Royston

What book ? You don't seem to understand what jealousy is...it's attributed to something you already have.

There's definitely signs of this happening in the UK, modern especially successful lifestyles / careers require more time, so less time is available to raise a family. Whilst the lower classes receive more benefits the more children they have...it's a know fact that some mothers purposefully have children so they get a house plus benefits et.c from the government, and teenage pregnancy is rife in the UK which (unless under particular circumstances) points towards a poorer upbringing.

At our present time this trend can still be reversed...I feel it's possible to find true potential in most, good education, good diet et.c Whether this will be achieved is anybodies guess.

The other alternative is to have a national culling of *chavs and chavettes

*See regional dialect and slang thread under general discussion for terminology.

The Andean people although (from first hand experience) are not completely isolated they do indeed have a larger lung capacity to cope with the higher altitude and obviously lower oxygen levels.

In a documentary a few years back (the name escapes me) the residents of an Andean village played football against a group of physically fit westerners...needless to say the Andeans ran circles round them. Although you could argue this isn't really a controlled experiment (I will try and find links to this topic) it'll be interesting to see if these traits survive.

Having had the privelage of trekking through the Andes, the villages are becoming less isolated, most villages have access to transport / roads et.c and western influence can be seen pretty much anywhere you go. It's really a case of what takes precedence, preservation or westernisation. With the temptation of arguably better lives in 'the city' et.c and the effects that economic growth and western culture has on small settlements (predominantly negative effects) then I'm wondering if this will accelerate too much before we do see a new species of homo sapiens.

BRB

Here we go...

http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/204/18/3151

You seem to be getting it the wrong way round. Jealousy is (as already stated) a 'hardwired' instinctive reaction that has a number of psychological and physiological attributes. Jealousy doesn't manifest through anger or fear, it's an inherent reaction to basically say 'hands off', and people go through the motions to reassure themselves that there is no need to feel jealous.

This usually has negative consequences...and is interpreted as mistrust, low self esteem et.c If jealousy was dealt with for what it is, with sympathy and reassurance then it could probably be quashed before it gets out of control or endures throughout the relationship. (I'm using human relationships as an example as it's easier to identify with.)

The consequences of not dealing with jealousy could lead to depression, but you shouldn't get the two confused.

Just for the record we started to talk to each other over messenger a few weeks ago, and got on famously...typical, and I did take back that her company was similar to having a brain aneurysm . Though I'm going to get my love life sorted before I think about seeing her again...which at the moment I just havn't got time for. All this really seems very much in the past for me now.

I wonder what she'd make of all this if she stumbled across this site...yeah I'm talking about you, ya daft fickle bint

What do you mean by the default security pwd?

To protect a WEP Lan set up you have the option of a password to secure your signal from rogue internet users. There are a number of default passwords that are available which are incredibly obvious and (so I've heard) often used. eg PF1,PF2,PF3 et.c So it's in people's best interest to think of an original password...unless they have no problem with someone using their signal.

My house mate who owns tropical crabs is always baffled by how they escape their tank...I was searching related topics and came across this, thought some of you may find it interesting.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050929082253.htm

I think peoples general outlook becomes quite secure in their late teens. The majority of elderly people I've spoken to about this, said they feel the same as they did when they were much younger.

The majority of my friends are roughly the same age as me, I'm lucky enough to of stayed in close contact with a lot of people I grew up with, and we still have great nights out and share many interests, as well as humouring each other over our differences. The friends that have moved away are exactly the same every time I meet up with them.

My friends span from early twenties to mid forties, and they're all teenagers deep down...they've just acquired more knowledge or responsibilty. So age is really irrelevant to who I get on with. The reason the majority of my friends are around the same age is just down to circumstance, if I started hanging out with my elder sisters friends as I was growing up the majority of my friends would be in their late thirties / early fourties.

YT2095, if you don't mind me asking, is there any particular reason why the majority of your friends are quite a bit older than you ? My social circle spanned from a collaboration of music and such as I was going through school and college, so making a lot of my friends roughly the same age as me.

WEP is very very easy to break.

Especially if the default security passwords are used.

I take it it's illegal to sponge off over peoples signals ?

wtf is marmite

I've supplied a link in my second post, though you'll probably think Marmite lovers

are a bit demented. I can assure you they are the most intelligent and beautiful people on the planet

I put mine on a bit thicker than most folks like it (Butter thickness)' date=' but then I`m a sucker for salt anyway [/quote']

 

Same, I also became very partial to Vegemite scrolls when living in Oz. They were a good substitute for my Marmite cravings, and yes Marmite does have a high salt content.

My friend sent me Marmite from the UK' date=' I don't think its readily available here.

 

 

What's the difference between Marmite and Vegemite?[/quote']

 

Marmite was originally a bi-product from the fermentation process...I think this puts some people off.

 

http://www.marmite.com/love/history/

 

Vegemite is also a yeast extract spread but has other vegetable additives.

 

http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/VegemiteHistory.htm

Probably more aimed at the members from the UK, but Marmite...love it or hate it ?

Incidentally whilst in Nicaragua a few years ago, a British lad had brought some over. We were all sat round a table for dinner with some travellers from the states, when he revealed the little black jar of yeasty goodness. The people from the states were almost angry at the thought of consuming such a tar like substance...'My God, what's the matter with you people, you eat this stuff !!!'

Is Marmite readily available in any other countries ? Is this stange viscous spread only enjoyed by the British...like battered (deep fried) Mars Bars (I've yet to try these, but they sound repulsive.)

I personally love Marmite, I used to scoop it from the jar as a child, though I'm the only person I know who had this habit.

I was born in September apparently the sky did go black around my birth...but it was a plague of ladybirds.

I guess your talking about the tragedies that have occured in September.

It was actually just something I heard, so apologies for being so bold. However I found a website 'The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry' that covers that normal children hallucinate, unfortunately you have to pay for the full journal, which I'm not prepared to do for the sake of my credibility. I've just been posting a load of tosh recently. Excuse me while I bang my head against the wall until I hallucinate.

Oh...well I've embarassed myself yet again. The universe has no bounds, just like my stupidity. I'll be sure to research a topic thouroughly before I start a thread in future.

']

About the star collapsing evenenly: I doubt any start would collapse in a perfectly even way' date=' how could it?

http://www.wikipedia.com will help you out a lot.[/quote']

 

Gravity is even over the surface area whether there are mountains or other small blemishes...otherwise we would have different forces of gravity at certain altitudes. Small inflamations on a star are nothing to a force that collapses a mass that size.

Perhaps we see amazing things all the time and feel premonition-like feelings' date=' but have no logical frame of reference and therefore dismiss it as irrelevant. This could account for many supernatural experiences and feelings.[/quote']

 

I wonder if this has any relevance as to why a high percentage of young children hallucinate, as they learn more about the world around them there's almost a conditioning of reality that makes them less open to suggestion. If the natives had the concept of large ships explained to them, then I should imagine they would see them with no problem at all.

 

I'm still under the ascertain that this is simply a matter of the mind, otherwise we wouldn't function correctly. If people are 'open' to believe in the paranormal then they're much more likely to experience 'spooky' phenomena.

I was having a look at NTSA website on black hole simulations and I noticed that the graphics are based on a 2 dimensional plane with the forming of the black hole represented in three dimensions. The (debatable) singularity therefore being represented as an everdecreasing cone.

I've always imagined blackholes as a star collapsing into a smaller and smaller sphere with space-time curving inwards as the star collapses. The event horizon being the curvature where the star once was, what happens past this point is a bit more tricky to wrap your head round...there are numerous theories.

It's quite hard to visualize this...if you imagine yourself on the sphere and everything curving in as it collapses (including yourself) thinking of this in three dimensional space then this seems more logical than the graphic interpretations I've looked at. Is my thought process correct ?

Also given that the force of gravity is equal on the surface area of a star (correct me if this is wrong) then the star should theoretically collapse evenly. This to my mind would create a static black hole...so my second question is, what constitutes a rotational black hole. Is it dependant on it's surroundings when it collapses ?

My third question is, is there a computer simulation that has managed to graphically represent the collapse of a star in four dimensions rather than on a two dimensional surface of a sphere ?

If I'm getting this completely wrong I'm open to criticism. Are static black holes created for hypothetical mathematical models rather than actually existing, considering that the universe is constantly rotating and expanding ?

More than a couple of questions I know, but I'd really like to try and visualize what's going on when a star collapses.

deleted

there is a mechanism called inflation by which a highly warped curved small universe can flatten out during early rapid expansion

and Bojowald and several others have shown that the model they are using (called LQG) automatically provides that as a built-in feature.

 

This LQG feature was critically studied by a non-partisan cosmologist at University of Portsmouth named Roy Maartens' date=' and it checked out---it wasnt just wishful thinking on the part of those who proposed it.[/quote']

 

That's very interesting to say the least...and if correct, then I guess a lot easier to equate.

That camel in your living room might be your brains way of recording the entire experience you might have had meeting a girl that day.

That dribble coming from your chin it's so ...so becoming

I think dreams are a collection of random thoughts, scenes and memories put into a narrative so they piece together and make sense, just as you try and make sense of reality when you're awake.

Obviously as dreams are in your head, the events are much more random as they don't follow an external system. This makes the brain put it into some kind of order and why dreams are so randomn but realistic.

I can't be sure of your premise...but if there are strange events happening around us that we're not aware of, we all seem to be doing ok...despite that emu, that insists on urinating on my sofa.

Thankyou for the reassurance Martin, I tend to be quite rash as I've found people are more eager to put me straight...it's a quicker way to learn, anyway back to the article.

The Ashtekar and Bojowald article seems to echo Hawking's speech last year,

What I find quite sad is that the bangs formed from black holes would be impossible to equate unless you entered a black hole and observed the forming of these new universes.

If we rely on the forming of our universe as reference then we would be assuming there are multiverses similar to ours that obey all the rules (so far) implied by physics.

However if space-time breaks down before this formation, then the rules essentially could be completely different to how our universe started out.

What I'm fascinated with, is that if relativity holds at the start of these new universes space-time could be completely warped but still support uniformed shapes and maybe life...considering we're here this is a very strong possibility, and almost impossible to comprehend.

The diffeomorphism invariance of the semiclassical theory forbids the appearance of a preferred frame of reference' date=' consequently the local symmetry of this energy-dependent effective metric is a non-linear realization of the Lorentz transformations, which renders the Planck energy observer independent. This gives a form of deformed or doubly special relativity (DSR), previously explored with Magueijo, called the rainbow metric.[/quote']

 

I'm most probably misreading this passage, but have they created a model that isn't observer dependant (a frame that does not require an observer to equate relative position within that frame.)

 

If the universe is equated relative to an observers position then the observer is part of the equation, this is what I was getting at. If another model that's independant to the universe in which we reside...say a model of a blackhole is equated then a model of our universe can be reached that isn't dependant on an observer.

 

Sorry if that still doesn't make sense, and I will read the article. I've only been looking into physics for the last few months so please forgive my ignorance on the subject. I certainly wouldn't contest against these findings. From the few segments I do understand, this is very exciting.

 

I seem to have a habit of making things seem more convoluted then they are recently.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but if it's possible to equate models independant of a frame of reference, (that hold to relativistic values) then the old saying...'if we're part of the equation, then it's impossible to work out the equation', goes out the window.

Sorry I'm not sure I follow...I thought solar flares were electromagnetic fields on the Sun that become knotted...energy is stored then literally explodes firing off x rays, gamma rays et.c I know they're still being researched but I can't see how this connects with what I'm trying to get across.

I guess I should explain my thought process with this post and you may understand my frustration into making this idea tangible to other people.

With regards to an earlier thread...'mental visualizations' where I should of explained how I can build highly complex models in my head (strangely my maths is very shoddy) but I can build entire constructions e.g a cathedral and travel around the construct and know my exact position in the model, basically like an architects CGI demonstration. I took this for granted...I've always been able to do it, and only after reading other peoples take on mental visualizations I realised that not everybody can do this...Bettina's being the closest but this goes a little further.

Recently I've been thinking about relativity...alot. I managed to construct a model in my head where the principles of relativity are applied, and I can observe this model (which is what most people can do) but I can also become part of the model, I can only describe it as thinking in three dimensions...but this is where it breaks down, because it's almost impossible to convey this into english (or any other language) and I certainly don't have the maths to describe what I've constructed.

The reason I was dicing over the idea of particles collapsing in the very early universe, is because I can vizualise collapse in a 3D construct and this collapse seems (with the model that I've constructed) to have direct relation with the expansion of the model. This is why I was thinking it needs to be inherent at the start of the universe.

My early models would be similar to expanding spheres or 3D eliptical shapes with trillions of angles with no space between holding the sphere together (kind of...this is really hard to describe)...remember that I'm compensating for the fact that I'm part of the construct. Aaarggh this is frustrating, maybe I should wait till I start my diploma next year, and I can stipulate my thoughts with a higher degree (excuse the pun) of detail and structure.

Albeit I hope you all enjoyed reading my ramble, and maybe it provoked a few thoughts if nothing else