Royston

Heh, well I feel daft, though that was a late night (had a few ciders) post. Anyhooo, thanks all for the responses. Sadly, I now feel the urge to watch some trashy U.S broadcast, to further my research

That's out of context. As Pangloss already said, it's 'the lowest common denominator' of behaviour, it has nothing to do with democracy. Following the herd due to a 'passed on' behaviour that was spawned directly from the States, proves that point. If democracy had anything to do with it, then why was the influence of 'wooping' not inherited from Europe, or any other democratic region before America was founded...and remember I'm specifically asking why getting excited over, well, nothing is a trait that has passed, and developed from the States ?

Thanks all for the responses, I didn't realize it was such a recent phenomenon. My first thoughts, was that 'woo-ing' (actually woop is the right term) was just an onomatopoeia for excitement...and some facets of American culture meant this was transposed beyond times of excitement, to a whole manner of situations. A good example is a motivation technique I watched being used for sales reps. This particular example, was where the weekly meeting, once finished, employees and managers would get off their chairs and walk round in a circle wooping, and shouting 'yeah, come on, let's do this, woooo !' I can't remember what they were selling, I'm sure it was something like vacuum cleaners, or something equally mundane, which made me think why wooping is used in so many situations. Such as a lion playing with a ball EDIT: Bill Hicks is what stand-up should be like IMO.

This was something I was discussing with friends last night, and was prompted by the clip Sisyphus posted recently in GD. I realize this is hardly a new observation, and could possibly be regarded as a stereotype, but this isn't a 'I've noticed Americans do this', but 'what in American culture prompted this behaviour.' That is, a large number of individuals in an audience, on American chat shows, quiz shows, comedy programmes, feel it necessary to shout 'wooooo, yeah' over, well, pretty much anything. I remember this trend spread to the UK in the early 80's (maybe before), I specifically remember my Dad commenting on an audience 'woo-ing' on a game show, this was over 20 years ago, and blamed the influence of American TV, and more specifically American culture, as clapping was generally all you heard from an audience. When I was in the States, I remember my ex and I chuckling to ourselves whilst watching two lions in an enclosure. Some guy introduced a ball for the lions to play with, and all we could hear was 'yeah, dude...she's got a ball, she's totally got the ball, like yeah, wooooo.' I guess, I'd like to know where this huge excitement for the utterly mundane to the times when it is actually warranted came from, or if anyone can pinpoint what it is about American culture that would provoke 'woo-ing' at pretty much anything. I'm not in anyway trying to generalize, or implying 'everyone in America does this', because I'm sure that's not the case. It is however, a definite and obvious trend, that's noticable in audiences in a whole variety of events...and yes it has spread over the pond. Thoughts ? Incidentally, my friend told me that Bill Hicks covered this phenomenom when a woman was 'woo-ing' at almost everything he said, so I'll try and dig up some quotes if I can find any.

Whoever fixed it, thanks, SFN is now easier on the eyes...of course, depending on who's post I'm reading.

Meh, it just reminded me why I avoid nearly all American TV like the plague, the retarded din from the hecklers was annoying, the host was annoying, and the rest of the audience was annoying for cheering and woo-ing because the host called for 'f*cking security' I need a heavy dose of Jeremy Paxman. Hmm, just found this in Wiki... BBC America has recruited Paxman to start working on their main channel broadcast in the US in autumn 2007.[8][13] He is to introduce a synopsis of Newsnight items with an international aspect and is expected to bring his brash interviewing style to bear on US politicians.

Sounds very much like the Fecund Universe hypothesis, which has been discussed quite a bit on here IIRC, I'll try and find some links, but here's the Wiki entry for the time being... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes I remember when I was much younger, wondering if there were infinite universes, and ours was just one of the variations. For each universe there is a slight variation ad infinitum. So you could have a universe that had just one water molecule that was in a slightly different position, relative to our universe, then of course you would have a more extreme variation, where all the laws were completely different to our universe...then you could have variations on that universe, and so on, and so forth. Pretty unnecessary really, but it was certainly fun to think about. Sorry if that was slightly off topic, just reminiscing.

I certainly agree with that. Whereas some subjects in physics are inherently counter intuitive, you can't really blame the universe for that...it's tough if you don't understand it. There are some clear inconsistencies in language, which are obviously manmade, and are not really necessary. However until there is a reprise, or overhaul of the English language ( universally accepted changes ), then for the sake of good communication, it's better to stick to the accepted methods, rather than the students making that decision. Looks horrible though, don't you think ( the ellipses, that is ) e.g - exampli gratia etc - et cetera I was taught et.c - et cetera Blame my G.C.S.E English teacher for that, he used to go red in the face if he saw e.t.c, etc. I guess, and despite English could be refined to be more intuitive, without hampering the range or scope of the language, simply not looking up the correct use of English for an essay ( for example ), is also 'not bothering.' It just seems there's less excuses for poor English, when we have the internet, that is, you don't even need to go to your local library. Though I certainly agree using SMS/AOL is irritating.

Tsk tsk, no gold star for you Glider. *I started a thread on the latter (I'll post a link). Considering essays are all about communication, and the use of language should be as universally understood as possible, I feel a certain level should not be taken for granted at GCSE, let alone A-level. Maintaining a high standard will also prevent students getting into bad habits e.g using SMS shorthand...which makes me grind my teeth. Lowering the bar, even for trivial errors, doesn't make sense to me...if you make a small error in a mathematical equation, the result is wrong, so why not the same rigour with English. That may sound a little strict, or over the top, but it really isn't, especially when communication is needed at a professional level. Considering the entire wealth of online spell checkers, dictionaries et.c there's just no excuse. English should be improving with the extra tools available. Communication is obviously paramount in nearly any role after education. Correct use of language, should be at the top of the list of priority education. It appears recently, (well to me anyway) that this doesn't seem to be the case. Would you be inclined to extend that argument to other academic subjects ? *http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23925

Fred, you started with 'quantum information is mass-less', the thread went off on a tangent when you stated 'time doesn't exist', and now you're talking about the discrepancy (at least I think that's what you've brought up) between classical mechanics and QM. With the latter, you've just regurgitated in a (with all due respect) confused manner, the disparity between the two...so, as with some of your other threads, it just leaves (me at least) the reader thinking, 'ok, we know all this, so what precisely is your point...where is this going ?' There isn't anything to discuss here, I'm not meaning to be rude, but please start a thread with discussion points, not just statements. Apologies if that came across as backbench moderating (is that the right expression), I've just noticed this trend in many of your threads / posts i.e I'm giving you advice.

That's your conclusion ? It may have had a bit more weight, say, 90 years ago. Even then, don't you think the response would be 'well yeah, and....?'

Spores are released from the gills, which are found underneath the cap (the top of the mushroom.) It's possible something decomposed in a spiral shape, hence the mushrooms growing in a spiral. You need to give a little more information, i.e what country, and what colour are the gills (you'll need a magnifying glass), I'm guessing from your description they're mushrooms.

Never been called a snob before, but I have had comments such as...'oh, ok Mr Science', or 'you think too much', but I've never been labeled as pompous. I've had similar occasions (to yours Lockheed) with my folks when I was younger, but it's probably better to humour them, or just shrug it off... without really knowing what you were talking about, it's hard to gauge whether you were right in pointing out their errors i.e whether it was necessary. It's quite rewarding when a friend shouts "<insert real name here>, do you know anything about this...why does that happen ?" To which I shrug and start a new thread on here

What's your point ? What...the photon ? Considering there are billions upon billions of photons that don't go anywhere near somebodies eye, or Earth for that matter...why would you think this ? What's your argument here ?

See bold. Pop science will certainly not make you 'learn in more detail', if that's what you want to do. Hunt around for old text books, and look up and ask questions on problems you come across. I'm taking a break between courses, I could read Bohm, Smolin or Greene, but I've decided to read / study 'Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences' 2nd edition, which is a good bridge between what I've studied over the last two years and my next course. The point of pop science or any layman book, is that it's accessible, and lacking detail. If you're really serious about learning in more detail, start with an introductory book...Griffiths springs to mind, and get some applied math text books, so you can cross reference.

Ummm, I don't understand where this is going, or what this particular issue (above) has to do with your original statement...in your OP.

I've read 'India Daily' in the past, and I thought it was satire...at least the scientific content. The science articles are bordering on a parody of bad journalism. Perhaps 'India Daily' would be good practice. I am more interested in more reputable and influential sources such as the BBC, in fact they prompted me to start thinking seriously on how to start tackling the problem, after watching one of their documentaries. EDIT: Sure, I don't see any harm in getting in contact with India Daily, perhaps we could make a more general criticism of their articles, and give examples. What the response will be, I'm not entirely sure.

It depends on the documentary, there's no real difference between a 'news special', where they have an extended story on a particular topic, presenting different arguments et.c (we have these in the UK all the time), or a 'one off' documentary on current affairs be it, science related or not. However, I'll change journalism to 'reporting' if that makes more sense to anyone ? With any broadcast, be it a documentary series or a 'news special', if it's current i.e the topic and the broadcast itself, and they've made a serious error, then I can't see any problem with submitting that. Remember each example will be considered separately, so somebody submitting a clip of David Attenborough mispronouncing the Latin name for 'bush baby', seven years ago, is obviously trivial, dated, and not worth considering. A recent story that claims an experiment has defied general relativity, where the results have been misinterpreted by the reporter, would be a lot more relevant. An Inconvenient Truth, although the issue of climate change is certainly a current topic, the documentary is not. I'll make it more clear (on dbunked) that both need to be current, it's really a waste of time digging up old broadcasts and articles for a number of reasons. I'm thinking of advertising the site very shortly, and just remembered I've still got to get the headers and logos finished

Please see full BBC article here...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7044606.stm

...after listening to Simply Red. I always attributed the latter bands to the early 90's, probably because I was quite heavily into anything with distorted guitars when I was 14. The Ramones had been going for a couple of years before I was even born. Like YT said, emulator II or any sampling keyboards such as the w30 were quite big in the 80's. 'Top of the Pops' seemed to have a couple of DX7's in the basement, because a lot of the bands playing on the show, would have a DX7, despite not having one DX7 sound in their song...DX7's aren't sampling keyboards BTW. I can't stand early digital synths personally, and probably why I grit my teeth when I hear a lot of 80's music. Absolutely

I can't say I like an entire era (the 80's in this case) of music, some tunes I like, some I don't. Here's a few that may spark some memories...Nick Kershaw, Adam and the Ants, Boomtown Rats, Ultra Vox, Wham, Level 42, UB40. I was born in the summer of 76, so I grew up in the 80's...personally I'm glad they're over. Just to note, I'm not particularly a fan of any of these, but I remember listening to Nick Kershaw, and Adam and the Ants when I was younger. Simply Red, hmm, that would be a good description of the contents of my food blender, when I stick Mick Hucknall's stupid ginger head in it. I would rather staple my tongue to my kneecap, than listen to Simply Red. In short, I'm not a great fan of their work. No offense to you Fred.

Deleted

Energy can't be created or destroyed, not matter. As IA said, anti-matter certainly does exist. Take a look here... http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/

I had a similar problem to this last year, so that was just from memory...I found this, but this could be wrong as well. http://webphysics.davidson.edu/faculty/dmb/PY430/Friction/rolling.html Note that the friction can be in the direction of motion (rolling downhill) or opposite to it (rolling uphill). In pure rolling motion there is no sliding or slipping, thus the contact points have no relative motion (no relative velocity). This results in a frictional force of zero. Therefore, the wheel will roll forward with constant velocity, v = Rw, where R is the radius of the wheel. But yeah, friction is resistance so obviously it's an opposing force to the direction of motion, perhaps somebody can clarify on downhill motion.

Oops , sorry CDarwin...that makes a lot more sense.