SoAMadDeathWish

I have a "better" example. Suppose I leave from home traveling at 99.99 c. Friends at home would see my speed as 99.99 c relative to Baltimore, heading toward Saturn. I then shine a super flashlight onto my destination (while in flight). I observe it illuminate Saturn, before I get there because regardless of my speed, light leaves my flashlight at c and thus I can verify it reaches there first by the light reflecting back (also traveling at c relative to me). What do friends on earth see? Using a telescope, do they also see the light reach the destination before me, which means it would be going two or three times my speed in order to reach and reflect, or do they see us (the light and me) arrive at very nearly the same time?

Short answer: Both you and the people on Earth observe that the light reached Saturn first. But the people on Earth observe that the light took less time to reach Saturn after you shined it.

Long answer:

Let's say that the distance between Earth and Saturn is d (in the Earth frame) and that at the halfway point on your journey to Saturn, you shine a light at Saturn. The distance that light travels is d/2, and so it takes d/(2c) seconds for the light to go from you to Saturn in the Earth frame.

But in your frame, the distance between Earth and Saturn is not d, but rather d*Sqrt(1 - (v^2)/(c^2)) (because of length contraction), which turns out to be d*0.0141421 when your velocity is 99.99% of c. The halfway point of your journey is at half this distance, so you shine the light at d*0.00707105. That means that the light arrives at Saturn after d/(0.00707105*c) seconds in your frame (because of time dilation).

d/(2c) < d/(0.00707105*c)

but

d > d*0.0141421

So in the Earth frame, the light traveled a longer distance, but it took less time to get there. Whereas in your frame, it traveled a shorter distance, but it also took a longer time to get there. Thus, light never goes "two or three times your speed" to reach Saturn. Light always travels at c, it is never ever slower or faster across inertial frames. Instead, space and time contract and dilate.

Then if a (hypothetical) observer was moving at c, then they would still observer light moving away from them at exactly c?

When talking about motion, it's always a good idea to ask what the observer is supposed to be moving relative to. Every observer is always at rest in his own inertial frame. If you say that an observer is moving with some velocity v, then you must specify the frame he is moving relative to as well.

Also, there are no such things as inertial observers that move with velocity c with respect to any other inertial frame. As I've said before, such an observer would not be able to read the clocks in his own frame, which is a serious problem.

We can, however, talk about an observer that is moving with a velocity close to c with respect to a second observer. In that case, both observers would measure any light moving away from them at exactly c.

Death wish,

Sorry to be responding so late, and sorry to keep beating a dead horse but you answers have not been satisfying yet... Perhaps it is because I do not have a clear understanding of the premise. So let me ask, does or does the the theory not state that light travels at c regardless of the observers relative speed and/or position? Yes or no

It does.

I, for one, welcome our new quadcopter overlords.

There are yet no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for sexual orientation. [Wikipedia]

(You'd think if it existed, someone should have found it by now.)

Did you even read that wikipedia article?

There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation;^[1] however, biologically-based theories for the cause of sexual orientation are favored by experts,^[16] which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, or both combinations.^[14] Moreover, there is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation;^[14] when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women.^[17] Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.^[1]

Absolutely. Do think India would have developed democratic institutions at the time it did if it had not been controlled by Great Britain? Where did the U.S. get its institutions and traditions? The Constitution even mentions the "common law," a concept from English jurisprudence.

What about France, Germany, Spain or Japan? It's not at all necessary to be a subject of Great Britain in order to become a democracy. The US and India did not become democracies because of Great Britain but rather in spite of it. I don't recall Washington or Ghandi ever saying anything like "Hey isn't GB so wonderful and democratic? We should be more like them."

Is this going to devolve into a discussion of whether to use ">" or ">="? Who cares? If people had to pay a little tax in order to vote, then the lowest income people would be clamoring to pay $10/year of tax in order to be able to vote. If they received zero services, perhaps they could pay a dollar when they registered to vote. In the larger scheme of things, it makes very little difference.

Darrell

Why would anybody want to pay $10 a year of tax in order to be able to vote when the most they can get from the government is about $10 before losing the right to vote?

I think that democracy is a logical precondition for freedom.

Why is that?

--Brant

Do you think it could be otherwise? If we had a government that was unaccountable to the people, do you think it would waste its resources protecting their rights, or would it rather exploit them to pay off the thugs that keep it in power?

That sounds like a false dichotomy. No one is suggesting a completely unaccountable government.

George III never suggested a completely unaccountable government either, but that doesn't change the fact that the less accountable the government, the more tyrannical it becomes (particularly to the people who aren't represented). "No taxation without representation!" anyone?

It was once said that, "the sun never sets on the British empire." So, it would seem as though British society was pretty successful. Also, Great Britain was one of the main forces for ending slavery throughout much of the world so it was a highly moral society too. In fact, many of the most successful countries in the modern world are descendants of the British empire --- Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. Hong Kong is no longer independent, but is a highly successful territory. India undoubtedly owes its current democratic system to the British. Since WWII, the UK has been in decline though it revived to some extent under Thatcher.

A majoritarian democracy might or might not transform into a republic, but the question is, "Why should it?" Which is superior and why?

A republican form of government puts limits on government and distributes power unequally to various groups. Our system has a House of Representatives that gives equal representation to each person and a Senate which does not. The President is elected by a method that does not weight everyone's vote equally. Supreme Court Justices and other Judges are appointed, not elected and serve for life, meaning that current voters have little influence over who they are. People younger than 18 are not allowed to vote. Earlier, the voting age was higher.

I've often thought that it would make sense to allow people to vote only if they contributed more to the government in terms of tax dollars than they received in monetary benefits. In my view, such a system would do a better job of protecting the rights of everyone than the current system.

Darrell

Jesus Christ dude! Do you seriously believe that India and the US owe their freedom to the British Freakin' Empire? Do you know anything about its abuses of its colonies and citizens in the 18th and 19th centuries?

I've often thought that it would make sense to allow people to vote only if they contributed more to the government in terms of tax dollars than they received in monetary benefits. In my view, such a system would do a better job of protecting the rights of everyone than the current system.

Suppose that that government eliminated taxes for everyone below a certain income level. Would those people then be able to vote?

I think that democracy is a logical precondition for freedom.

Why is that?

--Brant

Do you think it could be otherwise? If we had a government that was unaccountable to the people, do you think it would waste its resources protecting their rights, or would it rather exploit them to pay off the thugs that keep it in power?

Which is more fundamental, freedom or democracy?

Darrell

I think that democracy is a logical precondition for freedom.

Unlimited, majoritarian democracy?

You might try studying the role of the House of Lords in English history.

It wasn't until the House of Lords lost most of its power that Socialism really took root in the UK.

Darrell

No, not unlimited majoritarian democracy, a representative republic with universal suffrage will do just nicely. (Although, I think an unlimited majoritarian democracy would gradually transform into a representative republic)

Do you know anything about what GB was like before the House of Lords lost most of its power?

Spoken like a true Democrat. Let's hear it for majoritarian rule. Just remember, the majority got its way in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution. It may be funny to poke fun at any anti-democratic suggestions, but the consequences are anything but funny.

Darrell

You do realize that people were only allowed to vote for the communist party in the USSR, right?

I was talking about how the USSR came into being, not what happened afterwards.

Darrell

Might that be because its a perfect illustration of what happens when you're only allowed to vote one way?

So they can't vote themselves higher payouts, free health care and fat retirement benefits.

Total U.S. Government Employees = 21,869,000

Total number of Americans on welfare = 12,800,000

Total number of Americans on food stamps = 46,700,000

Total number of Americans on unemployment = 5,600,000

Total number of Americans on SS and disability = 63,664,000

data: St. Louis Fed, US Dept. of Commerce, HHS, SSI

So because they might vote themselves "higher payouts", we ought to pre-emptively disenfranchise them?

Which is more fundamental, freedom or democracy?

Darrell

I think that democracy is a logical precondition for freedom.

Good rational sense there. The prerequisite of a healthy and vibrant society can't be any other way I can see, then that "men are free from their brothers" - free, in order that they may then be able to respect and appreciate other people, one by one. Freedom does NOT presuppose that "groups" of others have the automatic right to your approval and acceptance, which is where progressivism leads us. You can think and feel what you want about e.g. gays, so long as you leave them alone (for instance I've some unease about gay adoption in general -although I've thought it worthy in the few cases I've observed - but to forbid it based on collective statistics or on one's feelings would be unjust).

Tony,

Although I would prefer to treat people as individuals, there may be no practical alternative to basing certain decisions on statistical analysis. One area in which it is almost universally agreed that people should be treated as members of groups is age-of-consent laws. Although one would ideally judge the sexual maturity of individuals, there is no practical way to do so from a legal standpoint, so we have statutory rape --- if a person above a certain age has sex with someone below that age and their ages are far enough apart, the older person is considered to be guilty of rape, regardless of whether the younger person consented or not and regardless of whether the younger person was capable of consent or not.

Another place where statistical analysis might play a role is immigration. It is a statistical fact that most immigrants vote for Democrats and for socialistic policies, so allowing immigration to occur too rapidly undermines individual rights. Restricting immigration might be unfair to people that want to enjoy the fruits of liberty in this country, but there is no practical way to protect the rights of the individuals already living here while allowing a large number of people to move here and become citizens.

Darrell

It is also a statistical fact that people who vote for Democrats vote for Democrats 100% of the time. Why don't we just make it so that people who vote in a way that we don't like lose the right to vote? Allowing people to vote however they want might mean they vote in a way that we think is threatening to individual rights. Also, we should imprison anybody who disagrees with our politics in public. After all, if they are allowed to spew their anti-individualist propaganda, people might be convinced to vote for socialistic policies and would thereby become a threat to individual rights. Surely, there is no more 'practical' way to protect individual rights other than having the state do everything it can to protect individual rights from individuals.

Spoken like a true Democrat. Let's here it for majoritarian rule. Just remember, the majority got its way in Russian during the Bolshevik revolution. It may be funny to poke fun at any anti-democratic suggestions, but the consequences are anything but funny.

Darrell

You do realize that people were only allowed to vote for the communist party in the USSR, right?

So if a person does have a source of income other than government handouts and receives government handouts, then they should be allowed to vote on picking your pocket?

You mean thieves and drug dealers? -- but generally speaking, the Federal government and all 50 states are in a death spiral of declining tax revenue, deficit spending, increasing entitlement liabilities, and unpayable debt. It is inevitable that interest rates must rise; it cannot stay at ZIRP + QE indefinitely. When rates rise, it's game over. Less than half of all households pay income taxes. Unless we restrict who votes, this country is going to go down in flames. And since that won't happen (we can't even require voter ID), the Republic is doomed. We voted ourselves out of business with Hope and Change.

Let's do a little thought experiment.

Suppose that I was the only one who was allowed to vote. Do you think that I would elect politicians who promised me a billion dollars in cash every year, or that I would elect politicians who promised to create a sensible fiscal policy with low taxes instead? (Hint: it's the one where I get more money)

I understand that people sometimes vote in a way that you don't agree with.

That's not the issue. If a person has no income other than government handouts, they should have no vote in picking my pocket.

So if a person does have a source of income other than government handouts and receives government handouts, then they should be allowed to vote on picking your pocket?

Which party do you think they vote for, dear?

I understand that people sometimes vote in a way that you don't agree with.

But you didn't answer the question. Is it acceptable to disenfranchise someone because they might vote for policies that violate the individual rights of others?

EDIT: And don't call me "dear".

So they can't vote themselves higher payouts, free health care and fat retirement benefits.

Total U.S. Government Employees = 21,869,000

Total number of Americans on welfare = 12,800,000

Total number of Americans on food stamps = 46,700,000

Total number of Americans on unemployment = 5,600,000

Total number of Americans on SS and disability = 63,664,000

data: St. Louis Fed, US Dept. of Commerce, HHS, SSI

So because they might vote themselves "higher payouts", we ought to pre-emptively disenfranchise them?

Why don't we just make it so that people who vote in a way that we don't like lose the right to vote?

It would be nice to disenfranchise welfare recipients and government employees (school teachers, bureaucrats, cops, firefighters).

Why?

Good rational sense there. The prerequisite of a healthy and vibrant society can't be any other way I can see, then that "men are free from their brothers" - free, in order that they may then be able to respect and appreciate other people, one by one. Freedom does NOT presuppose that "groups" of others have the automatic right to your approval and acceptance, which is where progressivism leads us. You can think and feel what you want about e.g. gays, so long as you leave them alone (for instance I've some unease about gay adoption in general -although I've thought it worthy in the few cases I've observed - but to forbid it based on collective statistics or on one's feelings would be unjust).

Tony,

Although I would prefer to treat people as individuals, there may be no practical alternative to basing certain decisions on statistical analysis. One area in which it is almost universally agreed that people should be treated as members of groups is age-of-consent laws. Although one would ideally judge the sexual maturity of individuals, there is no practical way to do so from a legal standpoint, so we have statutory rape --- if a person above a certain age has sex with someone below that age and their ages are far enough apart, the older person is considered to be guilty of rape, regardless of whether the younger person consented or not and regardless of whether the younger person was capable of consent or not.

Another place where statistical analysis might play a role is immigration. It is a statistical fact that most immigrants vote for Democrats and for socialistic policies, so allowing immigration to occur too rapidly undermines individual rights. Restricting immigration might be unfair to people that want to enjoy the fruits of liberty in this country, but there is no practical way to protect the rights of the individuals already living here while allowing a large number of people to move here and become citizens.

Darrell

It is also a statistical fact that people who vote for Democrats vote for Democrats 100% of the time. Why don't we just make it so that people who vote in a way that we don't like lose the right to vote? Allowing people to vote however they want might mean they vote in a way that we think is threatening to individual rights. Also, we should imprison anybody who disagrees with our politics in public. After all, if they are allowed to spew their anti-individualist propaganda, people might be convinced to vote for socialistic policies and would thereby become a threat to individual rights. Surely, there is no more 'practical' way to protect individual rights other than having the state do everything it can to protect individual rights from individuals.

For the religious, who very rightfully contend that gays have no right to demand marriage in churches, against the will of ministers involved and the doctrines of that religion (and most critically, individual/property rights) one can't raise much sympathy.

Once you open the door to State interference in your own favour -as Christians attempt or have attempted, through representation and the legislation of Christian morality into public life - you can hardly complain when the State comes through that same opened door to try enforce its own doctrines -or 'the will of the people'- on you.

But legalizing gay marriage is not about forcing religious institutions to perform marriage ceremonies that contradict their religious beliefs. The real problem they have with gay marriage is that, if they don't grant them, then they are not an equal opportunity organization, and will therefore lose their tax-exempt status.

That wasn't my point at all. Don't assume that others on this list are as dense as you are.

Ghs

Undensify me, then? What exactly was your point?

It was a joke, as I explained in my first reply, one that implicitly referred to at least two replies to papal doctrines written by Ayn Rand. If the reference escaped you, that's probably because you are unfamiliar with those major articles by Rand. Instead, you assumed that I am stupid enough to believe that no one other than Rand, including myself, could write an adequate response to the "arguments" of Francis, when in fact an intelligent high school student could easily demolish them. So you posted your condescending comment instead of thinking this through.

Ghs

It's true, I am unfamiliar with those articles. What are they, exactly?

Instead, you assumed that I am stupid enough to believe that no one other than Rand, including myself, could write an adequate response to the "arguments" of Francis, when in fact an intelligent high school student could easily demolish them. So you posted your condescending comment instead of thinking this through.

I think you've assumed far too much about what I've assumed. My point was exactly the opposite. Anybody could make a strong case against Francis' position, hence why we don't need Ayn Rand.

What bothers me, though, is that no one who wasn't already familiar with the two articles you mentioned would get the reference. Hence, yes, those people would "get it", but they are precisely the people who would be least interested in (re)reading them. While anybody who wasn't already familiar with them would get the impression that only Ayn Rand would be capable of refuting them (or at least that her opinion on the matter is the only authoritative one), making Francis' arguments seem far more important than they really are.

That wasn't my point at all. Don't assume that others on this list are as dense as you are.

Ghs

Undensify me, then? What exactly was your point?

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/06/03/catholic-libertarian-popes-top-adviser-says-theyre-incompatible/

Where is Ayn Rand when we really need her?

Ghs

No one needs Ayn Rand. We are not her children, and she is not our mother.

Thanks for the tip. I could never have figured that out on my own.

You don't seem familiar with the essays that Rand wrote criticizing the pope (one was on birth control and abortion), so you didn't get the point of my remark. Nor, so far as I can tell, do you have a sense of humor.

Ghs

What I'm trying to say is, is there anything Ayn Rand could do or say about the article you linked to, that you couldn't just as well?

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/06/03/catholic-libertarian-popes-top-adviser-says-theyre-incompatible/

Where is Ayn Rand when we really need her?

Ghs

No one needs Ayn Rand. We are not her children, and she is not our mother.

Hahahaha! I love this guy's show.

Hopefully it will get good enough ratings to stay on HBO.

We can, however, consider the same scenario if both observers are traveling at very nearly the speed of light.

but didnt Eisnteins thought experiment begin with him moving AT the speed of light while looking at himself in the mirror?? We arent asking whenther IF IT IS possible, but rather, IF IT WAS possible what would we observe.

In special relativity, it is impossible to even consider what would happen if an observer moved at the speed of light, because that would contradict the first postulate.

If by "an observer traveling at the speed of light" we mean an inertial observer for which all light is at rest (in a given direction), then it would be impossible for him to measure time in places that are behind him, because the light from those clocks would never reach him. He therefore cannot be an inertial observer.

I think Einstein's thought experiment that you're talking about was about the ether theory. In that theory, the first postulate of special relativity did not hold, so one could sensibly ask what would happen if one traveled at the speed of light. However, since such a theory assumes an absolute time, they would still arrive at the same time on Neptune in all frames, anyway.

Secondly, I could see that both racers would observe they arrive at the same time if they are observing Neptune, but my thought is that they are observing EACH OTHER while they travel

Since they are traveling at the same speed and in the same direction, when each racer looks at the other, he observes that the other guy is not moving at all.