Royston

I just found this article, although from a research POV the UK is probably to be avoided, it looks as though the government are waking up to education of the sciences in the UK... http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2246245,00.html from the article... It's certainly good news that science education is being encouraged, but not a good strategy for the UK's future in physics...there may be an increase in better teaching, and results et.c in the field, but with the lack of research funding, there's no incentive for young physicists who have received an improved standard of education to stay in the UK.

Unless you're simplifying galaxies as point particles, you realize expansion doesn't happen between particles ? The other problem I see with this, is that the acceleration observed isn't synonymous with the acceleration felt on bodies, you can't think of distant galaxies hurtling away from each other FTL, it's just the distant between is accelerating...from the frame of reference of a distant galaxy, they're not hurtling away anywhere.

From that list, Princeton, plus I really like the idea behind the new Princeton Centre for Theoretical Physics... http://www.pctp.princeton.edu/pctp/ http://www.pctp.princeton.edu/pctp/PCTPintroduction.htm

Researchers have discovered the use of deep brain stimulation can cause a boost in memory. Please take a look at the BBC article below... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7213972.stm From the BBC article;

Although my course books catered for everything I needed, I used Wolfram and just wordpad to build a more extensive list, that way you can add notes and compare identities and formulas, plus you can create a reference sheet exactly how you want it.

My bad, FYI the Maxwell equations set a limit on the speed of light, hence Einsteins interest. It was a controversial subject at the time. IIRC even Planck didn't believe in atoms. You've asked good questions, but they've been asked before ten fold, that's all.

No, this is where GR fails, when you approach high energy and compact regions of space-time (the interior of black holes) the maths run into infinities...or indefinites. I'm not qualified to explain it mathematically, but a singularity is a mathematical term, nothing more. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28271&page=2 see post 23 for a good explanation The Maxwell equations which lead to relativity (amongst other things) are continuous, i.e they are field equations that are not built on quanta, the field is infinitely divisible, QM rectifies this, hence relativity as iNow suggested is just an approximation of the true picture, or are you going to argue that discrete particles which have been observed do not exist ? (see bold) Look up QED, and agentchange please use the search function, all your recent questions have been covered more than a few times.

Just to clarify, (I'm sure 5614 knows this) but W & Z bosons are not massless, approximately 80 Gev/c2 and 91 GeV/c2 respectively. Unlike the photon (and graviton if it exists) which are massless, and giving EM and gravity fields infinite range, the bosons range is limited due to their large mass. The gluon, although massless doesn't have an inverse square equation describing it's force. IIRC there are two types of W boson, which both have charge W+ W-, and one is the antiparticle of the other, the Z boson has no charge and so it's antiparticle is the Z boson, similar to the photon's antiparticle being the photon (they're their own antiparticle.)

Interesting the two examples of lying involve children...should patients be treated as children i.e take this magical pill, and you'll feel better in a few days. It's not always relevant, but in the context of somebody being aware of their own health (fake pills paint a false picture), and the trust a patient should have with their G.P for the sake of the profession, it's respectively unethical and damaging. So you've just reinforced that a placebo works better than knowing it's possibly a placebo. Also, there must be a reason why you buy cough medicine, over knowing it doesn't do anything e.g 'it's better than nothing'...that's a question by the way. It's ethical for you to practice the treatment on yourself (cough medicine) but I agree there's no real way of testing whether it's beneficial...it's certainly unethical for the pharmaceutical companies to be selling cough medicine, for obvious reasons. Though I may of misunderstood your point.

There's no reason why infinite volume and infinite matter necessitates infinite variation. I'm sure somebody brought this up in another thread, and I agree.

You've missed my point, and you've already said it yourself, the universe isn't expanding into anything, therefore there is no outer system to say the big bang started at any particular point...you can't create a set of coordinates when there is no point for the position of the universe to be relative against. Does that make more sense ?

Relative to any point you care to pick...the universe is isotropic.

Can you see that these are two contradictory statements. You can't derive a position for the big bang, when there is no coordinate system to place it. Even for arguments sake you did create a coordinate system for the universe to be in (which would contradict your first statement) what would that coordinate system be in, and the one after that, ad infinitum ?

But as Klaynos said, it's the rate of expansion that exceeds C, this isn't to do with the mass of space, being akin to massless particles (photons, gluons et.c) and so having a limit C. Without even going through the math, some of the neighbouring galaxies are receeding (some are approaching due to gravity taking hold...but anyway) just below C, the further away a galaxy is, the faster the recession speed, also given the fact the expansion has been accelerating, then it stands to reason the expansion is FTL.

I voted true for the same reason DrP gave. However what I want it to be is finite (positive curvature) so [math]\Omega >1[/math], only because I don't like the idea of infinite matter et.c

The darkest material, made from carbon nanotubes has been made in a US lab...according to researchers it's 'the closest thing yet to the ideal black material, which absorbs light perfectly at all angles and over all wavelengths.' Please see the BBC article below... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7190107.stm From the article...

An antineutron consists of antiquarks, so yes.

I'm not sure what you mean by allergic asthma in general, you don't get different sorts at a genetic level AFAIK, different substances, environmental changes may trigger an attack, but that's down to the individual. It's very hard to pin down what causes an attack in many cases i.e the specific foreign bodies that prompt the immune system to respond, and it can be different from person to person. Remember the gene defect is a recent discovery, and so most of the articles on the web won't include this, so you mean the types allergic, intrinsic, exercise induced, nocturnal, occupational and steroid-resistant asthma. I'll look into it. It could be a lumping of symptons i.e I have no idea why contact dermatisis is classed as excema...maybe a reclassification is in order since discovering the gene defect. Where have you provided four suspect causes that vaccinations increase the likelihood of asthma. Illness itself 'messes' with the immune system, the use of anti-bacterial cleaners, and the rise in hygiene will mess with the immune system, the use of medication and education of asthma, reduces the risk of death through asthma...therefore keeping the faulty gene in the population, so it boils down to evidence. Ok, but you see from my examples above why evidence is tantamount before pointing the finger at a certain cause. You're misrepresenting what I said...again, remember this is within context of conclusions meeting the public eye. If a Mum, however intelligent she may be makes her case to a newspaper without the scientific rigour backing her case, then she has no right swaying opinion, until there have been significant medical trials confirming her case...that is where the expert comes in. I'm not saying making assertions are stupid, (everybody uses them on a daily basis) just that they should not sway opinion until they're backed up with evidence. Ok, I see where you're coming from, and I agree. I see no harm in alternative medicine being submitted to blind trials, and exploring why certain methods appear to work, and it's a shame there is this polarization. It would certainly filter the bunk from the genuine, though obviously some alternative approaches are more daft than others, and probably why most alternative approaches are all lumped into the same category i.e it's equally ludicrous until proven...which obviously isn't the case. Do you mind if I ask what type of treatment you received...and again I agree, (that the local MD's should of considered looking into it...though what reason did they give.) I don't see any harm in testing alternatives, but I personally need evidence that it is indeed that alternative that has provided positive results, and not some other factor that was overlooked. Yeah, I'd like to know that too.

Right, that kind of makes sense, unfortunately I won't be covering the maths for another couple of years, so I can't really appreciate precisely what's going on. So a change in speed would be down to the refractive index in that case ? Due to the frame rotating, and therefore accelerating...I could just look up the Sagnac effect, thanks for the response.

You've just inspired my next ebay purchase. I like your stuff Gilded, is there a Jean Michel Jarre influence there, or someone similar from the same era ?

I was going through some questions on my latest course this morning, and when answering a question on angular velocity, I was wondering how angular velocity applies to light. If light follows a curve, how do you account for the constant speed without any acceleration? Is this just a case of mixing classical mechanics with relativity, and the equation for angular velocity just isn't applicable...can somebody explain how this is accounted for ?

I've been experimenting with synths since the age of 9, and have played the guitar for roughly 18 years...unlike YT, I'm quite serious about my guitar playing, and shred till my fingers bleed. I've had various projects / studio equipment over the years, had one release many years ago (only available on vinyl...sounds very dated now), and have performed at various clubs and pubs...but it's mainly just a hobby.

Absolutely, but you need evidence to prove that is indeed the cause, until there is evidence, it doesn't limit the problem to that particular cause over any others. Asthma / Eczema (the same genetic defect) is a genetic disorder (I have it myself), which means the body doesn't produce enough of the protein filaggrin, very basically a lack of this protein means substances can easily enter the skin / lungs and prompts the immune system to attack i.e irritants such as histamine to the skin. If the immune system wasn't healthy, this simply wouldn't happen. This is the immune system doing it's job, it shouldn't be confused with autoimmune response, which is a defect with the immune system itself i.e it attacks cells the body needs. It's flawed reasoning because the only commonality is the term 'immune system', which means next to nothing. You need evidence to back this up, without it you're guilty of the same shoddy conclusions that tabloids love to flaunt...for the reasons I brought up earlier. Yes it is, you need to 'prove' how they're related...not just matching terms. Again, you need to prove that the two are connected, otherwise you could risk the health of people that would normally be protected by vaccinations...if there is irrefutable evidence of a connection, fine, tell the newspapers, otherwise it should be away from the public eye. I said nothing of the sort...I would take the advice of a doctor over somebody who has had no medical experience, and is basing their claim on an assertion and nothing more, or is that unreasonable ? However I see Swansont, has already explained the distinction.

I'm not disputing that. Mitigate symptoms...i.e the placebo effect. But, like I said, *we need more information on what conditions are being treated with placebo...considering the common cold, and flu are so...common, I was guessing that theses are the main contenders that were being treated with a placebo. But you just said that a placebo could mitigate symptoms...and I agree, if a person is convinced that the condition is lessening, whether the condition is lessening or not, it's the psychological impact on how ill they feel. If that's alleviated they think they're feeling better, and go back to work sooner et.c a cold could be made a lot worse if that person thinks it's worse than it is. It's unethical, as I've said before, because it's lying...it's that simple. *Ah, Blike already raised that point.

That doesn't answer the question...the short answer is, there's no such thing as Newtonian absolute time.