ebuc

The rich dont care, but we as a society should care avout social upheaval. We are not yet a fully russia style oligarchy. We have to ensure our nation's econoky is sustainable and worthy of the richest 1st world nation.

Sweat shops, child labor etc for the have-nots is not a concern to the haves, unless  their lifestyle is in jeopardy

We should make work worthwhile.

Otherwise crime and homelessness will be the result and youll simply spend good taxpayer dollars on enforcement and or welfare. Take away minimum wage and people will likely riot.

Well how else can I say it. You said the cosmos is eternal and there is no way to know.

The laws of thermodynamics may well break down in the time before the big bang.

I understand thermodynamic law we just don't know if it works outside the local observable physical universe.

If you want to have a conversation address this first. If you don't want a conversation then leave me alone. I'm good either way but I do not have to accept your claims without evidence.

BTW there's a cease fire.

BTW, there is not. Erodgan only slows his attack in hopes Kurds will leave their homes and towns more willingly.

GP  and D-piratate see no ethnic cleansings, hear no ethnic cleansing nor speak no ethnic cleansing.

Typical of Trumpist cult followers.  Their nose eyes and ears are full of Trumps solid waste deposits. Sad :--(

There is no meaning in the universe save that which is projected onto the universe by humans. I consider meaning to be something that must come from within, not without. It is up to us to choose a purpose and decide why we are here. It's a daunting prospect.

My sentiments also, for 20  or more years.  The only purpose of our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe is that which humans apply to it

It's called a metaphor.

If you don't understand metaphors and I don't understand your blocks of symbols we may be in trouble.

This time its also natural. A specific animal is producing too much of something. Nature has ways to balance those out, lets try to do it ourselves before nature kills us.

Oops I misinterpreted your comments,  your correct about those natural based animals being the cause.

7,5 billion of those mind accessing creatures on Earth and 50% of them want a Jeep Cherokee , even if they have no driveway to park them in ;--)

When you say that something exists eternally you are making a claim.

Claims require a burden of proof.

Yoir claim concerns things outside the local observable spacetime.

You cannot directly observe the unobservable so you assume that it resembles what has been observed.

This is logical and based on common sense. It is also beyond our epistemology.

I would consider it a personal favor if you stopped referring to the very humble admition that there are things we cannot be certain of and that this is one of them as egotistical behavior. That is nonsense.

A) Pull a Benghazi and allow the 26 troops to die by not pulling them out.

B) Start a war with Turkey.

C) Start a war with Syria.

There is no reason to think we have observed more than a small fraction of what exists

so arguments concerning what exists every where and every when are by necessity purely conjecture.

Your logic is not flawed your available information is just insufficient.

It is a structural flaw in your argument. Perhaps you should reformulate the argument to eliminate this flaw and we ccx an try again.

I accept that the laws of physics apply to our local (observable) physical universe.

Now you just have to demonstrate that they apply outside/before the universe if outside or before are even applicable words.

Unfortunately to do so you would have to be able to observe conditions outside/before the universe and humans cannot do so.

It doesn't matter if it is a logical common sense observation based on our current understanding of our local (observable) universe because logic combined with incomplete or inco6data can produce incorrect conclusions. 

Take this syllogism.

The laws of thermodynamics apply to whatever came before the big bang

The laws of thermodynamics state that energy cannot be created or destroyed

All energy that makes up the universe must exist eternally.

Perfectly logical but the first premise has not been demonstrated. 

I'm trying here ebuc let's just go point by point ok?

Your first point was about eternity which humans can only hypothesize about not actually observe. I  reject this first premise on the grounds that it cannot be tested. 

Ignoring everything else you said and just responding to this.

Eternity cannot be measured so it is outside human epistemology. If anything is eternal it is literally impossible for us to know.

If the rest of your post hinges on my believing in something that has any infinite dimensions (including the dimension of time) you would have to demonstrate an infinite and my common sense tells me that this is likely impossible.

And yet you think it's okay to force unwilling men to die for complete strangers halfway around the world?

Well why don't we focus on just one point because your posts often overwhelm me in their sheer magnitude. 

I'm sure that means you use very little of such, or otherwise find a specialized "oil made in USA only" dealer who sells it to you for higher prices.

Even if you're not American, you still probably live in a society powered by Middle Eastern oil, made possible by, you guessed it, USA wars designed to keep the supply flowing.

However bad the suffering and slaughter of peoples overseas, FDR had no right to force Americans to fight and die against their will to rectify the situation.

If he wanted to help so badly he could've grabbed a rifle, hopped a plane, and wheeled himself to the Russian front lines. In that sense American involvement in WWII was only justified so far as an Axis victory would've been very bad for us in the long term.

Now, today we have a volunteer force. But even then there's a general consensus nowadays that our troops are not 100% expendable and should only be endangered when the good of the nation counts on it.

Trump is withdrawing those forces now so I fail to see your point. Virtually everyone, myself included, does naturally sympathize with the Kurds. But their statehood is ultimately unsustainable anyways, and it would definitely not be in our best interests to go to war with Turkey, a crucial NATO ally, over the statehood of a regional minority group. Especially not a group whose state would be dominated by a communist party.

Now, I will admit that Trump has made one serious blunder here. After announcing he wouldn't stand in the Turks's way he STILL went and supported sanctions against the anatolian state. And yet, if the Turks end up leaving us anyway over that then it'll have been for nothing. We've made our bed with the Turks already so let's lie on it.

And? The only way to prevent this was to have toppled Assad back in 2011, or in any year since then, by outright invading Syria. Trump wasn't willing to do this, and neither was Obama.

(Also, you want to talk about butchering innocent people? The Obama administration helped.......Obama has 300,000+ Syrian deaths on his conscience, far more than anything Trump could even dream of.)

I don't think vilifying Turkish culture and adding religious intolerance to this on top of everything else is going to help anything. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Remember that Turkey is our ally, too. The situation here is that two of our friends are fighting. One friend is much bigger and, at present, more aggressive than the other.

While the larger friend is the aggressor at the moment, he is still an ally, and it's not a good idea to antagonize and alienate him completely. We have to be more far-sighted than that. That's diplomacy for you.

If this is all you are trying to say then stop after saying it. I literally can't follow you when you make multiple paragraphs of symbols and numbers.So just to be clear is this your entire point or is that buried in your graphs and equations somewhere?

CBF

When someone has trouble understanding what I'm trying to say I try to reword my statement I don't just produce what is essentially a copy paste (perhaps you type these things out by hand every time I don't know

but I see the same symbols over and over and they look indistinguishable to me).

Is it really to much to ask that you find a way of saying things that I am capable of following and understanding?

You've never even tried.

You just keep calling me a stupid egotist with no common sense.

That isn't nice ebuc it hurts my feelings. You are not fun to talk with. It is not enjoyable and I do this in part as recreation. I don't know why you treat me this way.

Do you understand now?

I think so, however, your leaving out a key aspect of your scenario, as stated, and that is, that,

1} the  further away the object the smaller it appears to us ergo the distance your hand shadows are moving is much less as are than here on Earth five feet from us, because,

2} we can hold I hands in front of a light bulb ---the source---  and there is going to be such a minimal shadow cast ---how about none---   on the moon that it is meaningless { of no significant relevance }, wheras here on Earth, five feet away we could actually measure that distance,

3}  your whole scenario is based on pereception of the observer,

4} the shadow { not an occupied space } is caused by lack of light { an occupied space } ergo place your hand over the whole light bulb and there is no shadow being cast, yet the hand and bulb still exists, and that is some ways similar to 6a below

5} whatever else I'm forgetting.

...6a} place your hand at chest level in front of you and move it from left to right or vice versa, and raise then lower your hand as it moves.  When we do this we create a sine-wave pattern, yet when we stop, the hand { occupied space } still exists, but the sine-wave pattern only exists as an abstract concept of mind.

It is impossible to have a conversation with you. I am numeralexic and I need you to not use numbers and symbols. It is not my ego it is my disability. Please if you cannot understand that or you do not care then just leave me alone

Unless they can be demonstrated in a practical and independently verifiable way.

This is meaningless to me and completely distracts from whatever point you are trying to make. Is it truly impossible to translate this into words?

 Inflation implies matter is being input,

although the universe is a closed system from what I understand. 

Yes but the further you are from your hand shadow, the faster it becomes. Correct? 

Now imagine seeing your hand shadow on the Moon from Earth.

I’m not talking about gravity. I’m talking about how a vertice can move faster than light.

What?

Why not?

If something cannot be demonstrated it can and should be dismissed. 

Subjective morals { concepts }  are demonstrated objectively with actions.

We see their actions and judge them by their actions if not also their words, that stem from metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.  

By my logic a spheroid is still a sphere.

No one here has stated or suggested otherwise.

A spherical or your spheriod, is not a true{ perfect } sphere.

A perfect this or that is just purely an abstract, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept and not an occupied space.  Just as macro-infinite this or that is pure abstract concept, except in the case of the macro-infinite Space that embraces/surrounds our finite, occupied space Universe.

If a sphere is large enough, does space inside it expand faster than light if the circumference expands?

Talking about how the universe is expanding faster than light,

I wonder if dark energy is actually just a reference point.

E.g. If you could create hand shadows from Earth onto the Moon it would be speeding across the surface faster than light.

Or if you created a guillotine the size of the Solar System, the vertex (the point in which the curved blade meets the bottom) would travel faster than light. Assuming there were rockets strapped to it or something to apply pressure. 

So could dark energy be some sort of an “optical illusion”? I have no idea. Can someone tell me I’m wrong? 

I don’t know. You hear people talk about the known universe (which is a sphere),

but not much about the unknown universe.

Will someone please get this man a history book?

I just don't understand your symbols. I've told you that before. Don't you think that it's frustrating for me too? Is there NO OTHER WAY you can communicate your ideas? If you care about me understanding please try to think of a way. Plain English in the 26 letters of the alphabet plus accepted punctuation would be best.

More mind games from you. You need to go back and read my words and symbols ---that Ive explained to you in past in other threads---  and place your ego to the side.

Ive  stated the above many times.  It does matter what I say, or how many times and ways I explain to you, i95% goes in on ear and out the other, or just falls on deaf ears because you mental base ego blockage. 

All of the above way old news for me and you. Go play your mind games with some else and dont come back until you have sincerity-of-heart and willing to place your ego elsewhere.  Its not happen in the past and not going to happen in the future.

Ego is the hardest metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept to crack.

don't get your point if you are trying to make one. 

Nothing new there, as you rarely get anything I say because like most, you have no sincerity of heart to understand anything I state.

Like most others, all you want to do is repeated and only focus on some symbols { texticonic characters :--) } that Ive repeatedly explained in detail many times over, too deaf ears @(* i *)@

You, like most, have an ego based mental blockage to anything I have to say. Easier for you to repeatedly offer the same ole, non-valid complaints about symbol this or symbol that. 

You want to play mind games with me and not have any serious disscussion with me.  I'm not sure why, on occasion, that you respond to anything I state. I guess you get bored. I dunno. 

Ok well have a nice day then. I'm not really sure what you want from me but I have reached my epistemological limits.

I've come as close to agreeing as I can under my current epistemology. Your conclusion was logical given our observations and that does not mean you are correct.

Yes based on the information we have it would seem logical but logic is only efficacious with sufficient information which in this case we do not possess. That your conclusion is perfectly logical does not mean that it is accurate.

You have this backwards. I agree that it is a rational, common sense deduction based on our observations. My issue is that logical assessments can yield incorrect conclusions in the absence of sufficient information. My entire argument begins and ends with we have no such sufficiency of information. 

Go back and read your own comments, ---#36---  that, only stated "logical" not rational or common sense. Now here above ---#38-- you appear to be getting a little more on board the trajectory I'm on.

Or as Lee Smolins ---Three Roads to Quantum Gravity--- processing motto goes,  ...'we will know more in the future'.... and it would be hard to disagree with that assessment, except in cases were humanity dies off and is not able pass on the knowledged they have aquired.

On the other hand, we do have sufficient information now, to state that we only observe a finite, occupied space Universe, whose diameter has consistently been a finite value, ergo we have no rational, logical common sense reason to believe our Universe does not have a;

1} dynamic shape/geoemetry/pattern,

2} finite set of diametric values, relative to lumpy shape, ----interfering tori--,

3}  nearly spherical shape ergo only one diametric value,

5} other.....???

That's going to happen no matter what God you pray to.