Royston

Unless you ask an individual, you can't start applying logic i.e I could come to the conclusion that blasphemy is used so casually nowadays that I'd be hard pressed to find somebody who is insulted by blasphemy. How many times do you hear 'Oh my God' on television, infact I remember counting the number of times I heard that phrase when I was in the States...it was a lot. Now uttering a blasphemous term should be more insulting than some word that has no logical route to why it's insulting. Using 'oh my God' in front of a devout Christian should be profoundly insulting, you're using the creator of 'all that is', the foundation of that persons belief, in some throw away, diminished term because you're late for work (as an example.) Yet that term is used so readily that many have been desensitized to it's use. So why is that more acceptable than using a word that describes a part of the female anatomy...well it isn't, and unless you ask the individual what words they deem more insulting over the next, you just can't tell. Do you think you'll get a logical answer, probably not. Social stigmas, views shaped by upbringing, and even personal preference over certain words are not quantifiable, so it's a lot better to assume that certain words are better left out of the conversation until you're clear what that individual finds insulting. I realize this is all incredibly obvious but it helps answer your question... Why should I have to teach my children illogical conclusions of our language? Some words have been preserved for their vehemance, and severity to be used for certain situations (that's logical) however due to subjectivity each individual finds some words more insulting than others. Analysing these words deems that logically they are no more insulting / dirty than that words' counterpart e.g sh*g is no more 'dirty' than f*ck. Unless you know the individuals preference or hierachy of what they find insulting, it's impossible to assume what profanity is appropriate. Whether the word loses meaning when you delve into it's past, the word has 'gained' meaning over time...and it's the current definition that we should be concerned with, as that's how it will be percieved by said individual. Of course the reverse can be applied, in that some words which are logically insulting, have 'lost' meaning over time, due to overuse. Umm, I gave it a crack, I guess the short answer is...people aren't logical, so why expect a logical answer.

Well yes, I think you missed my point. I could provide an entire list of observations that have been made, and stick them next to each other...but what precisely would that achieve. The 'universe expanding' was just an example that you need to take it further than just stating something that's been observed. A simple example, gravity attracts, dark energy repels so by your reasoning they must be intrinsically tied, but just placing these two observations next to each other, doesn't explain the relationship between the two. How does one behave with respect to the other?

Providing the child knows when certain words are appropriate there shouldn't be a problem, however the child will be faced with new situations as they grow up...situations where they may not be able to gauge what language is appropriate. This could obviously get them into trouble, and could be embarrassing for the parent. Whether you think one word being more offensive than another is daft, is really beside the point, swear words do have a function, and can be very effective in the right situation, a child needs to learn this by observing, not implementing. As already stated, there will always be taboo words, surely it's easier that the child is taught to refrain from using offensive language until they have enough experience to know when certain words are appropriate, which only comes with experience. I certainly don't think everybody is going to go crazy if taboo words were suddenly inoffensive, but as soon as that happens, people will look for words that are offensive...it's not so much as we need these words, but we can't help but have a hierarchy of obscenities.

If that was the case, my post would of started with 'Sisyphus made a good point here <insert link>' I agree, if it wasn't for the f word, then there would be a g word, or an h word et.c I've emphasized 'usually', because the hypotheticals were lacking context...e.g my third example, could quite easily be one guy has just found out the other guy has slept with his wife...I cetainly wouldn't expect some witty retort if that was the case, and a flood of profanities would be perfectly acceptable. There's also more to wit than just words...reading a situation, and timing are also very important, and in some instances, a swear word is perfectly apt depending on how and when it's used, and which word is used. So although there maybe a lack of imagination if a swear word is used, to use a swear word effectively without looking like a moron, requires a level of skill. That reminds me of a particular scene in 'Withnail and I'...if it wasn't for a certain word used when Monty wanders into the 'boys' bedroom, the scene would of lost all impact.

A majority of people on my course have recommended 'Countdown to Mathematics vols 1-2' by Lynne Graham and David Sargent, it starts from the very basics, so I've been told.

'There's no pleasing some people' Jesus

It's a northern constellation (I'd never heard of it either), why it's at the centre of the universe is another matter.

How did you come to that conclusion ? Nobody has said you're wrong, because they're just statements and nothing more. I could start a thread making the statement 'the expansion of the universe is accelerating'...and ? Just placing observations next to each other with your STEP example is also meaningless. Now, if you had equations for each variable, as above 'Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Expanding and Losing Pressure' and you could demonstrate a mathematical relationship between these variables (that agrees with cosmological data), that would be something...but so far (not meaning to sound rude) you havn't demonstrated anything.

Overlooking the origins of certain swear words, I feel the fact that certain words are insulting should be preserved. It's a good measure of the level of conviction you wish to put across in certain situations e.g You've really ticked me off today...moderate annoyance. My God you've p*ssed me off...quite angry, situation needs reconciling. For f*cks sake, have you any f*cking idea how p*ssed off I am, you really have no f*cking clue do you, you utter *!#@ ....run away for dear life, leave this person alone for a few days. TBH, although swearing when analyzed becomes meaningless, having certain words as taboo in certain situations is exactly what you need. If you know the word is insulting, then it's an ideal way to express yourself quickly without some over convoluted insult, which would be needed if it wasn't for swear words. It's all very well saying 'well they're just words', but they are powerful words...why take that away. Although using swear words can be a cheap shot in many instances, I do believe they're a necessary evil, and should not fade into obscurity and lose their vehemance. What else are you going to say when you stub your toe if 'arrrghh f*ck' has no conviction.

The cycle lanes where I live, simply stop if there's a junction or roundabout, to encourage people to get off and walk I guess, but obviously that rarely happens and you get the same problems as you stated. I've deleted, and rewritten four responses to that, so to stop the thread descending into smut... If you have laughter, anger et.c as displacement behaviours...what other displacement behaviours have been recognised ?

I was just advising you that if you've already started a thread, then there's no need to start another (whether you think it was an appropriate forum or not)...I was giving you advice, if that came across as rude, I apologize. I wouldn't worry about elements too much...remember the universe would have cooled quite sufficently before it was stable enough for hydrogen and helium to form, so elements wouldn't be transferred, as they wouldn't survive conditions approaching the planck scale. Which I presume is around the scale your 'universe from a black hole' hypothesis is concerned with. As already mentioned in this thread, and your other one I'd look up Lee Smolin, and Abhay Ashtekar and perhaps check out the following... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity#LQG_and_big_bang_singularity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bounce I realize it's wiki, but it's a start.

r617flynn, you've said almost exactly the same thing here...http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=341830&postcount=1 there's no need to start another thread, just because you've thought of an analogy.

Natural rubber (unsaturated hydrocarbon) is held together by London interactions when it's unstretched. If you stretch it, the tangled coils of rubber molecules begin to disentangle and straighten in the direction of the extension. The elasticity can be improved by a process called vulcanization...which was discovered (no surprises) by Charles Goodyear. The mixture was rubber, sulfur and lead oxide which he'd accidentally left on the stove. The sulfur reacts with the carbon double bonds C=C to form bridges between two carbon chains (rubber is a polymer). So when stretched, the chains can't be pulled apart, and return to their original shape. With vulcanization, rubber can be stretched over eight times it's original length...the more sulfur is added, the more rigid the rubber becomes. I presume it's rough, because the rubber molecules are tangled. This was covered in my chemistry module last year.

Ok, but I'm not sure that's relevant...as already mentioned, pain is subjective so whether that process is inherent in everybody, it doesn't mean that particular process is a gauge to understand the level of pain an individual is enduring. I don't think that would give a clear indication of how an individual becomes conditioned to stimulus. Sorry, I didn't make that clear, I had sadomasochism and similar practices in mind.

Another spin, has the fact you've analysed why 'The Office' is funny, make it less funny, for you personally (genuine question). An example, I guess, would be finding out the method behind a magic trick...if you understand the process behind it, it's no longer 'magic.'

But now the article 'is' funny

the tree, isn't that straight from wiki, and more to the point...how does that relate with giggling like an idiot

I'll look forward to it...and good luck ! Oh, and no, I don't receive astronomy and geophysics.

Here you go, for the definition part at least...(and it's not wiki ) http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Torsion.html EDIT: I'll leave it to you to understand the definition, as we're not allowed to directly answer homework questions.

Just wanted to share this article from Physicsweb... http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/20/6/4/1 Although the main focus is on the detection of gravitational waves, it also serves as a concise summary of some of the key successes in the field of physics, and future areas of research.

Oops I misread it as 'how did it start'...the trees' explanation is ample.

Well it's not a very straight forward question, but considering it's a 1st year high school question, then I'd say science started due to a desire to understand nature. So science started out of curiosity on how the world around us operates. This would of started from simple experiments such as, early man found that rubbing two rocks together created heat.

Well you find areas through 'definite' integration, but I wouldn't say that was the 'point' of integration, there are a number of uses e.g take motion, differentation can derive position, which leads to velocity and from velocity you can derive acceleration, integration is the reverse of this, so it's useful due to the data you have available. You can use differential equations to model a whole myriad of physical processes, from modelling radioactive decay to population models. See above

I can certainly identify with that, nearly all of what I feel are my better pieces have come from just shutting off and just playing, without really thinking about what I'm doing...just 'going with it', that sounds hoplessly vague, but it's very hard to describe. Perhaps they have a critical ear for production techniques That's very bizarre, do you have a link to this ?

I'm not sure that behaviour would be tolerated in our house...hence our beer exchange programme.