Royston

I'm planning on going away after my exam, havn't decided where yet, maybe Egypt. As for the summer (which is still yet to happen in the UK...bloody weather <shakes fist>) it's work and study with a few beverages inbetween. So nothing exciting, but like Gilded, I could do with a trim as well.

I really appreciated the 'status' updates, as I was itching to log on to chat, very quick change, and everything appears to be running smoothly too

Sorry to disappoint Klaynos, but there's quite a bit to cover i.e I'm not sure where to start, and it's kinda pointless if merlin wood is familiar with all of this, however... Fancy having a crack at stating your argument succinctly, in a couple of paragraphs. Every theory in physics I've studied, is summed up in a few, clearly defined principles and (shock horror) math...I guess we'll have to skip the latter. I realize you've 'heard this all before', but give it a shot. Also, if you can run me through the below, I'm listening i.e if you, at the very least, can explain the equations (not necessarily manipulate them) then you have a more solid footing on expanding on the principles governed by the dreaded mathematics e.g what's unique about the wavefunction of an entangled state, as opposed to a wavefunction that has indeterminate spin components, mathematically speaking ? [math]\psi = \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}[\psi_+(A)\psi\_ (B) - \psi\_ (A)\psi_+ (B)][/math] How's that ?

Umm, I wasn't asking why, just asking for examples. I just find it amusing that the brain does hold on to redundant information, tis all (especially silly ad lyrics...although I have recited my example at parties, to impress the ladies ) That's true, I guess any information, however trivial or pointless it may seem can have it's uses...even for pure entertainment value...except of course your 800# of a company example. That's just not entertaining at any level, though there's probably someone out there who might disagree, you know, the stamp collecting sort. No offense to any stamp collectors on here.

I've just started my QM module, and I'm pretty sure quantum entanglement is covered in quite some detail, so I'll be happy to post what's discussed. There's also (for Merlin Woods benefit) a good section on Bell's Theorem, that I could run through. However, I'm sure I read that the Bohm interpretation isn't violated by Bell's Theorem, as opposed to the EPR paradox...but I can't remember the specifics (plus this is quite new territory for me), IIRC it starts with the Schrodinger equations, and explores the position of particles which are the so-called hidden variables of Bohmian mechanics, but I'll come back to this, it's a very interesting topic.

This is probably quite an odd topic, but I was wondering if any of you have any utterly useless information stored away in your memory banks, where you can't fathom why you remember it, e.g an advert, or song lyrics or anything at all, where you can't pin down why on earth you have that information stashed away...but you can remember that information implicitly. I'll give you an example, and I promise you I havn't looked this up... For some reason, and I didn't even like the advert, or find the jingle particulary catchy, but I know all the lyrics for the Alphabites ad, that was out in the 80's... A is for Alpha, B is for bites, C for yourself, 'cause they taste just right. D is for dinner, E is for eggs, letters so tasty from A through to Z. Crisp golden potato, and fluffy inside, oven baked, grilled or fried, and made by Birdseye, so you can't buy better, and called Alphabites, cause each one's a letter. I guess on retrospect, I can see why an impressionable young child would remember this, but it does seem odd why this ad in particular has stuck in my mind so vividly. Anyone else ?

The dispute usually arises when the thread is moved, (from physics for instance) to P&S, I doubt changing the title would make any difference. The semantic arguments follow afterwards. Conjecture you say ? Speculation you say ? et.c It doesn't matter how you colour it, it's the act of removing the idea from the home of accepted science, that gets their knickers in a twist.

I guess Snowy Lizards are hard to spot North or South pole, the closest I've got to those conditions was South Chile and the Alps...we're you doing research of any sort ?

Arizona's an odd place, it was baking heat when we went...did you find any lizards ?

ajb, Pete, thanks for clearing up the confusion. Incidentally, in another thread, ajb recommended Wald's General Relativity, so it's definitely a book I'll be purchasing for future studies. I was referring to the 'cutting out', however I did get in a muddle with my definitions for the singularity Pete was referring to...all valuable information nonetheless, and looking forward to learning more on the subject.

But, as I'm sure you know, the Einstein equations breakdown at the singularity. If a singularity was a defined point, then it could be described by a co-ordinate system, but this isn't the case. Besides, a singularity is a general mathematical term, I don't understand why people always associate singularities with solely black holes...probably not a good idea to use a dictionary for scientific terms, for obvious reasons. Again, I'm not an expert, I havn't even started my GR course, just relaying what I've learnt from an expert.

I take it you've googled this question, before asking ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/ There's also a search function on SFN. Black holes have been discussed a lot on here. Not that I'm an expert with black holes, but a singularity isn't a point.

I think it means the range of microscopes they have available. I don't recall the term 'lineup' with regards to optics.

I noticed there's been discussion in this area, and I've just read this passage from my text book. I guess it made me chuckle, because I've always attributed the term 'crackpot', as slang, and not a term I'd expect to see in a text book. More to the point, it summarizes the same requirements we're used to reading, time and time again in response to a new 'theory.' It just seemed very apt, with all the recent discussion I didn't post this to provoke crackpot bashing et.c It just seemed a rather freaky (or not) coincidence that I read this passage, just an hour after reading some of the discussion in speculations.

Not that I'd class myself as a mathematician by any stretch, but the only time I use mental arithmetic is when I go shopping. Incidentally, we had a quiz recently at work, where one of the questions was to provide the sum of the numbers around a dart board. While others were sitting there jotting numbers down, I used Gauss's formula, which was arguably derived when he was 10... [math]\sum_{i=1}^{n} i = \frac {1}{2} n (n+1)[/math] So there are short cuts, which you can do in your head, here's the one I use when I go shopping... [math]shopping + me = stress \times 10 ^6[/math]

I'm glad you told me, there's people at work who use the comma notation, and I was on the verge of telling them to use standard decimal notation, which is now unjustified I'm surprised this hasn't resulted in some whopping financial errors, atleast I havn't heard of any.

Just wondered if there's a scientific term or maybe convention, that has really niggled anybody, and are sometimes unnecessary, but have been used regardless, because it's more hassle to start rewriting the terminolgy in text books, because they're now widely recognised. I guess demoting Pluto from planet status, is an example when this has been (arguably) rectified. Here's a couple of examples, off the top of my head... The direction of current, which is opposite to electron flow. EMF, electromotive force, which isn't a force. Anybody care to add to the list, and perhaps clear up some misnomers on the way ?

I agree, it's a cultural issue nothing more. A rise in gun crime in the UK, is due to a cultural shift, not a sudden availability in guns. People forget that guns are legal in other parts of the world e.g Switzerland, and don't have nearly the same problems as other countries. As for the OP, I think CDarwin pretty much nailed it.

Death

Esters bind to certain receptors, what's your point, and how does this relate to your hypothesis.

And neither does your argument, physics without math is like physics without observation or experiment, they are 'all' necessary. If you don't understand that, then unfortunately you don't understand physics. I've scanned through your hypothesis a couple of times, and stop dead, because you havn't provided any real quantities and how they relate. How are you supposed to express the dynamics of your idea without math, there simply is nothing to chew on. Yes, and all of them have been fruitless. Even Penrose who despite his odd ideas, had a crack at consciousness and it failed. Yet you think, for some strange reason, that you have more to add, by consolidating on other's ideas, and summarizing with a few diagrams. There's more to physics than that, and it's actually a lot harder than you'd like to think. So my suggestion to you, is go and do some math courses, please. Another point, you've been cherry picking quotes and methods (by methods i.e the qualitative argument of Darwin), to fit your idea, which is logically fallacious, so please don't do that. Pfft, please show how the two are related, as already stated, you're the one making the claim, so prove it already. Not with some, adhoc diagrams.

Apologies to Bookworm for going slightly off topic... Scientific argument wins again A couple of points you might need to consider though, if you do intend to put your argument across. I'm sure you're more of an expert than I am in this area, and you're probably joking, but... 1. the axolotl is in it's larval stage, which is a bit of a misnomer where they're concerned, because metamorphosis generally only happens when there's an environmental change. So if you drained the tank of water, you'll have a salamander, and despite your argument, this is no different to keeping a lizard i.e it has the potential to roam around. It's highly unlikely this will happen, but accidents do happen, and your Uni may see that as a risk. 2. remember what you're feeding it. Daphnia when they're young, which clearly isn't an issue, but we fed 'Henry' raw chicken heart, when he was fully grown. So you may have the risk of salmonella, plus keeping chicken guts in the freezer might be an issue with your fellow students. Other than that, there shouldn't be any problems. I feel very privileged for owning one when I was much younger, due to the uniqueness of axolotls, apart from the obvious, such as their physiology and the research they've brought about in stem cells, they also display netony i.e they can reproduce whilst still in their so-called larval stage. Good luck.

I used to own 9 giant african land snails, the last two died recently, but the shells do make rather attractive ornaments. I'm contemplating getting a lizard or snake, to occupy my huge, but redundant tank. Pets I've owned previously are rats, stick insects, and an axolotl (which are fascinating amphibians.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl Family pets, would be a number of cats and dogs over the years.

I think it's because they're emulating a condition, rather than some stereotype superhero, or some childhood ideal such as a princess. The dolls don't bother me, in the sense, this is outrageous...they bother me in that I found them rather amusing. Not because, 'hey, look at the funny doll', but because they're trying to integrate Downs children by making obvious differences to the dolls. Whether a Downs child or the parents aren't bothered by this, is actually irrelevant, it's still patronizing...'hmmm, I think this doll needs a bigger forehead.' Well I had regular contact with my friends uncle who had Downs Syndrome as I grew up, and my Mum was a teacher for the mentally handicapped for many years, so maybe this is a case of cultural humour clash...not sure, although I think I've made a pigs ear in getting my point across. I've had a lot on my plate recently Well, fair enough. Perhaps if I catch you on IRC in the near future, and I may have thought of a better way to articulate where I'm coming from with this, because I'm not sure how to further explain my point. I wasn't intending to make a big issue out of the dolls, because they're not, it's just that I can see a number of issues surrounding this method of trying to integrate, which I was trying to explore, but in a rather clumsy manner, it seems.

Well obviously that's what they're trying to do. Perhaps I didn't make my point clear. The idea backfires, because they've created 'stereotypical' Downs children dolls, which is just patronizing...this isn't some ideal they're trying to emulate like Barbie. It just reminded me of something you'd see on a satirical news programme, or perhaps something a media student would concoct for shock value. The fact it was aimed as a sincere gesture, makes it all the more twisted. I know perfectly well, that's not the intention, but I thought it was quite interesting. The dolls really are, incredibly tacky, and at $ 49.99, just seems to add to the insult.