Ask the Dreadlocked Science Geek

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Venus007

Dear Hot Dr Sciences,

What exactly is the deal with quantum foam and do you think it is real?

Bonus question NASA scientists reciently discovered that lightening storms create small bits of antimatter, why doesn't this cause anhilation as I thought that if matter and antimatter got together it would be a cataclysm because of the enormous energy produced.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/12/...ng-antimatter/

I'll take these separately. I'll talk about quantum foam first because, ironically, it's actually the easier of the two subjects.

Prior to the first third of the 20th century, both space and time were thought to be separate entities and to be smooth, inert and constant. Starting with relativity theory and continuing with quantum theory, the picture changed dramatically. Firstly, Einstein demonstrated that space and time were neither smooth, inert or constant. Matter, for instance, curves space-time. In fact the best operational definition of gravity, so far, is the warping of space-time by the presence of matter. Quantum theory demonstrated that ALL our intuitions about the way the Universe 'really is' break down at the sub-atomic level. Cause and effect, for instance, are not quite so straightforward at the subatomic level. Particles--actually virtual particles--pop into existence and then just as quickly pop out of existence. These virtual particles are highly energetic.

The idea behind quantum foam is this. At the finest possible resolution (known as the Planck length which is ~1.612*10^-35) the structure of space-time is not smooth and continuous but is actually like foam with virtual particles popping into existence and then being annihilated. I wouldn't go so far as to say that quantum foam exists---in the sense that it has an independent existence but it is more of a concept to explain the energetic turbulance of space-time at the smallest scale.

There is one big problem, however. The issue is that mass (or energy) warps space-time (which, you'll recall, is what gravity is) and at present there is not a working theory of quantum gravity. All the other forces are carried by a particle (called a messenger particle) and there is a hypothesized particle called the graviton which would be the messenger particle for gravity. Except, we haven't observed it. The issue is that gravity is weak, REALLY weak. I know it doesn't seem like that every time you fall but consider this...when you walk, with each step, you are overcoming the force of gravity to lift your foot. Every time you pick something up, you are overcoming the force of gravity. You can even overcome the force of gravity to pick up a piece of paper using only a comb and static electricity. So the search for the graviton is the search for the most weakly interacting particle of them all! Until the graviton is found, there's no way to account for the warping of space-time that would be the 'froth', if you will, of the quantum foam.

As far as the anti-matter is concerned, it's not that ANY anti-matter would cause massive annihilation it's that sufficient quantities of it would. A small number of anti-protons encountering protons would annihilate one another and release a lot of gamma radiation. A large number of anti-protons would create a far larger release of energy with more destructive power. Fortunately, antimatter is very rare at this stage of the universe.

This was not always the case, in the very early Universe (before things had cooled down enough for atoms to form) there were almost, but not quite, equal amounts of matter and antimatter. LOTS of collisions took place in a massively energetic holocaust of explosions. The matter we see in the Universe now is the result of there being a slight bias in favor of matter so when all was said and done there was still some matter while all of the antimatter had been destroyed. This was actually good for the Universe because had this not happened the Universe would have had much more density than it does and so the formation of stars would have been much less likely.

Cheers
Aj

[Venus007]

Thanks AJ for your excellent replies. That quantum foam thing has tripped me up and you helped very much to clarify!

As to the antimatter, clearly I watch too much Star Trek.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

As far as the anti-matter is concerned, it's not that ANY anti-matter would cause massive annihilation it's that sufficient quantities of it would. A small number of anti-protons encountering protons would annihilate one another and release a lot of gamma radiation. A large number of anti-protons would create a far larger release of energy with more destructive power. Fortunately, antimatter is very rare at this stage of the universe.

Thanks again!

PS this thread is SO giving me a brain wood

[Melissa]

I've always been curious....

Does "Electroweak Breaking" Affect the Macroscopic World?

[Rufusboi]

I love to cook and so I'm always interested in the science of food.

I've always wondered two things:

1. What is the science behind churning butter? How does the churning turn cream into butter? What are some of the molecular changes going on?

2. Who figured this out? How do you accidentally churn and churn cream until it becomes butter?

Rufus

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Melissa

I've always been curious....

Does "Electroweak Breaking" Affect the Macroscopic World?

Yes and no. To understand why will require some deep discussion.

The electroweak force is what you get when the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces get together. There are four fundamental forces (also known as fundamental interactions) in the Universe they are (in descending order of strength) :

Strong nuclear force
Electromagnetism
Weak nuclear force
Gravity

The strong force is what holds the nucleus of an atom together.
The electromagnetic force is the other force we're most familiar with--light, magnetism, radio, microwaves are all manifestations of the same thing--electromagnetism.
The weak nuclear force is responsible for atomic (beta) decay.
Gravity is, well, the warping of space-time by the presence of mass. (Yes,you actually warp space-time a very tiny bit)

At VERY high energies, not seen in over 12 billion years, the electromagnetic and weak forces unify into the electroweak force.

The reason why we don't SEE effects of electroweak breaking is because the universe has cooled down so much that the symmetry has already been broken. If the universe were MUCH hotter (100 GeV--Giga electron-volts) then we would observe the electromagnetic and weak forces as one electroweak force.

So does it affect the macroscopic world? Yes, in the sense that without it there would be fewer forces. But can we observe it affecting the macroscopic world now? No, because the Universe is too cold a place for it to happen except in VERY high-energy particle accelerators (the LHC at CERN being the one that can probe at those energies)


Cheers
Aj

[socialjustice_fsu]

Aj ~
I understand we are to experience a 'supermoon' the night of March 19, 2011.
I know this means the moon will be roughly 221,000 miles away from the earth plus it will be a full moon. I know this occurs every 18 years. Can you explain this event and it's impact, if any, upon our planet?
Signed,
The One Who Slept Through Astronomy

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by socialjustice_fsu

Aj ~
I understand we are to experience a 'supermoon' the night of March 19, 2011.
I know this means the moon will be roughly 221,000 miles away from the earth plus it will be a full moon. I know this occurs every 18 years. Can you explain this event and it's impact, if any, upon our planet?
Signed,
The One Who Slept Through Astronomy

Sorry that I missed answering this during my hiatus. I know the event has passed but here is the response even though it is late:

Orbits are stable but they are not perfect, which means that they are not precisely circular. Our orbit around the Sun is an elipsis and the Moon's orbit around Earth is also an elipsis. This means that there are points of the orbit where the smaller (less massive) object will be closer to the larger (more massive) object and points where it will farther away. The 'supermoon' is simply an artifact of orbits being elliptical.

Normally, the Moon orbits the Earth at ~250,000 miles. At its closest this distance closes to ~220,000 miles which is about 10% of the total distance. So what effects occur? As you know now, not a lot happened and this is what we should expect. Why? Well, even as the Earth's mass pulls on the Moon the Moon's mass pulls on the water. The reason this happens is that while most of the mass of the Earth is stationary, the waters are constantly in motion. This means that the Earth's center of gravitational mass has a slightly less firm hold on the water than on other objects. Because gravity is a field and all fields fall off in strength as an inverse of the square of the distance* from the source of that field the closer the Earth and the Moon are to one another, the more intense the tides will be on Earth.

As far as the full-moon, this has no effect because of why there are phases of the moon in the first place. The reason why there are phases is that the moon is tidally locked with the Earth. What this means is that the rotation of the moon on its access, is in synchronization with its rotation around the Earth. This means that the same face of the moon always points toward us. Since the same part of the Moon always faces Earth, when the moon is new it means that all of the solar light striking the surface of the moon is hitting the side pointed away from us and when the moon is full the solar light is hitting the part pointed toward us. To see how this works you can do a very simple experiment with you and two other people.

Have one person stand stationary at a single point in the center of the room with a flashlight--that person represents the sun. Now, you and one other person stand facing one another and move in sync in a circle around the person holding the flashlight. If you are the person in the position of the Earth you will always be looking at the face of the person opposite you. However, when the "moon" person has their face pointed toward the flashlight, you will see their face--this is a full moon when their face is pointed away from the moon you will not see their face. Obviously to get the best effect this should take place in a darkened room. Since the only difference between a full moon and a new moon is which face is getting the light there's no effects of a full or new moon on Earth because gravitationally they have not changed in relationship to one another.


Hope this helps.

cheers
Aj

*The inverse square law is a physical law that says that as the distance from a field increases the strength of the field decreases as a function of the square of the distance. So at twice the distance the field has fallen off not two times but *four* times the distance. At four times the distance from the source the strength of the field has fallen off to sixteen times the intensity which can be found at its source. This applies to all fields in all mediums. This means that it applies to gravity, sound and electromagnetic fields. So let's say that there is a field that, just for the sake of ease, we will say has a strength of '16' at its source. Every ten feet the strength of the field will decrease. This means that at 10 feet from the source it has a strength of four, at 20 a strength of 2, at 30 a strength of 1.4, at 40 feet a strength of 1.2, at 50 feet a strength of 1.1, etc. (I've rounded up just to make it easy) The next time you are driving and you hear a siren, pay attention to how quickly the sound becomes intense as the siren comes toward you and how quickly it falls off as the sound moves away from you. This is the inverse square law in action, the very same thing happens with light or any other field. Dropping a rock into still water will also give you the same effect.

[dreadgeek]

June:

Actually, this is not quite correct. The Earth forms and then over a period of time, gets bombarded by comets (which is where the most likely came from). Now, as far as mass being added by the living things actually that's not the case. All of the mass in your body and in the bodies of other living things was already present on the planet. Here is where the conservation of energy comes in. Right now, chances are, one of the oxygen atoms you've just inhaled was breathed by a Caesar, or some Roman slave from the time of Caesar. All of the activity you've spoken of--comets and asteroid collisions notwithstanding--redistribute the mass of the planet without actually adding or reducing the total mass.

Originally Posted by June

Dear Giver of Science Wood, (Hah!)

Okay, secondary to worrying about the sun exploding in my lifetime, is this 'nother thing.

So, the earth gets formed and begins cooling, and then condensation occurs and eventually, we get a weather system that creates rain, then over time, the oceans get filled up and the original land masses begin tearing apart slowly and clusters of cells begin evolving into different species. Yadda, yadda.

The original earth mass gets added on to. Millions of years of vegetation and decay, birth and death of humans, animals and plant matter -- All of this 'stuff' adds to the total weight of the earth, right?

Strictly speaking, we should talk about the *mass* of the Earth and not its weight. The weight of an object is a function of the gravitational field the object is in. So if you are, say, 180 lbs on Earth on the Moon you would weight just 30 lbs. So in order to talk about the weight of the Earth we would have to know what gravitational field we're talking about. The mass of the Earth, however, is more or less a constant. We gain trivial amounts of mass from dust blown at us by the solar winds and we gain slightly more (but still trivial) amounts of mass from asteroid impacts (large ones actually cause us to lose mass).

But, my real question is: Could we at some point create so much flotsam and jetsam here that it actually will slow down our rotation, creating longer days and nights or other more catastrophic events?

Actually, the Earth IS slowing down but not because of its mass. Remember that any body in motion will continue in motion unless acted upon by another force. The Earth's rotation is slowing down but not because of OUR mass but because of the mass of the Moon. Some of the energy of Earth's rotation is transferred to the Moon. There is also friction from space dust.

It will take a few billion more years before a day on the planet gets appreciably longer though.

Cheers
Aj

[Linus]

Ok. I need to know. Is there a true scientific reason for the level of stupidity on Fox News?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_817723.html

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Linus

Ok. I need to know. Is there a true scientific reason for the level of stupidity on Fox News?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_817723.html

Okay, now I'm back.

Here's why O'Reilly is wrong (I know shocking!):

1) "How did the Sun get there?" Remember that gravity is the warping of space-time by mass and is ALWAYS attractive. So dust in our little corner of the Milky Way is attracted to other parts of dust. These bits of rock and dust start to clump together and orbit one another. The more matter that gathers, the more mass and therefore the more matter that is attracted. At some point *enough* mass is collected that it begins to compress at which point a critical mass is formed and a star is born! That's a LOT of mass but we have caught Nature in every stage of that act in the last 50 years or so.

2) "How did the Moon get there?" The early solar system was a chaotic mess. Not ALL of the material in the solar system went to making the Sun, some of it went to make planets. When the Earth was very, very, very young (less than a billion years old), it collided with something that smaller than the Earth. It would have been a glancing blow but it would have torn the smaller planet apart. When it reformed the Earth had a convenient large moon. How do we know? For one, our rotation is not perpendicular to the plane of our orbit. The Earth is actually tilted at 23 degrees (which is why we have seasons). That kind of thing strongly suggests an impact that knocked the Earth off of a perpendicular axis of rotation. (This has happened to at least one other planet, Uranus, which actually is tilted 90 degrees so, unlike the other 7 planets, it doesn't have a north or south pole but a East or West pole) Our moon actually stabilizes our rotation along with creating the tides.

3) "Why doesn't Venus have that?" We don't know why Venus doesn't have a satellite but it doesn't. Not every planet can be in the position to have a satellite.

4) "Mars doesn't have that?" Mars has two moons Deimos and Phobos. Most likely these are asteroids that were captured by the planet (Mars has a mass similar to Earth's)

I think that just about covers it.

[Daywalker]

Dear AJ,


Is it possible that the very Matter that surrounds
us...is our creator and we are indeed it's Organisms?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Daywalker

Dear AJ,


Is it possible that the very Matter that surrounds
us...is our creator and we are indeed it's Organisms?

Well, it depends upon what you mean. You, me, everyone in fact most *interesting* features of the Universe are made from the remains of supernova. As a very massive star goes through its end-game it makes all of the heavier elements on the periodic table (everything heavier than Helium). So all of the carbon in your body was once in a supermassive star that exploded. All of the oxygen you are breathing came from the same kind of source. So in a very limited and technical sense yes, all of the matter that we are made of and that sustains us is our creator. We are its creation. Billions of years ago some star burned its fuel, fell into the run-away iron-cycle end-game and then exploded. In the fullness of time that material became the Earth and the other planets.

To the degree I am at all deistic, it is that the Universe is the creator. Now, I don't think that the Universe notices we are here other than in the limited sense that living organisms interact with one another. In as much as you are part of the Universe and I am part of the Universe and we are aware that the other exists, the Universe is aware of our existence. In as much as I love my wife and my wife loves me, the Universe cares about my continued existence. But outside of those interpersonal interactions, I don't think the Universe is intelligent or aware of our existence. Supernovae happen not so that there can be life, it's simply a by-product. Earth isn't here so that there *can* be life, life exists because Earth happens to have a range of environments and is stable enough for life to have a chance to get going.

Cheers
Aj

[Daywalker]

Thank you AJ...it was just one of those profound thoughts that spawned
through my attic a few weeks ago. You know, there is so much
(religious) conflict within the Human Species on who Our
Creator is/was...and I thought...wow, what if you're
all wrong and the very Matter that
surrounds us...is our Creator.

[Linus]

Speaking of Life on Earth, is there life out there? Do you think it would be as aggressive as Hawking stated:

If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans," he said.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Dear dreadgeek,


Could you explain the phenomena of Déjà vu????


Thank you for your time,

Snow

P.S.

Can you also explain the phenomena canned cheese spread like it comes out of a can like silly string kinda canned cheese.

[Softhearted]

[QUOTE=The_Lady_Snow;269886]Dear dreadgeek,


Could you explain the phenomena of [B]Déjà vu????


The déjà vu illusion occurs when a person has an inappropriate feeling of familiarity in a situation that is objectively unfamiliar or new. The amorphous nature of this experience has made identifying its etiology challenging, but recent advances in neurology and understanding of implicit memory and attention are helping to clarify this cognitive illusion. More specifically, déjà vu may result from (a) a brief change in normal neural transmission speed causing a slightly longer separation between identical messages received from two separate pathways, (b) a brief split in a continuous perceptual experience that is caused by distractions (external or internal) and gives the impression of two separate perceptual events, and (c) the activation of implicit familiarity for some portion (or all) of the present experience without an accompanying conscious recollection of the prior encounter. Procedures that involve degraded or occluded stimulus presentation, divided attention, subliminal mere exposure, and hypnosis may prove especially useful in elucidating this enigmatic cognitive illusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Brown, A.S (2004). The Déjà Vu illusion. American Psychological Society, 16: 256-259.

[Softhearted]

Originally Posted by Linus

Speaking of Life on Earth, is there life out there? Do you think it would be as aggressive as Hawking stated:

Found on wikipedia:

In planetary astronomy and astrobiology, the Rare Earth hypothesis argues that the emergence of complex multicellular life (metazoa) on Earth required an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. The term "Rare Earth" comes from Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (2000), a book by Peter Ward, a geologist and paleontologist, and Donald E. Brownlee, an astronomer and astrobiologist. Their book is the source for much of this article.

The rare earth hypothesis is the contrary of the principle of mediocrity (also called the Copernican principle), advocated by Carl Sagan and Frank Drake, among others.[1] The principle of mediocrity concludes that the Earth is a typical rocky planet in a typical planetary system, located in an unexceptional region of a common barred-spiral galaxy. Hence it is probable that the universe teems with complex life. Ward and Brownlee argue to the contrary: planets, planetary systems, and galactic regions that are as friendly to complex life as are the Earth, the solar system, and our region of the Milky Way are very rare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Linus

Speaking of Life on Earth, is there life out there? Do you think it would be as aggressive as Hawking stated:

I have to say that I would be absolutely stunned if there were no life anywhere else in the universe. The sheer range of environments that life can cling to here on Earth actually suggests that life would have quite a bit of opportunity to get booted up. Consider:

Living things survive in environments as diverse as the bottom of the ocean, next to volcanic vents where superheated water containing high levels of sulfure provide a habitat for tube worms and bacteria to the inside of reactor cores (there is a species of bacteria, Deinococcus radiodurans) that thrive in high radiation environments. There are salt-loving bacteria, sulfur-loving bacteria (some of which are in symbiosis with the aforementioned tube worms). So I think that life probably exists elsewhere in the universe.

I'm even willing to venture so far as to say that intelligent life probably exists somewhere else. Our primary adaptation, the reason why we are such a spectacularly successful species (so far) is our adaptability. That adaptability we call intelligence. Intelligence is SUCH a neat trick that it would quite remarkable if some other species, living in who knows what kind of environment, hadn't hit upon intelligence in the course of their evolutionary history. So would another intelligent species be as aggressive as Hawking suggests? That depends.

There's a couple of schools of thought on what to look for in another intelligent species. For one, taking a naturalistic view any extraterrestrial species we might meet would *also* be a product of evolutionary forces. Evolution doesn't necessarily favor nice guys. It doesn't necessary reward complete bastards either. In most game-theory based models what seems most stable is tit-for-tat. If you cooperate with me, I'll cooperate with you. If you stab me in the back, I'm either going to get retribution OR I'm going to let others know you're not to be trusted. Grant, for the moment, that other species would probably hit on some kind of similar solution.

One school of thought says that intelligent species pass through stages of civilization. The stages were originally proposed by a Russian named Nikolai Kardaschev and the scale is called the Kardaschev scale. It measures total energy output used by a civilization. The scale is four stages (originally three) which are:

Type 0 civilization--this is where we are right now. We are actually at about .72. More on this in a bit.

Type 1--This civilization can use all of the energy available on their planet. This could be achieved through the use of fusion power, power generated from naturally collected anti-matter or space-based solar arrays which would allow us to use much higher proportions of the Sun's energy than we do now.

Type 2--This civilization can use all of the energy available in their solar system. The most common example of this is the Dyson sphere. The idea behind a Dyson sphere is that a civilization breaks down all the other planets in the solar system and uses those to construct a sphere around its primary star. That way ALL of the star's energy is trapped in the sphere and can be put to use. The civilization lives on the inside of the sphere.

Type 3--This civilization can use all of the energy available in their local galaxy.

Another proposed scale is from Robert Zubrin. It is still a three-stage scale but instead of looking at the energy consumption, looks at how far the civilization has spread.

Type 1--Has spread across its entire planet.

Type 2--Has spread across its entire solar system.

Type 3--Has spread across its galaxy.

So, using the two scales applied to science fiction civilizations (since they are familiar enough to most people)

Human civilization is type 0 according to Kardaschev scale and Type 1 according to the Zubrin scale.

The Federation of Star Trek is a type 2 civilization using the K-scale and type 3 using the Z-scale.

Both the Galactic Republic and the Galactic Empire of Star Wars are type 3 civilizations using either scale.

The Ancients in Stargate are most likely type 3.

Here's the challenge--getting from type 0 (where we are) to type 1 (or type 1 to type 2) depending upon the scale you prefer. IF we manage to neither blow ourselves to kingdom come or create our own little Venus here then in another hundred years we'll become a Type 1 civilization according to the K-scale. I think that any civilization that manages to get that far will probably persist indefinitely. So the optimistic view would be that if we were ever to encounter a type 2 or type 3 civilization, they would simply be too mellow and evolved to conquer us.

The less optimistic view, though, is that any type 2 or type 3 civilizations we might encounter here are going to be here for a reason. I can't imagine why any civilization would go to the trouble and expense to travel possibly hundreds of light-years JUST to see the sights. If an alien civilization comes to Earth it would likely be because Earth has something that they want/need and cannot synthesize themselves. If that is the case, the best we could hope for is that they would relocate us someplace and then take the planet for themselves.

Also keep in mind that a type 2 or type 3 civilization would have technology so far advanced from ours that we would all have full and complete appreciation of Clarke's Third Law, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". I think that if we were to encounter a type 3 civilization we might be very likely to fall upon our knees and worship them as gods as they would be able to do things to and with matter that we can hardly fathom. If we gave them any guff, however, sweeping us aside would be no more trouble than, say, any modern military would have sweeping aside the armies of Caesar or Hannibal. Imagine the modern US military transported back a few thousand years to the time of Caesar. They would appear as gods to them.

Hawking makes a really good point. As much as we may romanticize why the Europeans, Chinese, Persians and Ottomans set out on their voyages of exploration they were looking for resources, fortune and glory. They weren't just seeing the sights, that was an interesting by-product. Whenever or wherever those three groups found people who were inconveniently in the way they either destroyed them or conquered them. I suspect that any intelligent species that went to the trouble of traveling here would probably do the same.

One other option--and this was a point that Hawking made and other scientists also made after a couple of instances where NASA or some other group of scientists sent messages into deep space saying "here we are"--is that a civilization might detect us and decide that BEFORE we become a problem in the galaxy, they might want to just save themselves the trouble and wipe us out now while we are still not much more than monkeys with nuclear weapons, some satellites and digital-fiber optic technology. It would certainly be tempting particularly if the species were aggressive. Using the Star Trek universe as a guide, I could see the Vulcans wiping us out because it would be easier to do so now than AFTER we developed FTL travel. I could see the Romulans doing so for much the same reason. I could see the Klingons doing so because we would look like the competition and it would be a nice exercise for young Klingon warriors.

Cheers
Aj

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by Daywalker

Thank you AJ...it was just one of those profound thoughts that spawned
through my attic a few weeks ago. You know, there is so much
(religious) conflict within the Human Species on who Our
Creator is/was...and I thought...wow, what if you're
all wrong and the very Matter that
surrounds us...is our Creator.

Daywalker - I think you would love the poetry of Whitman and William Blake. They both have the idea that the creator and the creation are the same thing. They argue for Poets replacing priests and institutionalized religion and people learning to value and be in awe of the natural world of which we are a part (hence Whitman's odes to the body, sex, and life) and Blake's awe of art (as creation), and the natural world.

Rather than worrying about an afterlife and keeping an unknowable god figure happy they tell us to revel in life itself and that "god" is in us and in everything we see and to worship that and not some arbitrary angry figure that demands we do X but not Y in order to have an afterlife.

Blake (late 18th century) was an anti rationalist because he said they reduced life to nothing but atoms and molecules and diagrams and theories. In one of his paintings, Blake has Newton looking down at the ground creating a diagram. In this picture, Newton has lost his creative imagination and has lost his capacity to be in awe of and in wonder of the natural world and in doing so has lost his humanity. For Blake, true humanity was located in the creative arts and in the human imagination.

Melissa

[Softhearted]

As I was kindly reminded, I am sorry if I had the nerves to answer some questions... I will not participate in this thread... the only thing I have to say though, it would be nice to have seen some sources or articles related....

Buhbye