in vino veritas

A question to those much more able to answer than I...

In the theory about parallel universes (i.e. the "multiverse") it is always pronounced that "I" have a duplicate (or duplicates, depending on the number of universes) in another universe. My question is: how?

When one brane touches another (or - conversely - when another "bubble" [I.e. universe is formed]), why am "I" automatically in the "new" one?

I have heard said - by many renowned physicists - that there is one of "me" in each parallel universe...and I wonder how that is possible. When a brane touches another does it suck the entirety of the information out of it (taking a copy of me along with it)?

Essentially what I am attempting to ask is this: why exactly is there a "me" in a parallel universe? Is it like a zygote splitting, where equal amounts of matter are taken by each division?

Also, why is the "me" in this alternate universe doing what I am doing here? I know that a particle can be in more than one place at the same time, but how does that expound to dual (or more) persons doing essentially the same thing?

Thanks in advance!

Being a most hesitant resident of the plastic state of Texas, I am interested in a point that the current governor - Rick Perry - is making in his campaign ads.

In his current ads he is stating: while he has been governor, he has "created" 850,000 jobs.

Interesting, as most of the conservatives I know state that the government cannot and does not create jobs.

So, which is it cons: does government actually create jobs, or is Rick Perry (a current member of government, of course) once again lying to try to become the governor of Texas once again?

Cons, you can't have it both ways...so which is it?

I feel it is in the citizen's best interest to donate to the political party(ies) that best represent their views, but...

...I must ask, do you who donate to this dinosaur party really feel like you are getting effective results for your contributions? I mean really...money to send your brethren to a lesbian bondage stripclub? And on the other hand, supporting wackos such as the tea party and right-wing extremist religious wingnuts who wish to kill our police officers? If nothing else, you people are giving credence to those who say that the repub party is dead...and if not dead yet, surely dying indeed.

And if you should not believe in these vile/criminal methods...then why do you not speak out vociferously against them?

Really...do you wish this country of ours to be schizophrenic as you seem to be?

If this is your "family values" stance...we say adamantly: no thanks....never will we support what you condone.

Again, it is a simple question.

So cons, why do you happily pay for iur ability to murder people in other countries, but turn a blind eye to murder in your own country?

Why is killing a person in another country much more favorable to you than saving a person in your own country?

I await your responses....

For example, does Honda now have enough influence (as they certainly have the budget) to elect a Senator from a state in which they are looking for cheap land to build a new factory?

Will BP now elect our Governors...perhaps the ones from Alaska, Oklahoma and Texas?

After all, those two indeed have a large presence and offices in the US, do they not?

Perhaps the Bank of China electing our Presidents soon? True, no presence in the US quite yet...but quite possibly in the future, indeed.

A question also if I may to those who state that they prohibition is only on advertisement for a political candidate of their choice (and bidding): aren't you the same people who said the government is evil and - once presented with a new law - will take it and expand it ad infinitum? So please tell me: what makes the corporations, flush with money, any different? Did you enjoy how they played with - and lost - your money? Perhaps you were overjoyed when they fired you without reason? Or maybe you relished the fact that they about brought our economy to its knees? Indeed, how can you say that the government will grab power and never relinquish it...when the big corporations do the exact same thing?

So...will foreign companies with a presence in the US be "helping" us elect our politicians soon? Or more correctly should the term be "plutocrats"?

"The word plutocracy (Modern Greek: πλουτοκρατία - ploutokratia) is derived from the ancient Greek root ploutos, meaning wealth and kratos, meaning to rule or to govern"

Is this essentially not giving certain citizens more than one vote? Anyone remember - and now yearn for - the days when it was "one person, one vote"?

Consider this: Say I am a citizen of the US. As such, I have one vote to be cast in political races, to be used as I see fit. However, say I am also an owner of a corporation...a large one, with a few million in profits lying around. Now, being this theoretical person, I have the right (and encouragement) to use this money as I see fit in the political spectrum to express my company's opinion. If I have a politician in my pocket who will indeed do my bidding, I will finance him/her as much as I feel is necessary to win that person the seat I desire him/her to have. So, I ask you this: by being a citizen AND having the monetary influence to help determine political races, do I not then essentially have more than one vote? Not a ballot-box vote, of course, but a vote of influence...which is sadly often a much more powerful "vote".

To those who may state that "some corporations/unions/etc.) have held undue influence even before this flawed decision, I will simply say that I totally agree with you. However, do you relish these entities having more power than you as a citizen do in electing our officials? Why not overhaul the system, instead of making it a total free-for-all for all corporations?

By essentially saying that corporations are again simple "people" like you and I, has the SCOTUS in effect given the people of power at minimum 50% more influence in the political ring than we "common: people have?

By overturning all rulings since 1906 (and most recently upheld in 1990) denying corporations any undue or unfair influence in our (not their) political process, what has been done to the US as we now know it?

So, has the Supreme Court - supposedly our final ruling body in the US - dealt a death blow to equality and democracy in this country in favor of a flawed concept that now unleashes political influence peddlers?

...The Running Man.

Encore showed it tonight, and not having seen it in quite a while I watched from start to finish (since the GMAC Bowl is anything but exciting). While not particularly a well-made movie (Ahnold has his typical wooden acting style, although the screenplay was written by Richard Bachmann, and had cameos by Jesse Ventura, Mick Fleetwood and Dwiezel Zappa)).

Seeing the society it depicts - one controlled by the fascist government, promoting (with force and lies) abstract "goodness" and harmony, with TV as an integral arm of the government, which is represented as authoritarian and brutal in its desire to keep society calm and in line - my question falls into two parts:

1) which political ideology does this portray in the damming light?

and

2) why do you think that?

Extra points to anyone who can answer why the "Running Man" show was 3 hours in duration...with cheerleaders and entertainment.

...the posters here known as panties of our pappys (aka flags) and testicles (who by every question proves his screen name is more and more appropriate)?

"Thanks" one may ask...why? Well, in coming back from a trip to Germany, I have come back to this entertainment forum and see those two have once again shown their cowardice...by blocking me once again.

Don't you just love how they interpret the spirit of our First Amendment? I do believe that true rational discourse and the free exchange of ideas are indeed foreign subjects to these posters...sadly.

For the health of the two-party (and hopefully more soon) system, I hope all repubs are not as closed-minded and uninformed as these posters.

Anyway guys...thanks for the win...not that it's worth much coming from you two (or, in common belief, the one you are).

glückliche Antworten!

...in diesem Jahr (2009) beginnen wird?

Ich geniesse deutschen Wein, und ich wollte einige Wein-Gebiete waehrend der Ernte besuchen...aber nicht wissen, wenn es beginnen wird

(Ich moechte mich entschuldigen, dass mein Deutsch nicht gut ist... Ich habe Deutsch studiert, aber erinnert mich an alles nicht gut).

Danke sehr viel!

...WITHOUT using the following words:

1) "money" (or any derivative of that word relating to it).

2) "Socialism" (as we all know single payer - even though it is nowhere near Socialism - itself is not even being considered in Congress).

and

3) "President Obama" (and yes, either of those two words).

I think it would be quite interesting to hear where you stand not as an economic citizen of our country...but simply as a human being.

Since it appears you always have the "right" answers - as you are want to continuously say - I am sure this will not be overly difficult for you...

...or - in a humane and logical sense - will it?

Anyway...can you do it (and yes, this is my question here)?

I am not sure exactly how to phrase this succinctly, so kindly bear with me as I attempt to put my thoughts into words.

In the relativistic concept of gravity (if I am not mistaken), Einstein stated that gravity was caused by a warping of spacetime due to mass of an object. In other words, gravity seems to be caused by an object with sufficient mass to distort the area it "inhabits".

However, in the superstring/M-Theory speculation, in an attempt to explain why gravity is substantially weaker than the other 3 forces, it has been postulated that it is due to the fact that gravity is interdispersed - and therefore must travel - through the proposed eleven dimensions in this universe.

My question: do these not seem like rather - if not wildly - differing theories?

If a body warps spacetime, it seems to me that the gravity is "created" by the mass of the object, as I believe Einstein said. Yet M-Theory seems to state that gravity is exerted from outside of the body itself...yet it is omnipresent, although at differing amounts.

What am I missing here? Does gravity behave in multitudes of ways depending on the situation? Or am I confusing relativity with quantum physics?

My thanks to all who answer.

I am curious as to what the physics community now thinks as the most "probable" of the two theories of universe creation: Brane theory (i.e. M-Theory) or Bubble Theory? Or are there now equally viable theories other than those two?

It seems to me that both theories promote the idea of a multiverse, but, does Bubble Theory also have as one of its tenants the idea of multi (i.e. eleven or more) dimensions? And are both theories cyclic, or will expansion happen until entropy takes over? Does Feynman's "many-worlds" idea of quantum mechanics apply in both?

I thank you in advance for your thoughts about this.

I will start by saying that I have relatively no training in the area of physics...though science fascinates me (if advanced mathematics was not such a black hole for me, I suspect my career path would have been one of the natural sciences).

Anyway, that is what it is. I was, however, doing a bit of a thought experiment (something I sometimes enjoy) regarding the singularity. My question is this:

Since we 1) basically know that the big bang was a hyper-rapid expansion rather than a "bang" (semantics perhaps, I agree) and 2) entropy seems to be the only true barometer of " what we know defines time", does new physics think that the big bang was caused by either:

- the singularity expanding simply because it was "new" and - for lack of a better term - it was its "purpose"

or

2) the singularity expanded because the force that was holding it "in" (i.e. making it the singularity what it was) was overcome by the force the singularity exerted upon it to expand.

In other words, did the singularity have to overcome another force to expand, or did it simply expand without counteracting an opposing force holding it together?

I thank you all in advance for entertaining - and giving your thoughts on - my little thought process.

...can we all give thanks for socialism gone correctly (one instance of many, indeed)?

Today the Space Shuttle Atlantis launched in the final mission to one of the greatest scientific instruments ever conceived, the Hubble Space Telescope (soon to possibly be eclipsed by the LHC, though). This is the fourth repair mission, and capitalists please take note: the first repair mission was due to the mirror producer - a private company (*gasp*) named Perkin-Elmer - who ground the mirror incorrectly...please, is that one of the examples of private greed doing things better than the government?

Launched in 1990 by Shuttle Discovery, the HST has made many unbelievable discoveries, and has photographed some of the finest natural art that exists. Amongst its many achievements (benefiting both private and public enterprise, and humankind itself) , it has:

1) Discovered black holes at the center of 99% of all galaxies (yes, including ours).

http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_hole...

2) Given humankind the farthest glimpse backward into time we will EVER have, with the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. Please view this and be prepared to be humbled: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw

Now the Shuttle crew has launched to perform the most technically difficult mission ever: to keep our HST going for some time now, and giving us - we small humans on a tiny rock among potentially quadrillions - an even better understanding of existence and our infinitely tiny place in it.

And to think...this was all done by a governmental agency...using our money we paid into it as taxes. Indeed, one of the many examples of Socialism's benefits.

So, for those who wish to expand their horizons further - those who look up at the night sky in amazement - feel proud that our government (i.e. the citizens) had the foresight and technology to do what was recently thought impossible. To those who only want what they think is theirs, those who only care how many fellow humans they can shaft with their callous disregard: have fun in your caves.

I have just read the Yahoo article on the exoplanets Gliese 581d & e...and as always seems to happen, the way the scientists think of and search for extraterrestrial life bugs me a bit.

The article stated: "Scientists also discovered that the orbit of planet Gliese 581 d, which was found in 2007, was located within the "habitable zone" — a region around a sun-like star that would allow water to be liquid on the planet's surface, Mayor said."

My question is this: are scientists too narrow in their focus on what constitutes "life"? In other worlds, are they only looking for - and do they expect to find - life such as ours (i.e. carbon-based, liquid water-needing, etc.) on exoplanetary bodies?

I certainly realize that life similar to ours would be the easiest to both find and understand - and indeed, other life forms that do not need what we humans do may be unsearchable given our current knowledge - but I wonder of these researchers are limiting themselves too much in their pursuit...

On the always comical fox "news", one of their so-called commentators - Steve Doocy - opinionized on a story regarding the new President of El Salvador, Mauricio Funez.

After Doocy had time to regurgitate his programming via a so-called "report", a fox "news" analyst (yes, irony in the extreme), mind you - Peter Johnson - claimed Funez "allegedly had ties to strongman Cesar Chavez..."

I have two questions on this:

1) are fox "news" viewers even smart or truly informed enough to point out the blatant incorrectness here?... and ...

2) does fox "news" really even believe the propaganda it spews at times?

"fox news: we distort, you drool"

...are you prepared to give our President Obama credit for that?

After all, you always - and sometimes daily - lament the recent "fall" of the stock market as President Obama's "fault"

By your supposed "logic", since every decline in the stock market is the fault of our President, ergo every rise in it must also be due to him...right?? After all, your group seems to think the President of the US controls our stock market, as well...

...so how about giving it up for our great President, Barack H. Obama?

After all...in your minds it's only logical...n'est ce pas?

It has been proposed by very reputable astrophysicists that dimensions exist that total in number from 9 to 11. I find this both concurrently totally fascinating and mind-boggling.

Two questions on this postulate, if I may:

1) How have these numbers been reached? By mathematical calculations, or by another method?

2) Has anyone speculated on what they are? I know the three basic ones, plus the fourth one proposed by Einstein (i.e. time), but has anyone ventured a guess as to what the other 5 to 7 dimensions "are"?

Thank you!

First off, please allow me to state that I by no means am a science professional - calculus about killed me in high school, believe me. I do, however, have a great fascination for and respect of science, especially astrophysics.

Anyway, my question is this:

Based on the following:

- Einstein's theory that objects of greater mass warp the fabric of space-time more than those that have lesser mass

- Black holes are objects of the greatest mass that we now know of - ergo they have greater gravity

and:

-Black holes consume the matter of the universe, shrinking it to infinite density and mass.

- There is finite mass in the universe (second law of thermodynamics?)

So, does it follow that - since black holes are (basically) devouring the universe - that the matter we now know will eventually be consumed in its entirety by them?

If so, when black holes gain the mass of the matter in our universe (i.e. no more matter is left except elementary matter and anti-matter), will they then gravitationally start attracting each other and combining?

If - unimaginable years from now, all black holes have merged so that only 2 "super" black holes remain - will they then attract each other and merge?

If they do indeed merge, will all mass therefore be the "size of an atom" (or smaller)?

Will this be the end of the universe (and time) as we know it and...since only one black hole is left - containing the entire matter of our cosmos in itself - will this then form the "critical mass" needed to produce another "Big Bang" (and in turn another universe)?

Elasticity?

Again, excuse my ignorance of physics, but I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

Thanks!