My Paltry Thoughts

Instead as is commonly performed id est each party attempting to influence the other opposite party to accept one's own thought / opinion / point of view / belief / demand  the proper method is merely to attempt to understand the thought / opinion / point of view / belief / demand of the other opposite party presumably by questioning the logic / reason by which such was attained. If each party proceeds in this manner step by step w/ each answer given it seems to me one of two things will occur.  If a party's thought / opinion / point of view / belief / demand is not logical / rational such will become apparent to both parties resulting in self understanding by the party w/ the initial illogical / irrational  thought / opinion / point of view / belief / demand. Or if a party's thought / opinion / point of view / belief / demand is logical / rational such also will become apparent to both parties resulting in acceptance by the opposing party. These can only be good outcomes...

 As we know the US Constitution contains a "Bill of Rights". I propose it be amended to also contain a "Bill of Responsibilities".

It is given in Physics no theory can ever be proven true complete and final as Einstein famously stated "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." . I interpret this to mean causality can not be proven to absolute terms . So uncertainty is inherent . Could this be the reason we have Quantum Mechanics .    - Just a paltry thought

Below is my "Signature" apologies for no apologies if offends My sympathies to the SPAM moderator "I once put instant coffee into the microwave and went back in time." - Steven Wright "Shut up and calculate" - apparently N. David Mermin possibly Richard Feynman  “I want to sing, I want to cry, I want to laugh. Everything together. And jump and dance. The day has arrived — yippee!” - Desmond Tutu “When the green flag drops the bullshit stops!” "It is cheaper to save the world than it is to ruin it." "I must have had lessons" - Reverend Jim Ignatowski / Christopher Lloyd "Dripping water hollows out stone, not through force, but through persistence." - Ovid, Roman poet "... as likely as lightning striking a leprechaun whilst riding a unicorn." "Don't worry,  the planet will do just fine without us." "We can't solve today's problems with the mentality that created them." Albert Einstein “M...

 

 

It was stunning to learn that it is common for incarcerated criminals to be denied access to literature. How else are they to change their situation so they need not return to a life of crime upon release. Literature permits self education and education provides hope and opportunity upon release. May I suggest it be a Federal Policy and even Federal Mandate that prisoners be given the opportunity for such self education and the libraries be financially funded and stocked w/ the finest of materials as needed and requested for the obvious reason that it must be far far less expensive to do so than to investigate apprehend prosecute and incarcerate yet again upon recidivism.

 

This is to suggest a means to provide unimagined opportunity to those who now see none. The higher professions such as medicine and the law require formal schooling and the successful completion of examination by government agency to obtain license. Currently formal schooling is required by government to attempt said examination. This requirement does not seem logical for several reasons. Firstly if we have confidence in our examination methods then we must conclude examination alone is sufficient qualification to grant license and so not present the formidable obstacle of exceedingly expensive formal education. Secondly the requirement of expensive formal schooling as suggested severely limits a great many of the lower and even middle classes from bettering themselves and from seeking and finding employment which of course is contrary to all government employment programs' stated goals. May I suggest we permit such self-educated professionals as qualified by examination but which ...

Imagine an object some distance in front of you moving toward you also imagine a second object moving in a line perpendicular to the line of motion of the first with the two on a collision course with that point of collision some distance in front of you. If we assume that the motion of light obeys Galilean Relativity then what we will observe of the collision is the first object being deflected with the second object still some distance away from the first. This seems to me to be an uncomfortable situation as I prefer to believe that cause and effect should always be observed. Thus we may consider to assume a principle of "conservation of the observation of causality" and thus insist that the light from the two objects at the moment of collision reach our eyes at the same time which requires that the speed of light be constant. | v o obj 0    ---     .     . y     . .   ...

A black hole is of course a region of space which we are unable to observe within. Perhaps this inability is precisely what permits energy and matter to emanate from it. Presumably causality can not be violated if we can not observe it being violated which of course within a black hole we can not. Therefore radiation observed from the surface of a black hole presumably the result of internal causality which we of course can not observe can not be forbidden which presumably means that it must exist. - Just a paltry thought