Fear of the dark.

As a child, we all share one common fear. A fear of the dark. A seemingly irrational fear, a fear of what could be. Eventually we all realize that there is nothing there and that there really is nothing to fear. So, I'm interested to find out when did you get over your fear of the dark? (That's if you where a normal child like the rest of us.)

Now this is a silly question. I have never been afraid of the dark; I'm always afraid of whats in the dark. I have a very active Imagination, which means the shadows that the darkness creates (and yes it does create shadows unless you are in the pitch black where absolutely no light could reach) turn into creatures. I used to have tigers roaming my bedroom at night, in fact a couple of months a go i thought i had a turbaned man in my bathroom O__o yeah, that was weird. Now you say this is a fear of what could be, urm mine seemingly seems to be a fear of what couldn't be there. A not so irrational fear is when you are immersed in total darkness, of which i have been before whe i was caving. Your fear then is not irational, because you are scared of where you might tread and if there is nothing beneath you.

Anyway, in answer to your question. No i was never afraid of the dark because that was silly. I has a nightlight i used so i could read in to all hours of the night, but then that would go off. Then i would sit there stroking the tigers that roamed my room, and talking to the shadows. DOes that mean i'm not a normal child?

... Yes it does, weirdo ;)

MY theory of 'relativity'

In keeping with the general time travel theme we've got going, while sat here in an airport at Penzance waiting for a helicopter to the Isles of Scilly which has been delayed by an hour! >.<>

Another theory of mine is that time is relative to the observer. Like at the event horizon of a black whole, ( which not even time can escape ) time seems to be slowing down but it wouldn't feel like we were moving any slower but that people or objects further away from the event horizon are moving faster that us. Also, because when we fall asleep, we slip into a state of unconsciousness ( the REM state ). In this state we don't experience the normal effects of time. Our dreams may feel only seconds long but we could have been asleep for days! Hours pass like seconds, all the while a companion of yours could have been sitting up awake feeling boredom grip them while the person who was asleep would have already experienced those many hours as just a few seconds and has already progressed through the normal effects of time and has already moved on. I doubt you understood the last paragraph but it makes sense in my brain!

I get you Dan. Probably because I sail, and when you capsize sailing 1 of 2 things ether happens. The capsize is super fast and you and up strung up in the water with ropes around your legs, or the capsize happens so slowly that you can watch the whole thing happening but still don't have time to make it over the boat to do a dry capsize. I would also just like to quote a little thing from Doctor Who here "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. " I hope that makes it easier to understand. Maybe in our life, the moments that go fast time is taken away from us and added to the moments that go really slow. Everyone has to be living in 'now', so time has to make up for these moments of time-loss.

I hate to put across this theory because I'm atheist however we like to include all theories that we can think of. If there are 'things' up there controlling stuff, then maybe there is something up there controlling time, I mean its very hard to keep especially in jars. So say these 'Time Keepers' tried to keep track of where all the time goes, who gets it and who doesn't. but of course transporting time would be a tad like transporting sand, you loose some on the way, it trickles out of slightly open jars and finds its way into someones life.
Another theory with I am now going to slightly steel and it did feature slightly in the last paragraph, is one that Terry Pratchett Developed in his discworld books and it features highly in 'Thief Of Time' where specialised monks r-cycle waisted time. However i'm not going to explaine that theory because it would take to long and i would miss things out and everthing would become muddled. So i would advise you to read the book yourself. ^__^

Time Travel! A thing of the past...?

Ahh time travel, i can't wait until the figure it out, well i shouldn't have to because if they figured it out in the future then surely they would have come to the past and told us the secret but seeing as how no such thing has happened yet that means we will never discover the secret to time travel... or we are all selfish gits in the future!

Anyways, I wanted to talk to you about the age old dilemma of killing your grandfather in the past, the 'Grandfather Paradox'. ( Oh and remember i am talking about the theory of time travel, not time travel its self, trust me they're two completely different things. In the theory of time travel logic still applies whereas in actual time travel logic breaks down and is thrown out of the window.*Poof* not that it hasn't already... ) Anyway, it goes like this: If you went back in time and killed your own grandfather, you yourself would cease to exist. But! if you where able to go back in time and kill your grandfather then you wouldn't exists. But if you didn't exist then no one would have been around to kill your grandfather in the first place which enabled you to be born and then go and kill your grandfather ect ect as you can see it goes on for ever. Basically to kill your grandfather and therefore kill yourself would be rather illogical and by the laws of logic and reasoning rather impossible. But then again its just the theory of time travel. We could carry this conversation on for ever.

By Dan's explanation, this would mean you would be trapped in a time-space loop, meaning normal life would not be able to continue, as everything would be trapped in this loop forever. So i think that the best thing in this situation would be not to kill you grandfather in the past; but kill him in the present if you have that much of a grudge on him.
I Like paradoxes though, they are used quite a lot in literature as Oscar Wilde famously said: "I can resist everything except temptation." I believe this is so true for me, as I live by that quote. In Shakespeare he says "though this be madness, yet there is method in’t". Oh the joys ^__^. Although back to time travel, I would like to point out about "Bill and Teds excellent Adventure" if anyone remembers that. Bill and Ted are constantly realizing that their plans are foiled by the lack of a certain item, decide to later travel back in time and deliver themselves the necessary item, often indicating a specific place in which the item will appear. Upon searching the location, the item is invariably there. So it could help in the future.

Random Questioning.

Who Should Have Won: The Hare or the Tortoise?

Well, now you see I have done a lot of research on this... in theory the hare should win, because its faster. however if the hare goes too fast then it will not be able too see where its going. There fore will be more at risk of tripping over or getting caught in something (Peter Rabbit anyone?) So logically in any logical world with normal hares and normal tortises, then yes the hare should win. The problem is, i think the hare is so cocky because he is compensating for something else. Maybe a weak bladder, now this could really hinder the hare. The tortoise however being older (and we all know grandmas cheat at games) would find an easyer way to travel, Rockets maybe? some sort of automobiel whick makes it easyer for him. Maybe a pimped up scooter that you see the elderly on these days. So it would be debatable, however i think the tortiose would win by miles.

Hmm, well i guess as the tortoise is probably older, seeing as how they live to 150 (finding nemo ftw) he has probably lived in that area for longer so in theory he should know all the shortcuts and back-alleys better than the hare. And as the hare spends all his time wizzing around that probably leaves little time for exploring such areas. I think the tortoise deserves his victory as they are much cooler and have cooler looking shells that hares who don't even have shells!

But also if this where going on, in say a farmers field or a patch of woodland that fell into the boundaries of the farmers jurisdiction then he might cotton on to all the commotion and come over and just shoot the hare while he lay snoozing on the side of the patch.
(run rabbit, run rabbit, run run run,
run from the farmer and his gun gun gun,)

Wow, is that how the rhyme goes? I only ever knew the first line >.<

Would you like butter with that?

Hey ma peeps, Dan here! umm yeah anyway...

Do you ever think about the phrase "bread always lands buttered side down"? Well i do! What would happen if you didn't even butter the bread in the first place and then dropped it! Logic says it should land buttered side down, but there is no butter. so logically, it doesn't land. it just becomes suspended in time and space unable to move towards is pre-determined destination, the floor.

Okay, so we're sitting there in our kitchen, a piece of bread just suspended above the counter and your still hungry. this time we butter the bread, because we like butter, not marmite>.< (Dan is mean and won't let me have Marmite *sniff*), and again... Butter fingers! we've dropped the bread! But it didn't land buttered side down. Surely the gravitational forces of the butter would pull it downwards. But us being the cool people that we are butter the bread perfectly evenly, so the weight of the butter is spread out perfectly thus taking away some of the gravitational effects of the butter. Also dry bread is porous, so it would absorb some of the butter into it's center thereby even further taking away the gravitational instabilities of the bread!

Or i guess it could just be luck...

Dan? Does Butter have a gravitational force that's big enough? If it does, why don't the lighter things have an orbit around it, surely by now all butter blocks should have their own asteroid belts made from dust, and in supermarkets everything must be nailed down, because that much butter all together (if we are going on the more the mass the bigger the gravitational pull) must have its own moon somewhere. Also, if butter does it must have a bigger gravitational pull than the bread to land butter side down. Which would all depend on how skimpy you are with the butter...

Still i prefer Marmite, so i don't have this problem.