Royston

I really don't regard the rise in gun related crimes in the UK as a 'gun' culture, but more a shift in 'gang' culture i.e guns have become more readily available, but that doesn't mean it's comparable to the culture in the States...e.g licensing of guns et.c I agree with The Tree, the type of violence we have in the UK is hooliganism, pub brawls et.c and yes there are much better and alternative methods of protection for the police rather than resorting to guns (off the top of my head) bean bag guns et.c that is to incapacitate but not kill, whether the assailant is armed or not. Hostage situations are clearly different, but they are very few and far between in the UK, as in most countries. Tackling such a problem from the source is difficult...preventing gun export is virtually impossible, you can take measures but it's about as easy as preventing drugs coming into the country. There needs to be change on a social level, but personally I wouldn't have a clue how to go about this, (I'd be a politician if I did) but this is where the problem lies IMO. So I personally don't see the police as 'packing heat' as a solution at all, in fact it would probably incite even more violence, with regards to the situation in the UK at present.

That's because gravity is a description of the geometry of space itself, as I'm sure you're aware. So an object follows the curvature of space due to a large mass (such as the earth) and gains kinetic energy...due to mass. You can't have one without the other, whatever scenario you care to pick. So the object falls to earth, it's energy is displaced through sound and heat, and is at rest (earths reference) then you pick the object up, it gains potential energy due to gravity, you drop the object, it gains kinetic energy and so on and so forth...I fail to see the problem here, and this is in simplistic terms. I've read your energy explained, a number of times...and you've stated nothing new, it's just a spiel on energy exchange, photosynthesis et.c why don't you just start with the rules of thermodynamics and be done with it. Then you get to this part... I'm sorry Farsight, but using an analogy to describe this 'spring' doesn't cut it...and why is the universe cylindrical, do you have any geometry to back this up. Nobody can comment on these ideas unless we have some maths to work with, and then compare your spring idea with accepted principles and geometry. How can anyone give you any meaningful input, if all you provide are rather wishy washy explanations. Give us some maths, and then some of us may take you more seriously, until then, all you seem to have, is a rather hokey interpretation of energy. That's all I can say on the matter...and I'm certainly not going to keep coming back, like poor Edtharan has. Give us something to chew on.

Gotcha, and that makes the statement even more ridiculous !

I know what you mean...it's like saying you can't hold an electron in your hand, well no surprises there. In a sense you do hold energy in your hand...due to black body radiation, your hand is constantly emitting and absorbing radiation, and retains (approximately) a constant temperature...but obviously you can't physically hold something that behaves in such a way. So it's just a daft statement.

You're not expanding, that's why you're getting the incorrect result. You are familiar with expanding and the inverse...factorising ?

Well, this is a first...I had a pair of used knickers posted to me yestarday. Just thought I'd share that with you all...and that anyone who did do something special yestarday, had a slightly more romantic encounter than mine

In some instances, yes, it is jumping on the bandwagon (from anyone who appears to have very limited mathematical or physics knowledge.) I've admittedly stated my opinion on string theory, pretty much for the same reasons Klaynos stated. For some of us (speaking for myself), who are in the middle of a degree and who do outside reading, it's more a case of direction. Although I find string theory as fascinating as any other theory, my position is that I need to know what is worth spending my time on with regards to background reading et.c. Any mathematical models that have been developed through string theory, that are useful elsewhere can be tackled when needed, but I'm not going to start treating string theory as an all encompassing idea (which is the problem I personally have with it) when treated as such, it fails to agree with some pretty fundamental principles. I'm sure there's some incredibly useful formalisms that can be applied elsewhere, and this is how I personally view string theory. So yes, it is a bit rich stating an opinion on a theory that you have very limited knowledge on, but I think this rises from confusion as to why it's persued as a possible 'answer to everything.' Personally, I'm taking a back seat with cutting edge physics, because I'm more interested in getting my maths up to speed, so it'll be several years before I can state any meaningful opinion on this kind of subject. (So basically take or leave what I said, it's just how I feel about string theory at present.) EDIT: Just to add (with regards to the first paragraph) I wasn't implying that Klaynos had limited knowledge...because that's clearly not the case. Sorry, it was rather clumsy writing.

Think of gravity this way. Take a large object, such as a star and imagine the space around it curving towards that large object, because this is the effect mass has on gravity. Now imagine shining an incredibly powerful torch on the star (a great distance away),..now because the space in which you're shining the torch towards is curved, then the light will curve with the space in which it's travelling through. Light only has that path to follow, because the space in which the light is travelling is curved. Sorry if that came across a little simplistic, but it should give you an idea of gravity according to GR.

Well, I don't think it's a big deal...kids will come across porn et.c with or without the guidance of their parents, and will most likely have no adverse effects when they grow up. From your earlier posts it seemed as though you were implying that the entire spectrum of violence and porn should be acceptable for children to be exposed to...but it seems you don't think that, or maybe you weren't clear on what level of violence et.c is acceptable. TBH I watched horror films, martial art films, and read...sorry looked at porn at an early age. I have know a couple of friends where it did mess them up as a kid...one turned out to be a raging perv (he wasn't prior to porn exposure), and the other threw tantrums before going to bed because he was petrified of falling asleep (this went on for a couple of years.) EDIT: Although I've always been a firm believer that if a child does grow up to be violent or peverted, then they probably would of been anyway, regardless of what films they watched at a younger age. Kids are obviously vulnerable, and easily persuaded and influenced...I guess I just wasn't clear on your position, plus I was in a rotten mood yestarday.

Exposure to something a child doesn't understand, and explaining what the child is being exposed to are obviously different. You were inferring that it seems bizarre that there should be 'hang ups' about the content a child is exposed to. Don't you think that a child might ask about what they're being exposed to ? Stick to the context of the thread. No, and there is no end to a child's questions, but consider these two examples...(and excuse the crudeness) Two people meet, they chat over a glass of wine, and then hand in hand they go to a bedroom and have sex. Two people meet, they chat over a glass of wine, and then hand in hand they go to a bedroom and one beats the other over the head with a dildo, while the other screams 'oh God, I love curtains' This is the difference between sex education, and social education...one is quite simple, the other requires a lot of explanation. Ancient man, and a child brought up in present influences are hardly comparable. How do you think 'early humans' would react around the influences modern culture dictates. You seem to be ignoring the fact that parents have to explain what the child is being exposed to. That's hardly abnormal and wrong, but if you don't normally walk around naked...then it is, in your kids eyes, but it's not dirty, just different. So you would be in a position to explain this difference to your children. Now try explaining the difference if you were walking around in a gimp mask, with a carrot nestled between your thighs. Now you 'could' explain it in the same fashion that you explained 'why you walked around naked', but don't you think some other questions will be raised by your kids...i.e what's the purpose of the carrot, and why is my friends Dad not walking around with a carrot between his thighs. Complex is a good answer, for all the reasons I've stated above, and violence can be complex...but not for the same reasons sex is a complex. I don't recall you saying sex 'crimes', but sex related problems are rife in the UK, hence council housing for single mothers is such a problem.

Within reason...yes. You've made blanket associations with sex and violence i.e you believe (as in we...whoever you're referring to) that all sex scenes are considered dirty, and all levels of violence are ok...hilarious. Who is this 'we' ? Simply because, violence is a lot less complex when it comes moral ground than sex...you cause suffering to somebody, so violence equates to 'bad'. Now explain the moral ground when a child is exposed to sex...it's all very well questioning pornographic exposure to a child, but you haven't even addressed why it would cause problems. Your child can't 'handle' porn, because the issues around sex are far more complex than violence. In fact violence merges into porn, so explain that to your kids. Children won't understand sexual desires, because they are yet to feel sexual desires...so how can they possibly understand it. Violence OTOH, is a lot easier to explain . So we condition kids to be resilient to 'all' violence and 'all' sexual practices...lol. Kids want to play and have the space to fulfill their curiosity, and not have their curiosity fulfilled and handed on a plate. Remember, 'you' still have to explain what is being exposed to them...I think in many examples, this would be decidedly hard, don't you think. Yeah, because kids don't question why they're born until they hit 15...pleeeease, there's a difference to explaining the birds and the bees, and exposing your child to porn. That's just plain BS., and yes...you're out on a limb.

You can 'believe' whatever you like, everything Klaynos has stated is within cosmological principles. I don't think it's necessary to state how fundamental a principle of cosmology is, look it up, and then come back. EDIT: I've just written a massive spiel about backing up your argument...but look at 'so you think you have a new theory.'

(quotation removed by Pangloss) Again. read up on relativity and while you're at it, read up on the scientific method because both of these you seem to have no incling about whatsoever...and there's no need for insults. Oh dear...but you're correct on one thing, there's no such thing as 'beariers.'

Doh, I've had a white russian, (some time ago...one of those nights where you go through half the menu at a cocktail bar) but I'm sure it had coffee liquor as an ingredient as well. Should of figured it was milk and vodka, considering the colour. I recommend it, and I agree...you never know what you might like until you try it. I guess some combinations just sound too foul to even be considered.

I remember playing cards with some friends...long time ago, where we had to perform a task if we lost. One of these was to place a spoonful of coffee, and a spoonful of sugar in your mouth, and then swill it around with some hot water and swallow. It was such a long time ago, I can't even remember if it was me, or one of my mates that had to do this. The Tree, I know what you mean about milk as a perfect accompaniment to some drinks and just a big no no for others. A very dangerous drink is a brown cow...kaluha and milk, that tastes just like a choclate milk shake, not sure if anyone's tried a brown cow. Vodka and milk, yeargh...I can safely say I have no intention of indulging in that, ever. As for coffee, I'm equally partial to a black with no sugar or an espresso, as a milk and sugar, mocha or latte. Black coffee in the morning really does the trick. I try not to drink too much (especially at work) because it has the tendency to give me a very short fuse.

Well I think people were expressing their personal taste, rather than having a dig at an entire culture...I'm wondering if 'the no milk' tea drinkers have even tried tea with milk. Indeed...I always thought I had 'a cast iron stomach' but for some reason, black tea with no milk makes me feel sick, and I've had green tea and no ill effects. Hence I asked the question. Anyway, thanks for the input all

Dehmelt et al, managed to isolate an electron back in 1973...here's a link that should help explain it. http://www.washington.edu/research/pathbreakers/1973c.html

LOL, same here (red wine drinker) in fact I love the stuff, so I'm wondering if it was in fact tannin that made me feel nauseas. I might give the no milk option another go, and plot a graph...tea dilution Y, nausea X, then I can determine my wuss factor.

So are you like, tannin tolerant, or am I just a wuss ?

Have you tried it...my friends ex who was from Canada, used to rave about Orange Pekoe, which is a black tea. We tried it and realized it was the same as the popular teas you get in Britain, obviously served with milk. I prefer my tea with milk and no sugar but I hasten to add that I have never used the nauseating phrase 'I'm sweet enough as it is.'

It would be irrelevant which way round you're deriving one unit with the other i.e seconds into kilograms and vice versa. They would be equivalent...but as already stated, a second isn't a natural unit. EDIT: I'm going out with some friends tonight, but I'll start the thread as mentioned earlier over the weekend.

Awesome, I guess you could probably buy them over here somewhere...funnily enough you'd think the UK would be 'the' tea drinking nation, but Iraq is number one, infact Ireland drink more tea than us lot. Just thought I'd throw in some random tea facts.

Cheers ! I'm going to look up on Tannin content, IIRC this was mentioned on a wine thread I started too.

I'm sure most of you guys have heard that the IPCC have released the first of four reports on climate change (six year study.) The lights of the Eiffel tower were switched off for five minutes to mark the occasion. In the UK, climate change due to anthropegenic sources, will now be included in the curriculum as compulsory. It's just a matter of the world leaders enforcing measures to tackle the problem of carbon emissions...I'm hoping over this year that the global warming issue will come to a head, and finally, something will be done. Please take a look at the BBC article below... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm Sorry if this is a little off topic...not specifically global dimming, but an important step nevertheless.

When I was travelling, the majority of tea I drank was served with no milk...so when I got back I tried drinking tea (in the UK) without milk, popular tea e.g PG tips. Now I guess you have to dilute regular tea due to it's strength, because the few times I tried this, I wanted to throw up...in fact I did once. So what's the difference in tea that needs to be diluted with milk, with weaker teas. What constitutes the strength of tea...obviously it's not just more caffeine, otherwise I'd chunder if I drank a red bull. Any ideas ?