Oof. I've just been on a trip down memory lane. Remember this? http://www.not606.com/threads/the-stephen-hawking-is-an-overrated-fool-thread.322743/
Born and bred in 'Ull. I can assure you that these days the US education system is far superior to what now passes for education in the UK. I speak from first-hand experience of both for my four offspring. Since you are too young to have experienced the excellent system England had until the early '60s, you are in no position to judge.
Your observation seems to both validate & invalidate the old truism: " When someone emigrates, the average I.Q. of both donor and recipient countries increases".
I understand the irony of the truism (even though it's clearly stupid), but I don't see the connection to the quoted post.
The post of yours I responded to is your personal experience (both for yourself & your offspring). It's elitist. It do not believe it reflects the real situation in general (relative quality and success rate of the two education systems).
Can vouch for that. 2 years subsidy for study from 16-18 at high school in Hull. Free college education in Hull for 3 years studying for external London Uni degree. Free 1 year post graduate course at London Uni being paid a 400 quid government grant (DSIRO in those days). Finished in 1960. Post graduate course(in Plastics) was the first of it's kind in the world. I was so lucky!
Read and enjoy the above links. To summarise, the simple, incontrovertible truth is that (Newtonian) Conservation of Angular Momentum would prevent the total gravitational collapse (Black Hole formation) of any aggregate of massive bodies in which any degree of spin (rotation) is initially present. Relativistic considerations are irrelevant. FYI, the complete story is complicated by the fact that Gravity for two bodies is now known to be not purely radial: there is a transverse component related to their relative angular motion. In other words, a spinning spherical mass does not have the same gravitational field as the same non-rotating sphere. This is totally analogous to the orthogonal components of an e/m field. You won't find much about this on the web, as much of it is classified, due to implications on New Propulsion and New Energy. Some slightly skewed info can be found under 'Frame Dragging'. Friendly suggestion: You seem to be a far better grounded young man than some on here, but please don't be tempted to get drawn into an argument on subjects that are far, far beyond your knowledge and experience. P.S. Since the aforementioned 'debates' with the Theoretical-Physics experts on this football forum, I have given non-disclosure, classified, invited talks on that topic at certain well-known institutions in Palo Alto (CA), Cambridge (MA), Hampton (VA), and Huntsville (AL). They went over very well and, unsurprisingly, lead to some lively discussions. My reason for doing this was to hear constructive suggestions from some reputable minds; this will allow me to anticipate and address any genuine counter-arguments if and when I decide to publish that particular paper. That paper is currently second on my to-do list; first, I need to finish a document that is far more important to me, personally: it will be my 20th and final published paper on a highly esoteric, new branch of mathematical physics. It will quickly replace the Finite-Element Method, which my team pioneered (in Lancashire) several decades ago.
But then the formation of Pulsars and Magnetars suggests that the formation of black holes is entirely possible, they rapidly spin and create a strong gravitational pull. More mass would surely trigger an inward collapse if the force of collapse outweighed the force of the spin?
The increase in (slower moving) mass INCREASES the moment of inertia and inward gravity force and DECREASES the spin rate. Think it through to the counter-intuitive conclusion. I never said it was easy; it isn't. But see my comment on transversal 'virtual' forces. Did you check out 'Frame Dragging'?
Listening to some boffins on the radio the other day, and they were light heartedly talking about time, and saying that they don't have an agreed definition on what 'now' is or what 'time' is in many situations, and can't find an agreed description in that context of past, present and future. Thinking about it, by their calculations, it was maybe tomorrow I listened to it.
Crikey! I have an Honours degree in Physics and am left behind in this arena. Think weak Mathematics is my Achilles heel!
Well we invented time, I always imagined if we ever met aliens and had to describe certain things to them, like time, it'd be totally impossible. Like trying to describe what a colour is to somebody who was born blind.
Yep. Déjà vu, all over again. Tedious, innit? Bit like some of the less-intelligent posts on here, eh? The concept of 'simultaneity' for events widely separated in space has always been, and still is, one of the most difficult challenges in science and mathematics. Some of my published papers have addressed this topic. Result? I dunno. Neither does anyone else.
You know Bengals, you really should cut out the patronizing insults, arrogant, egotistical, often ageist, know-it-all wording in your non-football related contributions on here. You may actually get some genuine likes (**** knows where your current accumulation came from) or maybe even some respect. Of course, sadomasochism may well be your bag. Just some friendly advice...
Read #3096 ff, page #155, in the No New Manager thread, if you want to comment on gratuitous insults, then get back to me (if you wish, regarding where the real problems on this board lie).
OF COURSE it's elitist (depending on your definition of the word)! The prematurely-abandoned English 11+ selective system (designed specifically to find the best candidates to restore the UK after the damage of WWII) was based on a carefully defined measure of IQ, and it worked quickly and brilliantly! Once the UK so-called 'elite' (based on inherited titles, wealth, family tradition, etc.) realised they had lost their traditional stronghold on the leadership of industry, etc., that definitely selective system was (amazingly and without significant warning) abandoned in the early/mid 1960s in favour of an 'egalitarian' system in which your average Dopey Ben or gormless Snotty Albert was put into the same class as the smart kids. That's worked well, eh? Unless you're Dopey Ben, Snotty Albert, or their parents. They're really proud of their 'achievements'. Right. Good. Why is the US so good at so many sports? Early selection of the best (as actually measured), elimination of the Fat Benny Boys. Elitism. It's how it used to work in the UK, in sport and in education. Ovett, Coe, Cram, Elliot, ... The list goes on, until you reach Fat 'Arry, Dopey Ben, and Snotty Albert. But we don't want them to feel less gifted than their peers, even though they obviously are, by any measure. Elitist? Hell yeah! What you sow, you reap. You're welcome.
