StringJunky

Like you said, given that there aren't any links, it is hard to discern his/her motive. This coversation concerning Coberst is being replicated all over the internet on a diverse range of forums. It looks like some weird form of attention-seeking to me where he/she is some sort of enigmatic character that everyone is talking about...the mystery is the end in itself to that person. The easiest solution would be to ban him and see if there is a response.

You could also say if an infinite amount of time has passed, everyrthing that was going to interact would have happened and the universe would now be in a state of energetic equilibrium. All matter would have long since dissipated into energy. We are still here, so it seems to me. an infinite amount of time has not passed.

You could also say if an infinite amount of time has passed, everything that was going to interact would have happened and the universe would now be in a state of energetic equilibrium. All matter would have long since dissipated into energy. We are still here, so it seems to me. an infinite amount of time has not passed.

Will this JP be reprimanded at an official level do you think...Do you have a Commission for Racial Equality that can bring a case, like here in the UK? A side question: Whch governmental (national) body decides what the official national policy/attitude is towards things like racial matters/sexual orientation in US society....or is it just decided at state level without any alignment between them, as determined by a higher national government body?

Anticaking agents are used in table salt. Its probably one of those that's causing the red and orange residues. I've extracted this from Wikipedia: " Since the 1950s it has been common to add a trace of sodium ferrocyanide to the brine in the United Kingdom; this acts as an anticaking agent by promoting irregular crystals.[21] The safety of Sodium ferrocyanide as a food additive was confirmed in the United Kingdom in 1993. [22] Other anticaking agents (and potassium iodide, for iodised salt) are generally added after crystallization.[citation needed] These agents are hygroscopic chemicals which absorb humidity, keeping the salt crystals from sticking together. Some anti-caking agents used are tricalcium phosphate, calcium or magnesium carbonates, fatty acid salts (acid salts), magnesium oxide, silicon dioxide, calcium silicate, sodium aluminosilicate, and calcium aluminosilicate. Concerns have been raised regarding the possible toxic effects of aluminium in the latter two compounds[citation needed]; however, both the European Union and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permit their use.[23] The refined salt is then ready for packing and distribution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt

Neveos: I think people's patience has reached 'critcal mass'......... you are talking out of your backside. Shut up. I don't think there is any substance left in this thread.

99% of the time I'm looking at 'New Post's' or 'Today's Posts' so I more often than not assume the threads are current without date checking...Caleb's obviously trawled through past posts looking for something and not realized the date. It's interesting that. that subject has arisen twice, to my knowledge, so far.......vj4him in another recent thread thought it was plastic after using non-plastic containers with clear results.

That'll teach me to be more observant.

Put some of the previously unfrozen bottled water into a non plastic container and freeze it. Pour the thawed out water into a clear glass and look for the 'floaties'. If it has got 'floaties' in it then it is precipitated mineral solids, as Insane Alien suggests, but if it is clear then it's fragmented plastic from the bottle caused by the freezing process. Post back your findings won't you?

The reason distant objects appear smaller is a property of the lenses of our eyes and the apparent reflectance of the object being viewed. If the angle subtending an object through the lens on to the retina is large then the object will appear large. If the angle is small then it appears small. . Also, darker objects 'appear' smaller and more distant than lighter ones of similar dimensions...this property of tone (reflectance) is exploited all the time by artists and photographers to infer depth, magnitude. or both At the end of the day. much of how we perceive distance and dimension in our visual environment is part physics (of the lens) and part mental construct by the brain (using visual cues, like reflectance and binocularity) working together to express the maximum amount of spatial/dimensional information about our immediate environment to aid our safety,...... which gives us a suvival advantage. "Does no one see that obviously every instance of observation entails a condition whereby we have a relationship between distance, and the amount of time light takes to impress your eye from the object?"- Neveos Neveos: I'm not quite sure what you are on about but the relative difference in the time it fakes for light to travel from a nearby object and an object further away, to our eyes, is fantastically negligible given that they have a capture rate of only 10 to 15 'frames' a second...it is subjectively 'instant'. Time is not a factor in our visual perception of things at earthbound distances....the speed of light is too fast. our brains are too slow and the distances are too short for your hypothesis to mean anything. Apparent object size and distance is a function of the eye's lens and the way the brain interprets that information.

When I said ' nothing ', that's what I meant...not even empty space which you seem to think I'm suggesting...like I said, it's a difficult idea to grasp. Why don't you have a gander again through the "What was there?" thread and see if you can absorb it better second time round. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42499&page=2 What is the need for a Multiverse or Paralell Universe...What's wrong with one? What can't the present standard model explain that these two ideas can? The idea of our Universe being in a bigger one (Multiverse) is symptomatic of the difficulty of grasping the idea of nothing beyond the limits of the Universe. We try to fill this deficiency of comprehension with things like Russian Doll Universes...like yours...I've done it myself 'til recently. On the subject of whether I agree with Sysiphus, my answer is 'yes' because a) I don't know any better and b) he (and Swansont, Klaynos, Martin, Moo, Severian etc) is delivering the standard view which is what I'm interested in...I won't argue against something until I fully understand the subject first. When they tell us something, it's not 'their' personal opinion (unless they say it is) it's the current consensus of mainstream science that they are telling us about....surely that's what laypeople should come to this forum for? Sayonara: to take your description, could it be there is only one Universe but possibly made up of many 'mini-verses' (a system or group of many galaxies that act independently of other groups extremelly far apart : in our case the Observable Universe is one of them?

It is not possible to leave something that is in itself everything? The term 'Universe' represents everything that exists, therefore, you can't leave it. The Universe doesn't have an outside....don't try and imagine anything beyond it because there is nothing ....does that make sense?....the idea of nothing is difficult to grasp but you'll have to accept it because that's what the physicists here will tell you. Nothing, is the absence of anything. Any computer-aided 3D model you see of the Universe is a representation of it in its entirety...it is not in space. it is space...all of it. Leaving the Universe does not make sense now does it?

Tom, Thanks for the formula. How did you come to the two tonne figure? The total tension for a 25.5in scale steel string guitar with 'mediums' on is about 176ibs! I found a calculator that gives an idea of the range using different variables.: http://www.mcdonaldstrings.com/stringxxiii.html

Happy to help.

I agree with you DrP, it's pretty much a fact that different metals sound different, bronze is brighter than phosphor bronze....My question is related to tension and how difficult or easy it is to depress the string on each type. Someone on another forum was saying the two top strings (B and E) were different between manufacturers even though they were the same diameter and I had doubts. There is undoubtedly a difference in the wound strings between makers because the core wire diameter to winding wire diameter varies even though the total diameter is the same between them ,hence, one will be harder to press than another. Also you might be interested to know hex core strings are stiffer than round core because the winding wire grips tighter on the hex. Round wire cores last longer though because the winding wire adjacent contact surfaces remain so for longer than hex cores....once the adjacent contact surfaces of the winding wire part sufficiently, through playing, the string loses its 'chime'. Round wire strings chime more because the core wire has more movement within the winding.. ' I've played with a lot of different strings that's why one of my guitar-playing friends calls me a 'string junky'! The way you've put it ,DrP, makes sense and I'm inclined to agree with you..there will be a marginal difference. John's also right as well because the density of the material and hence the total mass of the string will determine the tension required to bring the string to pitch. Thanks to you both for putting a clearer picture in my head. Mr Skeptic: Using those three parameters and adding frequency as another. If we kept the frequency constant and wanted to change the linear density (string material), the tension would change also, yes? Do you have a formula? Thanks

In the above scenario with the two types of metal string under tension, I apply the same amount of force (perpendicular to the direction of the wire} in the middle of each wire, would they deviate from a straight line by the same amount or not?

"Also, are there any animal models for empathetic behaviour?" - JimmyDaSaint I found this article by Frans De Waal who is a Professor of Primate Behaviour amongst other things. Here's a relevant extract to answer your question: "For a demonstration of primate empathy consider a zoo bonobo named Kuni. When she saw a starling hit the glass of her enclosure, she picked up the stunned bird and climbed to the top of the tallest tree. She carefully unfolded its wings and spread them wide, holding one wing between the fingers of each hand, before sending the bird like a little toy airplane out towards the barrier of her enclosure. But the bird fell short of freedom and landed on the bank of the moat. Kuni climbed down and stood watch over the starling for a long time. By the end of the day, the recovered bird had flown off safely. The way Kuni handled this bird was different to anything she would have done to aid another ape. Instead of following some hard-wired helping scheme, she tailored her assistance to the specific situation of an animal totally different from herself. This kind of empathy rests on the ability to imagine the circumstances of another. Adam Smith, the father of economics, must have had actions like Kuni's in mind (though not performed by an ape) when he offered us the most enduring definition of empathy as "changing places in fancy with the sufferer". http://www.annular.org/~sdbrown/the-empathic-ape.html

+1 on that Baby Astronaut, I was going to mention your point myself...negative rep is open to abuse if given anonymously.

Biogerentology is the subject you are looking for I think. Here is a link to familiarise you with it and where to go from there. Hope this helps: http://www.senescence.info/career.html

Got the instructions from the Mozilla website to install it in Linux then I created a link, like you said, which worked but is a bit ugly like you said. I later found out how to create a Launcher complete with the Firefox icon on the desktop so it works like any other app. Thanks for that Jill and I.A. I'm now running 3.5.3. Now to find out if Firefox crashes when I thank you! P.S. PROBLEM SOLVED!

Thanks for your responses, but I don't think I've been very clear.....If we put two pieces of wire of equal length, say 24inches, and diameter, say 0.012", one is brass and one is plain steel, both are brought under the same tension, would they both have the same flexibility despite being made of different metal materials or would one have more 'give' than the other? Ignoring the wound strings.

A question has been prompted in my mind, from another forum ( guitars) about the 'feel' (tension) of guitar strings: If two pieces of wire with the same diameter but made from different alloys (bronze and phosphor bronze) are brought to the same tension (pitch), would there be any difference (everything else being equal) in the amount of pressure required to move them laterally ie press them down on to the fret? I don't think there is because metals don't have longitudinal elasticity.....what's the fact?

I think I'm using 3.0.1.1. This is from the Mint Repository. If I wanted to use v3,5 I'd have to get it from somewhere else as a tar .bz file and deal with it myself, satisfying all dependencies etc, which I'm not savvy enough in Linux to do it...it's not simple like Windows .exe files.! I'd like to do this but there is a learning curve first before I can...or just wait 'til 3.5 is in the Repo' I might post the problem in the Mint Forum.

I've thanked 2 people for their posts and both times firefox has locked up and crashed to the degree that I have to reinstall it when I hit the 'ok' button...anybody any ideas why this happens? I'm using Linux Mint 7. I daren't thank anybody now! My computer is completely stable 'til I do this. I've even downloaded a new copy of Mint with the same result.

Thanks iNOW for explaining yourself. As our species moves forward in time the genetic differences between human subgroups becomes more blurred due to population mobility and interbreeding making it harder to distinguish these groups along genetic lines....these different groups were created by geographic isolation and interbreeding over very long periods of time. I understand why people, particulary in some sciences, want to distance themselves from using this type of word because of its negative social undertones and potentially misinferred implications ie apparent superiority of one subgroup over another, which can be used to abuse another or for political purposes. In short, I have no stomach for a debate into this subject and am happy if sectors of the scientific community wish to render this term or concept redundant!