Royston

Hi Martin, if you don't mind, I'm going to start another thread on this subject...it often keeps me up at night. I'll give it some thought this evening (over a bottle of wine) and hope I can start some discussion on this critical density, possible explantions for dark energy, and quantum goings on 'around' the planck scale. Although I'm nowhere near the level to understanding QG geometry, (so probably sticking my neck out) it would be good to throw a few ideas around (based on current cosmology...so extending on ideas, not completely speculating) and see if anyone else wants to join in. EDIT: sorry to TurricaN for going off topic.

The Planck length is just the smallest workable unit, so anything smaller I guess would be speculative. The Planck energy is equivalent to 10^19 Gev, so the Planck mass is not small per se, just indescribably dense. [math]M_{pl} = \sqrt\frac{hc}{2\pi G}[/math] The Planck mass is defined as above, note the gravitational constant, C (which is obviously also a constant) and the Planck constant are required. Not sure if this helps at all ? Just some extra info, the Planck time is just how long it takes light to travel the Planck length...so you can start to see how all these relationships tie in.

Hi Dave, which course are you studying, I've completed S103, S151 and I'm a couple of weeks into MST121.

I must say, considering the OP was so dire, there's been some very good points raised in this thread.

Elton John plotted the death of Princess Di so he could cash in on record sales...a number one no less, originally a homage to Marilyn Munroe. Apparently this was easier for Elton, than coming up with some original material.

Ummmm !?! A couple of good respones (Mokele and Carol), anymore ? Remember original and perhaps unique is the key here, just saying 'I turn my pc off at night' doesn't really cut it. So any ideas you've conjured up yourself would be great.

Yeah, I feel daft for posting it, my housemate was laughing at it, who sent me the link...I was more laughing at him laughing, rather than the actual animation ( I very rarely search for animations et.c on the net ) so embarrassingly that was the first time I saw it...

Sorry to Bascule for being off topic, but I find this a little ludicrous. AFAIK string theory dictates that the universe is not homogeneous (regarding translational invariance), i.e one co-ordinate is no more significant than another, background independent. So how can they qualify that claim ?

This stemmed from the fuel taxes thread in the politics forum, and a front page I was reading while waiting for a work colleague. Basically this is a think tank for waste reduction, I'll give you a couple of examples and the more bright ideas the better... In Italy, rather than chucking their wine bottles away it's possible to get refills at the off-license. In Greece, rather than buying olive oil in small expensive bottles, they take aluminum containers to the source (olive orchards.) Rather than throwing my plastic bags away (after shopping) I use them to wrap my sandwiches for work. There's plenty more I could think of, but you get the idea. So if you have any waste saving tips, please share them.

The problem is you can't treat an ecological problem purely through economics. It would be the equivalent of putting taxes on packaging and increasing tax on waste removal and using revenue for new land fill sites and research into biodegradebal packaging. Or you could encourage everybody to do their bit, and use current technology where you can i.e recycling, reduce the amount of packaging on products, biodegradebal packaging where it's possible, and think of ways of using your waste for other means...rather than just throwing it in the bin. Simply shifting revenue doesn't work due to the knock on effect in other areas, so it's up to everyone to use 'their' energy, and make a few sacrifices (doing their bit) to reduce the use of carbon based energy. Creating revenue by encouraging people to take these measures will also help, as long as that revenue is put into ways of reducing the use of fossil fuels e.g alternative eco-friendly fuels. I'm quite hot on this subject, as most of my working life I've heard comments such as...'you wouldn't catch me riding a bike to work'...'no-one else is making an effort, why should I' and 'I can't stand buses.' Pathetic really, when you think of the consequences.

Not sure if anyone's seen this, quite funny... http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/winrg.php

...and all valid points. I guess I didn't stress enough that these are just small measures that could make a difference, so when it 'is' viable for car pooling, subsidizing of public transport et.c then it should be put into effect, and such things would be within the discretion of the company i.e if you have special circumstances, then fine. The company I work for insist on car pooling (if you don't adhere, you have to find somewhere else to park), and sell subsidized public transport tickets. It's been very effective...and those who can, have taken advantage. I think one sweeping solution, i.e raising tax on fuel, and putting the money into whatever enviromentally friendly scheme will clearly effect other areas too much...just as shifting any current revenue made from fuel tax into offsetting carbon emissions et.c It's more 'everybody should get in on the act' (that is large companies and individuals) rather than, we're going to make a decision that will affect this group of people, and not this group whether you like it or not...there'd be too much outcry. If there's an attractive alternative, or the company you work for offers you a good alternative, then it should be taken. There should be at least some policy that ensures companies are taking measures to ensure fuel is not squandered on laziness et.c

If it was the only solution, then yes it would certainly be inferior. The tolls should be 'in' the City, not on main roads...that was my point, so it wouldn't affect long haul journeys, but would encourage people to use public transport rather than their car if they live just a few miles from work. I wouldn't know how expensive such a scheme would be, but the benefits once implemented, and the revenue gained (providing it goes into energy saving schemes) could be a plus, even if it's not a huge plus. As stated earlier, transport of food for example, shouldn't be effected as it would clearly have a knock on effect on the cost of living et.c It's the general public that need to be conscious of their energy use as well as large companies, and large companies have the means to influence the general public into good habits. An example would be subsidizing public transport through the company you work for, and maximizing the number of passengers in a vehicle if you do have to drive to work, university et.c They may seem small measures to take, but it certainly helps. I'm not sure how much profit oil companies make, but I guess it's a hell of a lot...correct me if I'm wrong. This may be ignorant on my part, but couldn't a restriction on profit margins on energy, and putting this money into energy saving schemes be another solution. It's probably a ridiculous idea, not sure. I wasn't able to access SFN yestarday, so I just wanted to reply to the above...sorry if these points have been covered.

Rather than taxing fuel and reducing tax in other areas, fuel companies should be forced (or at least persuaded) into offsetting carbon emissions. I know some companies are adopting this, but I think something more solid should be put in place. This would obviously mean a rise in fuel prices, but at least the money would be spent wisely. AFAIK, in the UK they're thinking of increasing the number of road tolls, this seems reasonable for people who have no choice but to travel great distances to work, it doesn't discriminate on the amount of fuel used. Also, as long as there's a good strategy on the location of road tolls, it could discourage people driving in the city, if they already live in or near the city. I'm not entirely sure where this extra road tax would be going...but it should go into offsetting carbon emissions or some other similar initiative, rather than leaking into some other unrelated government scheme.

Brought to you by 'Creation Science Facts'...just scroll to the top of the article. I'm not entirely sure what we're supposed to be discussing here, isn't it glaringly obvious that a creationist site will attempt to refute science (badly)...not exactly breaking news.

Currently just a pass, but I'm trying to be as methodical as possible, which takes time. Courses with exams start next year, (level 2) at the moment, I'm in the equivalent of my first year at uni.

I have two maths courses crossing over at the moment, but usually it's just the one. 5 hours would be a good day, I can't usually manage that more than a couple of times a week. Just finished one assignment, hence I'm on here having a break

On average I'd say 3 to 5, hours a day (more on weekends), and have a couple of days break during the week. As the courses are split into various disciplines, it would entirely depend how comfortable with a subject I am, and how much extra study that may require. Of course it doesn't always work like that, and right now I'm cramming in a load of work to finish an assignment. As a general rule though, I try to fit study in, to and from work on the bus, and go over what I read when I get home.

You made a generalization, nobody was implying you hated or disliked women. <cough> Look everyone, it's the funniest man in the world !

I'm currently studying the prerequisites you mentioned, I'm studying towards a degree part-time, and there's certainly truth in that statement...I've spent the entire day putting off a maths assignment What was the reason they gave for not taking physics ? Personally, a lack of interest in studying physics is really a good thing, it means more job opportunities if I pass. I'm not entirely sure why I asked the question to start with (I was more than a little drunk.) I'm well aware of the problem over here, some schools IIRC are dropping physics as a subject due to the huge lack of interest. I think what bothers me, is that I'm sure there's a hell of a lot of people out there who are fascinated by the big questions, but are not interested in the methods of tackling the big questions. For instance, you could use an analogy for gravity on the Planck scale, but throw a book of the geometry needed to explain it, and (me included) would run for dear life. I don't want to run for dear life when I see a mass of equations, I want to understand the language of maths, as much as I'm fascinated with the big questions...hence I decided to do a degree. In the UK, studying media is quite literally out of control, (lots of students, lack of job opportunities) it's mainly luck if you land a good job in the media sector anyway, and the amount of work is nothing compared to a scientific discipline. It just seems a worrying trend, and I hope there will be measures to nurture an interest in the sciences, because lets face it, you can't get a more fascinating subject than understanding nature.

Errr, I don't even remember writing that last night

This is just an observation based on the popularity of the physics forum on SFN and a few others which I'm not a member...but physics 'as an area of interest' is rife, however as an interest of study it's dwindling. I realize this isn't a good comparison to measure interest of a subject, but it's easy to take interest, but not participate. I see this as saddening, what do you guys think...there appears to be a popularity of interest, but a lack of anyone who really wants to put the work in. It is (without a shadow of a doubt) a 'hard' subject, but the fact there is still scope for discovery is a very appealing aspect of physics, as much as it is refined there is still scope for new ideas, but this requires a huge amount of work to be tangible and compliant. For me, the fundamental principles of physics will still invite new ideas...obviously, but the growing number of people that would rather sit by the wayside is worrying...not sure, is there any substance in this viewpoint ?

This should answer your question... http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22919&highlight=LHC+blackholes

I'm sure there's more examples, but the hydra reproduces itself and is a hermaphrodite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_(genus)

Glad to hear it, thanks for the link Martin, I'll have a read this evening. One of the reasons I don't subscribe. I must admit, I'm wary of most scientific journalism. I cross reference when I can (on here mainly) if I find an article of interest, it's always good to get a second opinion.