Saturday, December 27, 2008

Miss Universe 2007

MISS UNIVERSE 2007

By Alejandro Guevara Onofre

MISS UNIVERSE 2000

SITE: Nicosia, Cyprus.

HISTORY. Representatives from 79 countries, territories and dependencies attended the Miss Universe contest. Certainly, India became the most powerful country in the Beauty World. Miss India, Lara Dutta, has all the qualities to be a Miss Universe-intelligence, beauty, personality, charisma and determination. Finally, Ms. Dutta was the new Miss Universe. It was one of her lifelong dreams to become Miss Universe. Few misses have had careers as long and varied as Lara Dutta.

In a career of more than seven years, she has been professional model, ambassador and actress. Lara once said, "Winning the Miss Universe title is the culmination of a dream".

Like Miss Universe 2000, she went to Saint Marteen, Puerto Rico, USA, Colombia, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, Switzerland, Venezuela, Mexico, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates. Ms. Dutta became well-known to millions as a women's rights activist in India. Lara Dutta was one of the best known misses of the 21st century.

MISS UNIVERSE 2001

SITE: Bayamon, Puerto Rico.

HISTORY. Representatives from 77 countries and dependencies attended the Miss Universe. Osmel Sousa, president of Miss Venezuela Organization, wanted to win the Miss Universe title. People who have worked with him say he's a perfectionist preparing carefully for each project. He is a very private man, who rarely gives interviews.

At the onset, Venezuela's Eva Monica Ekvall Johnson was the favorite by experts and journalists. Miss Venezuela reached the finals, but surprisingly, she only came in fourth place. Many people felt that the decision was unfair.

A Puerto Rican won the Miss Universe contest again. Like Margarita Moran (Miss Philippines and Miss Universe 1973) and Janelle Penny Commissiong (Miss Trinidad Tobago and Miss Universe), Miss Puerto Rico, Denisse Quiñones, was crowned also Miss Photogenic Universe.Denisse's ambition was to become a professional singer.

MISS UNIVERSE 2002

SITE: San Juan de Puerto Rico.

HISTORY. San Juan de Puerto Rico hosted the pageant.

The favorites were Colombia (Vanesa Alexandra Mendoza Bustos), India (Neha Dhupia), Panama (Justine Paseak), China (Zhuo Ling), and Russia (Oksana Federova).All made the semi-finalists except for Colombia. Ms.Mendoza became the first black woman to be named Miss Colombia. Miss Colombia will always be remembered as the first black woman representing her country in this contest.

For the first time since 1990, communist bloc sent a Miss China to compete in the Miss Universe. Ironically, Miss Cuba pageant has been forbidden since 1960 by Cuban dictatorship.

At the onset, China's Zhuo Ling was one of the most popular delegates. Finally, Miss China was the 1st runner-up.

Russia´s Oxana Federova was elected Miss Universe. However, she was obligated to give back the title of Miss Universe. Ms. Federova was a controversial woman. Certainly, her popularity declined in her own country.

During the next months in New York City, Miss Panama, Justine Lissette Pasek Patiño, was crowned Miss Universe 2002. Ms. Pasek was long considered one of the most intelligent women in the Miss Universe history. Panama's Justine Paseak was born in Kharkov, Ukrania. She had a very happy childhood there with her parents. Next years, her family moved to Panama City. Justine had several years experience as professional model.

MISS UNIVERSE 2003

SITE: Panama City, Panama.

HISTORY. For the second time, Panama City hosted the pageant. One of the most enthusiastic fans was Panamanian president Mireya Elisa Moscoso Rodriguez. On September1, 1999, Mireya Moscoso became Panama's first female head of state.

The favorites were Miss Dominican Republic (Amelia Vega), Miss Japan (Miyako Miyazaki), Miss Brazil (Gislaine Rodrigues Ferreira) and the Miss USA (Susie Castillo Cintrom). Ms. Castillo has Puerto Rican descent. Miss Japan was undoubtedly one of the great beauties of the 2000s.

Under the leadership of two Venezuelans, Miss Dominican Republic became Miss Universe. Amelia Vega became Dominican Republic's first Miss Universe. For the first time since 1992, Miss India did not qualify for the semi-finals.

Like Miss Universe 2003, she went to Indonesia, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Ecuador, Thailand, Vietnam, Guyana, USA, India, Saint Maarten and the People's Republic of China.

MISS UNIVERSE 2004

SITE: Quito, Ecuador.

HISTORY. Ecuadorian newspapers reported that misses Ukraine (Okelsandra Nikolayenko), Venezuela (Ana Karina Añez Delgado), Australia (Jennifer Hawkins), USA (Shandi Ren Finnessey), Paraguay (Yanina Alicia Gonzalez Jorgge), and Ecuador(Susana Rivadeneira Simbal) were the most favored to win the contest.

Surprisingly, Miss Ukraine did not enter the semi-finals. Before she went to Ecuador, Okelsandra Nikolayenko competed in Miss World 2001, where she was semi-finalist. Venezuela's Ana Añez admired Mahatma Gandhi. "Mahatma Gandhi has been a big influence in my life thanks to his political and religious influence he gave to the world", she said.

For the first time since 1982, Miss Venezuela did not qualify for the semi-finals. It was sadness for Venezuela's Osmel Sousa. He once said: "If Venezuela does not make it in the finals, I will have a heart attack!"

Miss Australia was elected Miss Universe. She became Australia's second Miss Universe. The next day her photo was see all over the world and from that moment the name Jennifer Hawkins was known everywhere. Ms. Hawkins is perhaps the most beautiful woman in Miss Australia history.

The judges were Petra Nemcova (Czech fashion model), Monique Menniken (German fashion model), Elsa Benitez (Mexican super-model), Bo Derek (American actress), Bill Rancic (American entrepreneur), Anne Martin (vice-president of Global Cosmetics and Marketing of Proctor & Gamble Cosmetics), Emilio Estefan (music producer), Jon Tutolo (president of Trump Model Management), and Jefferson Perez ( 1996 Ecuadorian Olympic gold medalist).

MISS UNIVERSE 2005

SITE: Bangkok, Thailand.

HISTORY. Among the most popular delegates in the pageant were Canada's Natalie Glebova, Dominican Republic´s Renata de Jesus Soñe Savery, Mexico's Laura Elizondo Erhard, Venezuela's Monica Spear, India's Amrita Thapar, South Africa´s Claudia Henkel, and Switzerland's Fiona Hefti.

A naturalized Canadian citizen who was born in Russia and came to Canada, Natalie Glebova was elected Miss Canada and Miss Universe 2005.Her beauty was loved by millions of people. She became well-known to millions as an anti-AIDS activist in the Third World.

The judges were Carson Kressley(American designer), Cassie Lewis (American model), Bryan Dattilo (American actor), Jean Georges Vongerichten (French chef), Okelsandra Nikolayenko (actress and former Miss Ukraine), Porntip "Bui" Nakhirunkanok (former Miss Thailand and Miss Universe 1988), Mario Cimarro (Mexican actor), Anne Martin (vice-president of Global Cosmetics and Marketing of Proctor & Gamble Cosmetics) Kevin S. Bright (American television executive producer), Heidi Albertsen (Danish model), and Khun Rom Pakdi (Thai actor).

Like Miss Universe 2005, she went to Greece, Canada, India, USA, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, Ecuador and Brazil.

MISS UNIVERSE 2006

SITE: Los Angeles, California (USA).

HISTORY. At the onset, Japan's Kurara Chibana was the favorite. Like Miss Japan 2003, Miyako Miyazaki, she was a beautiful exotic girl from Okinawa, the birthplace of the karate. Certainly, Miss Japan had several fans. However, Miss Puerto Rico,Zuleyka Rivera, made history by becoming the fifth Puerto Rican winner of the contest. She was one of the most famous models in her country. During the Miss Universe, Miss Puerto Rico was bilingual in English and Spanish.

Miss Universe 2006 was dominated by Latin America: Puerto Rico, Paraguay, Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico and Trinidad-Tobago.

The judges were Amelia Vega (former Miss Dominican Republic and Miss Universe), Marc Cherry (American writer), Claudia Jordan (Miss Rhode Island 1997), Tom Green (Canadian sock comic), Emmitt Smith (former American football player), James Lesure (American actor), Maria Celeste Arrras (Puerto Rican journalist), Patrick McMullan (American designer), Santino Rice (American fashion designer), Bridgette Wilson-Sampras (actress and former Miss Teen USA) and Sean Yazbeck (British actor).

MISS UNIVERSE 2007

SITE: Mexico City, Mexico

HISTORY: Representatives from 77 countries attended the Miss Universe pageant.

The favorites are Venezuela´s Ly Jonaites, Tanzania´s Flavia Matata, South Korea's Honey Lee, Japan's Riyo Mori, and Philippines's Ana Therese Licaros.

Miss Venezuela is a fashion model. She has gorgeous brown hair, kind brown eyes and beautiful smile which lights up her whole face. Furthermore, she speaks three languages. She admires Princess Diana Spencer. Her dream is to become fashion designer. She once said, "I plan to be a fashion designer and have my own boutique expressing my personality through my art". Certainly, Ly Jonaites is one of the best delegates in the Miss Universe history.

The judges are Nave Navarro (singer/American-Mexican), Tony Romo (Professional football player/American-Mexican), James Kyson Lee (actor/American-Korean), Justine Pasek (former Miss Panama and Miss Universe), Adel Chabbi (stylist/French-Tunisie), Dimitris Margetas (American-Greek/ charge of Consumer Marketing for Proctor & Gamble´s Prestige Products Inc), Marc Bouwer (American fashion designer), Dayanara Torrres (former Miss Puerto Rico and Miss Universe), Fred Howard (American-African fashion designer), Thuy Than (American-Vietnamese fashion photographer), Michelle Kwan (American-Chinese sportswoman), Nina Garcia (American-Colombian journalist), Leigh Rossini (American publicist) and Lindsay Clubine (American fashion model).

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

World’s Top-25 Universities- Massive Accumulation of Endowment Wealth

An assessment carried out by AllAboutUni.com reveals that a massive accumulation of endowment wealth has been put together by the World's Top-25 universities [1]. AllAboutUni.com is an independent, global and interactive website where visitors can obtain information about universities (global rankings, student reviews, university news and campus pictures).



The World's Top-25 universities in 2008 (click here) are mainly located in the United States (18 out of 25) and are often private institutions (11 out of 25). This distribution is more pronounced for the World's Top-10 universities, where 8 out of 10 are located in the United States (US) and 7 out of 10 are private institutions.



Total endowments for each of the universities were collected from Wikipedia.org (accessed on 29 October 2008), and non-US endowments were converted into US dollars (exchange rate of 29 October 2008). The endowments of two universities were not available: the University of Tokyo in Japan (ranked 19th) and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology – Zurich in Switzerland (ranked jointly 24th). The analysis is therefore based on 23 universities (18 from the US and 5 from other countries (United Kingdom (3), Canada and Japan) and is a conservative estimate.



The total endowment of the 23 universities was $170.2 billion, and ranged from $172 million (University College London in the UK, ranked 22nd) to $36.9 billion (Harvard University in the US, ranked 1st). The median endowment is $5.9 billion, with universities in the US having higher endowments (median of $6.1 billion, range $471 million to $36.9 billion) than those in the other countries (median of $2.2 billion, range $172 million to $3.4 billion).



Four private universities in the US had 56% of the total endowment wealth of the World's Top-25 universities: Harvard University ($36.9 billion - 22%), Yale University ($22.9 billion - 14%), Stanford University ($17.2 billion - 10%) and Princeton University ($17 billion - 10%). It is therefore no surprise that the private universities in the US have higher endowments (median of $7.2 billion) than the public universities in the US (median of $1.3 billion).



This accumulation of wealth by the World's Top-25 universities is quite astonishing. For example, the total wealth accumulated by the World's Top-25 universities is greater than the budget of the State of California ($111 billion in 2008-09) or it places these universities 41st in the country ranking of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) according to the International Monetary Fund (in front of Nigeria, Romania and Israel). The accumulation of endowment wealth by universities has both positive and negative sides. A large university endowment supports the operating budget of the university and gives the university greater independence and resources which can be used, for example, to establish new research institutes or to fund scholarships. In the fiscal year 2008, distributions from the Harvard University endowment totalled $1.6 billion, contributing more than one third of the university's operating budget in addition to supporting substantial capital outlays.



There are also a number of negative sides associated with large university endowments. One of these is that it gives the university an image of accumulating too much wealth and being greedy. Another is that it leads to criticism about the allocation of the endowment income (for example, Harvard University could allow its students to attend for free for just $300 million, which is a fraction of the 2008 endowment income. Finally, it makes it impossible for other (less well endowed) universities around the world to compete on an even playing field with universities that have established very large endowments.



Background note: [1] The analysis is based on a ranking of the World's Top-500 Universities produced by the Institute of Higher Education at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Several indicators of academic or research performance are used to establish the ranking, these include staff winning Nobel Prizes, highly cited researchers and articles indexed in major citation indices. The rankings have been published since 2003, with the 2008 ranking published on 15 August 2008.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

What Makes a Top University?

A number of assessments carried out by AllAboutUni.com indicate that the general characteristics of a top university are the following: being based in North America or Europe, being in an area where other top universities are clustered, having a large endowment and being a private institution. AllAboutUni.com is an independent, global and interactive website where visitors can obtain information about universities (global rankings, student reviews, university news and campus pictures).



The analysis is based on a ranking of the World’s Top-500 Universities produced by the Institute of Higher Education at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Several indicators of academic or research performance are used to establish the ranking, these include staff winning Nobel Prizes, highly cited researchers and articles indexed in major citation indices. The rankings have been published since 2003, with the 2008 ranking published on 15 August 2008.



Location An AllAboutUni.com assessment found that the World’s Top-500 universities are mainly located in Europe (n=210; 40%) and the Americas (n=190; 40%). In the Americas, 95% of the universities are located in the United States (84%; n=159) and Canada (11%; n=21).



Clustering An AllAboutUni.com assessment found that in both the United States (US) and Europe there is a clustering of the world’s top universities. In the US, 36% (57 out of 159) of universities - more than one in three - are located in just five States: New York (15), California (13), Texas (13), Massachusetts (9) and Pennsylvania (7). In Europe, more than one in three (36%) of the Top-25 universities are located in United Kingdom.



 Public - Private An AllAboutUni.com assessment found that 70% of the World's Top-10 universities are private institutions, suggesting that at the very top of the rankings private universities perform better than public universities (click here). In the World’s Top-25 universities, there is a lower predominance of private universities, with 11 out of 25 universities being private.



Endowment An AllAboutUni.com assessment found that the World’s Top-25 universities have accumulated a massive amount of endowment wealth (a total of $170 billion) and the private universities in the US have accumulated more wealth than the public universities. A large university endowment supports the operating budget of a university (for example, a third of Harvard University’s operating budget comes from endowment income).



Age An AllAboutUni.com assessment found that the age of a university was not associated with being in the World's Top-25 universities (click here). Two good examples of 'young' universities achieving a high ranking are Stanford University (established in 1891 and ranked 2nd) and the University of California - San Diego (established in 1960 and ranked 14th).



Other factors Other factors that will determine the ranking of a university include: the university infrastructure (campus, facilities, etc.), the working conditions (academic salaries, academic freedom, etc.), the levels of funding (public and private funding) and the quality of life in the region where the university is located. Conclusion A series of AllAboutUni.com assessments has identified a number of general characteristics that help make a top university. The very strong performance of private universities in the World's Top-10 universities (7 out of 10) suggests that private universities are better able manage the different factors and etablish a top university.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

The Impact of the Committee System on University Management in Benue State of Nigeria

Introduction
The Senate is the highest academic body in the university system with the Vice-Chancellor as its chairman. Its authority covers all academic matters although some, such as appointments, are shared with council. It is Senate that has the formal authority under the university's charter and status to make academic policy. Therefore, for it to take meaningful decisions it has to create certain committees. Council is the governing body of the University and is the formal employer of all university staff. It is charged with the general control and superintendent of the Policy, Finance and Property of the University. University employees are required under the leadership of the Vice-Chancellor to carry out Councils policies. To that extent the Vice-Chancellor may be seen as "Chief Executive". He is supported by the Registrar who is responsible for the university's academic and administrative supportive services.
The use of committees was entrenched in the Laws/Acts establishing Nigerian Universities as indicated in the University of Ibadan Act of 1962 which states that: "Anybody or persons established by the Act shall without prejudice of the generality, shall have power to appoint committees consisting of members of that body and subject to the provisions of sub-section(7) of section four of this Act to authorize committee established by it to exercise, on its behalf, such of its functions as it may determine". In the management of higher institutions, committees play very important roles in the decision making process. This is because as democratic establishments, universities' decisions on governance must reflect the opinion of a cross section of the staff if such decisions are to be accepted. This explains why many institutions in the country have established many committees to assist management in arriving at useful and meaningful decisions that can facilitate the proper management and growth of the university system of education.
Ede (2000), describes universities as international communities engaged in the daily business of the search for knowledge and truth. Ogunmodede (1981), states that authority of governance of Nigerian Universities is derived from an external source – The Visitor, who invariably is the president in the case of a Federal University and the Governor in the case of a State University. According to Daudu (1986), the management of such complex organization requires participation through the committee system because of the bureaucratic, collegial and political models that are applicable in them.
Nwachukwu {1988}, describes a committee as a device for achieving coordination of activities and sharing information among various departments and divisions of an organizations. He further states that committee decisions help to promote better coordination in an organization. Ikenwe (1998), highlighting the work of Foxworthy (1971), wrote that the primary motive of instituting the committee system in institutional governance has grown out of the motive concern for democratizing decision making in those institutions and a recognition of the need for more broadly based decision making as universities become more complex. This explains why many institutions in the country established many committees to assist its management in arriving at useful and meaningful decisions that can facilitate the proper management and growth of the university system of education.
In view of the importance of the committee system in university management, it is therefore necessary to investigate its impact on the effective and efficient management of the university system in Benue State of Nigeria.

Statement of the Problem
There have been frequent cries by some members of the university community that the committee system may not necessarily be the best method of effectively managing a university system. These staff members argue that the disadvantages of the committee system on university management appear to out weigh the advantages. Various segments of the staff have severally expressed their grievances, some violently and others peacefully over non implementation of committee decisions. These crises negate effective management of higher institutions. There is therefore the need to investigate this problem

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate how effectively committees affect university management in Benue State of Nigeria. Specifically, the study is concerned with the level of staff participation in the various committees and their confidence and trust in these committees and their importance in the management of the university system.

Research Questions
The following questions were answered by the study:-
(i) Does the committee system improve decision making process in the universities?
(ii) Does the committee system lead to greater participation of members of staff in the university community?
(iii) Do decisions made by committees instill greater confidence in the university community?
(iv) Do committees provide effective advisory services to Vice- Chancellors?
(v) Do committees' recommendations influence opinion of the university council and senate towards proper management of the institutions?

Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were formulated:-
(i) The committee system will not significantly lead to the participation of a higher number of staff in university management.
(ii) The committee system will not significantly improve decision making process in university management.
(iii) The committee system will not significantly instill greater confidence in the university.
(iv) The committee system will not significantly influence university management.

Methodology
The population of the study was made up of the staff members of the two universities in Benue State of Nigeria. The stratified random sampling technique was adopted for this study because of the large population involved. The population was therefore arranged into five sub-groups or strata. This helped to ease data collection and analyses. In effect, the study samples consist of 203 members of senior staff, 109 members bringing the total to 312 drawn from the study sample. The study used one structured questionnaire for the 312 respondents. The adopted Likert Four Point rating scale of 4, 3, 2, and 1, was used to analyze responses in the questionnaire.

Method of Data Analysis
The mean, standard deviation and t-test were used to verify results and arrive at certain conclusions. A mean of 2.50 was used as cut-off point of decision making for each item on the instrument. Any item with a mean of 2.50 and above was considered adequate and hence enhances the level of respondents on the use of committees in university governance. Any item with a mean of 2.50 and above was considered adequate and hence enhances the level of respondents on the use of committees in university governance. Any item with a mean of less than 2.50 was considered inadequate. The four hypotheses formulated for this study were tested at 0.05 level of significance using student t-test for each. Where the calculated value is greater than the table value of t at 0.05 level of significance, the null was not accepted. On the other hand, if the calculated value is less than the table value of t at 0.05 level of significance, the null hypotheses was accepted. After subjecting the responses to the above statistical methods and analyses, three out of the four null hypotheses were not accepted, while the fourth was accepted.

Hypotheses One
The committee system will not significantly lead to the participation of a large number of staff in university management.
Assumptions
N1 5
X1 15.25
S1 4.35
N2 6
X2 5.99
S2 2.80
df 6 Cal-t
cal.t Value 2.85 Table
table Value 2.45
Decision

Do not accept.

The result of the first hypothesis as shown above clearly indicates that the committee system encourages participation of a large number staff. Tahir (1991), agrees with this finding as he states that leadership must evolve styles that can ensure effective staff and student participation in decision making that affect them. Gwary (1993), also maintained that full participation is a process where each individual member of a decision making body has equal power to determine the outcome of the decision. This means that the use of participatory system of governance in the university system cannot be overemphasized. There must be full participation of individuals who are effective and efficient so as to help the growth of the committee system in university governance. It is then therefore worthy to mention that staff participation in the decision that affects their working lives is essential for effective management.

Hypotheses Two
The committee system will not significantly improve decision making process in university governance
Assumptions
N1 8
X1 24.62
S1 6.82
N2 7
X2 14.90
S2 6.20
df 13
Cal-tValue2.674
TableValue2.15
DecisionDo not accept.
<
In the table above, since the calculated t value is higher than the table value, we therefore do not accept the hypothesis. This finding reveals that the committee system is a vital tool for improving decision making process in university management. This finding is in line with Jeje (1983), who states that committees bring about group judgment on an issue, thereby protecting the university or chief executive from errors arising out of the decision of an individual.

Hypotheses Three
The committee system will not significantly instill confidence in the university system.
Assumptions
N1 9
X1 27.87
S1 7.62
N2 7
X2 15.28
S2 6.44
df 14
Cal-tValue 3.279

TableValue2.15
DecisionDo not accept

This finding reveals that there will exist trust and confidence if the committee decisions are faithfully implemented. All cadres of staff are of the opinion that committees would however tend to ignore the views of staff if they are in conflict with those of the university administration. Mehendiratta (1984), in his study on university administration in India and USA states that it would be advisable for the university system itself to device an adequate machinery to deal with grievances of students, teachers, subordinate staff and administrators and this machinery should be so devised that all persons concerned would have confidence in its impartiality and independence.

Hypothesis four
The committee system will not significantly influence university management.
Assumptions
N1 8
X1 24.38
S1 6.75
N2 8
X2 16.38
S2 7.41
df 14
Cal-t
Table
DecisionAccept.


The finding reveals that the committee system will not influence university management. This is because the respondents agree that committees do not provide effective advisory services to Vice-Chancellors, and that committee recommendations will not influence opinions of the university council and senate. What this result shows is that even though the university community believes that committees are vital tools for university governance, they are not confident that university administration will really implement the recommendations of committees. This also shows that there exist lack of trust between the university community and the university administration. It is pertinent to ask why a staff who is found worthy of promotion in the Departmental appointment and promotions committee be denied promotion by the council appraisal and promotions committee. Explanations would also be needed as to why a student who is found guilty of examination malpractice is rusticated by the College/Faculty examination malpractice committee however when the same case gets to senate, such a student is expelled. One wonders therefore why these committees are set up to look into these cases when decisions made by them are not implemented. Suffice it to say that because of administrative interest in these matters, decisions made by these committees are jettisoned. These actions negate the purpose of setting up these committees and also breed distrust in the system. Sifuna (1991), states that the tendency for Vice-Chancellors to monopolize all aspects of decision making has now been perfected in the creation of Vice-Chancellors 'management boards' whose powers are too wide and constantly erode those of the senate. Views or decisions of committees are ignored if they are in conflict with those of administration. He further states that although universities teach about democracy and are quite vocal about the need for popular participation in decision-making, universities' administrative structures and key policy-making bodies are most undemocratic.

Conclusion and Recommendations
Universities the world over are established for the propagation, dissemination and the application of knowledge. The university system is made up of people with investigative and critical minds with the function of teaching, research and public service, dedicated to intellectual life and hence the need for a democratic system and consequently the introduction of the committee system of governance. The study has identified that staff of BSU and UAM are not as confident as they would like to be in the committee system. This is as a result of the non-implementation of committee recommendations in university governance. There is therefore the need for the university administration to effectively and efficiently implement committee recommendations so as to boost the confidence of staff in the system. University administration should further find a way to create conditions for trust to exist within the university community as there is a lot to gain in a trusting environment.
Tierney (1999), in his paper on Trust and Academic Governance opines that if individuals are to make far-reaching decisions they need to create the conditions for trust to exist. According to Longing (2002), institutional success at navigating the currents of higher education is the dependent on the effectiveness of governance structures and decision making processes. Still, governance and decision making as the subject of empirical research currently receives only moderate attention.
There is therefore the need for researchers to investigate more on how best to govern higher institutions to meet their desired goals without distrust. Universities must a evolve appropriate leadership styles and practices. Delegation and communication channels should be followed. Staff should be actively involved in decision making if they to be fulfilled and effective in following up decisions made. Participation will increase their level of out put. Recommendations made by committees should be accepted and implemented without delay so as to boost confidence in the system. There should be mandatory, introductory and refreshers courses/ seminars on the committee system for staff especially for junior staff members so as to understand what the committee system is all about as most of them do not know how the committee system operates.

References

Daudu P. (1986) Committee versus centralized system of managing Higher institution: A choice between participation and efficiency, Unpublished paper

Denga D. I. and Ali A. (1998) An introduction to research methods and statistics in education and social sciences, (3rd ed) Calabar, Nigeria, Rapid Educational Publishers Ltd.

Ede .S. A. (2000) Educational administration and management, Jos, Nigeria: Ichedum Publication Nigeria, Ibadan, Nigeria, Spectrum Books Ltd.

Gwary T. H. (1993) Participative strategies for higher education management: A case study of Federal College of Education,Yola. Education today, 6 (3).

Ikenwe E. (1988) The use of committees in Higher institutions in Bendel state. An unpublished thesis of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Jeje .A. (1983) The administration of faculties in University of Ife, An unpublished field attachment report for MPA degree, University of Ife.

Longing T.C. (2002) Institutional governance: A call for collaborative decision making in American higher education. Boston, MA Anker Publishing Co.

Nwachukwu .C. C. (1988) Management theory and practice, Onitsha, Africana- Feb Publishers Limited.

Ogunmodede A. (1981) The community system of the university of Ibadan Management. Unpublished M.ED dissertation, University of Ibadan.

Mehendiraratta P.R (1984) University administration in India and USA, New Delhi, Oxford and IBH Co

Sifuna D. N. (1997) The governance of Kenyan public Universities Nairobi, Lyceum ed. Consultants.

Tahir G. (1991) Higher education management in Nigeria, Change and pressure for change: unpublished paper.

Tierney W. G. (1999) Creating high performance in colleges and universities, Thousand Oaks, Ca. Sage Publications Inc.

Monday, December 1, 2008

Saturday, November 29, 2008

One in Three American Universities Located in Just Five States- Top-500 Universities in the World

An assessment of the World's Top-500 universities [1] carried out by AllAboutUni.com reveals that one in three American universities are located in just five States: New York, California, Texas, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. AllAboutUni.com is an independent, global and inter-active website where visitors can obtain information about universities (global rankings, student reviews, university news and campus pictures).



Looking at the World's Top-500 universities, roughly 40% are located in Europe (n=210), 40% in the Americas (n=190) and 20% in the Asian/Pacific (n=100) area (click here). In the Americas, the majority of universities are located in the US (159, 75%), with 21 in Canada, 6 in Brazil, 2 in Chile and 1 in Argentina and 1 in Mexico. At the top of the list, the US clearly dominates with 8 of the World's Top-10 universities located in the US (click here).



An analysis of the States where the US universities are located, indicates that 36% (n=57) - more than one in three - are located in just five States: New York (15), California (13), Texas (13), Massachusetts (9) and Pennsylvania (7). This is not evenly distributed, with California having a higher representation at the top of the list: in the World's Top-25 universities, the distribution is California (6), New York (2), Massachusetts (2), and Pennsylvania (1) and Texas (0). It is striking to note that 11 (44%) of the World's Top-25 universities in 2008 are located in these five States, indicating there is also a global clustering of the World's Top universities.



Looking at the World's Top-10 universities, three of the States represent 60% of these universities: California (Stanford University (ranked 2nd), University of California - Berkeley (3rd) and the California Institute of Technology (6th), Massachusetts (Harvard University (1st) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (5th)) and New York (Columbia University (7th)). All things equal, it would be expected that the highest number of universities in the US would be located in the most populated States. Indeed, three of the five States are the most populated in the US: California (ranked 1st with 36.6 million inhabitants), Texas (2nd with 23.9 million) and NewYork (3rd with 19.3 million). However, other factors play an important role as smaller States like Pennsylvania (6th with 12.4 million) and Massachusetts (14th with 6.4 million inhabitants) also contribute significantly to the list of World's Top-500 universities.



Finally, it is interesting to note that a US university does not need to be 'old' to be ranked highly in the World's Top-500 rankings. In the US, the oldest university is Harvard University which was established in 1636. However, the performance of universities in California and Texas, which are the home to 'young' universities, clearly indicates that a university does not have to be 'old' to obtain a high ranking. For example, Stanford University, located in California and ranked second in the world, was established in 1891 and the University of Texas – Austin, located in Texas and ranked 35th in the world, was established in 1883. In conclusion, the analysis indicates that the top universities in the US are not evenly distributed across the country and are clustered in certain States. States with a clear clustering of the World's Top-500 universities are New York, California, Texas, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.



Background note: [1] The analysis is based on a ranking of the World's Top-500 Universities produced by the Institute of Higher Education at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University (click here). Several indicators of academic or research performance are used to establish the ranking, these include staff winning Nobel Prizes, highly cited researchers and articles indexed in major citation indices. The rankings have been published since 2003, with the 2008 ranking published on 15 August 2008.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Federal Universities of Pakistan

 

This article is about universityassociate.com, which is the site that contains information of all Federal Universities located in Islamabad Pakistan.

 

The site is about the Federal Universities such as Allama Iqbal Open University,Bahria University,Air University,Islamic International University,Quaid-e-Azam University,Comsats University,Institute Of Space and Technology,National Defence University,National University Of Modern Languages,National University Of Computer And Engineering Sciences,Pakistan Institute Of Development Economics,Pakistan Institute Of Engineering Applied Sciences,Ripha International University,Urdu University. This site is designed to provide information such as University admission, University events, University exams and more about the Federal Universities.

 

Now first I explore the main contents of the site. These are:

 

·        Home

 

·        Federal universities

 

·        Blogs

 

·        Contact us

 

·        About us

 

·        Site map

 

Home page is the main page of the site and contains links of Federal Universities.

 

By clicking Federal Universities tag user can view the list of all Federal Universities of Pakistan. Here links of all Federal Universities are available user just have to click to find out the details of that particular University.

 

Through blogs user can communicate with other users so that they can share their ideas and exchange info. Students of different Universities can communicate with each other via blogs.

Feedbacks and comments from user of University associate are welcomed through contact us tag. About us tag just define the site and some of its salient features. Site map is the last tag of University associate through site map user can view the main contents of University associate and also its sub contents.You are welcomed at universityassociate.com visit this site and feedback on it….

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Best Online University

One of the most convenient ways to further your education while keeping a job and home is registering for an online degree. With online courses you will have interactive classes via the net, will receive course work online, have an advisor who will guide you 24/7, and you can at your own convenience complete assignments from home.

There are many online universities, and many of them have unique advantages. But which will be the Best Online University for me? With online universities sprouting up everywhere it becomes difficult to determine which schools offer the best package for which individuals. To assist you there we have taken three criteria; marketability, usability, and class quality.

Marketability:
There is little question that among online universities, which university carries the best reputation. Employers consistently regard the students coming out of reputed universities as prepared for the job market and as a result, a degree from a reputed university, more than any other online university, confers marketability. There are hundreds of small universities spread throughout the country which offers very less online programs and as a result they are not that much confers marketability.

Usability:
Students consistently report good experiences with the guided notes of online universities. As it has replaced the tedious classroom chat room and malfunctioning web cams of old. Students like to prefer using online systems which have been perfected for many years.

Class Quality:
Students consistently report quality teaching in every department. There are universities like Phoenix which offers wide array of class choices.

There are many online universities which are reputed. Some of them are University of Phoenix Online, Colorado Online Technical University, Devry Online University, Boston Online University and Kaplan Online University.

University of Phoenix Online:
The University of Phoenix Online is the most widely recognized online university in the world. But beyond job opportunities, Phoenix also excels above most of its competitors with respect to teaching.

Colorado Online Technical University:
Colorado Technical University is suitable for high school graduates and adult working class professionals. Their convenient online and on ground classes will help adults build their schedules around their profession. At Colorado Technical University you will gain inspiration and an increased desire for gaining more education throughout your life time.

Devry Online University:
Devry University is one of the oldest and most widely recognized online universities. DeVry students have the unique opportunity to choose to take courses online or opt to take some in live physical classrooms. The school is uniquely able to provide many students with employment as they proceed through their education.

Boston Online University:
An online degree from Boston University represents achievement of a high academic standard. At Boston University Online, you can earn your degree during the hours and in the location that work best for youwithout settling for anything less than the resources and distinction of a great university.

Kaplan Online University:
Kaplan University focuses on adding a human touch to the high technology of learning online. The flexibility and dynamic interaction of online education at Kaplan University also allows for innovative learning opportunities.

There are many good universities out there. But according to your needs and requirements in your education, you must have to choose the best online university.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Miss Universe 2007

MISS UNIVERSE 2007

By Alejandro Guevara Onofre

MISS UNIVERSE 2000

SITE: Nicosia, Cyprus.

HISTORY. Representatives from 79 countries, territories and dependencies attended the Miss Universe contest. Certainly, India became the most powerful country in the Beauty World. Miss India, Lara Dutta, has all the qualities to be a Miss Universe-intelligence, beauty, personality, charisma and determination. Finally, Ms. Dutta was the new Miss Universe. It was one of her lifelong dreams to become Miss Universe. Few misses have had careers as long and varied as Lara Dutta.

In a career of more than seven years, she has been professional model, ambassador and actress. Lara once said, "Winning the Miss Universe title is the culmination of a dream".

Like Miss Universe 2000, she went to Saint Marteen, Puerto Rico, USA, Colombia, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, Switzerland, Venezuela, Mexico, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates. Ms. Dutta became well-known to millions as a women's rights activist in India. Lara Dutta was one of the best known misses of the 21st century.

MISS UNIVERSE 2001

SITE: Bayamon, Puerto Rico.

HISTORY. Representatives from 77 countries and dependencies attended the Miss Universe. Osmel Sousa, president of Miss Venezuela Organization, wanted to win the Miss Universe title. People who have worked with him say he's a perfectionist preparing carefully for each project. He is a very private man, who rarely gives interviews.

At the onset, Venezuela's Eva Monica Ekvall Johnson was the favorite by experts and journalists. Miss Venezuela reached the finals, but surprisingly, she only came in fourth place. Many people felt that the decision was unfair.

A Puerto Rican won the Miss Universe contest again. Like Margarita Moran (Miss Philippines and Miss Universe 1973) and Janelle Penny Commissiong (Miss Trinidad Tobago and Miss Universe), Miss Puerto Rico, Denisse Quiñones, was crowned also Miss Photogenic Universe.Denisse's ambition was to become a professional singer.

MISS UNIVERSE 2002

SITE: San Juan de Puerto Rico.

HISTORY. San Juan de Puerto Rico hosted the pageant.

The favorites were Colombia (Vanesa Alexandra Mendoza Bustos), India (Neha Dhupia), Panama (Justine Paseak), China (Zhuo Ling), and Russia (Oksana Federova).All made the semi-finalists except for Colombia. Ms.Mendoza became the first black woman to be named Miss Colombia. Miss Colombia will always be remembered as the first black woman representing her country in this contest.

For the first time since 1990, communist bloc sent a Miss China to compete in the Miss Universe. Ironically, Miss Cuba pageant has been forbidden since 1960 by Cuban dictatorship.

At the onset, China's Zhuo Ling was one of the most popular delegates. Finally, Miss China was the 1st runner-up.

Russia´s Oxana Federova was elected Miss Universe. However, she was obligated to give back the title of Miss Universe. Ms. Federova was a controversial woman. Certainly, her popularity declined in her own country.

During the next months in New York City, Miss Panama, Justine Lissette Pasek Patiño, was crowned Miss Universe 2002. Ms. Pasek was long considered one of the most intelligent women in the Miss Universe history. Panama's Justine Paseak was born in Kharkov, Ukrania. She had a very happy childhood there with her parents. Next years, her family moved to Panama City. Justine had several years experience as professional model.

MISS UNIVERSE 2003

SITE: Panama City, Panama.

HISTORY. For the second time, Panama City hosted the pageant. One of the most enthusiastic fans was Panamanian president Mireya Elisa Moscoso Rodriguez. On September1, 1999, Mireya Moscoso became Panama's first female head of state.

The favorites were Miss Dominican Republic (Amelia Vega), Miss Japan (Miyako Miyazaki), Miss Brazil (Gislaine Rodrigues Ferreira) and the Miss USA (Susie Castillo Cintrom). Ms. Castillo has Puerto Rican descent. Miss Japan was undoubtedly one of the great beauties of the 2000s.

Under the leadership of two Venezuelans, Miss Dominican Republic became Miss Universe. Amelia Vega became Dominican Republic's first Miss Universe. For the first time since 1992, Miss India did not qualify for the semi-finals.

Like Miss Universe 2003, she went to Indonesia, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Ecuador, Thailand, Vietnam, Guyana, USA, India, Saint Maarten and the People's Republic of China.

MISS UNIVERSE 2004

SITE: Quito, Ecuador.

HISTORY. Ecuadorian newspapers reported that misses Ukraine (Okelsandra Nikolayenko), Venezuela (Ana Karina Añez Delgado), Australia (Jennifer Hawkins), USA (Shandi Ren Finnessey), Paraguay (Yanina Alicia Gonzalez Jorgge), and Ecuador(Susana Rivadeneira Simbal) were the most favored to win the contest.

Surprisingly, Miss Ukraine did not enter the semi-finals. Before she went to Ecuador, Okelsandra Nikolayenko competed in Miss World 2001, where she was semi-finalist. Venezuela's Ana Añez admired Mahatma Gandhi. "Mahatma Gandhi has been a big influence in my life thanks to his political and religious influence he gave to the world", she said.

For the first time since 1982, Miss Venezuela did not qualify for the semi-finals. It was sadness for Venezuela's Osmel Sousa. He once said: "If Venezuela does not make it in the finals, I will have a heart attack!"

Miss Australia was elected Miss Universe. She became Australia's second Miss Universe. The next day her photo was see all over the world and from that moment the name Jennifer Hawkins was known everywhere. Ms. Hawkins is perhaps the most beautiful woman in Miss Australia history.

The judges were Petra Nemcova (Czech fashion model), Monique Menniken (German fashion model), Elsa Benitez (Mexican super-model), Bo Derek (American actress), Bill Rancic (American entrepreneur), Anne Martin (vice-president of Global Cosmetics and Marketing of Proctor & Gamble Cosmetics), Emilio Estefan (music producer), Jon Tutolo (president of Trump Model Management), and Jefferson Perez ( 1996 Ecuadorian Olympic gold medalist).

MISS UNIVERSE 2005

SITE: Bangkok, Thailand.

HISTORY. Among the most popular delegates in the pageant were Canada's Natalie Glebova, Dominican Republic´s Renata de Jesus Soñe Savery, Mexico's Laura Elizondo Erhard, Venezuela's Monica Spear, India's Amrita Thapar, South Africa´s Claudia Henkel, and Switzerland's Fiona Hefti.

A naturalized Canadian citizen who was born in Russia and came to Canada, Natalie Glebova was elected Miss Canada and Miss Universe 2005.Her beauty was loved by millions of people. She became well-known to millions as an anti-AIDS activist in the Third World.

The judges were Carson Kressley(American designer), Cassie Lewis (American model), Bryan Dattilo (American actor), Jean Georges Vongerichten (French chef), Okelsandra Nikolayenko (actress and former Miss Ukraine), Porntip "Bui" Nakhirunkanok (former Miss Thailand and Miss Universe 1988), Mario Cimarro (Mexican actor), Anne Martin (vice-president of Global Cosmetics and Marketing of Proctor & Gamble Cosmetics) Kevin S. Bright (American television executive producer), Heidi Albertsen (Danish model), and Khun Rom Pakdi (Thai actor).

Like Miss Universe 2005, she went to Greece, Canada, India, USA, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, Ecuador and Brazil.

MISS UNIVERSE 2006

SITE: Los Angeles, California (USA).

HISTORY. At the onset, Japan's Kurara Chibana was the favorite. Like Miss Japan 2003, Miyako Miyazaki, she was a beautiful exotic girl from Okinawa, the birthplace of the karate. Certainly, Miss Japan had several fans. However, Miss Puerto Rico,Zuleyka Rivera, made history by becoming the fifth Puerto Rican winner of the contest. She was one of the most famous models in her country. During the Miss Universe, Miss Puerto Rico was bilingual in English and Spanish.

Miss Universe 2006 was dominated by Latin America: Puerto Rico, Paraguay, Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico and Trinidad-Tobago.

The judges were Amelia Vega (former Miss Dominican Republic and Miss Universe), Marc Cherry (American writer), Claudia Jordan (Miss Rhode Island 1997), Tom Green (Canadian sock comic), Emmitt Smith (former American football player), James Lesure (American actor), Maria Celeste Arrras (Puerto Rican journalist), Patrick McMullan (American designer), Santino Rice (American fashion designer), Bridgette Wilson-Sampras (actress and former Miss Teen USA) and Sean Yazbeck (British actor).

MISS UNIVERSE 2007

SITE: Mexico City, Mexico

HISTORY: Representatives from 77 countries attended the Miss Universe pageant.

The favorites are Venezuela´s Ly Jonaites, Tanzania´s Flavia Matata, South Korea's Honey Lee, Japan's Riyo Mori, and Philippines's Ana Therese Licaros.

Miss Venezuela is a fashion model. She has gorgeous brown hair, kind brown eyes and beautiful smile which lights up her whole face. Furthermore, she speaks three languages. She admires Princess Diana Spencer. Her dream is to become fashion designer. She once said, "I plan to be a fashion designer and have my own boutique expressing my personality through my art". Certainly, Ly Jonaites is one of the best delegates in the Miss Universe history.

The judges are Nave Navarro (singer/American-Mexican), Tony Romo (Professional football player/American-Mexican), James Kyson Lee (actor/American-Korean), Justine Pasek (former Miss Panama and Miss Universe), Adel Chabbi (stylist/French-Tunisie), Dimitris Margetas (American-Greek/ charge of Consumer Marketing for Proctor & Gamble´s Prestige Products Inc), Marc Bouwer (American fashion designer), Dayanara Torrres (former Miss Puerto Rico and Miss Universe), Fred Howard (American-African fashion designer), Thuy Than (American-Vietnamese fashion photographer), Michelle Kwan (American-Chinese sportswoman), Nina Garcia (American-Colombian journalist), Leigh Rossini (American publicist) and Lindsay Clubine (American fashion model).

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Miss Universe 2007 in Mexico City

MISS UNIVERSE 2007 IN MEXICO CITY
By Alejandro Guevara Onofre

Miss Universe's my favorite Telecast. It's really exciting. I always want my favorite "Miss" to win. When they win, I am really happy. But when my favorite lose…Every year, I have a favorite delegate. Last year was Miss Japan, Kurara Chibana. From my point of view, I think that Miss Japan 2006 is a perfect beauty… In 1978 was my countrywoman: In my opinion, I think that Miss Peru, Olga Roxana Zumaran Burga, has one of the best bodies in the Miss Universe History...she was a big favorite in Acapulco, Mexico... I think that Olga was eliminated this contest because she did not speak English...In this year I was a children...I was a fan of Miss Peru…

In 1985, my favorite was Miss Zaire, currently the Democratic Republic of Congo.... Miss Zaire ,Kayonga "Benita" Mureka Tete...Miss Africa and great favorite in Miss World 1985... ...her exotic beauty was very special. Some people think that I am passionate about Miss Universe…It's true...My mother is guilty of that. She has a great admiration for Gladys Zender, Miss Universe 1957.

I remember that my country was elected host the Miss Universe on January 1982. For me, was a surprised to read in the newspapers that Lima, Peru's capital, hosted the Miss Universe. I felt very happy...My country made a great contest...were times against the terrorism by Shining Path… One of my favorites was Miss Brazil.. spectacular Cecyle Pinto Marques da Sylva (1,80m-18 years old and brown eyes) was born in Belem do Para, Amazonas (Amazonian jungle. She studied medicine. Glamorous Miss Amazonas said that her idol is the Supreme Pontieff John Paul II.

The Miss Universe Pageant originated in the 1950s in Long Beach, California. Certainly, Miss Universe has been compared to Olympic Games. I think that Miss Universe begin in Ancient Greece…More than 1,000 years… I remember that sports and beauty were important for the Ancient Greeks. Certainly, Cyprus Island was the sanctuary of Aphrodite, the Goddess of Beauty and Love

For the fourth time, Mexico will host the 56th the Miss Universe Pageant. The final will be at the National Auditorium in Mexico City, on May 28th.Mexico is one of the most wonderful places on Earth…There are very nice beaches: Cancun, Mazatlan, Puerto Vallarta, La Paz, Puerto Escondido, and Acapulco. For example, Cozumel Island is a tropical paradise…The Mexican Jungle is the real fascination…paradisiac landscapes. Furthermore, Mexico has one of the oldest histories in the world. Like Peru, France and Thailand, Mexico is the home of International gastronomy…Mexico is very famous for its food…tacos, empanadas, moles, and enchiladas…Finally, the people are very warm and friendly. From my perspective, I think that Mexico is the perfect place for Miss Universe…Welcome to MEXICO!

FROM 1952 TO 2007:
1952: Long Beach, California. Miss Finland was the first Miss Universe…

1955: Long Beach, California. Miss Sweden was crowned Miss Universe. Miss El Salvador, Maribel Arrietta, was the big favorite. Miss El Salvador was compared to Marilyn Monroe by American journalists.

1957: Long Beach (California). Miss Peru, Gladys Zender Urbina was elected Miss Universe. She is the first Latin woman to win the Miss Universe.

1959: Long Beach, California. Miss Italy, Maria Grazia Buccella, was the big favourite, but she did not make the semifinals. Next day, Italian newspapers criticized Akiko Kojima...New Miss Universe from Japan....

1961: Long Beach, California. Marlene Schmidt became the first German woman to win the Miss Universe title.

1962: Miss Haiti, Evelyn Miot, was the first black woman to be a semifinalist at Miss Universe…

1964: Long Beach, California. Corina Tsopie was the first person from Greece to win the Pageant.

1968: Miami Beach, Florida.Martha Vasconcelos became the second Brazilian to win the Miss Universe title.

1969: Miami Beach, Florida. Miss Philippines, Gloria Diaz, became the third Miss universe from the Asia.

1975: San Salvador (El Salvador).The winner was Anne Pohtamo, Miss Finland. She looks like Grace Kelly, who was an American actress and Princess of Monaco (a small country in Europe).During her reign, she went to the USA, Australia, Hong Kong, Dominican Republic and other countries in the Third World...She was crowned in El Salvador, the birthplace of Maribel Arrieta, one of the most beautiful delegates in the chronology of MU.... Jackeline Gammarra, Miss Bolivia, was big favorite in San Salvador. Ironically, she had been eliminated in the semifinals of Miss Universe. She is one of the best South American delegates in the history of Miss Universe...

1978: Acapulco, Mexico. Miss South Africa won the title. The favorites were : 1-El Salvador, 2-Peru, 3-USA, 4-SAfrica, 5-Israel, 6-Sweden, 7-Wales, 8-Costa Rica. Miss Costa Rica, Maribel Fernandez (actress in the 1980s and 1990s), was eliminated. The great surprise was Miss Chile… very intelligent (she spoke English, French and German)… Miss Peru, Olga Roxana Zumaran Burga, has been the only Peruvian favorite in the Miss Universe History...but she did not speak English as Miss Colombia and Miss Spain. Another eliminated was Miss El Salvador, Iris Yvette Mazorra, one of the best Latin American delegates in MU.

1979: Perth (Australia). Miss Brazil was a big favorite until last minute, but she had poor speech in the finals. Miss Venezuela, Maritza Sayalero won the title.

1981: New York City. Under the leadership of Osmel Sousa, President of Miss Venezuela Organization, Venezuela's Irene Saez was crowned Miss Universe. The final ranking:1-Venezuela, 2-Canada, 3-Sweden, 4-Brazil, 5-Belgium. After the Miss Universe, Miss Brazil, Adriana Alves de Oliveira had worked as professional model in Paris...In 1984 she was London, the United Kingdom, where she was the first favorite by international journalism and houses of best. With at 1.81m, she had a perfect body and European profile...But she only came between 7 semifinalists. She is the best delegate from Brazil since Magdalena Sbairini, other big favorite in Miss World 1977...

1982: Lima ,Peru. The favorites were: 1-Miss Chile, 2-Miss South Africa, 3-Miss Brazil, 4-Miss Finland 5-Miss Canada 6-Miss Austria 7-Greece 8-Miss Wales 9-Miss Italy 10-Miss Australia...Weren't favorites: Guam, USA, Uruguay, Germany, Peru, Venezuela, England and Miss Sweden. Miss South Africa, Odett Octavia Scrooby, (18 years old, 173m, blue eyes and 54 k) was born in Skeerpoort. She had been a professional model in Johannesburg, a city in SA. Her hobbies are drawing and painting. Her dream was to become an international supermodel. She did not win because her country was the birthplace of Apartheid…However, Miss Canada won the title. Karen Baldwin was a student at university in Canada.Her dream was to become a businesswoman. Her hobbies were water sports and playing tennis, squash and racquetball. Like Gladys Zender, one of the judges, Karen was a sportswoman. "My idol is the Mother Theresa of Calcutta", said in an interview with Mario Vargas Llosa (judge).In the International judge, Karen had had the support of Rod Duguay, her countrymen and a famous hockey player...

1984: Miami, Florida. Miss South Africa, Leticia Snyman, was a big favorite, but she did not win Miss Universe. After 1984,Miss Universe company did not accept South Africa contestants until 1995,when Namibia was host the Miss Universe.

1985: Miami, Florida. The final ranking: 1-PR,2-Spain,3-Zaire,4-Venezuela,5-Uruguay. Miss Zaire, Benita Mureka, was the first black African finalist in Miss Universe. Miss Zaire has her own style, very beautiful. Miss Puerto Rico, a girl very common, was elected Miss Universe…very strange result.

1986: Panama City. Miss Venezuela, Barbara Palacios Teyde. Venezuela has had many judges in the Miss Universe since 1984: Certainly, Carolina Herrera (1984 and 1997), Irene Saez (1983 and 1995), Maria Consuelo Alonso (1993 and 1998), Lupita Ferrer (1986), Barbara Palacios Teyde (1988) and Jose Luis Rodriguez (1991. Different from Venezuela, Jamaica has not had an judge in MU history...as Bolivia, Paraguay, Portugal, Austria, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Namibia, Curacao, Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Ireland...

1987: Singapore City. Miss Chile, Cecilia Bolocco was crowned Miss Universe Pageant. She had a sensational interview with judges. Miss Colombia, Patricia Lopez, did not qualify for the semifinals. After of won Miss South America-Universe and Miss Photogenic, Patricia Lopez became the big favorite to win the Miss Universe, but she did not speak English very well. Good bye Colombia…

1989: Cancun, Mexico. Andrea Stelzer was Miss South Africa 1985 but when she arrived at Miami Airport Immigration did not accept her entrance to Miami. Reasons: Radical protests by American Anti-Apartheid activists. After...like many South African, she became German citizen. In 1989 she won the Miss Germany title. She went to Cancun and was semifinalist at the Miss Universe...

1990: Venezuela was the dominant force in Miss Universe Pageant in the 1990s.

1993: Mexico City. Maria Consuelo Alonso, international judge, did not support Miss Venezuela, Milka Chulina, at the Miss Universe. In Caracas, there was many critics towards Maria Consuelo…She was born in Cuba.

1994: Manila, Philippines. The ranking final: 1-Miss India, 2-Miss Colombia, 3-Miss Venezuela. Many people think that Colombia never winner Miss Universe… because the narcotrafic. Colombia have had spectacular girls like Aura Maria Mojica and Paloma Turbay Ayala...

1996: Las Vegas, Nevada. Miss Venezuela, Alicia Machado, won the Miss Universe Pageant. She is always controversial and charismatic…

1999: Trinidad Tobago. Miss Botswana, Mpule Kwelagobe, became Miss Universe. Since 1999, she is an Anti-AIDS activist in the Third World.

2000: Nicosia, Cyprus, the birthplace of Aphrodite…Miss India, Lara Dutta was crowned Miss Universe. Miss France, Sonia Rolland, who speaks French, English and Spanish, was another bi-racial beauty. She has a Rwandan mother and a French father. Sonia was a child who lived at the time of the Rwandan War.

2006: Los Angeles, California. Miss Puerto Rico, Zuleyka Rivera, was crowned Miss Universe Pageant… Did you know that... Puerto Rico has had several judges in the Miss Universe History: Mapy Cortes (actress/1972), Marisol Malaret (former MU: 1977 and 2002),Deborah Carthy-Deu (ex-MU: 1987 and 2003), Dayanara Torres (2001),Marc Anthony (2001)and Maria Celeste Arraras (journalist/2003 and 2006)...but Chile only has had two judges: Cecilia Bolocco (1996) and Christian de la Fuente (20001)….

2007: Welcome to Mexico…Miss Universe 2007

Find The Best Accredited Online University And Improve Your Career Prospects With An Online Degree

There are many universities online, and many of them have unique advantages. With an online university popping up all over the net, it becomes hard to decide which university online school offers the best package for each individual so they can find the top online university.

Online Universities have grown to be a place for many busy individuals who lack time and have family responsibilities to continue their education. Here are a few important tips that you can use when considering your university online.
Accreditation

Almost all education guides will ask you to make sure that the online university of your choice or the online degree program that you are going to enroll on must be accredited by any of the agencies that are accepted by the US Department of Education. In fact, it is the main factor to be considered when you select your university online course.

In simple terms, accreditation is an official evaluation procedure on school programs and policies by one of the agencies that are accepted by the US Department of Education to see if they meet certain criteria. When a school meets the criteria, it is granted accreditation. If your degree is from an accredited online university, your degree will be accepted by most employers, eliminating the risk of unrecognized or fake degrees.

Get university online degrees that Will Look Good In Your Resume.

With so many online universities and online colleges available, you may find it hard to decide which school to choose for your degree. Put yourself in the shoes of the employer for just a minute, a degree from well known state university online like the University of Phoenix and Kaplan University would look far more appealing than a university like the University of Joe Bloggs right?

A degree from a renowned & prestigious online university will make your resume be worth its weight in gold. An applicant from a renowned online university will definitely make an impression on the hiring manager, over a graduate from Joe Bloggs university. Its easy to do some analysis and get some feedback from any of online degree forums about the online to see which is the best known and best acceptable university before you make your decision.

Lab Works Near Your Location

Some university online courses require you to complete a stipulated amount of lab hours work before you can earn your degree. If your busy working schedule will not allow you to travel far, then, you need to consider an online university that has a local facility or agreement with a local institution for you to carry out your lab work.

Credit Transfer

There are many universities online that allow you to transfer your credits earned from your previous degree to save you some credit hours and credit cost. Always check out this information from the admission officer before you enroll into the degree program.

Selecting a university online for your online degree program can be a hard decision: so many options available and too many degree programs. As long as you follow the above guidelines and do your research, you will find university online degrees to suit your needs.

Choosing an accredited online university means you are getting the very best degree.

There have been so many online universities that have started to offer online degrees very recently and more are coming. So the question remains, which university online is trustworthy? The answer is easy: it is trustworthy if only if it's an accredited online university that has a good quality, venerable reputation.

Accreditation is almost a benchmark given by the US Department of Education. It shows that a University has met academic standards essential to give its students a precise and inclusive education.

So what does that mean for you?

As most students go into an online university to progress their chances for future jobs, accreditation is vital. Many employers look at accreditation as a validation of your degree. A degree by itself is just a piece of paper, but accredited it gives the employer a sense of security, knowing that you have acquired from an online accredited university that has met all the top standards. The second reason it is important is that you are paying for a degree online and you want to make sure that you get all the credit you deserve for all that hard work you put in.

Online universities accredited by the government standard will give you degree programs that other universities who do not offer accredited online university degrees just cant compete with. Having a degree from a nationally accredited online university is like having the president going live on air and saying you can enter the whitehouse anytime you like! Because the university is accredited online you have far more clout and pulling power when you send your resume off to prospective employees.

Now you understand what exactly makes an online university trustworthy, for you to make the most of your investment in your education, you must choose an accredited online university degree program with a good quality reputation. Even though there are many universities out there that have accreditation, at least you have shortlisted your choices down to the most reliable.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

The Metaontology of Universe

Euclid's parallel postulate, in its modern reformulation, holds that, on a plane, given a line and a point not on the line, only one line can be drawn through the point parallel to the line. Gerolamo Saccheri (1667-1733) brilliantly attempted to prove this through a reductio ad absurdum argument. There were two ways to contradict the postulate: space could have 1) no parallel lines (straight lines in a plane will always meet if extended far enough), or 2) multiple straight lines through a given point parallel to a given line in the plane. These become non-Euclidean axioms. Saccheri convincingly achieved his reductio for the first possibility with the innocent assumption that straight lines are infinite [cf. Jeremy Gray, Ideas of Space Euclidean, Non-Euclidean, and Relativistic, Oxford, 1989; p. 64]. Later David Hilbert (1862-1953) would point out that the same reductio proof could be achieved by assuming that given three points on a line only one can be between the other two [David Hilbert and S. Cohn-Vossen Geometry and the Imagination (Anschauliche Geometrie--better translated Intuitive Geometry), Chelsea Publishing Company, 1952; p. 240]. For the second possibility, however, Saccheri did not achieve a good proof. And it was using just such an axiom that the first complete non-Euclidean geometries were achieved by Bolyai (1802-1860) and Lobachevskii (1792-1856).
If by "flat" we mean a plane of straight lines as understood by Euclid, then true non-Euclidean manifolds (i.e. areas, volumes, spacetimes, etc.), in order to really contradict Euclid, who was talking about straight lines, would have to be flat. They could not be curved. Straight lines would be Euclidean straight, but the properties specified by non-Euclidean axioms would be satisfied. Nevertheless, since Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866), non-Euclidean manifolds are said to be "curved," and only Euclidean space itself is called "flat." Contradiction #1 above produces "positively" curved space ("spherical" or "elliptical" geometry, first described by Riemann himself), and contradiction #2 "negatively" curved space ("hyperbolic" or Lobachevskian geometry). To Euclid, this doubtlessly would seem to prove his point: the parallel postulate is about straight lines, so using curved lines hardly produces an honest non-Euclidean geometry. "Curvature" in this respect, however, is used in an unusual sense. Euclidean geodesics "straight" and generalized straight lines "geodesics". "Flat" spaces of more than three dimensions may be called "Euclidean" because of their lack of curvature; but this is an extension of geometry that would have very much been news to Euclid, and I wish to retain the historical connection between "Euclidean" and Euclid]. What "curvature" would have meant to Euclid is now "extrinsic" curvature: that for a line or a plane or a space to be "curved" it must occupy a space of higher dimension, i.e. that a curved line requires a plane, a curved plane requires a volume, a curved volume requires some fourth dimension, etc. Now "intrinsic" curvature has nothing to do with any higher dimension. But how did this happen? Why did "curvature" come to have this unusual meaning? Why should we confuse ourselves by saying that "intrinsic" straight lines, geodesics, in non-Euclidean spaces have curvature? This happened because non-Euclidean planes can be modeled as extrinsically curved surfaces within Euclidean space. Thus the surface of a sphere is the classic model of a two-dimensional, positively curved Riemannian space; but while great circles are the straight lines (geodesics) according to the intrinsic properties of that surface, we see the surface as itself curved into the third dimension of Euclidean space. A sphere is such a good representation of a non-Euclidean surface, and spherical trigonometry was so well developed at the time, that it now is a little surprising that it was not the basis of the first non-Euclidean geometry developed [cf. Gray ibid. p.171]. However, as noted, such a geometry does contradict other axioms that can easily be posited for geometry. Accepting positively curved spaces means that those axioms must be rejected. Also, and more importantly, these models in Euclidean space are not always successful.with Lobachevskian space. A saddle shaped surface is a Lobachevskian space at the center of the saddle, but a true Lobachevskian space does not have a center. Other Lobachevskian models distort shapes and sizes. There is no representation of a Lobachevskian surface that shares the virtues of a sphere in having no center, no singularities (i.e. points that do not belong to the space), and in allowing figures to be moved around without distortion in shape or size. Three dimensional non-Euclidean spaces of course cannot be modeled at all using Euclidean space.
This raises two questions: 1) what can we spatially visualize? (a question of psychology) And 2) what can exist in reality? (a question of ontology). We cannot visualize any true Lobachevskian spaces or any non-Euclidean spaces at all with more than two dimensions--or any spaces at all with more than three dimensions. Also we can only visualize a positively curved surface if this is embedded in a Euclidean volume with an explicit extrinsic curvature. "Curvature" was thus a natural term for intrinsic properties because there always was extrinsic curvature for any model that could be visualized. Why are there these limits on what we can visualize? Why is our visual imagination confined to three Euclidean dimensions? It is now common to say that computer graphics are breaking through these limitations, but such references are always to projections of non-Euclidean or multi-dimensional spaces onto two dimensional computer screens. Such projections could be done, laboriously, long before computers; but they never produced more, and can produce no more, than flat Euclidean drawings of curves. If such graphics are expected to alter our minds so that we can see things differently, this is no more than a prediction, or a hope, not a fact. And considering that non-Euclidean geometries have been conceived for almost two centuries, the transformation of our imagination seems a bit tardy, however much help computers can now give to it. Mathematicians don't have to worry about these questions of visualization because visualization is not necessary for the analytic formulas that describe the spaces. The formulas gave meaningfulness to non-Euclidean geometry as common sense never could.
The Euclidean nature of our imagination led Kant to say that although the denial of the axioms of Euclid could be conceived without contradiction, our intuition is limited by the form of space imposed by our own minds on the world. While it is not uncommon to find claims that the very existence of non-Euclidean geometry refutes Kant's theory, such a view fails to take into account the meaning of the term "synthetic," which is that a synthetic proposition can be denied without contradiction. Leonard Nelson realized that Kant's theory implies a prediction of non-Euclidean geometry, not a denial of it, and that the existence of non-Euclidean geometry vindicates Kant's claim that the axioms of geometry are synthetic. The intelligibility of non-Euclidean geometry for Kantian theory is neither a psychological nor an ontological question, but simply a logical one--using Hume's criterion of possibility as logically consistent conceivability. Kant does not say non-Euclidean geometry is logically impossible, but that is only because he does not claim that any geometry is logically true; geometry in his view is synthetic, not analytic. And Kant's belief that Euclidean geometry was true, because our intuitions tell us so, seems to me to be either unintelligible or wrong.
If we are unable to visualize non-Euclidean geometries without using extrinsically curved lines, however, the intelligibility of Kant's theory is not hard to find. The sense of the truth of Euclidean geometry for Kant is no more or less than the confidence that centuries of geometers had in the parallel postulate, a confidence based on our very real spatial imagination. If Kant's claim is "unintelligible," then Gray has not reflected on why everyone in history until the 19th century believed that the parallel postulate was true. That is the psychological question, not the logical or ontological one. The sense of ancient confidence can be recovered at any time today simply by trying to explain non-Euclidean geometry to undergraduate students who have never heard of it before. We might say that attempts to prove the postulate show that people were uneasy about it; but the universal expectation was that the postulate was really a theorem, and no one cashed in their unease by trying to construct geometry with a denial of it. Saccheri denied it, but only because he was constructing reductio ad absurdum proofs. Non-Euclidean geometry did not change our spatial imagination, it only proved what Kant had already implicitly claimed: the synthetic and axiomatically independent character of the first principles of geometry. It could well be the case that Kant is right and that we will never be able to imagine the appearance of Lobachevskian or multi-dimensional non-Euclidean spaces, or to model them without extrinsic curvature, however well we understand the analytic equations. This is purely a question of psychology and not at all one of logic, mathematics, physics, or ontology. Mathematicians are free to ignore the limitations of our imagination, although they then run the risk of wandering so far from common sense that the frontiers of mathematics will never be intelligible to even well-informed persons of general knowledge. Furthermore, since Kant believed that space was a form imposed by our minds on the world, he did not believe that space actually existed apart from our experience. This leads us to the ontological question: what can exist in reality? Non-Euclidean geometry was no more than a mathematical curiosity until Einstein applied it to physics. Now the whole issue seems much deeper and complex than it did in Kant's day, or Riemann's. If our imagination is necessarily Euclidean, hard-wired into the brain as we might now think by analogy with computers, but Einstein found a way to apply non-Euclidean geometry to the world, then we might think that space does have a reality and a genuine structure in the world however we are able to visually imagine it.
In light of the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic curvature, we must consider all the kinds of ontological axioms that will cover all the possible spaces that Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries can describe. If the limitations imposed by our imaginations present us with features of real space, we would have to say that intrinsic curvature, despite being analytically independent of extrinsic curvature, can only exist in conjunction with extrinsic curvature and so with an embedding in higher dimensions. This could be called the axiom of ortho-curvature, according to which there would actually be no true non-Euclidean geometry, for non-Euclidean geodesics would necessarily have extrinsic curvature and so would never be the actual straight lines that we need ex hypothese to contradict Euclid. The geometry of the surface of a sphere would thus involve ortho-curvature because its intrinsic straight lines, the great circles, must be simultaneously visualized and understood to be curved lines in three dimensional Euclidean space. On the other hand, it may be that intrinsically curved spaces can exist in reality without extrinsic curvature and so without being embedded in a higher dimension. This could be called the axiom of hetero-curvature, and it would make true non-Euclidean geometry possible, since lines with non-Euclidean relations to each other would be straight in the common meaning of the term understood by Euclid or Kant.
A further ontological distinction can be made. Even if the ortho-curvature axiom is true, a functionally non-Euclidean geometry would be possible if a higher dimension that allows for extrinsic curvature exists but is hidden from us. We must consider whether only the three dimensions of space exist or whether there may be additional dimensions which somehow we do not experience but which can produce an intrinsic curvature whose extrinsic properties cannot be visualized or imaginatively inspected by us. Thus we should distinguish between an axiom of closed ortho-curvature, which says that three dimensional space is all there is, and an axiom of open ortho-curvature, which says that higher dimensions can exist. This gives us three possibilities:
That, with the axiom of closed ortho-curvature, there are no true non-Euclidean geometries (and no spatial dimensions beyond three), but only pseudo-geometries consisting of curves in Euclidean space;
That, with the axiom of open ortho-curvature, there are no true non-Euclidean geometries but we may be faced with a functional non-Euclidean geometry in Euclidean space whose external curvature is concealed from us in dimensions (more than the three familiar spatial dimensions) not available to our inspection--this is an apparent hetero-curvature;
And that, with the axiom of hetero-curvature, there are real non-Euclidean geometries whose intrinsic properties do not ontologically presuppose higher dimensions (whether or not there are more than three spatial dimensions).
It is necessary to keep in mind that these axioms are answers to questions concerning reality that would be asked in physics or metaphysics and are logically entirely separate from the status of geometry in logic or mathematics or from our psychological powers of visual imagination. The second axiom leaves open the question whether "hidden" dimensions are just hidden from our perception or actually separate from our own dimensional existence. With these ontological alternatives in mind, we can now examine the philosophical implications of Einstein's use of non-Euclidean geometry.

§3. Geometry in Einstein's Theory of Relativity

Einstein's general theory of relativity proposes that the "force" of gravity actually results from an intrinsic curvature of spacetime, not from Newtonian action-at-a-distance or from a quantum mechanical exchange of virtual particles. If we view Einstein's philosophical project as an answer to Kant's Antinomy of Space--to explain how straight lines in space can be finite but unbounded--the introduction of time reckoned as the fourth dimension suggests that we may separate the intrinsic curvature of spacetime into curvature based on the relationship between space and time: we can think of Einstein's theory as one that satisfies the axiom of open ortho-curvature, with the peculiarity that it is indeed time, rather than a higher dimension of space, that is posited beyond our familiar three spatial dimensions. This is a metaphysically elegant theory, since is gives us the mathematical use of a higher dimension without the need to postulate a real spatial dimension beyond our experience or our existence. Time is a dimension that is present to us only one spatial slice at a time, just as the third dimension is only intersected at one (radial) point by the curved surface of a sphere in our previous model of a positively curved space.
Our spherical model for non-Euclidean spacetime, however, is not quite right; for on the analogy, the intrinsic lines in space should be the geodesics and so should appear straight to us. They should appear curved only from the perspective of the higher dimension, as the great circles on the sphere appear curved from our three dimensional perspective. That is not true in terms of astronomical space, where the lines drawn by freefalling bodies in gravitational fields are most evidently curved to our three dimensional imaginations, even while they are understood to be geodesics only in terms of their form in the higher dimension of spacetime. That is exactly the opposite of the case in the model: Freefalling paths ("world lines") are geodesics in spacetime but extrinsically curved lines in space, while in the model great circles are extrinsically curved lines in solid space (corresponding to spacetime) but geodesics in plane space (corresponding to space).
Intrinsic curvature, which was introduced by Riemann to explain how straight lines could have the properties associated with curvature without being curved in the ordinary sense, is now used to explain how something which is obviously curved, e.g. the orbit of a planet, is really straight. Something has gotten turned around. If the curvature of spacetime is evident to us in extrinsically curved lines in three dimensional space, then the form of the analogy forces us to posit the "higher" or extrinsic dimension, into which the straight lines are curved, as a spatial one, not the temporal one. If three dimensional space is not extrinsically curved into time according to the axiom of open ortho-curvature, then it must be time that is extrinsically curved into the dimensions of space. In the model, where before the surface of the sphere was analogous to solid space, now the surface must be analogous to two dimensions of space plus time, with the third dimension of space as that into which the geodesics of spacetime are extrinsically curved. Switching the role of time suddenly makes the model very non-intuitive, but it is compelled by the feature of the model that the geodesic is on the surface of the sphere. It does not help the philosophical issue to eject the complications of the axiom of open ortho-curvature and simply take the four dimensions of spacetime as satisfying hetero-curvature; for this loses sight of Kant's Antinomy of Space, which we hope to answer, and of the circumstance that even in Relativity the dimension of time is not exactly the same as the dimensions of space. That is the most intuitively obvious in the "separation" formula: s2 = t2 - (x2 + y2 + z2)/c2. Here the Pythagorean formula for changes in spatial location, divided by the velocity of light squared, is subtracted from the change in time squared, to give the spacetime "separation" in units of time. Thus time is not treated as simply another spatial dimension. Thus we must consider the differences between space and time, and the axiom of open ortho-curvature alone allows for this.
The result of attributing extrinsic curvature to time is also suggested by the peculiarity of using "curved space" alone to explain gravity, as is common in museums and textbooks around the world; for curved space conjures up images of hills and valleys through which moving objects describe curved paths. However, those images presuppose motion, and motion is the very thing to be explained. Gravity does not just direct motion; it causes it. An object passing by the earth is accelerated towards the earth and thereby acquires a velocity along a vector where it previously may have had no velocity at all. An object placed at rest with respect to the earth, with no initial velocity in any direction, will be accelerated with a velocity towards the earth. If there are no "forces" acting on the body, as Einstein says, then the only change that takes place is the body's movement along the temporal axis; and if the body is thereby displaced in space, it must be displaced by its movement along that axis. The temporal axis can displace the object if the axis is itself curved; so the curvature of spacetime in a gravitational field must result from the curvature of time, not of space. The extrinsic dimension of ortho-curvature, into which the straight lines curve, is a dimension of ordinary Euclidean space. This can be intuitively shown, not so much in our non-Euclidean models, but simply in a graph plotting time (t) against one dimension of space (r). An accelerating body will describe a curved line that changes its coordinate in the r axis as its coordinate in the t axis changes. If the acceleration comes from spacetime itself, then the coordinate grid will itself be curved: the t axis lines will curve, displacing themselves against the r axis (spatial location), while the r axis lines will not curve. The curvature of time itself is hidden from us because, indeed, we intersect only one point on the temporal axis. Consequently, how do we know we are being accelerated by gravity? In free fall we are being displaced with space itself, and so we move with our entire frame of reference and would not be able to detect that locally. Indeed, we cannot. It is Einstein's own "equivalence" principle of General Relativity that we cannot tell the difference between free fall in a gravitational field and free floating in the absence of a gravitational field. The motion induced in us by the curvature of time is evident only because we can observe distant objects that are not subject to our local acceleration. When we are not in free fall, e.g. standing on the surface of the earth, we feel weight, just as according to the equivalence principle when we are being accelerated by a force (e.g. a rocket engine) in the absence of a gravitational field. These are indeed equivalent because in each case we are moving relative to space according to our own frame of reference. When we are accelerated by a rocket we say that we move in the stationary reference of external space; but when we are accelerated standing on the surface of the earth, it is space itself that is displaced (by time) relative to us. Either we move through space, or space moves through us. That is the experience of weight.
A question remains about the global character of spacetime. Gravitational fields are locally positively curved, but Einstein and his philosophical successors evidently expected that spacetime as a whole would be positively curved, since a finite but unbounded universe is aesthetically more satisfying--and it answers Kant's Antinomy of Space. Now, however, the geometry of cosmological spacetime is usually tied to the dynamical fate of the expanding universe. Open, ever expanding universes, are regarded as having Lobachevskian or even Euclidean geometry and only closed universes, headed for ultimate collapse, positive Riemannian curvature. The observational evidence at the moment is for an open universe, and "inflationary" models even have reasons to prefer a Euclidean over a Lobachevskian geometry. These possibilities, however, introduce considerable trouble; for Euclidean and Lobachevskian spaces are both infinite, and it is a much different proposition to say that an infinitely dense Big Bang starts at a finite singularity, into which a finite positively curved space can be packed, than it is to say that an infinite homogeneous and isotropic universe, which must have begun infinite, starts from an infinitely dense Big Bang. An infinitely dense singularity can have a finite mass, but an extended infinite density, even in a small finite region of space, cannot.
In a recent cosmological article in Scientific American, "Textures and Cosmic Structure" (March 1992), the authors, Spergel and Turok, speak of the universe (they do not say "the observable universe") starting from an "infinitesimally small point" or of the universe being at one time the size of a "grapefruit," as though that would hold true for all model universes. The infinite universes are not even considered, and so the questions about density can be happily ignored. The problem is compounded here because there are actually two infinities competing with each other: there is the infinite volume of space, and there is the infinite shrinkage, or compression, represented by the big bang singularity. However much you shrink an infinite space, it is still infinite. On the other hand, any finite region within infinite space, however large, can be compressed to a single point at the big bang. There is no conflict between the two infinities so long as you specify just what it is that you are talking about.
The problem here, however, is not visualization, it is the hard logical truth that an infinite space remains infinite and that the big bang for an infinite space, although it can be described as a singularity in relation to any finite region of space, cannot be a finite singularity.
Einstein himself introduced his Cosmological Constant to preserve a static universe, before Hubble's evidence of the red shift. He thus seems to have been thinking that a global positively curved geometry for spacetime was not necessarily tied to some dynamical evolution of the universe. This is still a possibility. Three dimensional space can still be conceived as having an inherent hetero-curvature apart from the gravitational fate of the universe: non-Euclidean without the need to regard time or anything else as a fourth dimension into which space needs to be extrinsically curved. This makes for a finite Big Bang regardless of the dynamical fate of the universe, where that fate is tied to the effect of the curvature of time, locally positively curved but globally possibly Lobachevskian or Euclidean. However, a theory of global hetero-curvature then stands separate from the mathematical Relativistic theory of gravity and becomes a theory in metaphysical cosmology more than a theory in physical cosmology.
A positively hetero-curved universe happens to suit the most commonly used cosmological model of all: the inflating balloon, where motion is added to our spherical model of non-Euclidean geometry. The surface of the balloon remains spherical regardless of whether the balloon is blown up forever or whether it eventually is allowed to deflate. As a model the balloon therefore actually posits five dimensions, with the surface representing the three dimensions of space, time as the fourth, but as a fifth the third spatial dimension into which the surface is curved and through which the surface moves in time. A positively hetero-curved universe, however, does not need that fifth dimension. Space would be non-Euclidean without higher dimensions, even while it moves along a temporal axis that is locally ortho-curved into an apparently hetero-curved spacetime because of the curvature of time. The balloon model therefore can represent a different kind of theory than it was intended to, but a most suggestive one, where the global structure of the isotropic and homogeneous universe may allow us to avoid an infinite Big Bang independent of the dynamical fate of the universe and fulfill the hope of the philosophers that Einstein answered Kant's Antinomy of Space.
§4. Conclusion
Just because the math works doesn't mean that we understand what is happening in nature. Every physical theory has a mathematical component and a conceptual component, but these two are often confused. Many speak as though the mathematical component confers understanding, this even after decades of the beautiful mathematics of quantum mechanics obviously conferring little understanding. The mathematics of Newton's theory of gravity were beautiful and successful for two centuries, but it conferred no understanding about what gravity was. Now we actually have two competing ways of understanding gravity, either through Einstein's geometrical method or through the interaction of virtual particles in quantum mechanics.
Nevertheless, there is often still a kind of deliberate know-nothing-ism that the mathematics is the explanation. It isn't. Instead, each theory contains a conceptual interpretation that assigns meaning to its mathematical expressions. In non-Euclidean geometry and its application by Einstein, the most important conceptual question is over the meaning of "curvature" and the ontological status of the dimensions of space, time, or whatever. The most important point is that the ontological status of the dimensions involved with the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic curvature is a question entirely separate from the mathematics. It is also, to an extent, a question that is separate from science--since a scientific theory may work quite well without out needing to decide what all is going on ontologically. Some realization of this, unfortunately, leads people more easily to the conclusion that science is conventionalistic or a social construction than to the more difficult truth that much remains to be understood about reality and that philosophical questions and perspectives are not always useless or without meaning. Philosophy usually does a poor job of preparing the way for science, but it never hurts to ask questions. The worst thing that can ever happen for philosophy, and for science, is that people are so overawed by the conventional wisdom in areas where they feel inadequate (like math) that they are actually afraid to ask questions that may imply criticism, skepticism, or, heaven help them, ignorance.
These observations about Einstein's Relativity are not definitive answers to any questions; they are just an attempt to ask the questions which have not been asked. Those questions become possible with a clearer understanding of the separate logical, mathematical, psychological, and ontological components of the theory of non-Euclidean geometry. The purpose, then, is to break ground, to open up the issues, and to stir up the complacency that is all too easy for philosophers when they think that somebody else is the expert and understands things quite adequately. It is the philosopher's job to question and inquire, not to accept somebody else's word for somebody else's understanding.
Grappling with the causes of inertia, Newton imagined two buckets partially filled with water. The first bucket is left still, and the surface of the water is flat. The second bucket is spun rapidly, and the surface of the water is concave. Why?
The naive answer is centrifugal force. But how does the second bucket know it is spinning? In particular, what defines the inertial reference frame relative to which the second bucket spins and the first does not? Berkeley [!] and Mach's answer was that all the matter [which Berkeley didn't believe in] in the universe collectively provides the reference frame. The first bucket is at rest relative to distance galaxies, so its surface remains flat. The second bucket spins relative to those galaxies, so its surface is concave. If there were no distant galaxies, there would be no reason to prefer one reference frame over the other. The surface in both buckets would have to remain flat, and therefore the water would require no centripetal force to keep it rotating. In short, there would be no inertia. Mach inferred that the amount of inertia a body experiences is proportional to the total amount of matter in the universe. An infinite universe would cause infinite inertia. Nothing would ever move. [p. 92, comments added]
Whatever the "naive" explanation may be, it is not the one used by Newton. The argument made by Luminet et al., Berkeley, and Mach is actually the argument originally made by Leibniz (and just recycled by Berkeley, who believed in space less than in matter) against Newton's idea that space was real.
For Newton, the rotating bucket was rotating in relation to space itself. Evidently, it is now such "conventional wisdom" that space itself provides no inertial frame of reference, since Einstein, that it doesn't occur to anyone that the kind of reference it provides vis à vis rotation is rather different from what it fails to provide to establish absolute linear motion. The argument that, in empty space, with no "distant galaxies," there would be no centrifugal force in the bucket and the water in one would be just as flat as in the other is not a necessary conclusion, but only a theory. And not a theory easily tested without an empty universe available.
On the other hand, the question can still be asked how the bucket can "know" that the "distant galaxies" are out there. There must be a physical interaction for that (the range of gravity is infinite); yet Einstein, again, said that no physical interaction can travel faster than the velocity of light, and in an "inflationary" universe (which Mach didn't know about) light can have reached us from only a finite part of the universe, even in an infinite universe. Thus the argument of Luminet et al. fails, for a infinite universe would make for infinite inertia only if the whole universe could physically affect a location. If only a finite part of the universe, infinite or otherwise, affects a location, then there will still only be finite inertia.
Apart from a shake-up over the geometry of space, there has been another surprise in recent cosmology. An article in the January 1999 Scientific American, "Surveying Space-time with Supernovae" [Craig J. Hogan, Robert P. Kirshner, and Nicholas B. Suntzeff, pp. 46-51], discusses observational data that seems to indicate that the expansion of the universe has accelerated over time, not decelerated as it should under the influence of gravity alone. This implies the existence of Einstein's "Cosmological Constant" or some other exotic force that would override the attraction of gravity. It also may clear up another pecularity about "standard" cosmology that had been swept under the rug. That is, all closed universes, where deceleration would be enough to produce a collapse into the "Big Crunch," preferred by cosmologists like Stephen Hawking, would have to be younger than 2/3 of the Hubble Time (1/H). This would also mean that no objects in the universe could have a red shift larger than 2/3 of the velocity of light (c), since the red shift gives us the distance in proportion to the Hubble Radius (c/H), and also the age in proportion to the Hubble Time. Thus, in the diagram at right, all the universes under the green curve are closed, and all those above the green curve are open. Now, many quasars have red shifts larger than 2/3 c. Many are even over 90% of c. This has been prima facie evidence since the 70's that the universe was open, but nobody of any influence seems to have noticed. Now, however, if the universe is accelerating, then all possible universes are above the straight red line in the diagram which indicates the Hubble Constant. They will all be older than the Hubble Time. This suddenly makes it quite reasonable that very old objects, like many quasars, would have very, very large red shifts. Indeed, the Big Bang itself would appear to be receding faster than the velocity of light -- it would have an infinite red shift. So again we have an object lesson in the history of science, that a careful examination of the implications of a theory is sometimes neglected by professional science. Inconsistencies can be revealed by even a lay examination.
http://www.scienceomatica.com