Artful Dodger:

> What's so scary about Trump is that he's actually gaining traction! I don't see any of the top picks for the Republican party as hopeful for anything. I'm getting completely disappointed in both parties. (I love the Tea Party though - seriously)

According to the latest poll (I think it was done by Reed), Donald Trump has a slight lead over Mike Huckabee. I am not entirely sure about whether he can keep this up. Notoriety is helping him, but Barrack Obama made a good point today. Obama said that instead of focusing on important issues, they turned the birther issue into a side show.

I am not entirely sure how Donald Trump would fare if he has to talk of fixing the economy, tackling the healthcare issue, fixing the foreign trade deficit, handling terrorism and hostile foreign governments, and keeping peaceful relations with Russia and China.

So far he has been successful in distracting the public from the real issues (like balancing the budget), but sooner or later he has to show his mettle in how he would deal with real problems that extend far beyond a birth certificate or a college degree. It will be interesting to see whether he can transform himself from provocateur to real contender.

Iamon_lyme:

> I don't like what is hapopening to the U.S. because this is where I live, but after putting personal feelings to the side I can't ignore the fact that it has served its purpose in the world, and now will be part of an effort to create stability through uniformity.

I think that the biggest challenge that the USA will face in the future is not terrorism or a financial meltdown, but the slow degradation of American life through inaction. If Americans (or any country) want their life to be better, they have to accept that change is necessary in the political and economic system. I am not talking about catastrophic change or revolution, but changes that ensure that every citizen gets an equal chance at a good life. As things are, the power structure is skewed in favour of big monopolies and wealthy businessmen. That means that big numbers of the population are having their lives slowly eroded away. For this to change, Americans will have to accept that pursuing capitalism at all costs will not solve the problem, but merely aggravate it.

Americans don't like anything that feels like socialism (the current healthcare debate is a good sign of that). However, only through "socialist" measures can the lives of the average working class citizens improve. The 20th century is a sign of that. All that we have to do is look at the European community after WW II. The socialist measures taken there greatly improved the lives of many of Europe's citizens. Americans will have to accept that these socialist measures are not a sign of big government, but of a humane government. The USA (and other countries) needs not intrusive socialism but efficient socialism. That means a balance between the social safety net and the freedom of companies and businesses to operate. Unfortunately Ameican polticis has become polarized in bipartisanship, and that means that measures that could help the working class (like healthcare reform) are torn apart to the point that they become a failure. Big companies and lobbyists feed on that bipartisan system and exploit it for political and economic gain.

The USA also needs to do some soul searching in respect to its foreign policy. The USA has suceeded in building big army, navy and air forces. The Cold War and terrorism have skewed American foreign policy to one of preemptive action. What Americans politicians see as promoting democracy thorugh force is perceived differently outside of the USA. The increasing costs of keeping such a large military force are staggering and they are eroding away at the life of the American working class. If the USA could reduce its military budget in half, then it could provide free university education and free healthcare for everybody. Instead the money is being spent in enterprises which drain the American economy under the guise of keeping Americans safe. Somewhere in all this the USA has to find a balance between peaceful coexistence, self-defense, and the economics of war. It is difficult in our world, but the hawks that say that military might is the way to go are doing a disservice to taxpayers who front the money to pay for the wars. They are not the ones paying for the wars, and it is not their families that get killed in the bombings and the fighting.

Artful Dodger: Bachman/Palin 2012

Übergeek 바둑이: I think you are misunderstanding my point. I don't like what is hapopening to the U.S. because this is where I live, but after putting personal feelings to the side I can't ignore the fact that it has served its purpose in the world, and now will be part of an effort to create stability through uniformity. I assumed Brave New World was intended as a warning, not a road map for getting there. My assumptions are rarely correct. I can agree with much of what you say. except for your question why is uniformity a bad thing. And the fact that we are becoming increasingly dependant on foreign goods and services is as comforting to me as knowing that if my business fails because of goons demanding their protection money (seriously, what is the difference?) I can always come crawling back to those goons and ask for some of it back in the form of governmental goods and services. Yes, America will decline and get absorbed, because no nation has ever managed to avoid the event horizen of moral degradation after acheiving stability and wealth. History has proven this over and over. But it is interesting to me how those who don't believe in Biblical prophesy are the ones working their tails off to make it come true. Just because I don't like where we are heading to doesn't mean I don't believe we won't get there. As I said once before, I don't like unpleasant surprises.

Donald Trump, politics newest Bozo, must have nothing better to do than distract the president with useless crap. The "birther" issue was laid to rest today when the White House released the president's long form birth certificate. Since Bozo Trump has nothing better to do, he is now questioning Obama's education. I suppose graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard is not enough for the Bozo. He figures that Obama somehow cheated his way into Columbia and Harvard. I think the Republicans should distance themselves from the Bozo. If he keeps this up he will do more damage than good to the Republicans. In a way, the Democrats must be loving this. Bozo Trump is handing them Obama's reelection on a platter. I supose Mike Huckabee must be happy too. Huckabee's lack of charisma looks much improved when compared to Bozo Trump.

Iamon_lyme:

> The melding of nations into a centralized one world governing body is what globalization will invariably lead to.

Is that bad? If it is bad, why? There will never be a world governing body because everybody is too selfish to relinquish their power to some form of centralized government. The American and European public would never stand for that either. In any case, a centralized governing body might mean that there might be uniformity in how laws are applied. If some Fascist decides to bomb another country, he would be made to pay. If some businessman cheats workers of their wages in another countries, he would be made to pay. A centralized government for the world could have decided advantages. No more of this: in my ocuntry only these kind of people are allowed, and if you are not like them, I will kill you. A centralized government could ensure greater equality and justice if the laws are fair and well-enforced.

> U.S. losing it's influence is necessary for achieving that goal, because our strengh and independance has up until now resisted that effort. For the "ideals" of globalists to be realised, the U.S. needs to lose power and influence in the world.

This is what a lot of people don't get. The USA is becoming the world's central government. The USA is not resisting the creation of a central government, but as the dominant empire the USA is becoming the central government. There is not a corner of the world where the USA is not controlling the financial system, commodities production, weapons production, etc. The few countries that are not under American control are those that are too big and too hostile, and even then those countries depend on American capital and consumption to survive (China and Iran are two good examples). The USA has the largest military force and uses it to promote its political and economic interests and to enforce its version of international law (for example, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, etc.) The USA has also used dictators to advantage in order to gain political and economic control of other countries (e.g.: Latin America, Africa). When countries refuse to comply with American demands, they get crushed (Vietnam, Grenada). The USA also uses military might to impose its version of democracy on other countries (like Lybia, Iraq). That means that slowly world governments are being shaped into the American model.

It must be noted that the USA is not the only empire to do this. The British Empire did it, as did the French, the Spanish, the Romans, etc. The difference is that now the scale of control is much greater because the armies and weapons used are formidable. The USA is becoming the world government, and rather than American influence decreasing, it is increasing more and more every day. Americans shouldn't be afraid of a world government, because the USA itself is becoming that world government.

> So, we should sell our debt to China so they can lend money to us at an obscene interest rate, and at the same time allow intellectual property be stollen from us (by them).

This always makes me laugh. Americans complain of selling debt to China, but how is this happening? The answer is thorugh consumption of goods manufactured in China. As long as the American public wants cheap goods, companies like Walmart will manufacture them in China. Then we will see a flow of capital from consumers to producers. In other words, from American consumers to wealthy Chinese manufacturers. Americans are not selling their debt, they are consuming their way into debt. I found this little snippet:

"In 2008, the total U.S. trade deficit was $695.9 billion, which is $1.8 trillion in exports minus $2.5 trillion in imports. The deficit on petroleum products was $386.3 billion. The trade deficit with China was $266.3 billion, a new record and up from $304 million in 1983. The United States had a $144.1 billion surplus on trade in services, and $821.2 billion deficit on trade in goods in 2008.["

In 2008 the trade deficit was $695,9 billion. With China it was $266.3 billion. That means that in 2008 38% of the American trade deficit is with China alone!

Who should be blamed? China? Voracious consumers? American companies that took all the manufacturing overseas? The government (both Republican and Democrat) that allowed it all to happen?

> Tax the hell out those evil mom and pop enterprises that employ people who also don't pay enough taxes, then complain how there are fewer businesses to tax because those fools weren't willing to work for nothing anymore..

People forget that the bigger the company, the less taxes they pay. Most people would be surprised to know that General Electric paid no taxes in 2010. That's right, not even one cent in taxes, and they are one of the largest companies in the world. Walmart pays very little to, as do Exxon, Intel, etc. The reason is that the entire taxation system exists for the benefit of big monopolies. Big companies can afford to hire good accountants and lawyers. Genereal Electric has a full time team of accountats and lawyers and their job is to make sure that the companies deducts everything from their taxes. Small companies can't afford to do that. Who should be blamed? The big monopolies? Their crooked accountats? The corrupt government that passed tax breaks and loopholes in taxation law?

> Everyone understands how any one moving high volume of stuff can make a profit selling at low prices.

That is how American companies became the biggest and most successful in the world. It is also the source of American political, economic and military power. It is not something that American are going to give up. The American public would not stand for giving up the lifestyle they have become accustomed to.

> But for some reason the government doesn't understand this principle. It wants to kill and eat the goose laying the golden eggs, instead of incouraging the goose to lay more eggs. More eggs laid, more tax revenue to suck off. But if no more goose, then no more eggs. Then what?

This is the one things that governments don't want to do. To encourage small business sounds nice during election campaings, but the government is heavily influenced by big monopolies, and those monopolies want as little competition as possible. If the government cared about small businesses, they would tax the big monopolies and use that money to make sure that more businesses succeed. Instead we have a situation in which over 80% of small businesses go bankrupt.

Iamon_lyme: The tax rates in the USA are low compared to 40-50 years ago. America's golden age was more to do with that Europe/Japan/China & Russia were rebuilding, for if it were taxation.. then why with high rates back then was America apparently doing so well?

As for globalisation..... multinational firms have been more hell bent on that, and have added more to the fall of small firms than any government has.. imho.

Sorry for how my last message ended. politics annoys the hell out of me.

Übergeek 바둑이: Sorry, I thought you knew what I meant. The melding of nations into a centralized one world governing body is what globalization will invariably lead to. U.S. losing it's influence is necessary for achieving that goal, because our strengh and independance has up until now resisted that effort. For the "ideals" of globalists to be realised, the U.S. needs to lose power and influence in the world. So, we should sell our debt to China so they can lend money to us at an obscene interest rate, and at the same time allow intellectual property be stollen from us (by them). Then let's print lots and lots of money to dilute its value, which was getting lower anyway. Tax the hell out those evil mom and pop enterprises that employ people who also don't pay enough taxes, then complain how there are fewer businesses to tax because those fools weren't willing to work for nothing anymore.. They could have applied for food stamps, like everyone else, so what's their problem? Everyone understands how any one moving high volume of stuff can make a profit selling at low prices. But for some reason the government doesn't understand this principle. It wants to kill and eat the goose laying the golden eggs, instead of incouraging the goose to lay more eggs. More eggs laid, more tax revenue to suck off. But if no more goose, then no more eggs. Then what? You see where I'm going with this? Do you really want someone like me to expand on this, after I left the door open for any fool to walk in? I didn't think so.

Übergeek 바둑이: I know they were, but the whole point of the Protestant movement was freedom away from the RCC and such abuses of religion I thought. I'll have to see if I can catch that prog on UK TV on how with a little training someone can get and be a minister healin' and preachin' in the name of God and raking in 'donations'.

Iamon_lyme:

> Obama is a willing tool to get what he wants. Doesn't care what people will say
> about him when he's gone. He is not the anti Christ. He is just one of many warm up
> steps before we see the real deal emerge. Doesn't matter if he is really a bona fide
> U.S. citizen or not, because he slipped in under the radar, and now we are stuck
> with him until the next election.

Isn't this true of every president? (or prime minister, if you are in a different country) Every president has been an egocentric, self-serving tool. They start promising in some way, then as time passes the public's enchantment dies off and people can't wait to put the next tool into power. Every president starts deeply loved, and ends up in a hole. Look at the Bush administration. At its height it had over 80% approval ratings, only to finish so despised that even Republicans themselves abandoned the president like rats leaving a sinking ship.

> U.S. will continue losing influence in the world

Empires rise and fall. The USA is not the exception.

> the push towards setting up a global economy will be realised

But we already have a global economy. The gasoline in my car comes from crude oil from Alberta. The cotton in my clothes was grown in the USA, but the clothes themselves were made in Bangladesh. Half of the components in this computer were made in China. My car is Korean. Etc.

The economy of our planet has been global at least since the late Middle Ages. I recommend a book called "Manias, Panics and Crashes", by Charles P. Kindleberger. It covers the subject of economic cycles and how they spread around the world. The only difference is that today the information is passed on instantly. Before electronics were invented economic information moved slowly, but it moved nevertheless.

(V):

> America turned Christianity from a religion into a business.

I don't think we can blame America for that. The papacy was making a ton of cash well before America was discovered. Christianity has been big business from the time when Crhistianity became the dominant religion in the Roman empire to the present. A good 1,600 years of fattening the coffers.

But then, all religions do the same. All those nice, big mosques cost money, as do synagogues, Hindu temples, Buddhist temples, etc.

Organized religion needs money to grow and cement its power. The only difference in our present era is that religious goods are manufactured in China and sold in Walmart.

Übergeek 바둑이: They tried to introduce grandparents day here... it failed.

btw you missed out St George's day.. but it's not really celebrated as much as St Patrick's day.. especially via the shops and beer sales!!

Iamon_lyme: We don't seem to have the problems you guys in the USA regarding religion, paganism and all the division's. But as the old saying goes.. America turned Christianity from a religion into a business.

Iamon_lyme: I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather did. Not yelling and screaming like the passengers in his car.

Obama is a willing tool to get what he wants. Doesn't care what people will say about him when he's gone. He is not the anti Christ. He is just one of many warm up steps before we see the real deal emerge. Doesn't matter if he is really a bona fide U.S. citizen or not, because he slipped in under the radar, and now we are stuck with him until the next election. Clinton slipped in under the radar too, we didn't really know him until we had to deal with him. The left simply learned from that lesson and found another tool we didn't really know. We heard him give us hope in who knows what, and listened with rapt attention to him singing songs of praises to himself. U.S. will continue losing influence in the world, the push towards setting up a global economy will be realised, and tension in the Middle east will be resolved by the so called savior the world has always really wanted. Good luck with all that. I sincerely hope I am long gone before that day comes. I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather did. Not yelling and screaming like the passengers in his car. See yall next Easter. Maybe.

Iamon_lyme:

> More important to pagan idealists who feel compelled to exchange gifts because it's expected of you?

We have to remember tht in capitalism holidays are in essence retail experiences. Christmas is about buying gifts and giving them. St. Valentine's day (chocolate, flowers, jewelry, etc.), St. Patrick's day (green clothing, beer) , Easter (chocolate and candy), Thanksgiving (food), Christmas (every imaginable consumer good).

Of course, the true believers say to themselves that the gift-giving is not really the reason why they celebrate. However, if for some reason nobody was able to buy gifts, somehow Christmas would not be the same. Advertising has been so pervasive, that people can't tell where consumption ends and religion begins. The funniest thing of all, atheists I know celebrate Chrismas, not to remember Jesus, but so they can exchange gifts and gorge themselves with food. Some people go to Chrismas eve mass so they don't have to feel so guilty about worldy shopping and consumption.

In capitalism everything is for sale, even religion.

(V): More important to who? More important to pagan idealists who feel compelled to exchange gifts because it's expected of you? There is more religious "tollerance" around Easter time than there is at Christmas. I can get away with talking about God up until Easter, without hearing all the hate talk I hear at Christmas time. The day after Easter, and you all get back to the business of saying what you really mean.

(V): "I thought the birth of Christ was more important"

Übergeek 바둑이: Mmm without the birth and the declaration within of a child born of God... ... anyways... this whole debate over needing it recognised seems to be very idolatry. Using Easter as just another reason to get angry for no real reason than just wanting to being angry at Obama yet again.

(V):

> I thought the birth Of Christ was more important...

Not for Christians. While Christmas celebrates the arrival of the Saviour, the true miracle, the one miracle that defines Jesus as the Saviour, is resurrection. Easter is supposed to be a solemn celebration of that. Easter eggs are a German late medieval invention, possibly dating from earlier pagan traditions.

Artful Dodger:

> You need to look at the immediate history of the US and what exactly the early leaders of this country did PUBLICALLY with respect to faith. Seperation (as a concept - remember it's NOT in the constitution - ) doesn't mean silence. To say that it does mean silence is to put meaning into the constitution that never was there (again, history shows us the way).

We also have to remember that when the Constitution was written the USA was a small group of colonies. The early presidents and leaders did not have to contend with the world as it is today. The influx of immigrants as well as 19th century philosphy means that today 25% of the American population are not Christians. The 75% who are Christian are divided into 50% who are Protestant (in a wide variety of denominations) and 25% who are Catholic.

The early legislators did not have to conted with the influx of Irish, Italian, Mexican and other immigrants who brought Catholicism with them. They did not have to deal with MIddle Eastern and African immigrants who brought Islam with them. There are also Hindus and Buddhists.

When the First Ammendment was written the intention was to avoid one Christian denomination having more influence or power than another. The state had no business in favoring one denomination over another. This was the main point of the "wall of seaparation of church and state" that Jefferson alluded to in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

At that time the Danbury Baptists were concerned with the political and economic dominance of the much larger Congregationalist church in Connecticut. They wrote to Jefferson asking why their state constitution had no articles that protected a religious minority from a more powerful religious majority. It was out of that concern that Jefferson wrote his letter in reply to them. Jefferson saw the state as having no business promoting a religion over another.

To insist that the American government promote or favour Christianity over other religions is akin to the situation in those days. The Christian majority over the non-Christian minorities is akin to the Congregationalist majority over the Baptist minority. It is for this reason that the American governments will never make Christianity the state religion, but it is implied that Christianity is very influential due to the fact that the large majority of the polulation is Christian.

Another interesting fact is the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams. The treaty was signed in late 1796 and ratified by the Senate in 1797. The treaty was written as part of a larger effort to stop piracy in the Mediterranean. Article 11 (a subject of controversy) states that:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Although issues of translation and wording in the Arabic original have been raised many times, it seems that the early senators saw the separation of religion and politics as important in avoiding wars of religious motivation. It was written at a time when Al Qaeda and their extremism did not exist, but our present leaders could learn from the wording of the treaty.

Clearly the founding fathers wisely realized that religious harmony and tolerance were important in peaceful relations between peoples both at home and abroad. By promoting a religion over others, the state could potentially tilt power in favour of a religion at the expense of minorities. Today the minorities are non-Christian and whether the state favours Christianity is important in continuing the early spirit of the law. People forget that "one nation under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1952 when the Cold War was starting and fear of Communism made people fear the loss of their religious beliefs. Under the current environment there are those who wish the president would come out and say "one nation under a Christian, anti-Moslem God". It would make Christian radicals happy, and it would also destroy the integrity of the First Ammendment.

Artful Dodger: I thought the birth Of Christ was more important... or maybe that it was just a replacement for various pagan holidays celebrating the coming of the new year.

ie The winter solstice.

anyway.. with the amount of Easter eggs and Easter displays by various companies selling Easter products I'd thought it would be hard to miss.. So why do we need a President confirming an event exists we already know about?

Bwild: No. Because there is a big difference between a galaxy being the universe and 100's of billions of galaxies being the universe, each containing 100's of billions of stars.

Iamon_lyme: I find the use of the words.... overused. If God is then God is a natural being and not supernatural. As to the word paranormal.. I find it woefully overused and abused.

.. Then that must be spiritualist in me!!

(V): so you admit that this(""seeing as less then a hundred years ago we did not know there was one."") statement was indeed wrong!

Further to my previous post, from Article 6 of the Constitution:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The law is clear. There is no requirement for the president (or any public servant) to be a Christian. Out of tradition presidents swear upon a Bible during their inauguration, but technically speaking, a president could refuse the Bible and merely affirm the oath. That would be his constitutional right.

Artful Dodger:

> By comparison, the White House has released statements recognizing the observance of major Muslim holidays

From a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists Association:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

In Jefferson's view, freedom of worship is a right of every citizen, and the state has no business in interfering or promoting a particular religion (hence his term: establishment). The United States is a society that claims to be based on the separation of church and state. This is a claim that most wertern countries do. If that is the case, the White House should release NO statement on ANY religious holiday. The president and all members of the cabinet and the house should issue no religious statements at all.

Insiting on having the president be a Christian goes against the separation of church and state. Otherwise, it is little different from Iran expecting its president to be a moslem, or Israel expecting its president to be a Jew. We should leave the integration of church and state to those countries that insist on thinking that religious scripture and the law are the same thing. Western culture abandoned that idea during the Enlightenment.

> I don't think church going every once in awhile qualifies one as a Christian. Especially when church attendance is done for purely political reasons.

Is it different from politicians that boast of being religious in order to court the vote of the religious right? There are politicians that boast of being really good christians just to gain votes (c.f. the Tea Party and other religious conservatives). Are they not using religion for political gain?

Iamon_lyme: note to self. wait more than 5 minutes after waking up before posting message to a public board. it took at least that long for me to now figure out what I was talking about.

Übergeek 바둑이: it seems counter inuitive, possibilities bubbling up into probabilities until something 'reall appears. It sounds like order naturally evolving froming disorder, which we know doesn't happen at the highter tiers of macro reality. rather we see disorder, and call it entropy. There seems to be a balance between apparent disorder at the micro leading to a natural order at the macro, Maybe this is why, as living creatures composed of mass, there is the equalibrium we need to survive. We are able to exist because of that balance. Here's another strange idea: what if the constant processes at the micro leading eventually to the macro is a pattern resembling what we think happened after the big bang? Fractals deal with larger patterns being made up of similar smaller ones, or another way of saying it, all smaller patterns are foundational to any larger ones.

Übergeek 바둑이: lol Makes me wonder why we try squinting hard enough to 'see' it. But if at least some of our assumptions are right, then maybe we can infer something from them. Like maybe here (where we live and breath) in the macro. what appears to be stable is the result of a natural progression from unstable parts into 'stable' structures, appearing to hold themselves together. If gravity can be described as an illusion (real in effect, but illusory in nature) then maybe parts having no volume can clump to together to create the illusion of volume. When I say illusion I don't mean not real, I mean something appearing to be immutable and real in and of itself. I suggested the theory of large numbers because of how appearance of stability can be acheived through an increasing number of events. Our reality (on the macro level) appears stable to us because that is how we naturally percieve it.

Iamon_lyme:

> he (quantum) micro is supposed to be the functional building block of the bigger (relativity) macro, we might find a connection if we start looking in the right places

I think the problem is not whether they are connected. Theoretical physicists work on the assumption that there is a connection. However, mathematically (and theoretical physics is in essence mathematics) relativistic quantum mechanics has no exact solutions, and the current theories (such as Hyperstrings) are mere conjectures. There are experiments under way to try to prove that hyperstrings exist, rahter than being mathematical constructs. If that isproven, then physicists can make the claim that relativity and quantum mechanics can be joined in some universal set of physical laws. Well, as with much of theoretical physics, we try to describe the universe, but absolute proofs of certain things (like the Big Bang) elude us because there is no way we can travel back in time to that first moment when the singularity exploded.

We can only wish that we could find exact solutions like Newtonian mechanics offers. Quantum mechanics deals to a great extent with probabilities, rather than certainties. Even something as commonplace like a helium atom cannot be described with an exact (analytic) solution. So physicists resort to approximation methods (like perturbation theory, LCAO, etc.) based on the hydrogen atom, the only atom with an exact solution. Atoms and molecules are "relativistic", meaning that electrons move at a speed high enough that approaches the speed of light and relativity has to be taken into account in the computations. All that physicists and chemists have are approximate solutions.

Some day a mathematical genius like Gauss, Fermat or Descartes will be born, and he/she will find the mathematics that will revolutionize physics. Until then quantum mechanics and relativity remain distant, yet close enough that phsyicists can almost sense the solutions to the problems.

Übergeek 바둑이: quantum mechanics and relativity theory don't "mix", but they have to be connected in some way, so the problem isn't that they don't mix. The problem is we don't know where the link is, or more to the point, what it is. This is just a shot in the dark, but has anyone tried incorporating the theory of large numbers into the mix? the (quantum) micro is supposed to be the functional building block of the bigger (relativity) macro, so we might find a connection if we start looking in the right places. If the link isn't where we think it should be, it must be somewhere else.

(V): Treating an iidea as though it means nothing more than a fanciful thought doesn't make it nothing more than a fanciful thought. Just because there are so many things that exist only in the imagination doesn't mean everything we consider is only imagined. Someone imagined worlds beyond our own before any were seen, and there is an object lesson we can learn from such examples in our 3 coordinates of space and 1 of time if we choose to be open to it. I saw you speak of Paranormal and Supernatural as though the two are interchangable words. I sometimes talk to an old friend who insists he believes in the supernatural, but then tells me it is impossible for supernatural events in the Bible to have happened. I think what he really means is that he believes in the paranormal, but for some reason he thinks supernatural means the same thing. He is very intelligent, by the way, so I'm always puzzled as to why he doesn't know the difference.

Bwild: Yes there were astronomers throughout time... but most were limited by the lack of good equipment such as high resolution telescopes and thought this galaxy was it!! Just as in the past they thought the Earth was at the centre of the solar system.

I don't need to google. You may if you do, but much has been said in the news and talks on history since the launch of the Hubble Telescope, plus science/history classes of old covering such matters I still remember.

(V): you said..""seeing as less then a hundred years ago we did not know there was one.""
then you claim I need history lessons by saying this...""....Edwin Hubble's arrival at Mount Wilson, California, in 1919 coincided roughly with the completion of the 100-inch (2.5 m) Hooker Telescope, then the world's largest telescope. At that time, the prevailing view of the cosmos was that the universe consisted entirely of the Milky Way Galaxy."
evidently, mankind knew there was a universe...just didnt know how large...which is still the case today.
there have been astronomers throughout time.
give it a rest...no one thinks your very smart on these matters....google it!! lol

Iamon_lyme: Hell is one word, German in origin... yet the originals that were converted to German would have four words used. One of those words used is a place that is no longer... "Gehenna" aka "the ravine of Hinnom".

One other being hell on earth as in "we are legion" the division of 'God/Life' into pieces eg us/them.

http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/DeathAndJudgment/TheGehennaOfFire.html

Maybe this is just the aspergers talking, but a while back someone said "religon is little more than man made comfort for the soul" When I was an atheist I heard simillar comments, but could not for the life of me understand how anyone who beclieved in good and bad consequences after death could find that comforting. I took more comfort in and was a firm believer of the idea of an eternal no uncertain risk/reward ratio, especially in contrast to the possibility of eternal suffering. I'm a huge fan of comfort, especiallly my own. If someone was absolutely sure they had no soul to risk, how could that not be comforting compared to the possibity of eternal discomfort? The worse thing you could feel is a little sad that it will all come to an end, and when the end comes then no more sadness. Some religions are comforting, especially the ones that are able to parse away anything personally objectionable, but in my experience real life doesn't naturally follow a path leading to personal happiness or comfort. In fact,I was much happier when I didn't bother to think about it. But if there is a door I'll be passing through after death, I would rather find out about now, while I have time to prepare for it. I don't like unpleasant surprises. They can be very uncomfortable.

GT: Or Doctor Who!!

Iamon_lyme: Yes.

We've got early summer here. 24oC on average over the last week. Extremely unusual weather compared to our normal April showers!!

GT: beep beep! na~ na~ na~ na~ Whoosh!!

Iamon_lyme: some are super genius.
yours truly..Wile E. Coyote

Iamon_lyme: I can feel my intelligence leaking out of me and into another dimension. Where did it go? Who did it go to? How can I be certain this is happening? We call them dimensions over here, what do they say they are?Dementians? Dalmation-loins? How can I know? And why for the love of ginger snaps am I replying to my own message? Am I pondering what you are pondering? Narf?

So, from one genius to another, what the @#%*& are you guys talking about? I know space isn't a perfect vacuum, so give me a break. Maybe there's a lot of stuff between, let's say, the earth and an oncoming meteor, but is there really enough dust and dark matter and energy rays etc. to significantly slow it down or even deflect it by much? When I say vacuum within a vacuum, I'm describing something that can't be visualised, but if it could it might appear to be areas of space that have dialated or contracted because of the effect of time. Anyway, if the kid gets through puberty before the "hype" screws with his head, he will probably be ok. Consider what happens to many child TV and movie actors when they make the transition to adulthood. I hope the kid has a solid down to earth family as he grows up, otherwise he will be like a sheep among wolves before he is ready to face the wolves. Uber, you apparently know, just as I too found out, how flattery and ego building can be a set up for disappointment. Hero worship can do much more harm to the "hero" than criticism. I say give the kid his 15 minutes of fame and then let him disappear back into his world. Ego building is a trap and fame is a killer. Anyway don't mind me, I always start off moody when I get up. I'm ready for Spring to pop in, anytime Spring is ready to show itself. ahem, I said, I'm ready for Spring to show up. awww come on, Spring, that was your cue! Am i the only one who is on top of things today??

Artful Dodger:

> He's still young so who knows where his studies will lead him. He has an IQ over 170. He's no small mind when it comes to understanding things in the universe.

He is obviously a gifted child, and provided his Asperger Syndrome is treated carefully, he will succeed through his adolescence and later in life. I suppose that as long as those around him give him a well structured education with good time management, he will adapt without being traumatized by the turmoil of adolescence. From what I read, it is adolescence that is the most difficult time for people diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome It seems also that there is a tendency (65%) to develop anxiety disorder and/or major depressive disorder. As long as he has good medical care he will do well, and he will be able to fully use his gifts.

An IQ of 170 seems impressive, but in reality it is meaningless. My grandfather was a psychologist. When I was a kid he measure the IQs of all his grandkids. I scored at 176, so he assumed I was a genius. Sadly, he was wrong! Don't get me wrong. I am exceptionally good at math, chemistry and physics. I was valedictorian in my highschool. I also discovered that in the real world nobody gives a damn. You won't get a job being a genius. You get a job being practical. So after all the chemistry and math and presumptious bourgeois crap, I discovered that unemployment is a hard pill to swallow, and I got useful skills. Power tools, machinery, you name it. Then I became a bus driver instead. Now I drive a bus, and when I see a pothole I calculate how much weight it would take to crush it a bit more, and make it bigger. Then I figure, is my bus heavy enough?

So a high IQ sounds nice, but then capitalism does not need people with a high IQ. What capitalism needs the most is cheap labour, so that those high IQ capitalists who own the factories and businesses can make a profit at the expense of the low IQ working classes. High IQ in capitalism is valuable, only if it makes the rich richer. Otherwise nobody cares about it.

Iamon_lyme:

> I did try to visualize what a space time curviature might look like.

Just remember, when they talk of curvature, they are not talking of the one-dimensional curvature of a two-dimensional curve (for example, the curvature of a circle is the reciprocal of its radius). We can visualize the "curvature" of a line or a sphere. To us curvature is what we see in Euclidean space.

The curvature they talk about is higher dimensional. In three dimensions curvature cannot be visualized so simply. It is expressed as the product of a matrix with orthonormal columns and a three dimenisonal vector. In higher dimensions curvature is expressed as the products of tensors in Riemann manifolds. It is too complex to be visualized in terms our brain can understand. It is understood only in mathematical terms, and therefore, it is an abstract concept. To make it short, Einstein used tensor calculus for his theory of relativity. If you are familiar with the math and the theorems of course it makes sense. If you are like most of us, it is all another language entirely.

> Try envisioning a vacuum within a vacuum

We forget sometimes that "vacuum" is a human concept to indicate the absense of matter in some enclosed space. In reality most of space is made of "vacuum" (for example, atoms have a tiny nucleus and even tinier electrons in orbit around it). However, elementary particles (like electrons, protons, etc.) have a dual character of a particle and a wave. That is the product of the quantum mechanical description of matter.

The real problem that physicists have is that quantum mechanics and relativity theory don't "mix", meaning that there is no exact solution when trying to solve relativistic quantum mechanics (like the Schroedinger equation) into higher dimensions. The attempts at these solutions is what things like superstring theory tries to do. Relativity is good at describing the universe in the huge scale of stars, galaxies, etc. While quantum mecahnics is good at describing the universe in the tiny scale of atoms and molecules. However, there is no unified theory thaht describes the two of them with the same math.

However, some day we will have a prodigy (maybe this gifted child) who will be able to do so. He has the potential and he will do well as long as he is allowed to be a child, and unrealistic expectations are not put upon him.

Iamon_lyme: Not really. It is and it isn't. I think it'd fairer to say .. it just has no breathable atmosphere. Dark matter/energy exists and we can't see them, particles of ice and gases float about. The sun is giving off constant bits of matter through expulsions as well as various forms of energy. It's like visualising air and seeing in the emptiness all the other forms of energy (such as ley lines)

Same as we say Zero G.... it isn't. You still have various tugs and pulls from other stellar bodies, if we didn't.. there would be no life. Our sun causes enough curvature to cause the Earth to not want to go in a straight line. To get to the moon, you just have to get far enough away from the Earth so that the moon's gravity has enough of a 'slope' to let us slide into an intersection.

As to the kid.. yes he's still learning.. but as one old song bite use to say "don't believe the hype".. He's smart, a good IQ (though personally I think IQ can be an empty yardstick in some ways) and saying he'll out prove Einstein ... ... Maybe he'll manage to merge the Macro and Micro universes ... He has more importantly the ability to question, to look a things and probabilities. It's like when I did science as a kid. I got told lightning came from the ground up.... but that was wrong, and as I found out just recently (the final piece of the story) .. it can start from the ground or from the clouds.. both at the same time, as well as (from about a decade ago) helps to clear certain particles from around the Earth that in time could cause radiation damage to our way of life.

Just the theory my science teacher taught was incomplete from I gather the 1930's, just as how I was taught in the 70's about electrons and how they move was incomplete.</b>

(V): A twelve year old boy who is naturally able to suspend disbelief long enough to wonder about what he has learned is no big surprise. Just means he thinks like any other 12 year old boy. He is playing with ideas and saying to himself, I wonder what this means, or what would happen (in an equation) if this is also true. His ablilities do seem to be limited to seeing the world almost exclusively through math, but he is also apparently very good with language as well, and is good at expaining his ideas. He has aspergers. I can relate to that, as I have a very mild form of it, virtually undetectable. At least undetectable when I was young, I don't know how my life would have been different if I was 50 younger, and growing up in a much different world than I remember. At least now I have a retroactive excuse for my weird behavior, so I guess it's not a total loss. Kids who had it worse than me might have been labeled weird or retarded or incorrigible, or whatever. I believe I may have just barely slipped in under the radar.

(V): I've never tried visualizing being everywhere at the same time, but I did try to visualize what a space time curviature might look like. It was very disorienting. Couldn't look at it for more than a few seconds at a time. What I fiound interesting about the thought experiment was that I envisioned space contracting, instead of dialating, which at least one theory of gravity says is what actually happens. Try envisioning a vacuum within a vacuum and you will see (and feel) the problem of visualizing it. It felt like a carnival ride. The funny thing about it was that for the most part I got it right, but apparently everything I "saw" was opposite and in reverse order of what gravity (as time dialation) is supposed to be. Space is already a vacuum, so the only way you can acheive a vacuum within a vacuum is by jiggering time so that volumes and distances can change while still remaining to be the same volumes and distances. What I mean is, instead of using a yardstick to measure another yardstick, you can use time to measure a yardstick, If time speeds up the yardstick becomes shorter, slow time down it becomes longer, but in each scenario it still remains the same 36 inches. I watch a few videos of the 12 year old math juggernault, and his grasp of mathematical principles is impressive. I'm not much good at math, so now I know how my kids felt when I tried explaining their homework to them. That's how I felt watching Jacob Barnett explaining calculus and singularities and his thoughts on light speed etc. I was amused and intimidated, but overall I came away with a big smile on my face. I joked about how I hope he doesn't use crayons on the family room wall. He doesn't. He uses an erasable marker to scribble on windows. Close enough. :op

Artful Dodger:

"Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn’t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn’t gonna happen."

Only one minor correction for this kid. The earth is made mostly of hydrogen and oxygen, in the form of water. Then its core is made of molten iron, and the crust is made silicon dioxide. Carbon and nitrogen are also important, but carbon is not what the earth is mostly made of.

“Because of that,” he continued, “that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We’d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.”

I think he is confused. Carbon fused together? He assumes that matter fuses to create life? Or does he mean elementary particles fusing together into carbon atoms? I think he is confusing one thing with another. Well, he is 12 years old. I would advise him to look at the chemistry starting from the core to the surface of a star, and then look at what most elements are made of. Then I would say, what about the carbon in comets and meteorites? I think he is a brilliant kid, with a lot of learning to do. However, I would remind him that mathematical equations are not nature, they are merely a linguistic representation that tries to match what we see in nature. The Big Bang as a theory makes some big assumptions such as the Cosmologial Principle and the universality of physical laws. To prove the Big Bang wrong one would have to disprove those two underlying assumptions. The Big Bang also requires space of uniform curvature (elliptic, hyperbolic or Euclidean space). If one could prove that space near a singularity is not uniform, then the Big Bang theory would fall apart. Well, I am no specialist in the subject. One of these days I might look at the math for it, and convince myself that it is not all bullocks or wishful thinking!