LondonLax

We were the same as the French until somebody drew a line on a map a few years back!

Quite, although there are less people still alive who remember when that happened...

Guess what I just did?

I just watched "The Big Lebowski" FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER.

It was, err... good.

Of course, you now have to watch Fargo if you havent seen it already. Then you will get the "joke" of why everybody always says..

Shut the **** up, Donny.

..to Steve Buscemi.

Already seen Fargo. Preferred it to TBL, if I'm honest.

Ah but The Big Lebowski is at its funniest at about the 7th or 8th viewing.

Report back then about which one you like more...

Yu will share the day-to-day running with Pannu and admits it is taking two men to do the job previously done by outgoing managing director Karren Brady.

Wow she must have been quite the pro!

So when's Blu-ray coming out? I heard Lucas was going to add yet more footage to update the movies once more. :?

He has a mortgage and kids to think about don'cha know...

Ewoks mde tht movie.

Yeah, when you were ten...

Haha I voted for Phantom Menace but in reality they are all pretty crap movies except for 'Empire Strikes Back' which is actually a good film and 'A New Hope' which is not too bad despite the cheesy cliché plotline.

The other 4 are kiddy trash though...

I agree that Empire Strikes Back is the best. However to call Return of the Jedi 'kiddy trash' is just madness. Madness I tell you!!!

Yeah, cause fluffy "Ewaks" tripping over the elite republican soldiers whilst making cute noises isn't stupid. Not to mention the 'i'm your sister' plot twist which they messed up by having them get it on when they wrote the first movie.

Haha I voted for Phantom Menace but in reality they are all pretty crap movies except for 'Empire Strikes Back' which is actually a good film and 'A New Hope' which is not total rubbish despite the cheesy cliché plotline.

The other 4 are kiddy trash though...

Konnie Huq is of Bangladeshi descent!

same thing! 8)

It was the same thing until the British Raj decided to draw a line down the map a few years back....

I find it a bit frustrating with the reactions to the Carew/Heskey discussions.

Carew lost the ball nearly every time he was passed it tonight, it was so frustrating because he was getting about the pitch and looking for the ball but he could not make them stick and gave it away even when not under a great deal of pressure time and time again.

Heskey came on and was a lot more composed, held it up and found a player, won loads of flick ons to team mates yet he just gets slated on here. I know he is not going to be a goal threat but you can see why he is in the england side when he is so much calmer and stronger on the ball than Carew was tonight.

Dunne was a monster though, what a top game all over the pitch. My only fault I could find was that I thought he could have come out to close Ireland when they scored their goal.

As soon as you put a cap on wages you will see a flood of people moving to places without a cap on wages.

Living in London it is crazy how few people born in London you meet. Everyone is from somewhere else and a lot of people have moved here chasing the money in the financial sector.

If you cap pay they will just move to Zurich or Frankfurt or New York and the UK economy as a whole will take a massive hit.

On a semi related note, I was reading an article about a Russian oligarch who had bought an old mansion on hamstead heath and was applying for planning permission to do £50m worth of renovations under the building to install underground cinemas/games rooms and whatever else. The reactions from the newspapers comments section were, to a man, saying that these people should go back to Russia, the money is disgusting, the council should reject the application etc etc but that seems crazy. If some rich Russian guy wants to bring £50m over from Russia and spend it on builders and contractors in the UK than that sounds like a really good thing, not something to be hated.

every time you look at the sky at night youre seeing the past

doesnt make your eyes a time machine though

Every time you look at anything you are looking at the past. There is no such thing as the "present", it's indefinable. If you assign any kind of value to it, no matter how small, that value can be divided into a past and a future. In reality there is only the past (which we live in through our slow senses) or the future.

If you could manipulate how fast the past reaches your senses (via manipulation of gravity perhaps?) you could manipulate how far back you can see/hear into the past. That would be a type of time travel I would think.

It's a mind boggler for sure.

Isn't it already possible though, in a very different way?

I'm talking about those satellite photographs that show pictures of supernovas and whatnot from billions of years ago.

That's nto time travel though, that's light travel. Comparable to looking at your TV of some recorded programme. If you look at your hand, you arent seeing your hand as it is now, you're seeing it as it was 0.0000000000000000....000..0001 seconds ago.

As for is it possible? Not a chance.

But I would argue that is in itself a form of time travel. Looking at a spot as it was 1 billionth of a second ago is no different to looking at a spot as it was 2000 years ago when Jesus was preaching for example.

In either case we are observing the past. We will probably never be able to interact with the past but we may be able to observe it at periods of longer ago than 1 billionth of a second.

There was a thread just the other day about a guy working on a time machine based on that theory.

The idea is you can bend time back on itself so you could travel back in time but only as far as the point at which the time machine was invented and time was bent.

i posted the theory in the thread the other wek ... I had read it in a magazine years ago and just remembered it

do you have a link to it as i wouldn't mind reading it again ...

Here is the story here

Isn't the rule of thumb that you double what girls say and halve what men say?

Time is a dimension in its own right. It is not simply a reference point along the way, and time ins't in fact linear, it just appears that way.

Gravity can affect the speed of light, which is why black holes are black, becasue within a certain distance, light cannot escape its gravational hold. Therefore at some point called "the event horizon" light must be in balance with gravity, and therefore not moving. It therefore stands to reason that if the speed/wavelength of light (itself odd becasue it behaves like a waveform and a particle) is subject to change, then our way of measuring time, in relation to the speed of light, can be altered.

once you take the idea that in a 4th dimensiion, time itself can be "bent" out of shape, then dependent on that shape, theres no reason why logically, time cannot be bent back on itself firther than the start of the bend. Therefore time travel certainly of an indicitual particle should be pssible.

I'll go backto brief history of time tonight, just to check, but there were things in there about the attributes of particles, that suggested they could "not decay, positively", ie the opposite of decaying as they age is to defeat time itself.

So if you can assemble one particle and push it "forwards in time" then you could do the same theoretically to a huge bundle of losely linked particles, such as a human. But the very great number makes it unlikely beyond the theoretical.

or something.

There was a thread just the other day about a guy working on a time machine based on that theory.

The idea is you can bend time back on itself so you could travel back in time but only as far as the point at which the time machine was invented and time was bent.

That would atleast eaplain why there are no "time travel tourists" yet.

What about the old "twin paradox"?

It would appear time travel into the future is theoretically possible at least.

You could theoretically percieve it as getting there faster, so to speak, but it's not actually time travel.

Which is why I said "the effect would be like travelling into the future".

You wouldn't be travelling into your own, subjective, future, but you would effectively be travelling into the future of the world you left behind.

Well if you turned around and travelled back at clost to the spead of light then the earth you return to will have aged much faster than you have. As the twin paradox says, your twin on earth will be an old man living in the earth of the future whilst you are still young.

Pictures are, essentially 'captured' light.

You are not looking back in time at all, you are observing light from one light year away reaching you now.

You can call it 'looking back in time' if you want, but you aren't. Just as I'm not 'hearing back in time' if Phumfeinz shout at me from across a football pitch.

It's not just pictures though, it is what you are looking at and perceiving.

If you look up into the sky tonight and see a supernova you are not seeing that point in space as it is, you are watching something that happened however many light years ago. You are witnessing the past.

If an alien spaceship is right this moment sitting approximately 8 light-years away and watching the earth, and New York, on its super telescope it may well be witnessing the twin towers being attacked and destroyed, it would be watching earth vintage September 2001 despite being out there looking right now.

And yes, you are 'hearing back in time' with regards to the shout. You are hearing something that happened a second ago. On the other side of the field the sound there is not the one you are hearing, time has moved on since it was made.

In essence nothing in the world you perceive can be considered the present. Everything around you is an image of the past, of things that happened a fraction of a second ago and travelled to your senses and into your brain. By the time you register the world around you it is no longer reality anymore. To quote another famous bearded guy; "You're living in the past man!"

What about the old "twin paradox"?

It would appear time travel into the future is theoretically possible at least.

It's a mind boggler for sure.

Isn't it already possible though, in a very different way?

I'm talking about those satellite photographs that show pictures of supernovas and whatnot from billions of years ago.

Isn't that becuase it takes that long for the images to travel?

Aye, but we're witnessing something that has already happened. We are looking back in time, which would suggest some element of time travel.

It's all terribly confusing really.

No. We are witnessing said pictures reaching us, which is happening at the moment we first see them. If you shout at me from across a football pitch, I hear the sound about a second after you actually shouted. That doesn't mean I'm travelling back in time.

No, we are witnessing the light of things that happened years ago, today.

If I have a telescope that can see an object 1 light year away the thing I am looking at is an image of the light given off a year ago and travelling here. It is not what the thing actually looks like now, a year later. The star or what ever it is might not actually be there but a year ago it was so thats what I see.

In essence you are looking back in time.

If you could go back in time doesn't that mean you've already invented a time machine?

conventional thinking is that if you invented a time machine today then today would be the farthest point at which you could travel back to ...

of course it could just be bollocks ......

Well it would probably have to be because otherwise we would have seen time travellers visiting through out history.

"The Smartest Guys In the Room" about the collapse of Enron is worth watching.

What they were doing in California was mental.

Physics. A structured discipline for analysing the processes of the universe? Or a load of incomprehensible gobbledygook?

Maths. A logical tool for understanding quantities and relationships? Or a lot of meaningless squiggly symbols?

Modern languages. A wide spectrum of human communications and literature? Or a load of weird babbling?

History. A study of human political, military and social development over time? Or some boring stuff from the old days?

Exactly, just because you may not understand it doesn't mean it can not be understood.

Post World War II the 'four minute mile' was the holy grail of athletics. There was speculation about whether a person could ever run a mile in under 4 minutes.

It took nearly a decade until 1954 before a guy actually managed to do the impossible and run a mile in under 4 minutes.

The year after half a dozen people did it.

It's these types of psychological effects that football teams pay thousands for psychologists to overcome and it is not limited to sports.

The smoking ban came in Holland in July, it's not really working as planned. You can still smoke in a lot of pubs after 12.00 at night and the law says you can smoke in coffe shops as long as it's pure weed which is non enforceable unless the police start taking spliffs apart. There has been a massive drop in people going out especially here in a seaside town, it is very noticeable.

That's fantastic! You can smoke a spliff as long as it doesn't contain any traces of tobacco - in which case you're busted.

The world turned upside-down, indeed.

I believe they were going to mix the weed with tea leaves or other leaves to mellow it but tobacco is banned by the EU law.

It is quite amusing but a unique case I suppose.

Thanks for the advice to those who have given it. I think getting serious with an Indian chick is out of the question, but I may just have fun with one. They are so bloody gorgeous, I know I should maybe keep away from them, but I can't help it. Its a bit frustrating to be honest.

Why would you keep away from them? Just go with the ride man, if it works its perfect, if not whats the worst that could happen??

BTW I live in east london, if you want to meet up to watch the Villa sometime send me a PM!

Whats up with Fellaini he seems to have had a severe drop of form.

He had a blood virus or somethin over the summer ( :? ) and lost like over a stone in weight or something. To be fair to Fellaini, he completely changed the game when he came on against Wigan.

Still no excuse, whole team has been poor so far. Baines in particular looks a shadow of the player in the 2nd half of last season.

Perhaps the squad all get on the piss over the summer and it takes them until december to get fit again? Might explaing the good team spirit in the squad??