inky-blue-white

Squares are quadratic [state the obvious, I know] and these patterns will always have a second common difference.[Linear sequences have a first common difference that is. Cubic sequences have a third common difference etc.]A common difference by the way, is......-1,0,1,2,3,4,5,6...in this case, it's one. Because the numbers are all one more than the previous....-1,0,2,5,9,14...in this case, the differences go......1,2,3,4,5...So that's a second common difference of one.Maths is a wonderful subject! Sorry that my explaination was shody though!

That's quite interesting actually, I'm vegetarian but generally not any more intelligent than most people. However, I do have some suggestions as to why these results have come about.1.I think that to the average person, vegetarianism is an option that they don't always see at first and as is the case with people with a higher IQ they often take the less obvious route. I suppose it's a thinking-outside-the-box state of mind. 2.Of-course a long time ago, vegetables were foriegn [except potatos and carrots...] and only the very well-off people could afford to have food shipped and not have to survive on cows etc. These well-off people could also afford an education. Not that classes are that separated now, but it could always be a family tradition type thing.3.In today's society [or for young people anyway] vegetarianism is perhaps viewed as 'alternative'. Meaning that if you want to be a popular child then you've to eat mince pies for example. It's not quite as clear-cut as that but in general that is the case. And the other case is that it's also cool to fail at school. So the mainstream kids will eat meat and not be that bright whereas the alternative kids will be vegetarian and do well at school. That's just my experience on that one, and I know plenty of very clever meat-eaters and not so clever vegetarians but in general I find this to be true.Although I do not think that eating vegetables will make you smart. Unless the vitamins you recieve making up for the protein you lack will make much difference of-course.

I'm currently using Zonelabs on my bedroom PC and Titanium on the study computer. Titanium bothers me less but Zonelabs was cheaper. Zonelabs is much more active. Both as much the same to be honest though. It seems from this thread that most people use Norton's, I tried that once but it really didn't work for me.

Haha! I really liked the answer to life the universe and everything. Google calculator is very cultured! I'd heard that Bush one before though. I also enjoyed the French Defeats one, I think it's funny because we're used to seeing our typos corrected in the "did you mean..." instead of something like that. In a way it puts the idea of French victories amongst typos! Very good.

I watched the video on the tenth dimension. That theory is very like String Theory except they've explained it in very simple terms. Well, in graphical terms with the repeatition of the dot-line-fold. I did find that basis more acceptable than the geometric foundations of String Theory however when it came to the overall conclusion of both I tend to side towards String Theory. There's likely a graphically based String Theory out there but from what I can see it would be very difficult to prove! But thanks for posting that link, it was very interesting [and also surprisingly entertaining!]

Yep, I was going to say more or less what was said above. A vacuum is defined as space without matter. And since water is matter afterall...the vacuum would not be a vacuum. However, if the water is already inside a certain space which then is put under vacuum conditions, with the water trapped inside, I would imagine [although I am not definite] that the water would be reduced to it's minimum volume, which normally would be solid but in water's case [with patterns of hydrogen bonding] it would remain liquid. I don't really know actually...but that's what I'm guessing at.

I agree, perhaps to begin with HTML learners will just want those sorts of codes but soon they'll need different ones and will not know how to write them up. I think you are right, in the long-run it's easier to learn HTML by cross-referencing tags and properties instead of learning them together. Even if HTML has nothing to do with other scripts, it's still a good way to begin to learn how scripts are written in the first place. ie.they aren't based on HTML but on an HTML style. And anyway, I actually learned HTML the way it's shown in this topic from my father. But it stressed me out later when I wanted to do other things with the codes and he re-taught me the way you suggest. I found it much easier and far more useful as there is a greater potential for independant scripting.

That's a good philosophy about just being 3D and happy with it! However....it's the annoying human nature to be curious. Unfortunately, this uncontrolable need for knowledge often inhibits the simple living. Also an interesting theory about the fifth dimension being the afterlife. That could also explain some 'ghost' sighting as being five dimesional structures which have temporarily taken on three dimensional properties.However, for the person who posted above, it's not even proven that there's seven yet. And as I mentioned previously, String Theory about 11 dimensions has some good ethos even if I don't particularly agree with the geometric basis. Fundamentally, it's all guess-work as to how many dimensions there are and if you think that your "major math person" friend has a good theory then I will watch that flash video, it sounds interesting.

I voted rock because art-punk or indie were not options! My favourite band is the Yeah Yeah Yeahs.But I am a lover of all music quite honestly. I do try to be open minded anyway...a lot of the time I fail however.

This is my first post so I'm fairly happy that it's about physics!Okay, if anyone's read The Time Machine by H.G.Wells [yes I know it's a sci-fi book but it's not far off] then it's based on the principle of four dimensions. If you can represent a three dimensional object on a 2D surface then it stands to reason that you can represent a 4D structure on a 3D surface, 5D structure on a 6D surface etc. But basically, time is [as everyone has already stated] number four and is most restricted, i.e. you can't just move about in time freely, you can only go forward and at a constant rate. [unless you're expriencing a time dilation that is, which even then will only have great effect at close to the speed of light]. But of-course then there's String Theory which theorizes the existence of 11 dimensions, most of which I've yet to research.But someone suggested wikipedia, which is where I'd go.[who said dimesions had to be physical?]