Royston

You can already get mobile phones with all of which you stated which can be nicely concealed in your pocket...so there's no need to wear a glove. (apart from the tablet container...use your wallet I guess.) If you need to use both hands you either run risk of breaking your 'multimedia glove'...or you'll have to take it off, which kind of defeats the object of having it...so it loses it's practicality straight away. Topping up the light provision using solar power...well why not just charge the glove before going out, you have to be just as diligent with either, as you may be out on a day with poor sunlight. Another problem is that phones can be considered a 'fashion' accessory, wearing one glove I should imagine would be considered a 'fashion' *mistake. You could wear two gloves...but what about the summer, and perspiration et.c have you considered any of these factors for your design or is this purely for fun and not a patent. *I'd consider Michael Jackson a...mistake

Please find the full article here.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4377916.stm 'At issue is whether White House staff deliberately leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame after her husband attacked President Bush over Iraq.' 'The FBI has also conducted interviews, apparently aimed at deciding if there is a case against White House staff.'

One question, what is the force that drives expansion. So far, with expansion comes more gravitational waves...an increase in volume creates more mass, on a universal scale. I'm not talking about a closed system where thermal dynamics holds. It seems gravity doesn't explain anything about the creation of energy. The creation of energy seems to govern the strength of gravity.which poses a problem, any thoughts ?

Thanks again Martin, and corrections to my ideas are more than welcome (I'm yet to study physics seriously, so a clearer picture of what I'm dealing with is very beneficial.) I guess I was slipping up with the laws of thermal dynamics, as the 2nd law has been used to describe entropy, even within the frame of a black hole, so I assumed the 1st law had to hold when dealing with collapse and inflation of space-time. From what I've read so far, energy can be created through the volume of space-time increasing as it expands (I use space-'time' as the distance between two points increases as well.) But there dosn't seem to be an indication that energy is destroyed...I had a scan through the links ( I'll study them more closely tomorrow.) It does appear that the creation of energy and gravity are very closely linked...anyway, I certainly have a lot to mull over for now, and I'll be posting more on this subject in due course.

Now that could be encouraging. It would be pretty crazy if someone emerged from obscurity, and filled in the gaps to the unification of physics. Not sure how the society of physics would take that though.

Probably already coverered, but you wouldn't notice any difference. You'd stretch with the frame you were in. To an outside observer you would seem broken up.

Worth keeping an ear open for this discovery...backs up the old saying 'be yourself'... http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/14/95637/699

I kinda have the same problem, and why I'm going to bite the bullet next year and do a diploma in general sciences, and two courses in maths, then hope to study cosmology or physics...I'm still undecided. I think it is possible to have a theory explained in such a way you can layer the model to the environment around you and it starts to fit. Remember 60 or 70 years ago only a handful of people properly understood relativity, now thousands understand many if not all aspects of relativity without having any mathematics to back it up. I'm not saying you'll make a huge impact by expressing your own theories through words, (you'll always need equations to back up models) but it is possible to get that 'revelation' through logic, and then go about using maths to prove your theory. It's purely how you explain your ideas and make your level of knowledge clear. My problem is that I'm constantly going back on myself and checking how factors fit with what I know and keep on coming across gaps in my understanding...so I come across as a bit of a bumbling fool, however it's easier to learn from your mistakes and those gaps will start to close. I think people have a hard time in replying to posts on 'big' subjects because they're unsure how much to cover, so it's a case of asking the right questions, and taking it step-by-step. This is purely from my perspective, a lot of the questions I ask aren't generally what I believe to be true, but I need to clarify that they're not before I can move on...which is roughly 0.09 m/s

Ok, the last bit of the paragraph (italic) is almost predisposing that there needs to be a factor so that a universe can exist relative to ours, and as these universes don't exist in a 'larger arena', this isn't necessary...and not really what I was getting at, but can see this statement being misinterpreted. The first part of the paragraph (bold) I'm going to stick with unless someone can find fault with it. Maybe I'm just clutching at straws with the last post. However if anyone can explain how a collapse of space-time can happen before inflation, without the need for a large enough mass to be present (to obviously form a black hole) then this will explain the paradox I'm struggling with...any help please. If my questions are too confusing or just plain daft, then I'm more than happy to take it on the chin.

40hz...aptly named subsonic. You'll find most graphic eq's on sound systems don't have 40hz as an option. You'll need to get some mastering software to enjoy it's delights. Oh, as YT2095 stated the wave shape is important to get sufficient resonance. Sine waves have no harmonics so it's easier to achieve a precise frequency.

I have a few more questions (apologies if this all seems obvious to most)...and paradoxes that are bugging me. With the quote above we can safely assume that thermal dynamics (with regards to the 2nd law) holds inside a black hole, and it's eventual inflation. Space-time breaks down, but as the 'arrow of time' continues (despite getting skewed relative to it's source) then (this may be way off the mark) the universe generated is out of sync with our 'arrow of time'. I'm figuring the dimension of time is fundamental to these sister universes not 'bumping' ours. (again correct me if I'm going wrong here.) With regards to the first law does there have to be a 'mother' universe, where matter is essentially being borrowed to form the other universes. The one thing I can't get my head round is if black holes are formed by a star that's big enough for there to be gravitational collapse then there would have to be a uniformed 'mother' universe for black holes to be generated in the first place. So how does an initial collapse happen to form the start of this 'mother' universe ? The only way I can see round this...(so it's probably wrong) is if the amount of matter needed to create a black hole is relative to other objects in space-time. So supposing (in our universe) the calculations that constitute when a star collapses is relative to the uniformed objects that are already present, then in the beginnings of this 'mother' universe is it possible to have collapse on a much smaller scale. I've already started a thread with this idea, and was predominantly ignored (so I guess it's incorrect) but how can you have this initial collapse to start the universe when there's nothing big enough around to constitute a collapse ? Am I delving into something that really requires a hell of a lot of maths behind it, or can this be explained so I can start to build a mental picture. Just for the record I've heavily considered that space-time is 'where', and I think I was slipping up by removing myself from the model of the universe in order to build a mental picture, so creating 'boundaries'. I think it's a case of getting over old habits when visualizing models, and why I keep on having to go back on myself when applying relativity to these models.

I'm not sure what's happend to 6431hoho, but I'll be happy to answer this...no and no.

Perhaps visualize a chainsaw as opposed to a guitar ?? A little excessive I know, but desperate times....

Thankyou very much Martin, this is precisely the kind of answer I was looking for. I reiterated 'boundaries' as I understand the basic principles of relativity but sometimes have to go back on myself when trying to visualize it's effects...exceptionally hard when you have other universes to contend with...this is now a lot clearer, and has opened many other questions...especially with regard to thermal dynamics. Needless to say I will be picking your brains (or anyone else adept in the subject ) as this theories implications has been using a lot of my thinking time (if you don't mind.) In fact the last few questions in the OP have been plaguing me for quite some time. I am, relative to the experts, very new to the subject and it's only recently that I've developed a passion for understanding physics, but you've made my day, thankyou

There are three reasons this happens I've found...sometimes it would be the last piece of music you heard say playing in a shopping centre, and that song tends to linger in your mind until you quash it with something else. It doesn't seem to matter what song is playing, if it's the last piece of music you hear for say, a few hours it will stay embedded in your mind. Also, especially with a tune you don't particularly like, it's the 'must stop thinking about it' scenario which in turn makes you think about it, and it's just an endless cycle until you preoccupy your mind with something that overrides it...something important say. The third is the all important 'hook' which is one of the skills in music that doesn't require any technical know-how, but just arranging a few chords that have familiarity, or are easy to play back in your head...you usually find it's just one bit of the tune that repeats itself, over and over and over again. I can't give any technical psychological or neurological reasons why music has this effect, but I guess picture the artist being smacked round the head with a guitar and the music slowing and going out of tune, that seems to work for me.

Wow, I get exactly the same thing...even to the point (no pun intended) that if I watch, say a sword fight on TV, I need to press between my forehead and nose (on the indent.) This urge isn't always present, but I've noticed it more when I'm tired. I kind of attributed it to having the fear that the pointy object will hit me 'right between the eyes' but surely I'd cover my whole face or head if this was an irrational fear of getting hit in the face...so I rejected that idea. I'm finding it hard to relate this with a compulsive disorder...the indent almost tingles. However I would say I'm a perfectionist when it comes to any creative pursuits. I also have a habit of arranging paper on my desk so it's perfectly in line with the edges of the desk...the same too when arranging my workspace in windows. However I can consciously ignore these urges, and in these cases I am being compulsive, but I see this as a gift when it comes to drawing or writing music.

I'm using the term 'boundaries' very loosely indeed, it's purely to illustrate that there maybe multiple universes clustered as opposed to entwined with each other. If these quetions are impossible to answer without getting exceptionally technical then please say, or if they're just impossible to answer, full stop. (period)

With regards to the recent findings by Ashtekar and Bojowald I have a couple of questions which maybe someone could answer. If a black hole represents the beginings of a universe, and the inflation theory holds, in relation to our universe where do these 'other' universes reside ? Given that we can observe black holes in our universe, does this mean they have not yet reached the stage of inflation (obviously we can't observe this) or are they actually 'gateways' (for want of a better word) into these other universes. What I don't understand is if there are multiple universes then black holes can only eventually inflate outside the boundaries of our universe (which doesn't seem right to me) or they reside in another dimension that we don't experience. Given that for every black hole there is another universe, and black holes in those universes and so on and so on, then the amount of dimensions needed for these universes to exist must be phenomenal. For each universe to exist in relation to the other, and the fact they all follow the same laws of inflation then each one would have to have extra dimensions so they can all exist alongside each other...hope this makes sense, I am struggling to get my thought process into words here. Any help explaining where these universes exist in relation to ours would be greatly appreciated. I understand that there's nothing proven with LQG (as yet) but I remember thinking of literally infinite universes when I was very young so I have soft spot (if you like) for this theory...despite my very limited understanding of the subject.

This seems to become more of a lingual debate than neurological but anyway. If I had a silver platter and I said under the lid is a freshly cooked chicken, and the scent of a freshly cooked chicken was permeating the air. If I then remove the lid to reveal a (da daaar) strawberry (which has been sprayed with a synthesized fragrance of cooked chicken.) Then the 'illusion' is created by the aroma. You wouldn't be convinced I had a cooked chicken under the platter if I simply told you so, you would need the scent of the chicken to be convinced. In this case can we assume that illusions can be created through scent ? You wouldn't even need me to tell you there's a chicken under the platter...you'd just assume that was the case.

You do all realise this is from a Japanese sketch show 'The Laughing Dogs Passion' and is actually satirical. The band 'Happatai' which translates into Green Club are now a phenomenom in Japan, and rightly so, it's supposed to be, well...all of the above. I saw this first on a Chris Tarrant show (UK, trashy TV clips.) I'm not really sure why this is under mit.edu ?? What are they teaching at M.I.T these days...these nappies have no scientific significance !!!!!