Carrock

Interesting but... and From this ref, Wigner seems to associate unknown physics with consciousness; it reminds me of earlier researchers trying to weigh the soul by measuring weight before and after death. Similarly Roger Penrose quoted in the same Wiki:(Couldn't access the original text.) I wasn't aware of Penrose and Wigner's alleged contributions earlier; they certainly support this: I reject that version of CI.

Welcome to scienceforums PeterWB. It's a near infinite regress. I ignored the cat beyond describing it as 'unfortunate' since I didn't want to argue about whether or not it could be regarded as an honorary human observer. See below... No it isn't. There is/was no constraint on the intelligence or size of the observer in the maths on which the Copenhagen Interpretation and all the other differently unsatisfactory interpretations are based. The idea that an observer has to be human and the alternative idea that a human (or a cat) is too large to make a "quantum observation or measurment" are precisely what is addressed in the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. Where is the cutoff? Derive it from quantum mechanics. If humans can't make a "quantum observation or measurment" then they can't tell whether the cat is alive or dead when they open the box since they would be observing indirectly whether or not the radioactive atom decayed and killed the cat. Am I Baron? Every interpretation is differently dubious. ...and have different superposed results. Once everyone has 'observed' the cat, they all agree it is definitely alive or dead. I don't see this as a flaw. It's possible to imagine everything described in my OP enclosed in an even larger box (such as the multiverse) waiting for, er, an outside observer to observe them and collapse the superposition of (dead cat and observers) and (live cat and observers). Getting weird results isn't enough to discredit a theory or interpretation or thought experiment if nothing better is available. e.g. spooky action at a distance.

I think of Schrödinger's cat as an illustration of the problem of defining measurement. Consider someone in a large sealed box with a small box containing the unfortunate cat. She opens the cat box and finds the cat definitely alive or definitely dead. Has the cat's vitality been measured? Until the large box is eventually opened anyone outside the large box still has to describe the cat as in a live/dead superposition. [added] One superposition of the woman found the cat dead but when the large box is opened the cat may be alive, with a woman who has no memory of the cat being dead.

With respect to the surface of the earth, a free falling clock is ticking slower due to both reducing gravitational potential (potential energy) and increasing speed (kinetic energy). This was verified with the Gravity probe A experiment. - Vessot 1980. I was referring to two clocks both accelerating or in free fall (neglecting tidal forces) and not comparing an accelerating clock with one in free fall.

The clocks must be accelerating and not in free fall when they would run at the same rate. The same is true if there is no gravity field. See http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/99633-help-me-understand-einsteins-atomic-clock-experiments/#entry949836

It's velocity or acceleration from whatever cause that affects the clock. In a tower accelerating at 1G a clock near the top of the tower will run faster than one at the bottom of the tower. It doesn't matter whether the tower is sitting on the earth or out in space with a rocket pushing it. (In both cases the clock at the top has more potential energy.)

[rambling] If the simulation is good enough we'll never know. Proponents of 'Intelligent Design' appear to believe we're living in a simulation but haven't come up with anything yet. On the other hand the Intelligent Designer may have corrected errors discovered by these people and restarted the simulation. Whatever your beliefs, these people should be discouraged. [\rambling]

a=2 b=4 2^4=4^2 a=-2 b=-4 also works. (-2)^-4 = (-4)^-2

Another way to look at it is that the photon is its own antiparticle and an observer's choice of its direction of travel is arbitrary. It can't exist unless each of its 'origins' is physically valid. Among other things, you need 'spooky action at a distance' to reconcile that with actual observations of photons.

Run the data through every compression program available, then use the one with the best results. That should take a reasonably huge amount of time.

One other point. The reverse leakage current can vary significantly from diode to diode. You could get most of the reverse voltage appearing across one very low leakage diode, exceeding its PIV. You should check the spec of your diodes to see if they can survive this. Normal practice is to connect a high value resistor rated at 1000V across each diode, passing just enough current to swamp the diodes' reverse leakage.

I think it was Voltaire who said it was reasonable to suppose only the religious went to hell. I've decided to postpone worrying about it until I'm dead.

Are you serious? Why would I provide a rebuttal to my own point? Or did you quote me by mistake? One last post... I did not realise you thought that 'America had a bad, stupid leader interested only in the oil.' That was my mistake.

I did not make that argument or claim. Attempting to refute the argument you just gave is simply a way of ignoring my post. I am rather puzzled that you made no attempt to refute your argument/claim that 'America had a bad, stupid leader interested only in the oil.' This is my last post in this topic, so feel free to misrepresent it if you want.

My understanding was that there was one unconfirmed report from a source, who was believed by those who dealt him to be lying, that Sadam could deploy small scale 'weapons of mass destruction' within 45 minutes if he was attacked. This was the only stated justification for invasion. As the French might have said: 'Sadam is very evil; if you attack him he will defend himself.' Afterwards, of course, it was convenient to suggest that there are secret yet to be discovered weapons. You don't stop it; a neighbour tells the police you have illegal firearms you'll use to protect yourself and your family if attacked. Despite thoroughly searching your home, the police fail to find even one of your kalashnikovs, proving you are truly an evil genius the law cannot touch. To pre-emptively defend themselves, the police shoot up your house with all the guns they can get hold of, making sure to kill or imprison all unlawful combatants. Afterwards, it's only a matter of time until they find evidence of your hidden guns.

I did, because the OP was so content free as to be complete useless as the basis of a discussion. I gave a content free negative rating in the spirit of the OP. Discuss...

It might be an idea to ask the parent, who will be better able than the child to decide the financial implications of paying for treatment and how likely the cost of treatment is to be fatal. Or advise them, if they survive their injuries, to move to a country where medical treatment isn't reserved for the rich and people without money are not left to die of exposure.

One option which doesn't seem to have had much attention: Split the the spacecraft into two masses: one for crew habitation and the other 'not wanted on voyage'. Attach the two with a cable long enough to make coriolis force etc not a problem and spin up for 1G in crew quarters. This wouldn't be simple or cheap but it may be more cost effective than other options.

Unsurprisingly, using typical human assumptions, we are more intelligent than any other animal, mainly or entirely because of our advanced language skills. Many harmful memes, mostly about defying instincts honed over millions of years reduce our survival chances; harmful habits among other animals usually die out within a few generations as they have no means of retaining those concepts for thousands of years. Language has created in most humans a partial loss of awareness of 'unconscious' bodily functions and instincts; we are probably less able than many animals to control these in an intelligent way. An example of clever animal/stupid human. Each is caught out in cold weather with inadequate fur/clothing hours from food and shelter. The animal increases its metabolic rate, knowing (in a nonverbal way) that it has enough fat reserves to stay warm until it reaches food and shelter. Without foresight or conscious control, the human's metabolism adjusts to conserve energy to enable the human to survive for days; the possible loss of a few fingers or toes to frostbite is better than starving to death. Various forms of yoga and meditation (specifically not Hatha yoga) can be used to improve awareness; for example to increase voluntary control of metabolic rate. A key part is chanting a repetitive phrase (eg 'om mane padme hum' or 'three one four one five nine') to disable verbal thinking in favour of the sort of thinking most animals do most/all the time. Humans frequently use drugs, whether medical or recreational or performance enhancing when those techniques would work just as well with few if any significant side effects. One common side effect is enhanced endorphin production, which can produce euphoria, vivid dreams, hallucinations and apparently religious experiences. I only got the first two.

You seem to be confusing the 'Shannon limit' with bandwidth efficiency i.e. Transmission Rate/Channel Bandwidth. Or you're being disingenuous about the 'Shannon limit.' Argument by Wiki from your Wiki quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband] Breaks a 'Shannon limit' unless extreme techniques (far more expensive than just upgrading to fibre optic) are used to reduce noise. From another Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-high-bit-rate_digital_subscriber_line Plenty of data about VDSL standards in this Wiki. Is this an example of what you mean by 'getting around the Shannon limit'? To install broadband: Remove the bandwidth limiting filters between broadband modem and exchange to increase line capacity from about 56Kb/s to (say)5056kB/s. A 5056kB/s broadband channel would be nice but doesn't break the 'Shannon limit.' So assign a 56kB/s channel (up to ~ 4kHz) for analogue phone. Assign a 5000kB/s channel for broadband. 'Shannon limit' refers only to one channel ie the 56kB/s channel so the 5000kB/s channel breaks the 'Shannon limit.' So by increasing the number of channels the data rate has increased from 5056kB/s to, er, (56kB/s + 5000kB/s). The concepts that double sideband suppressed carrier is impossible and that the 'Shannon limit' can be overcome by multiplexing are so contrary to current knowledge that they should be confined to speculations until you provide evidence to support them. I notice your OP http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/97477-signal-modulation-how-much-data-can-be-set/#entry937903 has been voted up so presumably at least one person accepts the above concepts as mainstream science.

[latex]\cos (\theta )[/latex] can be negative so why not A? An amplitude modulated carrier with [latex]A=1 + B\sin(\omega_{i}t)[/latex] ie [latex]A>=0[/latex] suitable for a simple diode envelope detector: [latex] y = (1 + B\sin(\omega_{i}t))\sin(\omega_{c}t) [/latex] where [latex]B <=1[/latex] (normalising the carrier amplitude and only using sine wave modulation for clarity.) Multiplying out: [latex] y = (B/2)\cos(\omega_{c}-\omega_{i})t + \sin(\omega_{c}t) - (B/2)\cos(\omega_{c}+\omega_{i})t [/latex] ie [latex]y = [/latex]lower sideband and carrier and upper sideband A balanced modulator can be used to balance out the carrier ie: [latex] y = B\sin(\omega_{i}t)\sin(\omega_{c}t) [/latex] Multiplying out: [latex] y = (B/2)\cos(\omega_{c}-\omega_{i})t - (B/2)\cos(\omega_{c}+\omega_{i})t [/latex] As I mentioned in my previous post, the carrier and/or one of the sidebands need not be transmitted; they merely make tx and rx design easier, while wasting power and bandwidth. My falsifiable understanding is that wired broadband uses only available bandwidth of the wiring between broadband modem and local exchange high bandwidth multiplexer. I used to work on digital repeaters for digitised multiplexed phone calls using time, frequency and space multiplexing before optical fibre came in; bypassing 'Shannon's criterion' would have rendered my work on maximising bandwidth nugatory. I largely agree with the rest. In future please respond to my posts directly rather than editing quotes attributed to me.

In AM you can 'modulate' the carrier below zero. In single sideband suppressed carrier you are basically just frequency shifting the original modulation. This was widely used in long distance analogue phone lines and in commercial and amateur short wave comms. Reference please. Depends what you want. There's generally a sharp threshhold for digital; you go very quickly from 'accurate and reliable' to nothing at all. High redundancy modulation such as SSB and CW generally has a very soft threshhold, very useful in the presence of heavy interference or noise. Morse code is the best for low bandwidth comms when used by experienced humans; not very good for machines.

A few months ago I gave linux a retry - it's now far more user friendly and much faster than windows 7. Works for most things, with a windows (non) emulator like wine if needed and if it doesn't I can reboot to windows 7 or xp and have a leisurely coffee while it's booting. It's important to use a 64-bit version to overcome windows 7 upwards' insistence that any other os is a virus. The only real disadvantage of dual booting is that your computer is still vulnerable to windows boot viruses. Test and installation instructions: e.g. for linux mint: https://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=91140

When there is an imbalance between quote and \quote tags the post changes each time it's previewed. Very easy to do with cut and paste of unformatted text. Lokks like that's what happened with http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96920-clocks-and-rulers/page-8#entry937263

From the first survey I looked at: http://www.livescience.com/963-lags-world-grasp-genetics-acceptance-evolution.html or see a graph at https://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/acceptance-of-evolution-by-country?utm_term=.xazl9Vekw#.mvNX7vJnY What survey(s) are you looking at?