellation. What in normal conductors would cause skin effect. In other words, equal and opposite cancellation apprehending the current from even starting. Obviously, once a DC supercurrent is established, no such eddy currents and cancellation will occur. But my puzzlement is the starting process, because during the short period of current build up from zero, momentary eddy currents must presumably be produced, which being a superconductor must be equal and opposite due to the absence of resistive losses. To summarise: how does a superconductor current overcome this 100% cancellation at start up and actually get going?

As far as I'm aware they are essentially all the same. They refer to a difference in the number of electrons between two points had there not been either an excess of deficiency difference in electrons at either place. An electrical potential is measured relative to another potential. Sorry, but semantics give me a headache. Workers can work on high voltage cables as long as they are at the same potential. Even seem to recall a TV prog some years ago whereby the workers operated from a helicopter! The helicopter was conductively connected to the high voltage cable via some sort of strapping whilst hovering! So, as long as they were at the same potential, and as far as they were concerned whilst so strapped, it was the ground and everything else that was at high potential. Although, if it's an AC supply presumably there'll be a small AC current (depending of the capacity in Farads of the helicopter) flowing in and out of the helicopter. You know, for the same reason a neon voltage indicator lights up, or lights up brighter, when one touches the end with the blade end touching your AC domestic live.

The difference between national borrowing and mortgage and credit card borrowing is that the plan is to pay back the latter. And not only that, mortgage lending is supported by the bricks, mortar and value of the house as collateral. It appears, nay patently clear, that the trouble with countries is they have no plan to pay it back. They just pile borrowing on top of borrowing. In fact here in the UK I believe they've even given it a name, it's called the public sector borrowing requirement. Requirement! Requirement such that it is a necessity. And for collateral, that's nothing more than a piece of paper. It is part of the fiscal plan. That, I suggest, is a million miles from mortgage and credit card business. I'm still trying to visualise the interest on this current American credit ceiling of $16.7 trillion, a ceiling which they've hit and apparently want to increase! No, what it all needs is a default. That'll perhaps restrain the lenders to be more circumspect with their lending policy, and thus constrain relevant countries to adopt a sounder financial policy.

There will doubtless be a painful initial period, but this default business, apparently resulting the current lending and borrowing spree being brought to a halt, can only bode well for the future. Wasn't it in one of W Shakespeare's plays about lending and borrowing, and how it all ends?

Well, according to my newspaper this morning the current US debt is $16.7 trillion. And taking the figures from the graph from doG's reply #195, the 2011 figure was $14+ trillion. So, in round figures that's $1 trillion a year. Now I'm no financial expert, but if $1 trillion loss a year is considered a strong economy, I dread to think what the losses of a weaker economy would be. I'm sorry, but $1 trillion a year loss cannot be described as a strong economy.

The 2010 total (14+ trillion) to me seems astronomical. What's that per head of population? I'm still trying to visualise a trillion. Have I got it right in saying it's a thousand billion! And with apparently 300 odd million people am I correct in calculating $44,000 per head!! I must have got too many zeros somewhere. So perhaps someone can correct me. And I understand one factor of this shutdown business is the requirement to increase the borrowing requirement! How on earth can this continue? Just a small side fact: I noticed that there was no American attendance at RIAT (UK) this year. And I also noticed that the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds cancelled all their displays this year. And then there's Detroit going bankrupt... The above graph appears to show why. It seems to me that there's going to be some sort of impasse, either now as with the current position, or it seems almost certainly in the not too distant future.

Would never work and never get voted for. Like so many things, such Social Security seems a excellent idea at the time and easy to get into, but not quite so easy to get out of, should it be required. Here in the UK they've just established a 'help to buy' scheme for house purchase. We all know that'll increase house prices and so the thing that struck me was: if at sometime in the future they want to scrap it because it's costing too much money due to defaults, how would they do it? Simply scrapping it would pull the rug and doubtless result in negative equity, large debts and possible destitution. But seemed a good idea at the time. It seems to me that in the end the culmination of all these grand ideas end up like the subject of this thread: shutdown, political intransigence, TEA parties, defaults and bankruptcy. How is American going to get out of this deadlock? I don't know anything about the American constitution, but maybe the President can threaten the use of some ultimate presidential power to force heads together. But whether such a power exists, perhaps others might know.

Personally I'm hoping they continue this shutdown business way past the deadline date, which I understand is 17th October. Since I further understand the consequences would be to dissuade lenders from lending, with the long term possibility of the western economic system turning away from living beyond its means by being based of shedloads of borrowed money. Doubtless there'll be a painful transition period, but in the long term it'll be for the common good.

There is no such thing as being at 'rest'. It just means not moving relative to something else - like the Earth perhaps. Being at 'rest' is a nonentity as far as the universe is concerned. Like absolute speed, there is no such thing. For example, ask yourself: what speed am I doing right now? I suggest you'll come up with anything from zero to a tad under the speed of light - if not the speed of light. As I believe Brian Cox remarked: We are travelling through time at the speed of light according to E = MC2. Had a discussion with friend about a ball on a table, in which I asked him how much potential energy it has? Well, he said I haven't lifted it, moved it in any way to used it to store some potential energy, so it hasn't any. I said it has a lot of potential energy because I lifted it out of a deep hole earlier on before you arrived. And what's more, I understand according to Einstein energy is interchangeable with mass, which means, does it not, I've increased its mass a very tiny bit in keeping with the potential energy imparted when I lifted it out of the hole. Whereas my friend appeared to take it's rest mass to be on the table and nothing has happened, let alone a tiny increase in mass. It's all relative, there is no such thing as absolute rest mass. Unless of course, you take rest mass to be the tiny point at the moment of the big bang! With mass, as we experience it, being a property of the things around us nowadays being an exchange of the potential energy from the big bang, according to E=MC2.

Well, I'm not sure that's correct, since what we see is what it was like X billion years ago. Which is the past, and not what it is like now - if it actually exists in the here and now! I'm sorry, but such predictions over such a vast period of time I think is stretching things a bit - perhaps more than a bit. It seems to me the universe might not necessarily conform to our 'common sense' understanding. Even common sense extending into relativity and quantum mechanics. As I think I've mentioned previously (maybe not here) about QM, relativity and the like, if the universe was really something tangible, solid, made of something and all the other attributes our common sense powers of reasoning might attribute, it seems to me we really would have a problem explaining it! Perhaps it's the case that the universe can only live in the past, we can never know about anything as to what it is 'now'. In an attempt to explain this concept to someone once, I used the analogy of an exchange of cheques. Like, I write you a cheque for (say) £1000, which is credited to your account the next day, but not debited from my account for two days. On the second day you write me a cheque for a £1000... ...and so on. In other words we've created £1000, so long as we keep writing cheques to each other, which only exists because of a time delay in balancing the accounts. Although I think the banks have since tightened up their procedures, so we might not be able to do it these days! As I think a Nobel prize winning physicist once said: Any amount of energy can be borrowed, so long as it's paid back within in a short enough period of time. And since energy is exchangeable with what we can matter...!!

Good point. Skin effect and all that. With a good conductor and internal current produces a energising field that will induce a cancelling current. Sort of eddy currents cancelling eddy currents.

I'm sorry to be a bore here, but my understanding is that 16 billion light years (assuming that's 16 GLyrs) is older than the understood age of the universe at 13+ billion years. There's also the business if we can't see the things how do we know they are there? It seems to be that what all we're doing is extending the universe beyond what we can see (extending it in what appears to be a classical way), and then assuming this unseen area must also have stars and things in it like the bit we can see. But as far as I'm aware classical science breaks down with things like the universe and the speed of light. Like I think in classical science we can easily make light travel faster than the speed of light by simply walking forward shining a torch. The light from the torch will be travelling faster than with the torch standing still. But we know that is not the case, according to Maxwell and later Einstein. So why do we assume these things exist 16 billion light years away, 3 billion years older than the understood age of the universe? If we're using classical science as you say, then it seems to me our conclusions will almost certainly shown to be wrong. If not now then in the future. There's also the business of does classical science take into consideration that what we're looking at all those billions of light years away almost certainly don't exist anymore, or if by some weird consequence they do, they're doubtless no where near where we see them!? In other words, would it be a fair assumption to say: what we see and what we're making all these theories and conclusions about, aren't actually there!!!