Royston

This is the second subject today that I've recently written essays about...Gutz, when I get back tonight, I'll give you a short basic order of events if that helps, starting from the planck era, and what forces became distinct as the universe evolved as well as the times quarks and leptons and then hadrons were created. Then you might see why certain masses of particles don't coincide with certain epochs.

Absolutely, the meteor theory does seem a bit of a cop out, with regards to life starting on Earth, but I think certain aspects can be whittled down a bit...such as the atmosphere on earth around that time. If very primitive life is found on other celestial bodies, then it would certainly give an indication of the conditions of Earth when life began. I think this is the only way forward...as you said, without knowing these conditions is rather pointless, life could probably be synthezied in a lab, but it wouldn't necessarily mean that's how it started on Earth e.g the Miller-Urey experiments seemed very promising at first, but have since been debunked.

Same, I wrote an essay on the subject just a few weeks ago...I'll get you some links when I get home tonight.

There is the theory that organisms could be trapped within meteroids, around the time of the bombardments Earth was subjected to around 4000 MA ago, but it's not a particularly popular theory...along with the 'spores in space' theory. I prefer the work looking at amino acids constructing complex structures within minerals (such as calcite) that could of kick started life. However they have detected amino acids in a number of meteroites that might not have been present on Earth before, (I think it was a meteroite found in Australia) so in that sense, we could be part extra terrestrial. Another scenario is that Earth was predominantly frozen and was thawed by the bombardments of comets and meteroids, and life started under the ice sheets, where convective currents from hot vents deep in the ocean (which are present today) prevented deep freezing, these cold waters preserved important compouds and so increasing the chances of life starting in liquid water...I think chemo-autotrophs were likely candidates. This is why Saturns satellite Enceladus, is an exciting prospect for basic forms of life. I'd be more inclined to say, we're not half extra terrestrial...but that's an unsubstantiated personal opinion.

Well the argument I wanted to get away from (I know you didn't bring it up) is that some noises are pleasing and some are not to the individual...so it's subjective. I'm trying to probe a little deeper into the cause of this subjectivity. If I purposely scratched my nails down a blackboard, A: I'm prepared for the noise, and B: as it's on purpose I'm doing it to annoy others, so in that sense I'm getting pleasure from that noise (if that was my intention.) If I went off to work to say, use a pneumatic drill, then clearly I already know and am prepared for the noise, especially as I'm causing it, so it would be irrational (if my original points are correct) to find it annoying. If the sound is irregular and at high volume (like the clanging), could be said to be equally annoying as somebody with their headphones on, which is quiet and regular...all you can hear are the high frequencies of a high hat. They are distracting for different reasons, but they needn't be distracting if my original points are considered. My point is, that to say one sound is more annoying than another is irrational, because it's only your preconceptions that hasn't made you prepared for a noise that makes it distracting, irritating...whatever. This is why, despite the irregularity of traffic noise, people talking et.c they appear to be, not as irritating as somebody clanging on the back of my seat. I have absolutely no reason to find that irritating, over anything else...but I did, and it's purely to do with sounds I'm expecting on the journey, and my preconceptions of the journey on the bus. So if you consider my 'dinner' argument, if I had no preconceptions, there would be nothing to get annoyed about. I want to know if this is true, or I'm just talking a load of pants, and it's far more complicated than that.

I would of done under normal circumstances...but I just can't figure out why I should be annoyed by one sound and not another. If somebody starts a conversation on the bus, I sometimes find myself concentrating on what they're saying and miss a whole page of what I'm reading, but I can't go up to them and say 'excuse me, you couldn't just finish that conversation when I'm off the bus, could you ?' In fact that doesn't annoy me in the slightest. Now the man making the clanging, is clearly not making the clanging sound to deliberatly put me off, so I have no reason to favour somebody talking, over that sound...or any other sound for that matter. Why are certain sounds, more irritating over others. I didn't presume he was being rude as such...I thought it was a little odd he didn't adjust whatever was making the clanging, to stop the noise, but again, unless he was doing it deliberatly, I can't favour another noise over the clanging. I know I waffled in this thread abit (we had a spare hour at work...so we could pretty much do as we pleased) and the last bit of the OP is just rubbish. But going by my original points, it would be completely irrational of me to tell him to stop the clanging, over anybody else making a noise.

I was on the bus to work this morning, reading my David Bohm book and thoroughly enjoying it. Roughly halfway through the journey, a guy with a large backpack and some other stuff sat behind me and the bus pulled away. I could then hear this loud clang on the back of my seat, like something large and metal was striking the seat...this clanging continued. I was about to turn around and suggest that he stopped the clanging, but then I realised it was my choice to read a book on the bus, and it was daft of me to make any preconceptions about not being disturbed in public. However, I just couldn't stop getting annoyed by this incessant clang. I was about to turn around again, and then I figured it was completely irrational for me to get annoyed by that sound and not any other given sound...why don't I get irritated by the sound of the bus, or a car going past, or somebody clearing their throat on the bus. So I tried to work out exactly why this was...at first it seemed analogous to making your loved one a surprise dinner. You're expecting them round as planned, you spend hours making a perfect meal, tidying the place et.c then they phone and say they're going to be late...so all your preconceptions of the meal go out the window, and you become annoyed, but the only reason you become annoyed is because you stupidly thought the meal was going to be perfect without a hitch...and that you put work into this blunder (which I want to discuss in a bit.) Just as I momentarily thought, cool, I'll get stuck into that book and I'm really looking forward to the chapter on language, it wasn't to be, so I became irritated, but it was my irrationality that was causing this. The other thing I thought, was that it was different to the other sounds I normally experience...I usually expect the sound of the bus, other traffic, and the odd cough and chit chat from other passengers. So I'm guessing it's probably a blend of those two things...which really, getting annoyed by either, is completely irrational. So why did I still get annoyed ? Going back to the work thing (as an afterthought) why is it, that you may of put a few weeks or months work into something and it ends up fruitless, or gets lost or something, that the first reaction is to get angry. There's plenty of times in the past where I've spent even up to a year on something (an art project springs to mind) and the tutors have lost it...but I'm not angry about that now, it's still a years worth of work lost, but I just can't help but feel indifferent about it. If the same thing happened in the present (whatever that might be) I'd be pretty p*ssed about it, that seems irrational as well.

I don't understand why it's just UV radiation, where's the source of this UV radiation...and if it's a 'gift' shouldn't it be a bit lower down in the spectrum, such as radio waves. Happy Birthday Mum, "Oh you shouldn't have darling", it's Gamma Radiation..."Oh God, my...my precious face!"

Cool, though it's only cheap in certain countries...Bolivia and Ecuador were very cheap, Peru was a little more expensive, and Chile even more so. It also depends if you're visiting popular tourist areas e.g Cuzco. If people and culture are your interest, then learning Spanish is a must...I didn't bother, and I regret it (just learning the very basics.) I went mainly for the archaeology though, so we started in Mexico where there's a wealth of ancient cities such as Teothuican, Chichen Itza et.c And went overland through Central America...Guatemala (home of Tikal), Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, Belize and Panama (not in that order.) This was a few years ago now...so check political climate, exchange rates that sort of thing. When we arrived in Lima, the president had decided to do a runner, and there were riots going on, and huge congregations in the main square...very exciting. I only passed through Bogota (the airport) but most people I spoke to said it was amazing...you will meet up with other travellers, and go off on adventures, and then meet up with other people, and go off somewhere else, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. Just find out where the popular hostels are...some of the best places we visited were from 'word of mouth' from other travellers, so it's best to find a popular hostel, and take it from there.

I'm agnostic, but I believe in the principles of cosmology, I also believe religion never intended on having an agenda. I believe we should accept other worldviews, and realise the fragmentation of society and cultures has caused misrepresentations of our beliefs. Cosmology has to account for the universe as a whole, until we understand the whole (the mind of God) then religion won't budge, so better to accept and understand our differences. <end of statement> 71 words Heh, why can't we all just...get along.

Russia is on the top of my list of places to visit, I'd like to exlpore Siberia as well. As for recommendations, I've travelled to Mexico, Central and South America, the South Pacific Islands (Easter Island, Tahiti et.c) Australia, New Zealand, Japan, in the states, Nevada and Arizona as well as western Europe. TBH they were all unique, and that is the joy of travelling...I strongly recommend Peru, Mexico (especially Mexico city) the Alps, Arizona and New Zealand. The best places I've visited are Tikal in Guatemala, and Machu Picchu in Peru, utterly amazing.

I'm slightly annoyed the book is so popular in Britain, but not at all surprised...we're not really considered a God fearing nation, the Church of England has been reasonable in it's interpretations of the Bible, and we have an incredibly diverse population...and Christianity has nowhere near the vigour it had say a couple of centuries ago. Dawkins, uses arguments such as 'evidence' to refute belief in God, he asserts his 'faith' in science, and so his arguments can be easily construed as science refuting God...unless the reader knows better. He is a jaded, fed up, scientist, who abuses his authority, to try and sway the layperson...and he's actually doing a good job, hence the book sales. I wish people would stop blaming 'religion' for problems, and start blaming 'people' for the problems in the world. There are plenty of examples where religion hasn't caused problems, as much as religion supposedly has caused problems. It's a completely fallacious argument to blame religion, when really it's the interpretations from groups and powerful individuals that cause the problem, and in some instances using their belief as an excuse to cause conflict. EDIT: Sorry for talking religion when the subject's been banned...wasn't sure how to put my point across without discussing it.

Hi Martin, what did you manage to talk about ?

There shouldn't be a problem, you can support aspects of an organisation, but if they screw up, or some of their methods are flawed, then it should be acknowledged. It would be the equivalent of me defending Dawkins views on religion (apologies for using that word) because he is a scientist, which is daft. I see it as a form of patriotism, supporting the ideal whatever methods are used. There are much better ways of getting a point across, than resorting to property terrorism et.c If you want somebody to listen to your opinion, then you have to gain respect, and vandalism is not going to get respect from anyone outside the organisation.

Same, the only time I viewed the frontpage was the first few times I came on here...I prefer going straight to the forum index.

Der...misread the article. sorry. I was thinking of electron-positron pairs for some reason, and the fact mesons was in the title makes it a double der.

When I first read this, the first thing that sprung to mind was QED, surely these findings will help quantify transient aspects of the electromagnetic force...maybe, I'm just going from first observations.

I've bookmarked this thread, because that sums up for me (at least) the point of the discussions on here. Very well put Pangloss, and that aim could be extended to all types of discussion. Distinctions can be made, but the qualm I have with any act of terrorism, is that it's forcing an ideal on an environment that can't possibly accomodate that ideal...there are acts of terrorism that are clearly more severe, but these acts never seem to appreciate the bigger picture, which irritates the hell out of me. Couldn't agree more.

That doesn't follow, the source of income is fish...the argument is if there's constraints on fishing, not if they're available or not. I never said you did. Oh please, you of all people should know that wouldn't work in today's economic climate, the food industry is huge, and people of certain geographic location can't grow 'bananas' as a source of income. Putting constraints on such things, and then asking people to give money, because 'we believe this animal suffers, but we have no proof of the level of suffering it's going through' so give money to the people that could thrive from this business, makes no sense. Which governments are you talking about exactly...perhaps Ecuador ? Cause, they're brimming with money to support everybody in the food industry...not. Heh, but I'd like to see IMM's argument on this...one more post and I'm done.

IMM, not particularly related to this statement, but it sparked a thought...where do you draw the line to what animal suffers the most, in comparison to somebody who is 'fishing' for example to raise and provide for their family. There are countless of people brought up in the fishing trade, who's only means to provide for their family is fishing....the Galapagos Island dispute is an example, but clearly a different scenario. Considering there is no way of gauging what a 'fish' goes through, when it's caught for food, but a family with no income clearly suffers. You can extend that to other animals, so where is the proof, and logical argument that draws a line on a certain species over the well being of a family ?

This is pretty much why I enjoy anime now and again, and the dialogue when translated to English is hilarious. I guess the unique style, and slick animation is another reason why it's so appealing...plus it's 'no holds barred' in it's content, so you have no idea what to expect next. I think Akira pretty much kick started anime to the west, and set the scene...however I'm more a fan of Miyazaki's work (Spirited Away..et.c) not really anime, but has aspects of the style and content. Not sure about the paedophilia side, but anime (along with the rapings) has spilled out onto live action...'Ichi the Killer' definitely rings of anime, definitely not for kids

Isn't that the chemical responsible for 'that loving feeling.' I think seratonin, is by far the most interesting...IMO of course.

Hang on, you can't say that and just leave it...what was the weirdest part of your night (albeit not in a dream.) Hmm, I feel like one of the followers in Life of Brian...go on Padren, tell us, tell us, what was the weirdest part of your night.

As some of you probably know, quantum gravity theory depends on background independant geometry and the idea that space is discrete, as opposed to continuous. So for observation purposes this means probing scales and energys of the planck order, which in particle accelerators is impossible. Even creating a mini black hole, AFAIK is nowhere near the energies required to witness space around the planck epoch of the universe. I listened to the interview Martin provided with Lee Smolin, and the subject was brought up in 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity' in that by studying gamma ray bursts, it's possible to probe such energies. This makes sense to a point, but surely all we can study / observe are the after effects of a gamma ray burst. How is it possible to probe into the initial energies of such phenomena...is it just studying the behaviour of photons released that paint a picture of incredibly high energy ? Please correct anything that I may have got wrong with the above, or if it's a misguided question. Also, is it just me or does Lee Smolin sound a little bit like Ed Witten when he talks...is this some sort of prerequisite for cleverness.

Absolutely, I'm not a fussy drinker...oh, I'm so uncooth. I do tend to go for the same wines now though, but as of late, there's been lots of social occasions...so beer and the now very popular Pimms and lemonade, great with cucumber ! I do like a good reserve, usually at christmas though. Yeah, I enjoyed that, thanks !