Discover the world's scientific knowledge

This dissertation will only use secondary research (Probably an extended literature review?)

Criminological theory- Research question:

"Crimes of the powerless (Blue collar) vs. Crimes of the Powerful (White collar) - Is there a distinction between how these crimes are perceived by the public, and punished by judicial systems worldwide?"

How innovation processes have affected international relations?

It seems to me the use of drones against U.S. citizens in the U.S. would be indistinguishable from the use of other manned aircraft or for that matter ground personnel. This seems acceptable (or constitutional, if you like) only in the event of civil war, such as experienced by the U.S. in the 19th century or in the event of foreign invasion (with actual enemy occupancy of U.S. territory) such as occurred during the War of 1812 and (much later) on Attu island by the Japanese during WWII. Something akin to assassination by drone or otherwise, I can't see as being constitutionally permissible outside of this scope. Has anyone seen any scholarship that persuasively would permit the use of drones against targets within the U.S. outside of contexts such as these?

There has recently been a lot of news articles of States claiming that they will refuse to enforce “Obamacare” despite the recent SCOTUS ruling in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ____ (2012). Some misinformation about state options is circulating on the internet regarding state options after this historic decision. We have decided to weigh in on the matter.

First, the readers of this article and others are encouraged to read the opinion at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf. One is advised to read the entire provision, but the opinion itself is encompassed between pages 7 and 66.

The Supreme Court ruled the ACA was constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The constitutional portion was the individual mandate, while the unconstitutional portion was the Medicaid expansion and the threat of losing Medicaid funding.

Individual Mandate

The individual mandate was strenuously found constitutional by the herculean legal acrobatics of Chief Justice Roberts. The basis of enforcement for this portion of the ACA is federal in nature. It will get collected by the IRS during tax collection (with certain procedural exceptions.)

States have little to no ability to stem IRS efforts to collect taxes. So while there are some rumors that states will be able to “opt out” of this portion of the ACA. There does not seem to be a legal mechanism for states to use to shield their citizens from federal tax law. Short of congressional intention to allow states to opt out with incentives written in to inspire participation, the supremacy clause of the Constitution does not allow states to avoid and/or nullify federal laws.

Therefore we can conclude that states cannot assist their citizens to avoid the individual mandate and the taxes which come along with non-compliance.

Medicaid Expansion

While the individual mandate was found constitutional, the Medicaid expansion penalties on states was ruled unconstitutional. In the opinion Roberts explained that more than 10% of state budgets can be traced to Medicaid funding. The ACA basically penalizes any state which does not participate in the expansion program by cutting their Medicaid funding. Roberts found (through equally strained legal logic) that allowing Congress to do this would be to allow the federal government to twist state arms in a rather draconian manner.

Roberts continued, however, by explaining that while removing existing Medicaid funding would not be permissible; Congress could condition the expanded Medicaid funds upon acceptance of the Medicaid expansion portion of the ACA.

States are therefore free to “opt out” of the Medicaid expansion. Indeed, several have already given signals that they intend to do so. This would leave millions who would qualify under the new Medicaid rules out in the cold in non-participating states. Will this last? The author does not believe so for the following two reasons:

The Economic Drain From Non-Participating States to Participating Ones

To explain the logic of our reasoning, we are going to simplify the United States. First let us assume there are two states: Red State and Blue State. Also we shall assume that each state gets exactly 10% of its budget from the federal subsidies to fund their Medicaid programs. According to Roberts, it is not within the powers of Congress to eliminate that 10% in the event that either Red State or Blue State opts out of the Medicaid Expansion. All other variables in the state economies remain the same.

Red State chooses to opt out, while Blue States decides to accept the new expansion. Red State is not rewarded with the expanded Medicaid funds, while Blue State is. Therefore Red State's Medicaid funding remains exactly 10% of the state budget. But Blue State now has the original 10% + X% extra funding. Because this funding is federal in nature, it means that all US citizens are paying taxes into this system.

The inevitable conclusion is that with everything remaining the same except Medicaid funding levels, Blue State is gaining X% taxes at the expense of Red State federal tax payers. In other words, Blue State coffers are expanding thanks to the work of Red State. Over time it is expected that Red State will find this unacceptable and in order to stop hemorrhaging funds to the other state will eventually come to accept the Medicaid expansion. This is simply a variation of the classic Prisoners' Dilemma problem from Game Theory. (Dodge, 2012). Non-acceptance becomes punitive in nature, while acceptance comes with a reward; therefore all states will eventually find it in their best interest to participate.

Returning to the 50 state reality of the United States, it is inevitable that some of the states will accept the terms of the Medicaid expansion. Cash strapped California would be one the author would guess will accept the terms. Others will join and with the above logic in place, non-participating states will suddenly find that they are at a fiscal disadvantage and weakening yearly. Therefore unless modifications are made by Congress to this system, the author predicts on this alone that eventually all 50 states will find the financial incentive to comply to be too great.

Inequality of Coverage

If a state fails to accept the Medicaid expansion funds, they will potentially leave millions of their citizens in a more precarious situation compared to other states. Politically, it would be logical for the opposing party to capitalize on states choosing this policy to run their opponents out of government. Not only will they be able to point to the preceding logical argument, but they will be able to frame the argument in terms of inherent fairness (ie: “Why is that Californian making X dollars a year enjoying Medicaid while you make the same money and have to pay more for insurance?”)

This inequality of coverage will creating a political liability for the parties in states which choose not to participate. Politicians are inclined to keep their jobs, and anything which will jeopardize their reelection will be closely watched. Local government will be loath to maintain non-compliance status if the populace begins to questions why they must toil under their state government decisions while neighboring state citizens are reaping benefits from their federal taxes.

Therefore while these decisions may be made for short term political gain, it appears that this decision will slowly build up as a political liability until the “unfairness” of the decision will force compliance.

Conclusion

Based on the logic of the Supreme Court, state governments will not be able to opt their citizens out of the individual mandate. However they will be able to reject the new Medicaid expansion rules. Economic and political forces are likely to inspire non-compliant states to participate in the long terms. If the current law remains unchanged, all 50 states will eventually transition to the new Medicaid expansion rules.

The only logical reason to remain non-compliant would be that the Medicaid expansion requirements would cost the states more in revenue than the addition Medicaid funds they would receive as a subsidy would return.

References

Dodge, R.V. Schelling's Game Theory: How the Make Decisions 137 (2012)

National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ____ (2012)

I asked this question because it seems to me completely weird and even unphysical to question the Law of “the equality of Inertial Mass and Gravitational Mass” since this law has been verified experimentally numerous times.

Some people proposed the pseudo-scientific hypothesis “inertial mass ≠ gravitational mass” and also they published a series of articles exclusively based on that pseudo-scientific hypothesis.

It is clear the authors didn't understand Newton's mechanics and gravity, they didn't understand celestial mechanics, they didn't understand Galileo's law of free-fall, they didn't understand Einstein's equivalence principle, ... etc.

The authors of the aforementioned pseudo-scientific hypothesis were and are unable to realise that: a little reflection will show that the law of “the equality of the inertial mass and gravitational mass” is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body.

For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is: (Inertial mass)x(Acceleration) = (Intensity of the gravitational field)x (Gravitational mass).

However, the pseudo-scientific hypothesis “inertial mass ≠ gravitational mass” implies among other things that the acceleration is not independent of the nature of the body. But, fortunately, Galileo's law of free-fall had already refuted the authors' pointless claim four centuries ago!

Actually the pseudo-scientific hypothesis “inertial mass ≠ gravitational mass” had already been experimentally and observationally refuted by:

[1] I. Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687)

[2] F.W. Bessel, Annalen der Physik und Chemie 25, 401 (1832)

[3] R. v. Eötvös, Math. Naturwiss. Ber. Ung., 8, 65 (1890)

[4] R. v. Eötvös, in Verhandlungen der 16 Allgemeinen Konferenz der Internationalen Erdmessung (London-Cambridge, 21-29 September 1909).G. Reiner, Berlin, 319 (1910)

[5] R. v. Eötvös, V. Pekár and E. Fekete, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig), 68, 11 (1922)

[6] H. H. Potter, Proc. Roy. Soc. 104, 588 (1923)

[7] J. Renner, Matematikai és Természettudományi Értesítő, 13, 542, (1935)

[8] P. G. Roll, R. Krotkov, R. H. Dicke, Ann. Phys. (New York), 26, 442, (1964)

[9] V.B. Braginskii, V.L.Panov, JETP, Vol. 34, No. 3, 463 (1972)

[10] P. W. Worden, Acta Astronautica, 5 , 27 (1978)

[11] G. M. Keiser and J. E. Faller, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 24, 579 (1979)

[12] J. K. Hoskins et al., Phys. Rev. D 32, 3084 (1985)

[13] D.J. Kapner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 021101 (2007)

[14] A. A. Geraci et al., Phys. Rev. D 78, 022002 (2008)

[15] S. Schlamminger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 041101 (2008)

[16] T. A. Wagner et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 184002 (2012)

[17] A. Upadhye, W. Hu, and J. Khoury Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 041301 (2012)

Conclusion: Any physical theory based on that pseudo-scientific hypothesis is scientifically meaningless and must be rejected without hesitation.

I asked this question because it seems to me completely weird and even unphysical to question the Law of “the equality of Inertial Mass and Gravitational Mass” since this law has been verified experimentally numerous times.

Some people proposed the pseudo-scientific hypothesis “inertial mass ≠ gravitational mass” and also they published a series of articles exclusively based on that pseudo-scientific hypothesis.

It is clear the authors didn't understand Newton's mechanics and gravity, they didn't understand celestial mechanics, they didn't understand Galileo's law of free-fall, they didn't understand Einstein's equivalence principle, ... etc.

The authors of the aforementioned pseudo-scientific hypothesis were and are unable to realise that: a little reflection will show that the law of “the equality of the inertial mass and gravitational mass” is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body.

For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is: (Inertial mass)x(Acceleration) = (Intensity of the gravitational field)x (Gravitational mass).

However, the pseudo-scientific hypothesis “inertial mass ≠ gravitational mass” implies among other things that the acceleration is not independent of the nature of the body. But, fortunately, Galileo's law of free-fall had already refuted the authors' pointless claim four centuries ago!

Actually the pseudo-scientific hypothesis “inertial mass ≠ gravitational mass” had already been experimentally and observationally refuted by:

[1] I. Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687)

[2] F.W. Bessel, Annalen der Physik und Chemie 25, 401 (1832)

[3] R. v. Eötvös, Math. Naturwiss. Ber. Ung., 8, 65 (1890)

[4] R. v. Eötvös, in Verhandlungen der 16 Allgemeinen Konferenz der Internationalen Erdmessung (London-Cambridge, 21-29 September 1909).G. Reiner, Berlin, 319 (1910)

[5] R. v. Eötvös, V. Pekár and E. Fekete, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig), 68, 11 (1922)

[6] H. H. Potter, Proc. Roy. Soc. 104, 588 (1923)

[7] J. Renner, Matematikai és Természettudományi Értesítő, 13, 542, (1935)

[8] P. G. Roll, R. Krotkov, R. H. Dicke, Ann. Phys. (New York), 26, 442, (1964)

[9] V.B. Braginskii, V.L.Panov, JETP, Vol. 34, No. 3, 463 (1972)

[10] P. W. Worden, Acta Astronautica, 5 , 27 (1978)

[11] G. M. Keiser and J. E. Faller, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 24, 579 (1979)

[12] J. K. Hoskins et al., Phys. Rev. D 32, 3084 (1985)

[13] D.J. Kapner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 021101 (2007)

[14] A. A. Geraci et al., Phys. Rev. D 78, 022002 (2008)

[15] S. Schlamminger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 041101 (2008)

[16] T. A. Wagner et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 184002 (2012)

[17] A. Upadhye, W. Hu, and J. Khoury Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 041301 (2012)

Conclusion: Any physical theory based on that pseudo-scientific hypothesis is scientifically meaningless and must be rejected without hesitation.

Most of the current laws within this sphere were designed before the rapid progress of digital agriculture and therefore they can be interpreted differently. Most of the farmers using benefits of digital agriculture are concerned about data use (or theft) since they are no ICT experts and the data can be used for various reasons. Is it really a data theft then, since some of that data could (and should?) be used by the local (of national) agriculture authorities to monitor the agricultural process or production of the farmer (in case of governmental incentives)? For what else can it be used in that case? What if the software is freeware as a part of the agricultural incentives for farmers? To what level the farmer should be informed about it since there is no possibility to guarantee what will happen with that data in practice?

How do you see the advancement of the law in this field? How do you assess the current situation? Let me know what do you think.

Recall that the period of a polynomial p(x) is the smallest n such that p divides x^n-1.The average is known to be of the order of q^n . I am interested in order of magnitude of the tail of the distribution...Say how many polys have period at most Kn for some fixed constant K.

Does category theory apply to physics? If so, then is not Mersenne’s Law of the string is a fallacy that postulates 2L without defining the generator of 2 as the idempotent L=L2?

Mersenne’s law for the velocity of standing waves on a string is not coherent because it postulates that the wavelength of the standing wave on the string is twice the length of the string. The trouble with this tautology is the string is then defined by a point outside its universe. Is action at a distance the result of a universe that is not closed.

The theory the string vibrates in many modes at once is a similar fallacy because it postulates there is no smallest set on the string. The string is open to a descending chain of smaller and smaller sets without limit.

Perhaps the problem of action at a distance and the Kaluza-Klein compactification theory are not correct because they were defined before category theory was generally understood.

If physics does not consider category theory then it is possible that calculations are not combinatorially correct.

In string theory, strings are either open or closed but it is clear the musical string is open to union with other strings and closed by the idempotent octave inversion.

It wouldn’t be surprising if Mersenne’s law is wrong because it is hundreds of years old, but it would be an error of Ptolemaic proportion if physics want to consider strings without using diagrams that commute.

Why isn’t true that if you end up thinking mass can be negative (see The Little Book of String Theory by Steven Gubser) that you’ve made a commutation error?

Does physics consider the universe has one state at a time or is the universe somehow not closed to all operations? Perhaps the appearance of action at a distances is created by a 0-dimensional circle where there are only two points at -1 and +1. They seem to be two particles where actually they are part of the same morphism.

Please answer with literature references. Thanks in advance.