moth

i'm pretty sure it is the bikini-waxer who bikini-waxes everyone who does not bikini-wax themselves

There's always wikipedia ANSI C It's getchar() now

By hyper-volume I mean volume with an extra degree of freedom, but like you, I'm not fluent in math so there are probably better definitions . I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it's necessary to be 3-d to see 2-d geodesics as curves.

That is how we see 2-d geodesics as curves, by looking at them from a 3-d perspective. If you ignore the third dimension and stick with the 2 dimensions of the surface then the great circles in the surface of the basketball are not 2-d curves they are 2-d geodesics. If we see 3-d geodesics as curves, we must be looking from 4-d hypervolume. This is basically the definition of 3-d volume, three axis' are all you need to fully describe a 3-d volume. Two axis' are all you need to describe 2-d area, there is no (meaningful) way to insert another axis in a 2-d surface, but that doesn't make 3-d volumes impossible. The fact that there's no "room" for a forth axis in a volume says nothing about a forth axis in a hypervolume.

How do we see 3-d geodesics as curves if we are not also looking at volume from a hypervolume? At least 4: height, width, depth, and duration.

You see it this way because because you are looking at it from (at least) 3 dimensions, not the 2 dimensions of the surface. We have to be 3-d to see the arc in the 2-d surface, do you deny that we must be 4-d to see 3-d geodesics as curved?

Try a clock and a ruler. Then try comparing your result to another measurement made by somebody moving (say) away from you. You'll find both measurements agree on how much time elapsed while the light traversed how many rulers. Now explane how the same distance/time value is obtained in both measurements. Try contrasting these results with the results obtained with you standing on the side of the road and somebody (on a bike maybe)moving towards a car driving by on the road. Say the car is doing 100 m.p.h. the bike is doing 20 m.p.h and of course you're standing still. You measure the car going 100 the guy on the bike measures the car going 120. You've got to admit these situations are different or deny a constant speed of light. I looked at the paper you recommended. Maybe I should read it again though, because if anything the paper suggests to me: the fact we see 3-d geodesics as curves can only be because we are embedded in 4 dimensions. If we were only 3-d then 3-d geodesics should look straight. reason for edit: i've been in New Zealand for the last month. still kinda "fuzzy"

If an input is an ADC it will be labled in the documentation for the chip/module. There's no difference in the connectors themselves they just connect two wires together. As long as you are connecting the proper wires to each other, it makes no difference which end is male or female (except where there is a defined protocall and you want to connect with existing hardware). Did you get your servos connected to your camera o.k.?

Take a look at the paper from the link in my previous post. Wharton describes how backwards causation can explain the EPR paradox. You might also have a look at Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory. It's more a mathematical construct than a physical manifestation but it does involve time running backwards.

Here's how i see the experiment. Please let me know if you disagree 1 photon is generated 2 photon interacts with double slit 3 photon interacts with crystal resultng in two photons 4 the two photons interact with a prism that causes them to diverge 5 one photon is directed to a detector(call it detector "a") the other is directed to a prism that is placed to refract the photon on two paths depending on which slit it passed through 6a the photon encounters a beam splitter where it is reflected to a detector (preserving the path info) 6b the photon encounters a beam splitter and is transmitted to a mirror and another beam splitter so when the photon is detected there is 50-50 chance it was reflected or transmitted by the splitter(erasing the path info) 7 the detectors are all connected to a coincidence counter to correlate the photons seen at detector a with the photons seen at the other detectors the path length to detector "a" is shorter than the path lengths to where the which slit info is preserved or erased so at the time the detector "a" photon is seen the path info has not been preserved or erased. it is the path info which causes the detector "a" photon to appear as a particle or wave It appers the effect (particle or wave at detector "a") preceeds the cause (preserved or erased path info) I found this paper with another example of retrocausality (not an appeal to authority I'm just glad I'm not alone in my thinking).

I'm not an expert of anything so you may be correct and I'm not making sense, but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue. Is there an ontology of causality? I'm not sure the experiment violates causality because if observation is what determines whether one outcome or another (particle-like or wave-like)is seen, then the observation seems to me to be part of the cause. But the question remains - if "now" is the only time how do the photons "know" where to interact with the detector? There's always the "many worlds interpretation" but that seems to introduce more complications than it resolves.

You got it.

Don't worry it's confusing at first but you'll get the hang of it with practice. The addresses on the left are in hex, so find the row 14CD:30 and count 0xC columns to the right. Remember the first column after the address is 14CD:30 the next column is 14CD:31 etc.

You're getting off track somewhere. Are you sure you're not looking at 14CD:5C? What byte do you see at 14CD:3C?

O.K. I was wondering why there's no translation from keyboard scan codes to ascii. You've probably seen the sample code from this page already, but just in case here's a link.

You have the byte order correct on your first answer. You should mark numbers written in hexadecimal by leading with 0x or a trailing H (0x1234 or 1234 H) so you don't confuse the hex representation for a decimal representation. The question asks for a decimal representation so you still need to convert your answer to decimal. You're not looking in the right spot on your second answer maybe you are looking at 0x3B instead of 0x3C (it takes a while to get used to starting the count at 0). Also how many bytes are in a double word?

Starting at 14CD:59 and making a word you get 0x240D I think (windows 7 doesn't have debug so I can't check). In little endian format the least significant byte of a word is at the lower address. And 0x240D is hex so you still have to convert to decimal. If i remember, in debug you can enter ? or h or help at the prompt. One of those commands that show up will tell you how to load a value from memory to a register (AX,BX, etc) so you can double check if 0x240D is right. It will show up in a register in the correct byte order.

Sorry, I was just so surprised Cap'n misspoke you are on the right track but you are looking in the wrong spot the byte at 59 is 0x0D. and don't forget x86 words are little endian

Is your keyboard connected to the 8051 or your PC? If you could add some comments to your code it will make it a little easier to sort out.

The last two columns in that row are 14CD:005E and 14CD:005F. Legend, do you understand how to count in hexadecimal?

I don't have a clue how time works I'm just asking questions of you because you claim you do, or at least you claim to know how time does not work. Are you saying the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment results should be ignored because they don't fit your concept of "now" or are you saying the result is wrong?

Observation would seem to have everything to do with whether a photon "looks" like a particle or a wave. The experiment we're talking about has been perfomed and the results are known. The question is how does the result fit in your theory of "now". Does an event occuring "now" have a single outcome or many outcomes which can be affected by later events?

It reminds me of Schrodinger's cat, the cat is alive and dead until the contents of the box are observed - and the photon interferes and does not interfere until the coincidence data is observed. But the data has all been recorded previously and the superposition is resolved by the looking. Maybe it's off topic but it suggests something about time to me even if I can't express what. nice avatar by the way. eraserhead is underrated. edited for punctuation

The delayed choice quantum eraser seems strange to me because at the time the photon that will make an interference pattern (or not) hits the target the entangled photon has not been directed to erase (or not) the path information. How does the photon "know" where to land on the target before the path info has been erased or preserved? How can an event that occured in the past be affected by current events?

I pooched the description of the experiment pretty badly and can't find the article that started me thinking this could be relevant(or even remember if it was online or in print). I should have read the Wikipedia article BEFORE i started talking about it. Sorry for mucking up your thread.