1) Do you see a young single mother as being easy??

2) Is it weird sleeping with a single mother

3) Do you lose respect for single mother's who sleep with a man on the frist date

Worst: seemingly good guy who ended up being married. Glad I found out early before anything progressed.

Mind you this is my opinion. There is a pervasive mentality in our country that if something is broke - let's get government to fix it instead of taking personal responsibility for the problem.

But in refusing to accept that Canada, Sweden and New Zealand although they all have guns they also all have WORKABLE gun controls that prevent "people include the mentally retarded, criminally insane, convicts, or the otherwise irresponsible and unreliable citizens." from having easy access to firearms, you refuse to admit that there are infact some residents in the US that really shouldn't have guns

despite your 2nd amendment

"Jerry the retard down the street" should be totting a .44 to school.

I don't think USA's weapons are entirely to blame for your massive murder rate, I think it's a combination of that and certain cultural factors. Also for somebody who is so studied, I think you mean Switzerland in regards to weapons ownership.

Your lying, New Zealand has about the same level of gun ownership as Canada.

If you can't tell why Mexico might not be a good country to compare too, you're beyond reason.

Interestingly Japan has extreme gun restrictions, and it's crime rate is lower than any of the countries listed.

I'll trust the FBI database and sociological research thanks. :)

Also, there are other variables that occure between 1984 and 2005. Variables which occured in almost every city, state, and province in both Canada and USA.

Crime has been dropping for the last two decades. regardless of the status of firearms. (duh)

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

Hey here is an unbaised source which actually has the stats! Unlike your polemic.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita/AFR

So we have a slightly higher burglary rate than you, and you have nearly 2 and a half times our murder rate. I'll take it thanks!

Pretty simple. Compare the US with any similar nation (average income, democratic system, level of urban vs rural, etc.). Then look at the level of gun violence in the US compared to that country.

First of all , most women don't claim to be Bi- to turn men on; they do it because they are truly attracted to women.

Its an ego issue but to each their own..I have heard of guys who found their partners were bi and active...and felt betrayed...and others who well they asked if they could join..

Now doesnt that depend on your perspective...a sub is allowing her/himself to be dominated right? so arent they in charge?

Maybe it says a lot about the US Army and the US Police that American's are so keen to keep their guns.

When people can't win an arguement they start using logical fallacies. This is called. A loaded question. You are attempting to frame a question in such a way that there is no actual answer.

Simply that common and uncommon is relative. In the USA gun violence is relatively common. The solution for gun violence probably is not more crime.

No, this is an arguement that possession of firearms doesn't mitigate sexual assault (because they're about equal in both countries)

however homicide (specifically using guns) is MUCH more common in your country.

The arguement is guns arn't helping protect your people, they're just making it easier to kill each other.

It's almost like most violent crime doesn't result from mass shootings. So you can have a much higher likelyhood of a mass shooting, and it still be relatively incidental compared to your massively inflated murder rate.

here is a great article which addresses the statistical problems with making comparisons between two legal systems...

Interestingly enough Saskatchewan has one of the worst crime rates in Canada.

Washington D.C.'s ban is ineffectual simply because you have no useful National standard for gun control, when you can drive an hour away and pick up guns then the ban is rather pointless isn't it?

Same goes for Cho orederring arms online. If you had a functional national standard and his name popped up on a "do not sell" list because of his documented mental problems .... well you see where that goes.

Why? should these weapons be controled, for the same reason I don't think every country should be allowed to have WMD's. I mean come on. Why should Iran's rights to nukes be infringed upon because SOME people MIGHT do something bad with them?

To Feanor message 149: You talk about other nationals messing in your business! The USA has been sticking it's nose in other countries business where it doesn't belong for decades!

If you guys stop more crime with civilian ownership of firearms, it certainly doesn't show in your universaly higher crime stats.

As for switzerland's crime rate, it's not really an apt comparison, neither is Netherlands for that matter, which has near 0% gun ownership and fare lower crime rates than USA or Canada.

Yet somehow we have less mass murders, and less crime per capita. What's your reasoning behind it?

As for the Canadian policeman. Of course we have the **** up cops. They exist in any population.

Statistically the odds of you having this problem are tiny, compared to lets say being shot by a girlfriend you pissed off with your own fire arm.

They exist in any population. I guess the question is did this **** up cop ever shoot anybody? Because Cho sure did, and because of the efforts of NRA, the Chos of the USA get the guys they want very quickly.

Mass does "increase" as velocity increases. Acceleration is what really matters. Acceleration is the same as gravity.

Because cops deal with criminals on a much more regular basis,

and their training is the reason it's fine for them to walk around with firearms.

Also, while Canadians are occasionally killed by firearms, not at nearly the same rate as south of the border.

Also police go through some pretty intense psych screening (at least in my city) something Cho obviously didn't have to deal with.

This isn't entirely relevant. In Canada we have very restrictive gun control laws and our criminals, just like those in the US, still have guns. But we manage to go about our daily lives just fine without walking around strapped. If we can do it why can't people in the US do it?

that law is already in effect.......from what I understand Mr Cho had not been
comitted so wouldn't be on the list anyway.

No, it doesn't. But that doesn't mean it never will. How many elements of today's society are the same as those of a century ago? How many do you think will be the same a century from now? If you'll grant me the assumption that societal change will happen, why not try to direct it in a peaceful direction?

Oh, I'm quite content to merge our positions. Part of the issue is the prediliction for violence of so many in our society. Part of the problem is the ease of access to dangerous weapons. I don't claim that eliminating guns alone will solve the problem. But I also don't accept that having a gun in my pocket is no different than having a rock in my pocket, as you asserted earlier. Killing or injuring someone is always personal, but it's a whole lot less personal if you can stand back and pull a trigger rather than engage in hand to hand combat.

And I expected someone would challenge my civil and womens rights analogy, but my point is not that we've achieved nirvana in either case, but that we've made significant progress on both fronts, and it's time to start at least trying to make significant progress on the violence front, instead of falling back on the "that's just the way things are" argument racists and sexists tried to use not too long ago.

I'm often struck how many of us divide ourselves into two distinct worlds we choose to live in. There are many who assume humans are incapable of peaceful living, evil lurks around every corner, and the only reasonable course of action is to lock every lock, trust no one who hasn't proven themselves worthy, and arm ourselves against the inevitable attacks to come on our 'liberties'.

Then there are those of us who dare to choose to work to help create a better world. We refuse to resign ourselves to eternal strife and instead choose to believe that all those extra brain cells we cart around just might be able to one day create a society where violence is as socially unacceptable as slavery has become. Personally I see a whole lot more liberty in that world.

Of course without a magic wand such a world won't happen overnight. Realistically not in our lifetimes. But that's no reason not to at least point ourselves in that direction, despite all the loud cries of 'it'll never happen'. The same cries were heard in the struggles for civil rights, gender equity, human flight, breaking the sound barrier, and a long list of never before attained objectives we've realized in just a very short period of time.

I don't know the context in which it was uttered, but it strikes me that about the same time a certain document was produced that proclaimed certain rights to be self-evident: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If someone is pointing a gun at me my life is certainly in question, my liberty sorely limited, and happiness in short supply. Having a gun of my own to point back may purchase me a bit of temporary safety, but I'd much prefer the essential liberty to live a life free of such threats.

I guess it makes sense though. Since it's official policy to shoot first and ask questions later as a nation it's only logical that we encourage the same behavior in our citizens.

If a crook knows that if he is picked up on a smash and grab he could face X years in prison but by having a gun whether used or not while committing that same crime he will face X + 10 years a few of them may think twice before doing it the goal is the same in both to steal something.

Singapore has got it right. If you murder unlawfully or rape anyone, no question, its the death penalty.

The speed of light is NOT constant. It is dependant upon the medium through which it passes. For most purposes, it SEEMS constant.

If light is the fastest known speed, does the universe expand at the speed of light, can light leave the universe, or is light bound within it regardless of speed?"

To this last question, I would argue that the universe is defined by the presence of light/electromagnetism, and space/time does not exist until illuminated.

Simply, light travels faster than matter, and nothingness does not become vacuum until it is part of the universe. This means that the size of the universe could be calculated as a sphere with a radius of C times the age of the universe. This also means we could never leave the universe by travelling less than the speed of light, unless there's a back door to bypass space/time.

This is a bit off topic, but it leads me to wonder about the speed [and general nature] of electromagnetism outside of the normal vacuum of space, in environments such as singularities or black holes.

Can you maybe briefly explain that because I'm not sure I'm getting your drift here. You did mention that light speed is constant ....right?. But with gravity , we have to take into account that there is an acceleration that must take place for something to move faster.

The current explanation of a black hole is that it is a collpased something with such gravitational pul that even light cannot escape.

Just a theory.

It doesn't get pulled IN. Black holes are pretty much the same as suns and stars, with one difference... the properties displayed to us are a different range.. the 'dark' range' unlike the range that is displayed to us by our sun, they have a range that displays darkness and just like around every star, planet or sun, the interacting 'matter' or better yet, the properties form new balances which result in different properties.

The only problems with Nuclear power are artificial.

He's not wrong about the need for water. And the more oil they take out the more water they need to extract more oil. It's a real problem, just as water shortage is everywhere.

The only thing I'm concerned with, is the out put. And you cannot say it is not harmful. Uranium-275(or is it 375, I don't have my periodic table with me right now) is radioactive.

And what are we supposed to do with all of this extremely radioactive substances? Oh well, let's bury them in the ground... great idea eh?

I noticed an earlier post saying LED technology is just now surpassing incandescent in efficiency.

People who have nuclear power pay on the average more than people who use other sources of energy for power, so you want to pay more look to nuclear power.

How can gravity move at the speed of light? Only light can move at that speed

If it was then anything that is absorbed in gravity would be moving at the speed of light.

For example.... If I fell off my chair here and I fell to the ground ,because of gravity, I would obviously not be falling at the speed of light to the floor LOL LMAO, ....right??

I always thought gravity was instantaneous but I admitingly have no idea. :) anyone have references?

No, hate to burst your bubble jerry, but general relativity does predict a singularity.

but unless you wish to tell me you have solved the problem of how matter acted in the inflationary period you cannot say for certain what the speed of light is at that time.

How did the volume of the universe, a hundred billion times smaller than a proton, expand to approximately one hundred million light years across in just 10-32 seconds?

Remember, we are talking about the early early universe, were not even talking about any matter that Einstein agreed with, he hated quantum particle science.

Light didn’t even exist at this point, just a bunch of stuff that was going to be matter someday.

So the laws of physics, as I said, not only do not apply here they didn’t even exist as we know it. So your cosmic speed limit is safe.

At any rate, when we talk about black holes and singularities, we are talking in turn about big bang as well.

That first singularity contained all of the black holes that now exist as well as all matter that we see and beyond. It certainly must go way beyond even our most complicated understanding of current theory. So I am not surprised when we can’t grasp the concept

I don't think tehre is a singualarity, there is NO EVIDENCE that shows there is a singularity there.

I beleive that Black holes just pull or absorb things in them and they come out the other end, and we can see that they do because when you see those jets flying up on BOTh sides of the Black hole

that means when it went into the black hole , it went in there fast due to the black holes immense pull, but when it did and it crossed the actual hole (point of horizan) it just went out the other way.

What kind of magnetic field are you talking about? wouldn't the magnetic field pull it towards the black hole?

If we talk about the big bang theory (something for which I don’t agree with entirely) it suggests that all of the matter in the universe came from a singularity or a central point or the heart of a black hole

Now, if all of the matter in the universe came from one central point or singularity, what velocity is needed for all of that matter to exit the singularity without it all falling back in on itself though the sheer mass of it?

The only answer that makes sense is a velocity greater than the speed of light. This would mean that the speed of light is not a constant in the universe, (Look up variable speed of light)

But does the singularity bleed matter off into another space time dimension? Or is it merely an entrance to a worm hole that deposits matter into another location in the universe, no one knows.

A few points: First gravity actually isn't perfectly constant everywhere on Earth. The variances are utterly small and beyond unassisted detection but they are there. This would be true of all bodies.

Good points Starvartist. Another theory of gravity is that it acts like a wave. For example, if you were to remove the Sun from our solar system the planets would continue to remain in orbit until the lingering effects of gravity dissipated.

While I understand that the universe has no edges in the classical sense, I wouldn't say it is boundless.

As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, but space-time (the fabric of empty space) is created by the expansion of the universe. In other words, empty space, totally devoid of particles and energy is still a creation of our expanding universe.

So my question is, what happens to light when it encounters the 'edge' of the universe?

I understand that the universe is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light relative to us, but that's only relative to us correct?

Surely at the 'edge' of this expansion there are light particles encountering something other than what we perceive as empty space yes? Or is it that light particles 'create' our universe even as they travel beyond it? Is the expanding universe defined not just by the expansion of matter and energy caused by the Big Bang, but also secondary effects such as the light of stars?

To save you some of that reading above I will quote the following for you.

But the rest of my original post on this topic explains that nothing actually IS moving faster than light.

I think you would be seeing the train go twice as fast in this scenario. How do you know that we would stil be seeing the train travelling at the speed of light and not twice as fast?

In this case one may have to assume that there is something , maybe extremely remote to our understanding, that is infact working at a rate faster then light.

Maybe our eyes would not pick it up that fast, but it doesn't mean it would not be going twice the speed of light.

I am not a scientist but I have to believe that eventually, Einstien's theory will be disproven just like Newton's has been.

From what I understand, when a black hole is formed, it means that at an atomic level, the electrons orbiting the nucleus of atoms get squashed up against the nucleus and their orbit and therefore the energy that they emit in the form of light ceases to exist.

Once we pack all of these atoms together like this, there would be nowhere for electrons to orbit and hence no way to generate light.

As well a belive the the event horizon is the point whereby the matter rushing towards the center of the black hole is in fact going faster that the speed of light so that even though it has not been packed down yet and therefore still emits light, the matter's speed exceeds the speed of light and therfore light cannot escape outward because it cannot travel faster the the mass that emits it

Eventually, I believe that 2 black holes will get trapped by the gravity of each other and so long as their mass is roughly equal to each other , the will both start to accelerate towards each other and eventally as long as BOTH have reached the magical event horizon, and are travelling past the speed of light that they will collide with sufficient force to release enough stored up energy that instead of just making a bigger black hole, in fact a new localized big bag will occur.

In this localized "big bang" that you suggested, wouldn't that be probably a "white hole"?, because they say that "white holes" are the time reversals of black holes, in that they emit or spit out energy instead of sucking in it.

I am imagining that black holes colliding is an extremely rare event and that in most of these cases one hole is much bigger than the other so that it does not get to accelerate with enough speed.

I would venture to say the first bit of the ensuing explosion would toss matter out faster than lightspeed.

It is just as hard for me to accept the concept of infinity.
No one has ever proven its existence. We simply do not have to capability to find the end.......yet!

Also, if the fabric of space is actually a result of our expanding universe, what happens to light when it meets the 'edge' of the universe? Does it continue beyond this boundary? If so, does it still have the same properties and behave as it does in our universe?

It's energy is it's mass (actually, mass equivalence) which is why the below is actually technically correct.

As long as the photon has energy (as in moving) it has a mass equivalence. Once the photon ceases to move (has no energy) it ceases to have a mass equivalence.

No, the big bang does not go fizzle because of this. Again, energy and mass are equivalent but they are not identical (or the same thing). One can convert to the other (become the other) but each one is not the same thing as the other.

It is the similar to the saying "all men are created equal". This does not mean they are identical just equal by comparison.

You are confusing "invariant mass" (or intrinsic mass, the mass measured in atoms, molecules, etc)

Relativistic mass is actually the measure of the energy of a photon and it is this relativistic, or apparent, mass that allows (or causes) it to behave/interact with other systems "as if" it has actual (invariant or intrinsic) mass (in reality, the photon is not contributing invariant mass to a system it interacts with but, rather, energy which contributes to the overall mass of a system).

i would tend to agree with mungojoe....plus Im not so sure if gravity bends light because it has mass or if photons travel along a curved path in spacetime that has been warped by gravity...

My apologies. I was indeed not succinct enough.

Accredited 1. give credit to (someone) for something. 2. give official authorisation or sanction to. Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th edition...........

dragons and zombies abound.....Loch Ness gal, Bigfoot, faeries, why not? The thing is, they've never had teachings attributed to them. Maybe they're there to challenge us all?

The fact of the matter is that there are a jillion people who do believe in Him. And the WRITINGS accredited to Him are really very profound and stand the test of time.

And on another tangent, there is the theory of chulpas, which is, if enough people believe that a certain being exists, they will come into being. Who is to say that a Jesus exists or doesn't?

Energy and matter have equivalence but are not identical. It is a subtle distinction but a distinction none the less.

For instance, light has no "rest mass"/invariant mass (or at least such a small one that it is relatively insignificant). A photon does, however have energy under most circumstances and therefore a mass equivalence.

By taking E=mc^2 and applying a little algebra you can calculate the mass equivalence of that energy using

m=E/c^2

When a photon nears or is at "rest" it has no energy (or at least insignificantly little) and therefore no mass equivalence. In this way it cannot not be said to be in disagreement with the principle of mass-energy equivalence.