Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
  • Announcements

    • Greg

      New Members Please Read   10/07/2016

      New forum members should review the Forum Rules and GuidelinesĀ before contributing to the discussion forums.

Scott Mayers

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Scott Mayers last won the day on December 8 2017

Scott Mayers had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

15 Good

About Scott Mayers

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,828 profile views
  1. Secularism = Political Atheism

    "Religion" etymology The 'secular' concept is merely the ONLY expedient between differing views about nature outside of our capacity to all agree to with clear evidence of the source. We cannot prove what we are not empowered to disprove by definition. So when one holds a religious view that asserts a power one cannot prove nor disprove in some capacity outside of first 'believing' it to be true, it is too expectant of a system to rule over ALL people without some strong force. If your God is already sufficiently powerful to dictate concerns on Earth, it would do so without the need for some particular humans to form a system of rules that we are not defaulted to 'know' beyond our genetic nature upon birth. You cannot presume ANY system of religious view through politics without corruption of those ruling to dictate what the present ruler asserts is true simply for asserting that they are a vessel of God's will (given they are in nature's power of fortune to rule for whatever reason.) In other words, all that is required for ANY religion to rule is for the present one with the biggest gun to dictate that their fortune of power is itself PROOF that nature by God sanctioned them as the one who SHOULD be empowered.
  2. Cool. The biggest dreamers are the thinkers not afraid to take a risk thinking aloud.
  3. I remember seeing a set up as this in a movie or tv series using a giant Ferris wheel arrangement. I went to the actual YouTube page to see the comments when I noticed he was pulling it back. Above some thought this guy was doing it without reason. He was trying to show that EVEN IF you begin the momentum in the opposite direction to the working of the machine (a 'relative negative energy'), it still cancels that (goes back to a stop) and then moves in its forward-biased direction. This does present a puzzle. But because the commenting is blocked, we cannot see if others determined the 'trick' this video was using. If this was sincere, it would allow commenting feedback. They likely fear being revealed by the magicians who know the trick. You cannot use this video because it IS just a trick here. We cannot check to see if there are no springs or other things set up to make this system actually reverse its direction like this. The original ones intentionally trying such systems would NOT actually think you could do this! So this video is a purposeful joke....likely done by skeptics (of my own community, sorry) mocking the gullible. I asked you if you had an impenetrable box as an extreme example at first. I was meaning that you should recognize that you could not put IN any 'change' (energy), nor take OUT anything from within because of this given. Unless you had some hidden dimension that could transfer information indirectly, you cannot make an exchange of information without imposing some kind of force on the box that could reveal its contents. But that would then be 'energy IN' no matter what you do. If the box had sufficient unending energy within, its pressure inside would continue to increase forever. Given the imaginary impenetrable nature of the box I presented, this example should at least make you realize that IF such a container created energy inside, one way you could 'test' it is to seal it off with some means to see if you can 'trap' this energy and wait to see if it explodes. If it ADDS information (energy or matter), anything we have made out of matter would NOT be impenetrable and explode if you tried to contain it. You can't count 'circular' energy that exchanges within this imaginary box because that energy would be conserved. So if you actually had a perfect ring that you initially spun in a vacuum out of the effects of gravity (deep space), that object would spin for an extremely long time. But even if you did something like shine light on it to see it (observe it), this, though tiny, would be enough 'IN' energy that would alter its state and slow down. That is, you CAN create a real system that does create movement that goes on forever, but you literally cannot even 'observe' it because the very observation of anything is a kind of 'input' and/or 'output'.
  4. Jerusalem is Israel's Capital...

    Then you have no 'solution'. You're just helping to conserve the present situation with a claim that no one can do anything about it. Just ignore this thread then. It's intended to discuss IF we 'can' do something given any hope to do anything. Otherwise we may as well be talking about whether Atlantas citizens should permit Plato to speak on its behalf.
  5. Imagine a box that is made of some perfectly pure impenetrable solid to which we cannot open. Do you believe that you can use ANY technology to inform you of what is inside it without being able to find some way to penetrate the box?
  6. Jerusalem is Israel's Capital...

    Then there IS no solution by your view....or none that you believe could serve anything other than whatever should incidentally BE the case. [...like whether we could control whether an asteroid might hit us tomorrow, for instance.] Is that a fair assumption?
  7. Why Trust the Bible?

    Because this thread is so long and old, I can't participate directly. But I wrote a summation of a theory on Temples and Sacrifices the other day here if anyone wants to look at. It is relevant to my take on this subject. Treat the summary as a 'conjecture' here because it is not an official proof here.
  8. [Nice name. Are you THEE Robert Greene, of "48 Laws of Power" fame?] I agree. Today's Western (and more 'right-winged) approach is to merely allow population to grow without forced limits because personal 'power' of economic growth requires accelerated new populations to create demand and profit. There own type of 'population control' exists. But it is in the form of war because war is also highly profitable. I actually recommend that "48 Laws of Power" to read or review by your namesake because it actually has some indirect explanations of how power is actually functional regardless of its lack compassionate concern. Power differentiation exists more where population pressure exists. As an example, in my own city, because of mere 'temporary worker' laws set up by the federal and provincial laws a few years back, a great influx of population all of a sudden appeared here. This created a false demand upon the real estate market, including rents. The apartment buildings everywhere were filled up and created a demand favored to the owners to increase rents drastically. (Mine went up 250% since 2010!) This demand created an increase in home builders and increased the costs of all houses and properties everywhere. This lead to a temporary economic boom but is (or will) collapse if we cannot actually find a prime or secondary resource for industries here. If we were a hot-spot for vacationers, more housing might make sense as it then acts as a prime and secondary source. As such, while this experiment proves problematic, in essence, population growth DOES make many rich. ....at the expense of an increasing degree of poor too. We need a form of laws that pertain to birth controls similar to China's (but better). This belief that we'll survive as a whole by evolutionary standards comes at a cost of a lot of suffering, especially if you were one of those poor.
  9. I don't know if it could be realized either unless you have ALL countries assign the same rule because of what you say. All it takes is one country that still maintains corporate secrecy rights to prevent any one country proposing revealing names. It would also do the country that is open to such information possibly less advantaged in future corporate interests there. ...which means even LESS potential taxes of those companies here that are registered elsewhere!
  10. Jerusalem is Israel's Capital...

    I respond. It's hard to debate with you because you ARE an Israeli supporter AND with a more personal interest because of your own emotional connection as being Jewish related. When some case is brought before a court about some crime involving one's personal relations, while one could be relatively fair in other issues, the family's links make them liable to act without logical reflection. You respond too defensively without realizing your biases. I understand it but cannot help if we cannot step back and look at it objectively. The maps I used shows the prior peoples in Jerusalem which shows that even the Jews were in less numbers than even the Christian presence there at a relatively recent time (people involved in those times still exist and affect the politics there!) This makes any argument about latter periods that alter the conditions moot if you argue for anything but WAR and POWER of force (might) as some right to maintain Israeli support. It is hypocritical to also support an even earlier ancient time as some just claim by Jews if they opt to selectively IGNORE what occurred in between. That is, you can't beg people have COMPASSION to defend the ancient Jewish claim of ownership when the same people ALSO argue for a NON-COMPASSIONATE right-to-might justification to ownership of that area for the Jews now. You must remain consistent: If you opt to ask for some 'right-by-justice' arguments through some compassionate expectation, you can't take its contradictory stance, 'right-by-might' arguments and expect you aren't being sincere. Because many take emotional issues on this subject for some connection to that area by some religious-cultural beliefs of their own (or some economic ones too), you will tend to ignore ANY remote arguments for your 'side' without concern for that consistency when arguing.
  11. Jerusalem is Israel's Capital...

    Sorry for the late response. I was taking a 'neutral' stance in the approach I was explaining. If you look objectively at the situation, the Israeli nor Palestinians could resolve the problem FROM WITHIN. IF we, as the rest of the world, were NOT affected by their turmoil, we could ignore them completely and let them kill each other on their own. But we ARE affected everywhere by what occurs there. If this were not the case, then no one here would have any justification to be discussing why one of 'us', as Trump represents, as an outsider, should care one way or the other to even have a concern to demonstrate favor nor disfavor of Israel nor Palestine's need to declare Jerusalem as the domain of either side. Because of the significance of the Palestinian/Israeli issues imposed upon us all, we require demanding a U.N. type resolution that removes Jerusalem from anyone's' UNIQUE power over that contentious historical place. I already doubt your actual sincerity as being the 'American' you claim if you don't recognize how Washington D.C. represented this KIND of resolution when it was created. We should also impose upon Israel to abandon all 'settlements' and divide the whole region (without inside influence) to 'states' that have boundaries of equal right to a 'contingent' land with part of it connecting to Mediterranean access. Walls should be torn down as well. To me, IF this cannot be done, we need to either abandon trade to or from those impeding an actual solution that is not of a genocidal nature. And if this is still not being done, we should completely destroy the whole area and 'reset' it for the rest of the world to have a peace and chance to resettle it with fair people.
  12. Well 'fella'..., you DIDN'T. And if you actually think you did, than you don't qualify to answer scientific questions. Altai was proposing the question of whether you can get 'free energy' out of a system she was proposing. The "perpetual moving" machines are proposed by even many relatively intelligent people, including the original scientists who deemed them incapable of being rational. It doesn't require merely trusting some authority (even a noted scientist) to understand. That's "FAITH", not intellectual understanding, logical NOR scientific. If there is any more frustration that a good scientist hates is one who can't think for themselves. This includes those who blindly trust them because it is precisely what inhibits science and intellectual reasoning in the first place.
  13. This is a Federal announcement by Morneau and why I placed this topic here and NOT in 'political philosophy'. But it is just as valid there. I just saw on CTV's news network (or CBC's, given I watch both back and forth) that Morneau is proposing to suggest a law that exposes the ownership of corporate shareholding. I thought about this long ago as what is NEEDED in our day because we cannot determine where conflicts of interest exist. Our society (worldwide) is losing ground on faith in the marketplace precisely because there are highly likely hidden cross-ownerships in shareholding of APPARENT distinct competing companies. This hidden capacity is protected in secrecy mostly for the sake of making shares "liquid" (easy to exchange as dollar bills). This originally was an accidental factor about the nature of that liquidity. Anyways, his announcement is likely a distracting appeal to give those like myself a willingness to overlook his own recent concerns of inappropriate financial behaviors. But this is as much good news to prevent any behaviors of his concern if only because it publicly spells out who actually CONTROLS which industries. Many industries now are 'virtual monoplies' to which we can assert as a conjecture but cannot definitively PROVE because of the secrecy protection provided by Corporate Laws prevent this one major factor from demonstrating it. What do you think, if you follow the economics? Did you ever consider this secrecy concern yourself? AND, do you actually think that this major gesture of change that could expose too many people in the corporate world would actually pass if proposed as a bill?
  14. I apologize for the depth. If you want to understand what the problem is, I can't explain in a mere sentence. I am guessing you need the illustrations and short ask-and-response steps to understand. I CAN try if you actually want someone who knows the science and can explain HOW other scientists of the past DID originally try thinking as you are here and HOW they deemed it wrong. You ARE thinking the way the early scientists thought too prior to changing their mind when they investigated it with care. AND it took more work writing than I just wrote to get there. There are many scientific books that took thousands of more pages to understand than my attempt at simplifying it. If you want a simpler explanation, then accept OftenWrong's answer.
  15. You didn't respond to my own question. I was trying to demonstrate to you that you may likely lack certain knowledge by HOW these laws are certified specifically. It isn't sufficient to "KNOW" the laws by mere memorizing it, as is being focused on today's early science education. The 'proofs' are what is "fundamental". I ask you again, so I can see and show you what I mean, HOW Galileo 'proved' that gravity is independent of its mass? What's with the "little fella" insult? Did you take offense to something I said? The 'topic' is about Altai's missing 'understanding' of the laws. You only asserted her ignorant of something that is NOT her fault due to the present education system that cannot focus on all the details necessary to UNDERSTAND because the laws of science today are stated PRIOR to being proven in later education, a 'backwards' change necessary to make university education remain practical.