Can you accelerate to the speed of light?

This one is easy to answer; we pretty much agree that you can’t. But when I think about reasons often given for this barrier I found a flaw in the reasoning routinely given. The same kind of error was once made by Einstein himself and later corrected it, the error is called ‘frame switching’, that is, attributing to one frame the measurement made by another.

I’m not going to dwell on the incorrect solution but move right along to the correct one.

Let us employ the popular twins of The Twin’s Paradox fame. The twins initially share the same inertial frame and then one accelerates away.

We know that, from Special Relativity, the mass of the accelerated twin increases with his speed relative to the stay at home twin. If the unaccelerated twin is providing the power to push the accelerated twin then the amount of energy will not increase linearly with increasing target speed but will rise much quicker as the inertia of the moving twin increases, eventually rising to infinity.

So we know that we can not accelerate an object to the speed of light that way.

Now we consider the other case, rockets on the accelerated twin’s vehicle. We note that each twin calculates the same speed difference between them. Assume that the accelerated twin accelerates in bursts and then coasts. Each time the accelerated twin coasts he can count himself stationary and the other twin to be the one that is moving. It takes no more energy to accelerate by 1,000kmh from any speed that the twin obtains because at any speed he can count himself stationary and there is nothing in Special Relativity or physics that can dispute this. Thus to add another 1,000kph never takes any more energy at any speed, that is, it does not take any more energy to accelerate from stationary (at rest with the other twin) or from 280,000kps

What stops the twin from reaching the speed of light is not some barrier of any kind, but the problem that he would run out of universe to accelerate in. At the speed of light the distance between any points in the direction of travel falls to zero and the interval to travel that distance falls to zero, so there simply isn’t any more universe left, even an infinite universe would not solve the problem.

We may try to argue the addition of velocities but that only applies if an object leaves our accelerated twin’s rocket at some speed in the direction of travel and only by the measure of the unaccelerated twin. As far as the accelerated twin is concerned, he is at rest before each acceleration step…

What the accelerated twin would notice is that the universe seems to be getting ever shorter in the direction of his travel, so there is some indication of motion by that measure. Eventually, the whole universe would appear to be compacted to a point, so no further acceleration is possible for that reason.

I have seen written that as the accelerated twin gains mass it becomes increasingly difficult for that twin to accelerate. This is not the case. It becomes more difficult for the unaccelerated twin to push the accelerated twin (because he measures the increase of mass, the accelerating twin does not) but not for the accelerating twin that can accelerate forever, or until he runs out of universe which will occur before he reaches the speed of light.

The key points are:
1) The accelerated twin’s inertial frame has the same mass, length, and temporal frequency (clock rate) regardless of his speed (Einstein said that all the physics remains the same);
2) At the speed of light the accelerated twin would literally leave the universe for any measurable interval on his clock.

Note also that the energy of the rocket for each acceleration will be measured differently by the two twins. The unaccelerated twin will measure each ‘burn’ as taking ever longer as the speed increases but temperature and pressure decrease (power decreases, thrust decreases), thus he measures the same energy (power * interval) for each burn.

Note also that if the amount of energy required to accelerate changed with your speed then, using a fine enough measurement you could determine when you were absolutely stationary (as this would require the minimum energy for acceleration) thus establishing a preferred or absolutely stationary inertial frame, in violation of the most basic principles of relativity theory ie there is no preferred or absolutely stationary inertial frame (from which all other frames could be compared or measured).

 To many, the speed of light being the ultimate speed limit is a fundamental law of physics. Albert Einstein believed that particles could never travel faster than the speed of light, and doing so would constitute time travel. For those that regret something in theirpast this is potentially an interesting question. For those who have led a completely perfect life, it is an interesting piece of knowledge to have nonetheless. There are also other reasons to research this question. The closest star, other than our sun, is Proxima Centauri and is about twenty five trillion miles away, which would take over ten thousand years to reach with the fastest spaceship we have today.Therefore if we ever wish to truly explore our universe we must start to explore the limitations of our transport.

To answer this question I must first define a few parameters. As the question stands it is rather ambiguous. I could say yes, but then slow light down before conducting my ‘race’, and then show that the particle did indeed travel faster than the light did. There are many ways in which this can be achieved, for example a Danish physicist named Lene Vestergaard Hau was able to slow light down to 17m/s, roughly thirty eight miles per hour, enabling my car to travel faster than light. They achieved this by cooling Bose-Einstein condensate atoms to a fraction of a degree above absolute zero, before passing the beam of light through it.Obviously this is cheating, using the the wave-particle duality of light to think of light as a particle, we know that the light is still travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum, it just has further to travel, as it interacts with all the particles in the material. I.e. the light has had the distance it needs to travel extended, in much the same way as the resistance of a metal increases when it is heated up, as the electrons collide more often with the ions in the metal and therefore take longer to travel through it.Therefore it is only fair to define the speed of light as the speed of light in a vacuum, known as c, which is 3.00×10⁸ m/s to three significant figures. We commonly slow light down in every day life, when it bends through glass for example, but does this mean we can speed it up? Can we make light travel faster than light?

This is known as Superluminal Propagation and is the first faster-than-light example I would like to talk about. It seems possible to send pulses of light faster than c over small distances, however interpreting these results has been difficult because the light pulses always get distorted in the process.In 2000 Mugnai reported the propagation of microwaves over quite large distances, tens of centimetres, at speeds 7% faster than c. Impressive as this is, research by Wang has shown a much larger superluminal effect for pulses of visible light in which the light is travelling so fast the pulse exits the medium before it enters it. The observed group velocity has been calculated as -c/310 . The easiest way to understand this negative velocity is to interpret this value as meaning the energy of the wave moved a positive distance over a negative time. In other words the pulse emerged from the medium before entering it. Although light can be considered as a particle the photon has no mass, so this is not a true example of a particle travelling faster than c.

The second thing I will talk about is special relativity andits consequence, time dilation. The theory of special relativity states that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. As a result of this the speed of light cannot be altered, if I was driving a car at half the speed of light and I turned on the headlights, the speed of light would still be measured as c, rather than 1.5c, as might seem logical. This is perhaps counterintuitive as with much smaller speeds we would add velocities, for example driving a car at 50mph and throwing a stone at 20mph in the same direction, would result in the stone having a velocity of 70mph in that direction. To illustrate time dilation I will show the effect of moving at high speeds on two clocks.

In this situation the clock works by bouncing light between the two mirrors A and B, this represents one tick, so for the sake of argument I will say that it takes one second for the light to travel the full distance between the two mirrors or 2L. Both images depict the same clock, however the one on the right is moving close to light speed in relation to the other. The speed of light must be c in both frames, however as you can see the light has further to travel in the moving clock. As 2D is longer than 2L, the moving clock appears to be running more slowly from the frame of the stationary clock. Using these two examples it is possible to derive the change in time and thus the time dilation. The first clock gives us the simple equation   and the moving clock shows  . Using Pythagoras theorem we can show that  , this can then be substituted back into the equation and rearranged for , finally giving  .

This expresses the fact that time slows down the faster you go. The main point of this is that it is possible to travel a distance of one light year in less than a year. This statement needs explaining however because for a stationary onlooker, say a person on earth, the journey time will appear to be much longer than a year. However the traveller will have experienced less than a year. This is common at CERN where short-lived particles, such as muons, with a mean lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, are accelerated which hugely extends their lifetime. As we have no stationary point to measure the universe from, due to the Earth’s constant movements, we will never have standard time. A clock on Earth synchronized with one light years away on a distant planet will not stay in sync for very long, the mass of the planet and its velocity determine the experience of time. From here I can crudely argue that if there will never be a standard time the one that matters the most is our own. Having said that I have not proved that it would be faster than light, this is a slightly unscientific argument, however it is interesting to say that if there were no other people in the world to offer an alternative view I would say that I can travel faster than light.

My next example involves space-time distortion. After the Big Bang the universe expanded at a rate much faster than 3.00×10⁸ m/s.Special relativity does not provide a limit for distorting space-time. Miguel Alcubierre hypothesized that a spacecraft could be enclosed in a ‘bubble’ and exotic matter could be used to rapidly expand space-time at the back of the bubble, making you move further away from objects behind you, and contacting it at the front, bringing object ahead of you closer. This would be a new way of travel in which it would be space-time which is moving rather than the spaceship. In this way the ship would reach a destination much faster than a beam of light travelling outside of the bubble but without anything travelling faster than c inside the bubble.[6]This method has one important drawback, It violates the weak, dominant and strong energy conditions, both the weak and the dominant energy conditions require the energy density to be positive for all observers, therefore negative energy is needed, which may or may not exist.[7]

A particle which is always travelling faster than the speed of light is known as a Tachyon. Tachyons, if they exist, would both answer my question immediately and have very interesting properties. The equation   has often been used to show that particles with mass can never achieve the speed of light, this is because it would require infinite energy. However if the same equation was applied to tachyons, it would show two things. Firstly, a tachyon would never be able to decelerate below the speed of light, as crossing this limit from either side would require infinite energy. Secondly it would have an imaginary mass. When v is larger than c the denominator in the above equation would become imaginary, as the total energy must be real the numerator must also be imaginary. Therefore the rest mass must be imaginary, as an imaginary number divided by another imaginary number is real.The existence of tachyons would cause certain causality paradoxes. If they could be used to send signals faster than c, then if one frame is moving at 0.6c and another is moving at -0.6c there would always be one frame in which the signal was received before it was sent. Effectively the signal would have moved back in time. Special relativity claims the laws of physics work the same in every frame, if it is possible for signals to move back in one frame it must be for all of them. Therefore if A sends a signal to B which moves faster than light in A’s frame and therefore backwards in time in B’s frame. B could then reply with a signal faster than light in B’s frame but backwards in time in A’s frame, thus it could end up that A received the reply before sending the original message, challenging causality and causing paradoxes.

The mathematical case that prohibits faster than light travel uses the Equation E=MC², shows that energy and mass are the same thing, this equation implies that the more energy you inject into a rocket, the more mass it gains, and the more mass it gains, the harder it is to accelerate. Boosting it to the speed of light is impossible because in the process the rocket would become infinitely massive and would require and infinite amount of energy.

A wormhole is effectively a shortcut through space-time. A wormhole connects two places in space-time and allows a particle to travel a distance faster than a beam of light would on the outside of the wormhole. The particles inside the wormhole are not going faster than the speed of light,they are only able to beat light because theyhave a smaller distance to travel. Scientists imagine that the opening to a wormhole would look something a bubble. It is theorized that a wormhole allowing travel in both directions, known as a Lorentzian traversable wormhole, would require exotic matter. As they connect two points in both space and time they theoretically allow travel through time as well as space. This fascinated many scientists and Morris, Thorne and Yurtsever worked out how to convert a wormhole traversing space into one traversing time. This process involves accelerating one opening of the wormhole relative to the other, before bringing it back to the original location. This uses a process I have mentioned earlier, time dilation. Time dilation would cause the end of the wormhole that was accelerated to have aged less. Say there were two clocks, one at each opening of the wormhole, after this tampering, the clock on the accelerated end of the wormhole may read 2000 where as the clock at the stationary end showed 2013, so that a traveller entering one end would find himself/herself in the same region but 13 years in the past. As fantastic as this may sound there have been many who believe it would be impossible, there are predictions that say that a loop of virtual particles would circulate through the wormhole with ever-increasing intensity, destroying it before it could be of any use.

Over the course of this essay I have shown a few ways in which the speed of light can be ‘beaten’, but ultimately I have failed to produce any proven faster than light particles, and for this reason I must conclude that particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light. However the topics I have raised are still in the developing stage, I have shown that there are many diverse areas of physics which are both being explored and need exploring. Many of these areas are still heavily theoretical and are under further research, but our technology is increasing at an exponential rate and the human race is steadily getting smarter, so with time and perseverance we will know the answer to questions such as these and many more. To infinity, and beyond.

Thanks Robert Karl Stonjek

 

Eiffel Tower Structural Drawing

A Short History of Smearing

For over hundred years now young painters look at Modern Art and its  various styles,approaches and techniques and being young they get tempted almost each week in different direction  To be as tight and illusionistic as Ingres or as grotesque as Otto Dix, to be painting so magically that everything would seem to appear as if behind a mirror... That would impress anyone.
But, another demon would beckon toward particularly naughty direction, where thrill of doing something that everybody knows should not, not ever be done is tempting. Something as rebellious and defiling that even thought of it would be frightening to the civilized part of the mind. But- the part that secretly shines shoes with lacy curtains and pours ink to the aquarium wants to do it. The consequences might be very unpleasant and at the same time presenting a new you, not that flaccid ne'er-do-well but a formidable risk-taker, artistic buccaneer,almost a salto-mortale motorcyclist!

A  crowd of uncoordinated, devoid of  manual dexterity, impatient art-lurkers promote hopeful wish  that figurative art is either dead or should be dead. They sense that somehow there ought to be another way into artistic success than talent and tedium of learning.

Figurative art is not promising any "fun"[there is immense ,long lasting Joy in painting, but indeed ,no fun]. Let's declare representational art dead  and by necessity of moving forward let us try yet untried. What possibly could be more antithetic to painting as much as  smearing?

The original first smearer,as it often is with claims of originality it may be disputed but in all events among the very first brave smearers  remarkable work of Jewish émigré from Russia ,Chaim Soutin should be recognized. Everywhere in contemporary art of that time paintings still retained disciplined, tight form in drawing  and young Soutin broke that confining restrain. Not being able to draw , like not being able to play piano is something most people share.

However, not being able to play the piano and giving piano recitals would be new and untried. By this analogy not being able to draw, to reflect on canvas some disciplined ,representational forms and yet obtaining great fame as prominent painter is a feat no Pianist-Who-Can-Not-Play-The- Piano has achieved. Feats like that are astounding .In other fields golden nimbus of fame and universal admiration  is given to the very few highest achievers. We see no Polar Explorers who never went to polar regions and we do not see renown swimmers who do not know how to swim. Yet,in the difficult art of painting it has been possible to manufacture by the skillful uses of Dark Magic great fame and a lasting place in the pantheon of greatest artists for someone who could not neither draw nor paint.

Then,another triumph of promotion became visible and this time no longer in Paris but over the famed skyline of New York City.His name was Franz Kline.

It is hard to imagine how something so obviously ugly and chutzpiatic could ever find itself on public display, let alone national museums.And yet:

 ", Kline's work is distinct in itself and has been revered since the 1950s"

"says wikipedia. Reverence,no less......

 "Kline's paintings are deceptively subtle. While generally his paintings have a spontaneous, and dramatic impact, Kline often closely referred to his compositional drawings. Kline carefully rendered many of his most complex pictures from extensive studies."-
 one can see how much meticulous preparatory "studies" conducted by the Master with aid of  interns and aspirants it must have taken before the first brushstroke appeared on canvas. Franz Kline was also known for avoiding giving meaning to his paintings, In a catalog of Kline's works, art historian Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev writes that "his art both suggests and denies significance and meaning" and what a meaning it may suggest! On top of that, just to be inscrutable-he would deny any meaning or even significance -what an appropriately naughty artiste-maudit teasing coyly  the adoring historians into writing about the smears as if their meaning was as dense as a collapsed red dwarf.

When it comes to the greatest,most delightfully haphazard,deliciously emetic art of smearing the golden palm should be handed to Hans Hofmann,the very Pope of Smearing.

Through a painting, we can see the whole world" said Hans Hofmann.I am not certain he meant his painting

And one more for our edification: Frank Auerbach.

" His work is not concerned with finding a visual equivalent to an emotional or spiritual state that characterised the expressionist movement, rather it deals with the attempt to resolve the experience of being in the world in paint."-so,his paintings are some kind of psychological trial of vague angst experienced by "being in the world".The result of this unusual situation,of being "in the world" and precisely in Camden  part of London  calls for "resolving" through the means of gobbing ,pooling and scraping a greasy dump of accumulated paint.

".......results in an astonishing desire{it really must be "astonishing"] to produce an image the artist considers 'right'. This leads Auerbach to paint an image and then scrape it off the canvas at the end of each day, repeating this process time and again, not primarily to create a layering of images but because of a sense of dissatisfaction with the image leading him to try to paint it again" No  kidding,who would react differently but scrape the thing and perhaps look for the work he could succesfuly do.

"This also indicates that the thick paint in Auerbach's work, which led to some of Auerbach's paintings in the 1950s being considered difficult  to hang, partly due to their weight and according to some newspapers the paint fell off"-that quote shows how not all of it is glamour and riches : paint falls off,people are jeering...

There is a very general set of pre-existing rules of how to do something if we want a particular result. Taking part in figure skating competitions requires without exceptions very fluent skill of skating. One cannot get a job as UN translator without knowing well foreign language.

Actions taken in the process of painting are organizing paint into intense,emotional illusion of three-dimensional image, thus hiding means by which it was achieved. The degree of illusionism varies with styles and unique touch of the artist but the fundamental illusion of paint appearing as objects of the world depicted ; that fundamental  rule obtains. Clearly, subversive forces embedded in XX century culture started the perversity of definitions on all fronts and art is just one of its victims. What has always been a joke has become a rule and what humanity everywhere  and always understood to be in a certain way has been hung upside down and ridiculed .

Because I wanted to conclude this post without fury,I am including one of Meredith Frampton's paintings.Can you imagine him at an art-opening with those new giants?

Thagainstmodernart.blogspot.com.

New research suggests sleep doesn’t just help learning, it helps “relearning” as well

Sleep appears to be important for long-term potentiation, a strengthening of signals between neurons that is widely regarded as a mechanism of learning and memory. Certain memories acquired during the day appear to be reactivated and “replayed” in the brain during sleep, which may help make them longer lasting. In some instances the amount of improvement that occurs on memory tasks positively correlates with the length of time spent in certain stages of sleep.

To date, most sleep and learning research has focused on recall, which is the capacity to remember information. However, new research by Stéphanie Mazza and colleagues at the University of Lyon, recently published in the journal Psychological Science,suggests another potential benefit of sleep: improved relearning. Relearning refers to the process of re-acquiring forgotten information. Because we cannot possibly remember all of the information that we encounter, it is often necessary to go back and learn that information again. That’s when relearning occurs—such as when preparing for an exam, taking a refresher course, or simply revisiting a topic after an extended period of time. According to this new research, sleep supercharges relearning: it can enable us to relearn twice as quickly and up to three times more effectively.

Cecile G. Tamura

 

We’ve all stayed up the night before an exam to do some late-night cramming, but we might have been going about it the wrong way. It turns out that only about 20% of the potential brain function is on the go between 10pm and midnight, explaining why it’s so hard to stay on track. However a 2010 study found that a quick nap can work wonders on our brain’s ability. The study, done by Harvard University, showed that students that slept and dreamt for 90 minutes before being given a puzzle scored much higher than their peers. Scientists believe that dreaming has a positive effect on memory recall and concentration, giving you a great reason to hit the sack early tonight.

Read more at: https://www.stayathomemum.com.au/my-lifestyle/20-mind-blowing-facts-about-sleep/

 

SIM Card Sizes

 

SIM cards come in three different sizes: Standard SIM, Micro SIM and Nano SIM. The right size of SIM card to fit in your handset will depend on the manufacturer and the model of your smartphone.

As of 2015, most new smartphones are either using Micro SIM or Nano SIM.

Handsets requiring a Micro SIM include the Galaxy S5, Galaxy Note 4, LG G4 and Moto G. If you’re changing to a smartphone which requires Micro SIM, you might need to change the size of your SIM card. You can order a micro-sized SIM card directly from your mobile network.

Handsets requiring a Nano SIM include the latest flagship smartphones from Apple and Samsung (e.g. the iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, Galaxy S6 and iPhone 5s). The Xperia Z5 and HTC One M9 also use nano-sized SIM cards. You might need to change the size of your SIM card when upgrading to a handset which uses Nano SIM. You can order a nano SIM directly from your network.

All three SIM card types work in the same way from a technical perspective: they only differ in the amount of plastic housing that surrounds the metallic chip.

If you’re willing to take the risk, it’s possible to cut your Standard SIM down to Micro SIM dimensions (e.g. with a Micro SIM cutting tool). However, we’d normally advise against doing this: instead, it’s easier and safer to order a Micro SIM directly from your mobile network. It’s normally free and you won’t risk invalidating your phone’s warranty with a badly-cut Micro SIM.

It isn’t possible to cut your own Nano SIM. This is due to the differences in thickness between Nano SIM and other types of SIM card.

Kingdom of Heaven The Truth Behind The Crusades

ஐரோப்பாவிலிருந்து சென்ற க்றிஸ்துக்களின் ராணுவம் ஜெருசலேமை கைப்பற்றுகிறது... ஜெருசலேம் அவர்கள் கட்டுப்பாட்டில் இருந்தாலும் சுற்றி இருப்பது முஸ்லிம் மக்கள்/நாடுகள்.... ஆதலால் அங்கு ஒற்றுமையை காப்பாற்ற வேண்டி முஸ்லிம் மன்னரிடம் ஜெருசலேமின் மன்னர் ஒப்பந்தம் எழுதி கொள்கிறார்.... அதன் மூலம் ஒற்றுமையை கஷ்டபட்டு காப்பாற்றிகொண்டிருக்க... அவருக்கு தொழு நோய் வந்து விடுகிறது... விரைவில் அவர் காலம் முடியும் தருணம்.

மன்னரின் சகோதரி கணவன்.. அனைத்து முஸ்லிம்களையும் கொன்று விட்டு க்றிஸ்து நாட்டை ஸ்தாபிக்க துடிக்கும் ஒரு மத கிறுக்கன்... அவனே அடுத்த தலைவனாகும் சூழல்...

நடுவில் ஒரு தளபதியின் மகன்.

மன்னரின் இறப்பு.. அதை தொடர்ந்த அரசியல் குழப்பங்கள்... அதனால் வரும் போர் சூழல்கள்... தவறான போர் கொள்கைகளால் க்றிஸ்து ராணுவம் தோற்று போக தளபதியின் மகன், கோட்டையையும் நாட்டு மக்களையும் காப்பாற்ற... மக்களையே ராணுவமாக மாற்றி போராடுதல்.. முடிவில் மக்களுக்கு ஆபத்தில்லாமல் காப்பாற்றி.... முஸ்லிம் மன்னரிடம் சமரசம் பேசுதல்.. என்று வரலாற்று சம்பவங்களை வைத்து எடுத்த சினிமா...

மிக பிரமாண்டமான போர் காட்சிகள்..... செம கேமரா... வரலாற்று படங்கள் / போர் படங்கள் பிடிக்குமென்றால் மிஸ் பண்ண கூடாத படம்.

 The first thing to be said for Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" is that Scott knows how to direct a historical epic. I might have been kinder to his "Gladiator" had I known that "Troy" and "Alexander" were in my future, but "Kingdom of Heaven" is better than "Gladiator" -- deeper, more thoughtful, more about human motivation and less about action.

The second thing is that Scott is a brave man to release a movie at this time about the wars between Christians and Muslims for control of Jerusalem. Few people will be capable of looking at "Kingdom of Heaven" objectively. I have been invited by both Muslims and Christians to view the movie with them so they can point out its shortcomings. When you've made both sides angry, you may have done something right. The Muslim scholar Hamid Dabashi, however, after being asked to consult on the movie, writes in the new issue of Sight & Sound: "It was neither pro- nor anti-Islamic, neither pro- nor anti-Christian. It was, in fact, not even about the 'Crusades.'" And yet I consider the film to be a profound act of faith." It is an act of faith, he thinks, because for its hero Balian (Orlando Bloom), who is a non-believer, "All religious affiliations fade in the light of his melancholic quest to find a noble purpose in life."

That's an insight that helps me understand my own initial question about the film, which was: Why don't they talk more about religion? Weren't the Crusades seen by Christians as a Holy War to gain control of Jerusalem from the Muslims? I wondered if perhaps Scott was evading the issue. But not really: He shows characters more concerned with personal power and advancement than with theological issues.

Balian, a village blacksmith in France, discovers he is the illegitimate son of Sir Godfrey (Liam Neeson). Godfrey is a knight returning from the Middle East, who paints Jerusalem not in terms of a holy war but in terms of its opportunities for an ambitious young man; it has a healthy economy at a time when medieval Europe is stagnant. "A man who in France has not a house is in the holy land the master of a city," Godfrey promises. "There at the end of the world you are not what you were born but what you have it in yourself to be." He makes Jerusalem sound like a medieval Atlanta, a city too busy to hate.

For the 100 years leading up to the action, both Christians and Muslims were content to see each other worship in the holy city. It was only when Christian zealots determined to control the Holy Land more rigidly that things went wrong. The movie takes place circa 1184, as the city is ruled by the young King Baldwin (Edward Norton), who has leprosy and conceals his disfigured face behind a silver mask. Balian takes control of the city after the death of its young king. Then the Knights Templar, well known from The Da Vinci Code, wage war on the Muslims. Saladin (Ghassan Massoud) leads a Muslim army against them, and Balian eventually surrenders the city to him. Much bloodshed and battle are avoided.

What Scott seems to be suggesting, I think, is that most Christians and Muslims might be able to coexist peacefully if it were not for the extremists on both sides. This may explain why the movie has displeased the very sorts of Muslims and Christians who will take moderation as an affront. Most ordinary moviegoers, I suspect, will not care much about the movie's reasonable politics, and will be absorbed in those staples of all historical epics, battle and romance.

The romance here is between Balian and Sibylla (Eva Green), sister of King Baldwin. You might wonder how a blacksmith could woo a princess, but reflect that Sir Godfrey was correct, and there are indeed opportunities for an ambitious young man in Jerusalem, especially after his newly discovered father makes him a knight, and Tiberias (Jeremy Irons) enlists him as an aide to Baldwin.

One spectacular battle scene involves the attack of Saladin's forces on Christian-controlled Jerusalem, and it's one of those spectacular set pieces with giant balls of flame that hurtle through the air and land close, but not too close, to the key characters.

There is a certain scale that's inevitable in films of this sort, and Scott does it better than anybody. Even so, I enjoyed the dialogue and plot more than the action. I've seen one or two vast desert cities too many. Nor do thousands of charging horses look brand new to me, and the hand-to-hand combat looks uncannily like all other hand-to-hand combat. Godfrey gives Balian a lesson in swordsmanship (chop from above), but apparently the important thing to remember is that if you're an anonymous enemy you die, and if you're a hero you live unless a glorious death is required. You'd think people would be killed almost by accident in the middle of a thousand sword-swinging madmen, but every encounter is broken down into a confrontation between a victor and a vanquished. It's well done, but it's been done.

What's more interesting is Ridley Scott's visual style, assisted by John Mathieson's cinematography and the production design of Arthur Max. A vast set of ancient Jerusalem was constructed to provide realistic foregrounds and locations, which were then enhanced by CGI backgrounds, additional horses and troops, and so on. There is also exhilarating footage of young Balian making his way to Jerusalem, using the 12th-century equivalent of GPS: "Go to where they speak Italian, and then keep going."

The movie is above all about the personal codes of its heroes, both Christian and Muslim. They are men of honor: Gentlemen, we would say, if they were only a little gentle. They've seen enough bloodshed and lost enough comrades to look with a jaundiced eye at the zealots who urge them into battle. There is a scene where Baldwin and Saladin meet on a vast plain between their massed troops, and agree, man to man, to end the battle right then and there. Later, one of Balian's pre-battle speeches to his troops sounds strangely regretful: "We fight over an offense we did not give, against those who were not alive to be offended." Time for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

thanks :rogerebert.com

"Beyond Exoplanets" --NASA's New Kepler Mission Field of View Embraces Our Solar System

Previously, the Kepler space telescope looked straight out from the solar system in a direction almost perpendicular to the ecliptic and the plane of the planets. This way, it could observe the same spot all year long, as the sun, and most of the solar system, were out of its field of view. But since the start of K2 mission, it has been observing parallel to that plane in order to better balance against the radiation pressure of the sun.

This new strategy has two important consequences: One is that Kepler has to change its field of view every three months to avoid the sun; the other is that our own solar system, unexpectedly, has become a target for the exoplanet-hunting telescope.

For most astronomers working with Kepler, planets and asteroids zipping through the images are little more than a nuisance when studying the light variations of stars. Researchers from the Konkoly and Gothard Observatories in Hungary, however, saw a research opportunity in these moving specks of light. Following up on their work with trans-Neptunian objects, they examined the light variations of some main-belt and Trojan asteroids in a pair of research papers.

Main-belt asteroids were not targeted by Kepler, so the astronomers selected two extended mosaics that covered the open cluster M35 and the path of the planet Neptune, and simply tracked all known asteroids crossing them. Most of the objects were continuously observable for one to four days, which may not sound like much, but is significantly longer than single-night runs achievable with ground-based telescopes. Indeed, the researchers hoped that with Kepler, they could determine the rotation periods of the asteroids more accurately, without the uncertainties caused by daytime gaps in the data—and they did, but only for a fraction of the sample.

"We measured the paths of all known asteroids, but most of them turned out to be simply too faint for Kepler. The dense stellar background toward M35 further reduced the number of successful detections," said Róbert Szabó (Konkoly Observatory, MTA CSFK), lead author of the paper. "Still, we have to keep in mind that Kepler was never meant to do such studies; therefore, observing four dozen asteroids with new rotation rates is already more than anybody anticipated," he added.

The other study focused on 56 pre-selected Trojan asteroids in the middle of the L4, or "Greek" group, which orbits ahead of Jupiter. Since they are farther out from Kepler, they could be observed for longer periods, from 10 to 20 days, without interruption. And this turned out to be crucial: Many objects exhibited slow light variations between two and 15 days. Long periodicity suggests that what we see is not just one rotating asteroid, but actually two orbiting each other—the study confirmed that about 20 to 25 percent of Trojans are binary asteroids or asteroid-moon pairs. As Gyula M. Szabó (ELTE Gothard Astrophysical Observatory), lead author of the other paper, said, "Estimating the rate of binaries highlights the great advantage of Kepler, because the interesting periods, longer than 24 to 48 hours, are really hard to measure from the Earth."

What Kepler did not see are rapidly spinning Trojans. Even for the fastest ones, one rotation takes more than five hours, suggesting that the asteroids we see are likely icy, porous objects, similar to comets and trans-Neptunian objects, and different from the rockier main belt objects. "A large piece of rock can rotate much faster than a rubble pile or an icy body of the same size without breaking apart. Our findings favor the scenario that Trojans arrived from the ice-dominated outer solar system instead of migrating outwards from the main asteroid belt," Szabó said.

As Kepler continues its new mission, more objects from the solar system are crossing into its view, including planets, moons, asteroids and comets. The telescope that transformed the science of stars and exoplanets will undoubtedly leave its mark in planetary science, as well.

http://www.nasa.gov/…/nasas-kepler-mission-announces-larges…

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/…/beyond-exoplanets-nasas-new-ke…

http://mashable.com/2015/04/08/alien-life-found-2025/…

Cecile G. Tamura

திருச்செங்கோடு வரலாறு

திருச்செங்கோடு சுயம்பு மரகதலிங்க மர்மம்:

முன்னொரு காலத்தில் ஆதிசேடனுடன் வாயுதேவனும் தங்களில் யார் பலசாலி என்பதை அறிய இருவரும் போர் செய்தனர். இப்போரினால் உலகில் பேரழிவுகளும், துன்பங்களும் நேரிடுவதை கண்ட முனிவர்களும், தேவர்களும் அவர்களிடம் யார் பலசாலி என்பதை அறிய ஒரு வழி கூறி அதில் யார் வெற்றி பெறுகிறார்களோ அவர்களே பலசாலி என்றனர். இதன்படி ஆதிசேடன் தன்படங்களால் மேருவின் சிகரத்தின் முடியை அழுத்தி கொள்ளவேண்டும். வாயுதேவன் தன் பலத்தால் பிடியை தளர்த்த வேண்டும் என்றும் கூறினர். ஆனால் வாயுதேவன் பிடியை தளர்த்த முடியவில்லை இதனால் கோபம் கொண்ட வாயுதேவன் தன் சக்தியை அடக்கி கொண்டார். இதனால் உயிரினங்கள் வாயு பிரயோகமற்று மயங்கின. இந்த பேரழிவை கண்ட முனிவர்களும், தேவர்களும் ஆதிசேடனின் பிடியை தளர்த்த வேண்டினர். ஆதிசேடம் தன் பிடியை கொஞ்சம் தளர்த்தினார். இந்த சந்தர்ப்பத்தை பயன்படுத்தி கொண்ட வாயுதேவன் தன் சக்தியால் அப்பகுதியை வேகமாக மோதி அச்சிகரத்துடன் ஆதிசேடன் சிரத்தையும் பெயர்த்து பூமியில் மூன்று செந்நிற பாகங்களாய் சிதறுண்டு விழுந்தது.

அவற்றில்ஒன்றுதிருவண்ணாமலையாகவும், மற்றொன்று இலங்கையாகவும், மற்றொன்று நாகமலையாகவும் (திருச்செங்கோடாகவும்) காட்சியளிக்கிறது.

இவ்வளவு சிறப்புகள் வாய்ந்த நாகமலையில் பல அற்புதங்கள் உள்ளன.

மலை_கோவில்_சிறப்புகள்(அதிசயங்கள்)

மாதொருபாகனின் திருமேனி முழுவதும் வெண்பாசானம் எனப்படும் அற்புத மூலிகைக் கலவையாகும்.

உலகில் சிவபெருமான் 64 விதமான வடிவங்களை தாங்கியிருக்கிறார் . அவற்றில் 22வது வடிவம் இந்த அர்த்தநாரீஸ்வரமூர்த்தி வடிவமாகும்

அம்மையப்பனின் கருநிலைக் கூடத்தில் விலைமதிப்பற்ற பிருங்கி முனிவர் வழிபட்ட சுயம்பு மரகதலிங்கம், நாக மாணிக்கம் இன்றும் பக்தர்களால் பூஜிக்கப்பட்டு வருகிறது.

வேலவனை பாதுகாக்கும் இரு துவாரபாலகர்கள் சிலைகளை உற்று நோக்கினால் அதில் உள்ள கற்சிலை மணிகள் கண்கொள்ளா காட்சியாகும்.

ஆணும் பெண்ணும் சரிநிகர் சமானமாகத் தோற்றமளிக்கும் அர்த்தநாரீஸ்வரருக்கு முக உருவ வழிபாடு இல்லை.

அம்மையப்பனின் திருவடியின் கீழ் அமைந்துள்ள தேவதீர்த்தம் எப்பொழுதும் வற்றாத தீர்த்தமாகும்.

வேறு எங்கும் காணமுடியாத முக்கால் உடைய முனிவர் பிருங்கி மஹாரிஷியின் திருவுருவமானது அம்மையப்பனின் வலது பாதத்தின் அருகில் காணப்படும்.

மூலவர் செங்கோட்டுவேலவர்
திருச்செங்கோட்டில் எழுந்தருளியுள்ள செங்கோட்டுவேலவன் என்ற முருகப்பெருமானின் திருவுருவம் மிகவும் வித்தியாசமானது. அவர்தம் இடது கையில் சேவலை எடுத்து இடுப்பில் அணைத்தபடியும், அவர்தம் வலது கையில் வேலையும் பிடித்திருப்பது உலகிலேயே வேறு எந்த கோயிலிலும் இல்லாத சிறப்பாகும்.

அதே போல் முருகபெருமானின் வலது கையில் உள்ள வேலானது பெருமானின் தலையிலிருந்து சற்று உயரமாக இருக்கும். மற்ற அனைத்து முருகபெருமான் சன்னதியிலும் வேலானது சற்று தலையிலிருந்து உயரம் குறைவாகவே இருக்கும். செங்கோட்டுவேலவரின் இந்த அதிசிய வடிவம் உலகில் வேறு எங்கும் இல்லாத ஒன்றாகும்.

சுயம்பு மரகதலிங்கம் வரலாறு

பிருங்கி முனிவர், கயிலாயம் வரும் வேளைகளில் சிவபெருமானை மட்டும் வலம் வந்து வழிபடுவார். அவரது அருகில் இருக்கும் உமாதேவியைக் கண்டு கொள்ளமாட்டார். இருவரும் ஒன்றாக அமர்ந்திருக்கும் நிலையில், சிவனை மட்டும் வணங்கும் வகையில், வண்டு வடிவம் எடுத்து சுற்றி வந்து வழிபடுவார். இதனால் கோபமடைந்த பார்வதி, ""முனிவரே! சக்தியாகிய என்னை அவமதித்ததால், நீர் சக்தி இழந்து போவீர்,'' என சாபமிட்டாள்.

இதையறிந்த சிவன், "நானும் சக்தியும் ஒன்றுதான். சக்தியில்லையேல் சிவமில்லை' எனக்கூறி உமையவளுக்கு தன் இடப்பாகத்தில் இடம் கொடுத்தார். இடப்பாகத்தில் தான் இதயம் இருக்கிறது. மனைவி என்பவள் இதயத்தில் இருக்க வேண்டியவள் என்பதற்கேற்ப இந்த சம்பவம் நிகழ்ந்தது.

பார்வதி தேவி இடப்பாகம் பெறுவதற்க்கு இந்த மலையில் தான் வந்து தவம் புரிந்து கேதார கவுரி விரதம் இருந்து இடப்பாகம் பெற்றார்.(இக்கோயிலில் கேதார கவுரி விரதம், புரட்டாசி வளர்பிறை அஷ்டமி திதியில் ஆரம்பித்து 21 நாள் கடைபிடிக்கப்படுகிறது).அப்படி சிவனை நினைத்து தவம் செய்யும் போது சிவ பெருமான் லிங்க வடிவமாக வந்து காட்சி தந்து மறைந்தார். பின் அந்த லிங்கத்திலேயே பார்வதியும் கலந்தார்

இந்த லிங்கத்தின் அருமை அறிந்த பிருங்கி முனிவர் மலையில் தனது மூன்று காலால் நடந்தே வந்து லிங்கத்தை தரிசனம் செய்தார். தனது மூன்றாம் காலை துறந்து இழந்த சக்தியை பெற்றார். பின் அந்த லிங்கத்தை அங்கேயே நிறுவினார். பின் அந்த லிங்கத்தின் சக்தியை எடுத்து கூறி அதை மார்கழி மாதம் மட்டும் எடுத்து அபிஷேகம் செய்து பின் சூரியன் உதயமாவதற்க்குள் எடுத்து பேழையில் வைத்து விடவேண்டும் என்று தனது சீடர்களுக்கு கட்டளையிட்டார் (போகர் பழனியில் புலிப்பாணி முனிவருக்கு இட்டது போலே சில விதிமுறைகள்)மீதி நேரத்தில் சதாரணமாக இந்த லிஙத்தை (மரகதலிங்கம்) வைத்து விடுங்கள் என்றார். பின் அர்த்தநாரீசர் திருவுருவத்தை முக உரு இல்லாமல் வெண்பாசாணம் கொண்டு செய்தார். பின் அங்கு ஒரு ஊற்று நீரையும் ஏற்படுத்தி அந்த நீரை பக்தர்களுக்கு கொடுக்குமாறு செய்தார்.

சுயம்பு_லிங்கத்தின்_மர்மம்:

யார் மார்கழி மாதத்தில் குளித்து முடித்து மலையின் மீது நடந்தே வந்து இந்த சுயம்பு லிங்கத்தை தரிசனம் செய்கிறார்களோ அவர்க்கு வாழ்வில் பல நல்ல மாற்றங்கள் ஏற்படும் என்பது ஐதீகம் அல்ல உண்மை.

குறிப்பு:குறைந்தது 5 மணிக்குள்ளாக கோவிலில் இருக்க வேண்டும் இல்லை என்றால் அதற்க்கு பதிலாக வேறு ஒரு லிங்கம் வைத்து விடுவார்கள். இது அதை விட சற்று பெரியதாக இருக்கும் இது தான் சாதரணமான தினத்தில் வைக்கபடும் லிங்கம். இந்த உண்மை பலரும் மறைத்து உள்ளனர்.அங்குள்ள வம்சாவழிகளுக்கு மட்டுமே தெறிந்த உண்மை. மலையின் பஸ் ரூட்டு வழியாக நடந்தும் செல்லலாம்.

நாகமாணிக்கம்_மர்மம்

நாகமாணிக்கம் எங்குள்ளது என்று தெரியவில்லை.சுயம்பு மரகத லிங்கத்தின் பால் அபிஷேகம் பார்பது மிகவும் கொடுத்துவைத்திருக்கவேண்டும் .

அமைவிடம்:

திருச்செங்கோடு ஈரோடிலிருந்து 18 கிமீ தொலைவிலும் சேலத்திலிருந்து 45 கிமீ தொலைவிலும் நாமக்கலிருந்து 32 கிமீ தொலைவிலும் அமைந்துள்ளது.
தென் நாடு உடைய சிவனே, போற்றி! எந் நாட்டவர்க்கும் இறைவா, போற்றி!

Fatal Attraction Film

அமைதியா செம ஜாலியான வாழ்க்கை... ஒரு பார்ட்டிக்கு போகும் போது ஒரு பெண்ணை பார்க்கிறாரு ஹீரோ... immediate attraction அடுத்து மீண்டும் அந்த பெண்ணை சந்திக்கும் போது 'ஓவரா' பழகிடுறாங்க...

காலையில வீட்டுக்கு கிளம்பறாரு.... எங்க மாம்ஸ் போற.. நான் என்ன ஒரு நாள் மேட்டரா... ஒழுங்கா என்னயும் உன் வாழ்க்கையில சேர்த்துக்கோன்னு அந்த பெண் பல்டி அடிக்க... என்னமோ பண்ணி சமாளிச்சு வீட்டுக்கு வாறார்... 15 நாள் கேப்ல அக்கா வந்து மவனே நான் இப்போ கர்ப்பம்டான்னு ஆரம்பிக்கிறாங்க....

அப்புறமா தொடருது அதிரி புதிரி சஸ்பென்ஸ்கள்.... த்ரில்லர் படம் பிடிக்கும்னா பார்க்கலாம்... அட்டகாசமான சினிமாட்டோக்ராபி போனஸ்.... படம் பேரு: Fatal Attraction

There is something pathetic about the commercial theater's increasing reliance on movies for source material.

You can make a good musical out of a movie, as Billy Elliot has proved, but it puzzles me why people should be expected to cough up to see a transplanted screenplay; and, even though James Dearden has made some adjustments to his 1987 script for Fatal Attraction, it remains an essentially hollow experience.

The story outline will not greatly surprise anyone who saw the film. We still see a happily married New York lawyer, Dan Gallagher, having a two-night stand with a book editor, Alex Forrest, while his wife is away in the country.

As before, actions have consequences since Alex turns out to be a determined woman who is not to be lightly discarded.

In the end, desperate Dan is stalked and haunted by the tenacious Alex so that his marriage, his job, his car and even his daughter's rabbit are not safe from her attentions.

So what's new? Where the film depicted Alex as a mad harridan whose hairstyle alone should have set alarm bells ringing, Dearden's play lays more stress on Dan's culpability.

After first meeting Alex, he talks of "that sense of exhilaration when the hunter closes in on his prey." He goes on to describe his bout of weekend sex as a "minor indiscretion" and his chum, Jimmy, seeks to justify male infidelity by saying "we're programmed that way – we can't help ourselves."

But these tonal shifts do nothing to explain Alex's singular ferocity. The story is still seen from Dan's point of view: even more so in that, in the play, he becomes the narrator. And, although the intention is clearly to suggest that Alex is as much victim as avenging fury, she remains curiously enigmatic.

Dearden's chief innovation is to use her obsession with Madam Butterfly as a clue to her character. This reaches absurd proportions with the suggestion that Alex is a modern equivalent of Puccini's heroine; Cio-Cio-San was a guileless 15-year-old rather than a 36-year-old editor with a personality disorder.

One is left with a dizzying succession of short scenes that, in Trevor Nunn's production, whisk us from bars to bedrooms to offices and the Gallagher family's rural home.

But, although Robert Jones's designs lend the show a mechanical efficiency, no scene lasts long enough to make an emotional impact. You don't even get the sense, as you did in the movie, of the daily routine of routine domestic contentment on the verge of destruction.

The actors do all they can within the script's limits. Mark Bazeley as Dan conveys the man's escalating panic and self-loathing.

Natascha McElhone makes Alex a softer and more initially hesitant figure than Glenn Close in the movie but lacks the backstory to illuminate her descent into borderline psychosis. And Kristin Davis, in the underwritten role of Dan's wife, is left trying to make bricks without straw.

Dearden's script doesn't do enough to reimagine the movie. A film that was at least a brutally effective psychological thriller has become a modern morality play that simply confirms the dismal truth of Arthur Hugh Clough's poetic couplet: "Do not adultery commit, Advantage rarely comes of it."

thanks: theguardian.com

How much Cosmological Redshift can we expect in a flat, non-expanding universe?

The light coming from a single hydrogen molecule is red shifted because the hydrogen molecule has mass…not much mass, admittedly, and the amount of red shift is going to be extremely challenging to measure but it’s there.

Most of the hydrogen molecule is space. If the electron in a hydrogen atom orbited at the far end of a baseball stadium then the nucleus would be the size of a grain of salt on the pitcher’s mound. Likewise, in a gas, if we were seeing the hydrogen molecule as the size of a star then other hydrogen molecules would be far far away on average, even further if the gas heats up.

But if that hydrogen molecule is part of the gas which is a star then the light coming from that hydrogen molecule is now very measurable indeed as the mass of the entire star contributes to the redshift of our hydrogen molecule even though that molecule is, in its own world, far from other molecules of gas.

If we start our journey near the hydrogen molecule and then move away to the distance of, say, the Earth, we will note an increase in the redshift of the light from that molecule as we proceed. What if we continue?

As we exit the Milky way the redshift of the light from that molecule in the sun is further redshifted as now it is light from a galaxy and not just a star or a single molecule. As we proceed further away we receive light from a cluster of galaxies, our Local Group, and then the local supercluster of galaxies.

Returning to our molecule in the star we note that particles to the left, the right and all around the target molecule contribute to the mass as well as molecules behind and in front. Molecules in the entire region contribute to the mass of the star and this contributes to the redshift of the light from our target molecule.

Thus as we move further away the contribution of clusters of galaxies in an ever bigger area contribute to the increasing redshift of the light from our target molecule. Think of a patch of sky the size of the sun as seen from Earth as contributing mass and therefore to the redshift. With ever greater distance there are ever more galaxies occupying that same footprint in the sky.

That redshift will increase with distance in a flat universe is not the question, it does and we have measured it locally (redshift from the sun verses redshift from a single molecule). The only question is how much this phenomena contributes to the cosmological redshift that we observe ~ a little bit, a lot, or all of it??

Note that if we zoom in on just one molecule of a gas in the sun we will still measure the same redshift, that is, the entire sun’s mass produces the redshift whether we are focused on one molecule or the entire sun. Likewise when we focus in on just one galaxy far away we see the redshift contributed by nearby galaxies, ever more contributing with ever greater distance from us.

Note also that the fact that there is just as much mass behind us as in front of us does not reduce the amount of this form of redshift. If there were another sun equidistant from us so that the Earth was between them then we would measure redshift from both bodies in much the same way with only a very modest reduction in redshift.

இன்றைய எமது தமிழ்

இளையோர் சுவாரிஸ்யத்திற்காக தமிழ் மொழிக்கே சம்பந்தமில்லாத சில சொற்களை பேசித்திரிகிறார்கள். (மொக்கை போடுதல் ,கா (g )ண்டகுதல், கடலைபோடுதல், செம கடுப்பு என சில நாகரிகமற்ற வார்த்தைப் பிரயோகங்கள் சாதாரணமாக இளைஞர்களால் பேசப்படுவது) அவை மெல்ல மெல்ல தமிழ் மொழியின் தாவாரத்தில் ஒதுங்கி இடம்பிடித்துக்கொண்டிருக்கின்ற. இன்று எமது தமிழ் மண் படிப்படியாக கபளீகரம் செய்யப்படுவது போல் தமிழ் மொழியும் அதன் தனித்துவத்தை இழக்கும் நிலை உருவாக்கிக் கொண்டிருக்கிறது.
தென் இந்திய சினிமாவின் தாக்கம் எம் மொழியின் எதிர் காலத்திற்கு கத்தி வைப்பதாக அமையக்கூடாது. ஈழத்து தமிழர் களின் மொழிப்பற்றும் பாவனையும் தமிழ் நாட்டு அறிஞர்களால் வியந்து பாராட்டப்படுவதாய் விளங்கும் அதேநேரத்தில் எம்மவர்கள் எமது தாய் மொழிக்கு இழுக்கு ஏற்படும் வகையிலான நடத்தையை தவிர்க்க வேண்டும்.
எமது தமிழ் மொழிப்பாவனை பற்றி புதுச்சேரி அறிஞர் கி. இராயநாராயணன் குறிப்பிடும் போது ஈழத்து தமிழ் வழக்கு முடிந்தளவுக்கு காரண காரிய தொடர்புடன் அர்த்தமிக்கதாக விளங்கு வதாக பெருமைப்படுகிறார். " நாங்கள் கொசு என்கிறோம் அவர்கள் நுள்+ அம்பு = நுளம்பு என்கிறார்கள் .நாங்கள் புறப்படு என்கிறோம் அவர்கள் வெளிக்கு + உடு = வெளிக்கிடு என ஆழமாக வெளியில் செல்லும் போது சீராக உடுத்திக்கொள் என்று அழகாக பேசுகிறார்கள். நாங்கள் கண்ணாடி சில்லு (Glass piece ) என்கிறோம் அவர்கள் பிசுங்கான் என்று மிகவும் அர்த்த தத்தோடு பேசுகிறார்கள். ஈழத்திலே தமிழ் வளர்கிறது" என்று பெருமையாக பேசுவார்.

கிழக்கு மாகாணத்தில் பல தமிழ் சொற்கள் இலக்கிய நயம் பயப்பன. "ஆலாய் பறக்கிறான்!" என்கிறோம் அதன் அர்த்தம் என்ன என்பது பலருக்கு தெரியாது. மட் டக் களபில் பருந்தை ஆலா என்று கூறுவதை கேட்டிருக்கின்றேன். ஆலவாய் பறக்கிறான் என்பது மருவி ஆலாய் பறக்கிறான் என்றாகிவிட்டது. கிழக்கில் கிறுகி வா என்ற பதம் வழக்கில் உண்டு. பாட்டுக்கு ஒருபுலவன் பாரதியடா அதை கேட்டுகிறுகிறுத்து போனேனடா என்று வரும் வரி கிறுகி வருவதற்கு பொருள் தரும் .சுழலுதல் , திரும்புதல் என்ற பொருளில் அங்கு பயன்படுத்துகிறார்கள். கிழக்கில் இது போல் பல இலக்கிய தமிழ் வடிவங்கள் வழக்கில் உண்டு.
அண்மையில் வவுனியாவில் நடைபெற்ற கவியரங்கு ஒன்றின் பதிவுகள் முக நூலில் உலாவருகின்றன. உண்மையில் அவற்றை கேட்க மகிழ்ச்சியாக இருந்தது. பல்துறை இளைஞர்களும் தமிழில் பலவிதமாக கவிதை படைத்தமை மகிழ்ச்சிக்குரியது. அவர்களின் கருது பொருள் பற்றி எனக்கு வேறுபட்ட கருத்துக்கள் உண்டு. அதை தவிர்த்து, அவர்களின் தமிழ் ஆர்வமும் அர்ப்பணிப்பும் வாழ்த்துக்குரியவை. இத்தகைய போக்கு தொடரும் என எதிர்பார்த்து நிற்போம். நல்ல தமிழ் சொற்களை பிரயோகிப்போம். எமக்குரிய தனித்துவத்தை காப்போம் .

Sivabalasundran Ambalavanar