Purephysics

Totally agree. Any physical theory must be backed up in mathematics. Einstein could just draw some pictures and say "yeah, so,.. Newton was a bit off, but this should clear things up. I call it General Relativity but the way....".

Have to published a paper for the scrutiny of the scientific community? Because in all honesty, anything that purports to be this "ground breaking" must be tested to breaking point. I would gladly read your paper for one. Also, why is that vector "meaningless to a highschool graduate such as yourself"?

Slowing your watch indeed doesn't not affect time. It only affects your measuring device (your clock/watch). Clocks are simply measuring devices; like a ruler measures length clocks (ideal or otherwise) measure change in the physical world. Instead of meauring the distance between two points, they measure the distance between two events. The distance between the two events does not alter even if your measuring device does. So when we talk about the slowing of time we mean the slowing of the distance between two events. Thus, any clock within that time frame (ideal or otherwise), will also be running slower (to an outside observer). If you are within the same time frame then you will notice no difference (time is relative to your position). If time was slower in one location relative to you, then your watch/clock would not be affected unless you were within that time frame, in which case you would not notice the change in the passage of time anyway.

Thats what I'm trying to do now, compile a list of areas that interest me and compare with university syllabus.

Relativity interests me, and space. (so I guess astrophysics). I'm in the middle of reading about Quatum physics. I'm trying to soak up as much now so I can make an informed descision about what interests me, and thus, what I will enjoy studying. The problem I face is there are so many areas in physics, I'm just trying to get a base in as many as I can. Even if it just understand the very basic outline. If it sounds interesting then I'll research more into it. Is this a good plan?

So from an industry specific employers perspective, which would be more desirable for a job in Physics as a graduate, MSc or MPhys? Oh Keeness I have in spades, if I could start college right now instead of having to wait until September, I'd be there. I've already started studying mathematics and physics by myself (as best I can with books and Wikipedia), and researching everything I can, to me there isnt enough time in the day to do all the learning I want to do. I do know what you mean about variability, there are so many universities offering so many degrees, and I want to make the right choice. That's why I've started learning as much as I can about the universities and their courses so early on. Also because this is all completely new territory to me, I'm stumbling around blind right now

That's good, I was really worried about not getting much time to use my physics practically after graduation. I want a decent run in industry after university, and I was concerned about having to compete with much younger graduates for positions, and possibly being judged by prospective employers because of my late graduation age. If I do an MPhys with foundation year I'll graduate in my mid thirties. I presume this I'll find out when I visit prospective universities. Speaking of which; is there a procedure for visiting a facility? Do I have to be already at college, or can I just phone up and find out if I can get a tour right now? That makes sense. So probably best to aim straight for the MPhys, and if I wish then drop down to BSc. (I don't see why I would want to though). That's something I meant to ask. What is the difference between te degrees? I know what a BSc is, but what about the MSc and MPhys? I know they are higher than a BSc but I what way? And how do they differ from one another? (sorry for all the questions, but definitive information seems hard to find)

I swear there should be a university course for getting onto a university course! I'm just hoping I'll have the time to check out the various departments before I go, and to make in informed descision. This is pretty much my last chance; I'm 27 this year. Oh I didn't know foundation years could be applicable from one Uni to the next, I may have to research more into that. As I guess I could get a Foundation physics at say Kent, and then take that to Kings College if I wanted to study there. I have noticed that thr ranking seem a little odd, I always take stuff like that with a pinch, because they are just averages, and averages are prone to spikes in information leading to odd results. I'm also trying to decide if I should go straight on an MPhys or do the BSc and then an MPhys, I've been told that it's easier to switch from an MPhys to a BSc than it is to go from BSc to MPhys. I know I definitely want IOP accredited though.

That's why I wanted a course with a foundation year ideally, I'm fairly confident after a year of college (+the studying I'm already doing myself now) I'd be ok, it's just the thought of getting to uni and not understanding it. So I want to make sure I can do the best I'm capable of. That's some sound advice thank you because even though I have only a self taught interest in physics right now, I know the areas that seem to interest me, and the courses and subjects offered are so vast. It's kinda difficult to pick one out or the bunch, that offers what you want from a good Uni, because after all, they all claim to be good. I'll check that book out, see if I can find it on Amazon, it can go in my ever increasing physics and math library....

Yeah you are right, the closer you get to C the slower you appear to be moving to an outside observer (oddly enough). Also if they could see your watch at 98% of C, they would swear it wasnt ticking at all. There would also be length distortion if they measured your craft from the outside, they would measure it shorter. Considering mass bends spacetime there may be some truth in the statement "traveling at 100% of C would shorten the distance between points". Since an objects mass increases with it's velocity, if a spaceship could achieve C then it would have infinite mass, and infinite mass would definitely warp or bend spacetime. Maybe we could use that as an advantage to "take the shortcut".

First league? I assume you mean "top Universities". Yeah, the math is a sticking point for me, I'm going to be an Access To Higher education Mature Student, (at last look I've not done serious math for over 10 years, back then I wasn't great at math.). I'm also not gonna have the luxury off being fresh out of school and college with A-levels still burned into my brain. I have looked at Kent University because they offer a foundation year for guys like me, and they seem to have a pretty good reputation too. The physics department looks good (at least on paper). Those are some good tips though, I'll check them out, I always look at who publishes the books etc, never thought to use the info to home in on the good Universoties though, in all honesty I just thought they slapped "Oxford" on the spine to look good.

Is it just me or has this descended into the realms of Star-Trek? "Warp Drives" "BattleStar Galactica".... Why don't we just see I we can dig up a StarGate.... Bio-orbs? That's an interesting idea, thinking long term. Light Speed travel or getting close to it, is one of the few ways we will be able to explore space. We don't have the life spans to travel by the usual speeds we can acheive in space. Like I mentioned before, it take near 20 years just to get out of our solar system, and that's still a distance measurable by usual means. We're not talking lightyears here. Speed is important. It either has to be speed or a short-cut, no other way are we going to be able to do it. Zapatos; I think you male a valid point when you said "if we had to lear earth in the next 100 years...". You're right, no-one would be looking at worm-hole theory, they'd be looking at great big stardrives, rocket boosters, and ion-thrusters. Which is only one side of the coin.

That's what I've heard, and that suits me just fine. I'm not going to learn programming to become a programmer, I'm going to need a functional knowledge of programming for thre physics I'm planning to study at University. Though programming does interest me, but not enough to get all serious about (just yet. Who knows, I might love it.) At the moment I'm trying to make sense of all the languages out there like python, C, C++, Fortran etc, finding there functions and working out if I should read more about them. But python as read, does seem a good place to start. Especially if I can be used with C.

I had heard about the wormhole things (NewScientist) and that sounded like it could go somewhere. Why concentrate on creating a potentially infinite energy source to power said lightspeed vessels when the as wer may already be within our grasp. I also read somewhere about the folding of space-time to "jump" across distances. Which sounds ridiculously amazing if I'm honest. It is important because we can shorten travel time, that's what it's all about. Why wait 100,000 years to get somewhere if you could do it in 100 years or less. It's also not how much horsepower you've got, but the route you take. It's important to get there quickly so we can learn more about our universe in less time, laziness doesn't breed progress. It wasn't called the Space *Race* for no reason. To be honest all the "sun will burn up in x million years" etc etc, is pretty irrelevant to us. We'll all be long dead in 100 years or less. I really couldn't care less what happens to our planet in 5billion years. I want to explore space now! Maybe the folding space idea and wormholes are the way to do that, it's seems oddly more feasible.

Wow, that's a lot of information to process! But you both have cleared a lot of things up for me that's for sure. I believe I shall research some more with this new knowledge, and look more into other programming languages like C, and C++. I'm pretty sure I'll want to start at the bottom with the programming (I thinks it's always best to start basic and work up steadily) Though having said that, how long does it actually take to learn Python, or C? Because I have no idea. I've heard good things about Python thats one of the reasons why I asked about it. The good things were that it isn't too complex to learn. I just wondered about the Windows/Linux deal because I keep hearing Linux everywhere, and wanted to understand more about it. I thunk for he time being I'll still to Windows, as I do know it, and I don't want to jump in too deep just yet!

I am brand new to programming and I have no prior knowledge of programming or software other than the usual computer usage that I conduct on a day to day basis (on windows). I wondered what the difference is between Windows and Linux, why there is a difference, and what they are best used for in a programming sense? (I'm also considering learning Python as my first programming language) Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Are you see over here in the UK it doesn't seem to have a name per sé. And in my experience, you can apply as much math as you want; sometime you just get lucky.

Zapatos I feel your point to be a little irrelevant considering the contex. Sure we have been around our sun for billions of years, but speed is relative and so are distance and time. We aren't travelling anywhere as humans, we are just sitting on a planet that happens to be moving. The case of velocity is very important when you want to go somewhere that is very far away. One of the the closest stars from us (Proxima Centurai I think) would take us 100,000 years to get to at currently sustainable speeds. That's completely unfeasable. And pretty useless too. I'm reading a paper about "scouting the spectrum for interstellar travellers" (Juan Carlos Garcia-Escartin) you can find it on arXiv.org. Hoping to get a different perspective. But speed is very important if you want to go a long, long way from point a to point b for instance. Afterall t = V/d (in a basic sense). Star-Trekky would be nice, a Star Gate would be much easier though. We have found that stable worm-holes can exist without exotic particles (NewScientist 10 March 2012 No.2855). So that's a step in the right direction I guess.

The universe is a fascinating place. Physics has spent thousands of years trying to piece together its story, learn its intricacies, and discover its secrets. We have found stars, planets, and whole host of other galactic fancies. If we are to ever get anywhere in space, we are going to need to be able to achieve massive speeds - close on light speed. We'll need these incredible velocities because of the distances involved (it would take us something near to 20 years just to reach pluto). But The Theory of Relativity states that an objects mass increases as its velocity does; "An object that has a mass cannot travel at the speed of light. "As the object approaches the speed of light, the object's energy and momentum increase without bound." [http://en.wikipedia....mentum_equation]. So this means that even if we could accelerate a single atom to 2.997x10^8 m/s it would have an infinite mass, and therefore require an infinite energy source to propel it. So will we ever be able to get anywhere in space? Will we ever be able to achieve lights-speed or close to it? And how could be do it, even if the mathematics of it weren't so impossible?

The realistic possibility of making a car fly is very possible I think. Even given our current level of tech. Though I'd have to agree with ACG52. Most people seem to struggle with driving properly on the roads, let alone whizzing around in the sky. It would be total destruction on so many levels. Literally. Think about if someone runs into the side of your car on the ground, the friction between your tires and the road slows your progress into the nearby hedge (dependent on impact velocity of course), now the same thing happens in the air with no friction to stop you. You could quite literally find yourself in someones 23rd floor apartment. Traffic management would be a complete nightmare as well, not only would the police and authorities have to worry about people going around obstacles, but also under or over them. I also think the average driver today can barely handle the decisions he/she needs to make in a 2D world at average driving speeds, couple that with having to deal with elevation, obstacles from above and below, as well as from the sides, front, and back. Most people can't successfully judge the width or length of their cars when parking, or moving around on the floor. Often leaving unfeasibly large spaces between them and the next car "just incase my car actually is 40ft long". So how are these people ever going to survive judging how far a car is beneath or above them!? And you can forget about breaking distances.... No. Flying cars - its a bad idea.

This is almost like the problem of probability most people miss in the 'one in three' box trick: There are three boxes; one has £1000 in it, the other two are empty. You can pick any one you like A, B, or C. Once you pick a box, one of the other (empty) boxes will be removed. Leaving you with the £1000 box and an empty one. The question is; should you stay with your original selection or switch? Many people think "it makes no difference, I'll just stick with my first choice." But you were selecting from a 1:3 chance originally, when one box is removed if you stick, you still have a 1:3 chance. If you switch, you have a 1:2 chance, which is better. So many people I have done this little experiment on just stick with their original choice. I've never quite understood why, it always seemed obvious to me.

I thought I was the only one! I have a similar problem to you, I'm going back into education in my late 20s and I've never been great at math, (spent a good 10 years in industries that avoid it), but I really like it, it fascinates me. And I'm planning a degree in physics too. The trick is not to doubt your abilities. Negativity won't help you learn, it will be hard not to doubt yourself. Don't think you "got it wrong" consider "you just didn't understand it the first time" and then go back over it. Don't just memorise, make sure you try your best to understand the concepts. Go over it a number of different ways, try different things. The way it's presented may not be the best way for you to understand it. I don't believe anyone is "bad" at math, (coming from someone who always thought he was "bad" at math) it's just practise, gaining familiarity, and memory, and all that builds understanding. The next trick is to never give up, no matter what. It will be hard, you will get frustrated, but you also will make progress without you even realising it. And when you do realise it, you will feel proud, and that gives you a boost to tackle more. It's a good circle. Naturally Wikipedia, and various online sources are great, soak it all up, as much as you can. You have to actively pursue maths, you can't just learn it from reading a text book.

I think we'd all like to believe in UFOs. I just wonder sometimes, in the credibility of some accounts. I was fascinated by UFOs as a kid and a teenager, as I grew to understand more about the universe the more impossible it began to sound. The more I looked up "sightings" the more I noticed trends like very localised sightings, or just one or two people. How no UFOs had visited big cities where thousands of people would have seen them, if I was an alien to another civilisation, I'd go in search of the centre of intelligence, I'd go for the cities, ans big settlements. I have always thought it odd how medieval paintings often depicted UFOs, you would have to consider that given the deficit of science-fiction back then, would make the accounts credible. Maybe I'm just a sceptic, I'd like to believe though, theres just too much against it.

I'd have to say, after talking to my girlfriend, that men and women think about each other more or less the same amount. Men talk about women more than women talk about men. There imonies cause for men to talk about women as well. The male sexdrive is generally more active than an equivalent females (though the gap is becoming smaller). And as per Ewmon's post, women do wear more attractive clothing, and in general are more attractive anyway. But as for thinking? It's about the same.