Awesome, experimentation in the utilization of quantum entanglement as a tool. I'm thinking telecommunications/datalinking for realtime operations across vast distances. Pop a CD on here and listen to wireless speakers play it realtime on the Moon.

Definite defence industry prospects (guidence systems). You'll see more on this in the future, militaries will show interest and funding.

well, the whole thing about antimatter is it's such a relative term...


a particle-antiparticle pairing is just a different way of saying information string.
the term is a cat in a box.


In fact I think it might be fairly accurate to suggest modern science-journalism functions upon a science-mythology rather than the science itself.

people like Nietzsche are a tightly wound spring representing the end of the their age, that of the 19th century aristocratic anthropologist. The people who stole most of the world's historical artefacts and sold them to museums, their wacko ideas were popular because they justified colonization of lands already occupied, by basically declaring tribal groups subhuman, which was used for parliamentary legislation taking away all their common rights. So you could colonize and impose foreign government.
Everywhere from the Americas to Australia only happened because of it, otherwise any native who got legal representation would've been able to sue for compensation in the European courts of the time.
The reason they couldn't was because of the ideas of people like Nietzsche being held in high regard by people like parliamentarians.

But that day passed.

well, we pretty much figured out which different kinds of women there are by what their boobs are wearing.

does this answer your question? :D

Everybody knows Prince Charming exists, he lives in fairy land and slays dragons.
If you want something a little bit closer you'll have to settle for a fat old guy in a red suit who climbs down chimneys.

I think toddlers beauty contests in supermarkets takes the cake on creepy.

Hey bella, so what you're saying is she's really p*ssing you off.

So tell her not us, wtf?
You're the liar and the fool when you stay with someone who you don't like once you get to know them, which is another way of saying you don't like the way they treat you when you're together. That means you don't like them as a person. So why lie about it anymore?

Oxford I think it was, published a study recently whereby groups of men and women selected photos of the opposite sex they regarded as attractive, from a wide assortment representing broad local and international demographics, against a control body and without knowledge of the nature of the test. Measurements recording attraction included pupil dilation and other biophysical changes when viewing different photos. Ages were college age to middle aged.

The average results were that women found the majority of the broad, random selection of men unattractive, whilst men found the majority of the broad, random selection of women attractive.

Basically it suggests get a group of 100 men and 100 women randomly selected to go to a deserted island, you wind up with 10 very sexually satisfied men and 90 very angry ones, apparently that's just humanity for you.

love is caring, sex is wanting, the difference is obvious to everyone but the person rationalizing their feelings to get what they want in life.

counter-intuitively a guy looking at your boobs isn't often about sex, and a girl saying she loves you isn't often about love.
In either case, making either the primary focus of a relationship is about being on the same page.

Maybe don't specifically look for a relationship prospect but just for someone you don't mind hanging with a bit. The more you get along the better potential, but the best long term relationships tend to kind of sneak up on you, it never looks that good coming out of the gate.
What looks good coming out of the gate is almost always a con.

talk with brooklyn accents and pretend you're cops?

A theory (applicable mathematical solution you can correlate with other sciences) is when it shows testable results of reproducible experimentation, observation in nature and the findings survive peer review.
Hypotheses start from the opposite end. You assert and falsify.

You can start with a hypothesis and it winds up as a theorum, but more often theorum are discovered independently and hypotheses point the directions.


The important mathematical point about Hawking's hypothesis is that it fixes a core paradox with the only transmissible black hole solution, the Reissner-Nordstroem. It's the only one which actually relates to collapsed stars (the kerr and static solutions are too rudimentary to be likely as literal physical objects, they just took a crack at specific properties).

The problem wiht a real black hole is that if it matched the best model we've got for them, they have a paradox once you get to a certain mass, something like 15-solar masses.

The static field and event horizons cross.

That would mean you have a naked singularity ring roaming around the universe. It's about as realistic as a dragon.
It was always the major problem with the conventional black hole model, that's why string theorists came up with fuzzy stars and things like that.

Hawking's idea seems to try to cross the bridge between fuzzy stars and conventional solutions, most importantly it suggests the naked singularity paradox isn't a problem. That's important, tells us how close our math is to reality.

A buddhist philosophy is that any adult is utterly responsible for all which happens within their personal world.
Nobody else.

When you say 'beg to differ' I presume you mean that you refer to the published bibles as primary source documentation.
They are not. The publishers will tell you this.
The scriptural artefacts, the pieces of script dating to 500BCE and 100CE and things like that, those are the primary source documents.
And a direct translation of those is just not what is written in published bibles of any denomination. You have to pretty much do a full scale personal theological research project to get it, but it's there to get and quite an unfalsifiable part of the archaeological record.

It's what theological qualifications are about basically.

An honourable personal code, whatever you want to call it, beit religious or any other rationale, I fully agree with, support and am impressed by as a person.

Published bibles and in particular old testament versions are grossly mistranslated to the point of propagandized political agenda.

Goliath was a foreign nobleman, not a giant.
The serpent in the garden of eden was childish wont of mankind, not an independent being.
Ashe (pronounced 'eve') is a feminine aspect not a person.
Adm (pronounced 'adam') means literally "humankind" and was not a person.
The hebrew term for the "soul" actually means to breathe. The "immortal divine soul" was in fact invented by Plato, the New Testament authors were each unquestionably Greek educated (expensive private schooling for Romans). Platoism was extremely popular at this time, the "scientific truths" held by Catholicism (eg, the divine unchanging heavens, the superior place of man among other species, etc.), these were simply everyday beliefs of the time and included into proto-Christianity due to proximity.
The word devil never existed before the 12th century.
The Greek word for demon actually means angel.
I could go on forever.

Most parables are designed specifically to deal with hebrew systems of law and socially based government. The people themselves didn't believe in omnipotent superbeings, that's just not what is written in hebrew scriptures. It's mistranslated and intentionally misleading to represent very rudimentary medicinal guides and community welfare systems as a Lord of the Rings adventure.
It's just not what it says in the primary source documents.

*circuits thread at 200mph*

The historical roots of religion was invariably government. Keeping in mind this was in a time that lacked modern policing technologies, realtime communications systems, and polling booths or social accountability for governing policies.
Religions individually/uniquely evolved in their respective regions with an essential purpose of providing both a concrete system of government for the respective populations, as well as an attempt at checks and balances with sweeping constraints also for the national leaders/clergy.
Historically monarchs and the Pope came to disagreement, in some cases the king was punitively punished, one was made to wait outside his own castle in the snow for three days until an argument over governing policy was resolved.

Religion grew up in a world where it wasn't out of place, in fact rather welcomed.
But we do have more advanced/progressive means of government now, due to technological advances. Forensics and criminology replaces fear mongering at church, fear the cops not god because they will get you eventually. You get the idea.

The role of religion has changed, but its personal value remains to some. That of personal philosophy. That's fine and terrific for any individual, no big deal.
There's a real problem when they start telling others how to live, or are in positions to affect legislation, then they have to be argued with because it's political degeneration not development. Bring back the holy spirit and you also bring the guilottine back, mediaeval concepts are all hand in hand.

It would appear in most published cases and personal experience the primary ingredient to become a target is vulnerability. Bigger kids can pick on smaller kids because they can, all they need is any inspiration to it.

Ergo, befriending bullying victims is probably about the smartest play and best help. Smaller kids who are loners are primary victims, you take away the loner part by befriending them and immediately they're less vulnerable, at least to any new bullies coming along. You may have to help come up with some ideas to help them deal with existing bullies, but friendship/numbers is a terrific all round defence.

Part of exercising maturity is to write your own rulebook on how to live your life and the decisions you make day to day, but you have to take it all very seriously, yes with good humour, but not with irresponsibility. Part of it is learning the trick to balancing humour/joy with responsibility/accountability. If you juggle it right, you wind up funny, popular, happy, well adjusted, smart, competent, young at heart, you name it.

It's about being the best version of you, using both a good memory, and good foresight. You need a clear perspective for it, no emotional baggage. Decide not to do things that would give you emotional baggage, things like that is mature.

The trick, is that childish peopel can mimick adulthood, easy, but under pressure degenerate and cause more harm than help. Because they're not routinely mature. It's something you have to program into your regular daily routines all the time for it to work for you instinctively and autonomously.

Immature people just want the rewards (authority to run their own lives) without the work (learning how to run your own life without screwing up other people's lives).

When you get it right, you walk around on top of the world no matter what you're doing, feeling like you belong on our kinda pretty cool planet.

To mature is to ripen or come of age.
Immaturity is more about believing you were already the centre the universe by being born, and changing (learning) from just being yourself (childish), is something to fight against.