Spyman

I would use electronic circuits and alternate the power from the battery to use on a small transformer with large ratio.

When you know the maximum output voltage you can use Ohm's law to calculate a recistance to limit the current. But if the voltage is very high you are likely going to need several resistors in series with good insulation to prevent the current to jump over them. This extra limit is NO guarantee that the unit is safe, it could still be lethal for someone with a pacemaker or weak heart and then there is always the possibility depending on design that the unit may malfunction and raise the output above desired levels. With a sustained arc there comes other safety issues to consider as well: * If you manage to shock yourself then the electrical current through your body may prevent you from releasing the trigger or otherwise move, you could end up paralyzed until the battery is exhausted. A prolonged duration of current increases the lethality and there is also the possibility that you could fall from high up or end up in a position where you can't breathe. Such a device would need a timer that shuts it down, if the trigger is not assuredly released and repressed in determined intervals. * The arc produces ozone which is very poisonous, without proper ventilation prolonged exposure may cause permanent lung injury.

Yes, except that is was several billions and not millions years ago for the farthest objects. Yes, we see objects as they appeared a very long time ago. Yes, they are now farther away due to expansion and they have also aged a lot since then. Neither, as you have already figured out the expansion has moved them further away while the light from them was travelling to us, but what you have missed is that since space is expanding during the time light is making its journey, the actual distance light have to travel to reach us gets extended. Therefor there are three different distances involved: the past distance to the objects when light was emitted, the distance light has travelled through space to reach us and the distance to where the objects are assumed to be today. The normal figure given in popular science articles is the distance light has travelled through space to reach us, but they where closer when they emitted that light and they are further away now when we see it.

Thats not what I tried to say, a visual electrical spark in full daylight, able to jump 5 centimeters through normal air, is something that is going to be very very dangerous, independent of if it is energized from a car battery or a standard 9 Volt battery. Yes, the process of stepping up the voltage will lower the available amperage but there will still be enough to kill from a standard battery. Some rough estimates: * A 9 Volt battery can deliver about 5 amps for 10 seconds, with 50% losses that is enough to directly supply 300 volts at said lethal current. * With precharging time a 9 Volt battery of 500 mAh can with 90% losses deliver one deadly spark of 16 200 volt and 0.10 amps for one second. Your circuits are going to need other restraints than the limitation of the power source to make sure you can survive a fatal mistake! How big battery do you think a X26 Taser weapon have? A Taser, with cartridge removed, making an electric arc between its two electrodes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser Critics argue that TASERs as well as other high-voltage stun devices can cause cardiac arrhythmia in susceptible subjects, possibly leading to heart attack or death in minutes by ventricular fibrillation, which leads to cardiac arrest and - if not treated immediately - to sudden death. People susceptible to this outcome are sometimes healthy and unaware of their susceptibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safety_issues

Thanks to Klaynos and hypervalent_iodine for the help resolving what my happy trigger finger caused. Slowly and very very carefully I will hopefully manage to give positive reputation to both of you...

Flood control channel

I have failed several times and managed to misclick when voting on reputation at people's posts. Most times a have clicked positive instead of negative which is a happy fault of me, for the member who made the post, so I have never bothered further with it and left them as that. But the last time I misclicked was when I intended to outweight a, (IMHO unfair), negative vote zapatos had gained in his post #2 in this thread and instead I clicked on the negative vote, (sorry zapatos), which further condemned his post. This fault of mine has negative consequences for the poster and is something I feel I have to try to undo and have therefor asked a moderator, (Phi for All), to change my vote and correct my error. However I think it is all to easy to misclick and it would probably not help with the typical computer question "Are you sure?" either. It is human to fault and when one does I think people should have the possibility to undo their wrongs. Asking the staff for help is an alternative I think most people won't bother to do for a misclick when voting and more likely they will leave it as it is, wrong or not. My suggestion is as said that we should have the option to change the reputation votes we make but only for a limited time to avoid misuse of this option. There are of course technical issues, is it possible to implement this change and how difficult would it be? What do you others think, would it good option to have or cause trouble?

Reread the content, the accuracy is more than adequate to determine if said markers is placed in one straight line or in a "migrating birds" formation. If it will reach the destination after the journey started, then it is said to be moving forward in time, simple as that. There is no need for an external observator, I can bounce a ball against a wall, the event when the ball hits the wall must be sometime along it's worldline, between the two events when I throw it and catch it again. Since both I and the ball persist along our worldlines during this time interval, the event when the ball bounced against the wall must have coexisted with an event when I was looking at it. If the worldline Michel is causing an event at time 3 and the worldline Spyman is causing an event at time 3, then for all intents an purposes those two events did happen at time 3, which means that Michel and Spyman where both there at the same time causing these events. At the event where Spyman looks at his clock and determines that it is time 3 in his present, he knows1 that Michel is in this present somewhere too, because Michel can't stop existing. (1 This knowledge is based on the assumtion that current verifyed laws of nature is correct and continues as usual for this period of time.) You need to define what physically there "are", if my clock is beeping at time 3 then am I physically there or not? If the requirement is that I am observable, then clearly I am not there for Michel at time 3. But if the requirement is that I cause an event at time 3 then I am there. The "expected result" means that Michel can CONFIRM if Spyman really was causing events in his past present or not. If Michel carefully examines the laws of physics without an headache he might understand that Spyman is unable2 to leave Michel's present. (2 Spyman don't have the means necessary to hide inside the event horizon of a black hole nor to travel beyond Michel's cosmic event horizon.) LOL - They both are clearly on the line we call present in the diagram. The event when Spyman's clock beeps happens at the same time as the event when Michel's clocks beep, those two events are on the same horizontal line we once called the present, they both happened simultaneously, they both shared the same time coordinate, they where both there at that time. We can't observe directly at present time that we are both there, but afterwards we can confirm that we in fact was there. If we always confirm that the objects we observe continued to exists at the time that was the former present time, then we get increasingly more certain that all objects3 will always continue to exists in our present time. AFAIK the conservation of mass-energy law have NEVER been shown to be violated. (3 Depending on what can be described as an object, the object might get destroyed, but it's parts or mass-energy doesn't vanish without a trace.) If two objects worldlines proceed, (in parallel), through each others past and future light cones, then they must also coexist in their present. Moving said objects apart or closer together doesn't change that.

Nice find zapatos.

A voltage stepped up from a small standard battery is well within the lethal ranges. "In general, current that is fatal to humans ranges from 0.06 A to 0.07 A, depending on the person and the type of current." http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/JackHsu.shtml

Simultaneously = at the same instant, happening, existing, or done at the same time. If they move with the same rate then they will reach their 100 meter marks at the same time. Michel in the middle does not win this race against Spyman at the outermost right, they both reach their 100 meter marks together. The only spatial directions you have in this example are left or right and you can't throw anyting into either the past nor the future. So you have to throw it to your right, but from the event when you throw the box it will move in a forward right angle across this field until it reaches me in a future event from the time of the throw event. If the box should be moving in a backward right angle across this field then it would reach me at a time before you throw it, that would mean it had travelled backwards in time. So if the alarm starts after 3 seconds and you instead draw the present line through the two circles representing the 3 second ticks, then you agree that we are both there in exactly that present when our clocks beep even though we are separated by a distance of 2 lightseconds? When your clocks beep you can think that if Spyman is in your present then his clock beeps right now too, which means that he will start to wave his arms at this instant when you are thinking this and if you wait 2 seconds more then you can see him do that and confirm that his clock indeed did beep simultaneously with yours. 2 seconds later you see me wave my arms when my clock alarm started. Where was the event when your clock beeped and where was was the event when mine clock beeped? When the present was at the time 3 seconds where we both there at that time or not?

If the Blue Brain Project goes well then that robot could be controlled by an artificial rat brain by 2014. The Blue Brain Project is an attempt to create a synthetic brain by reverse-engineering the mammalian brain down to the molecular level. (...) In November 2007, the project reported the end of the first phase, delivering a data-driven process for creating, validating, and researching the neocortical column. By 2005 the first single cellular model was completed. The first artificial cellular neocortical column of 10,000 cells was built by 2008. By July 2011 a cellular mesocircuit of 100 neocortical columns with a million cells in total was built. A cellular rat brain is planned for 2014 with 100 mesocircuits totalling a hundred million cells. Finally a cellular human brain is predicted possible by 2023 equivalent to 1000 rat brains with a total of a hundred billion cells. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project

After a good night's sleep, I would like to ask these two questions: If all soldiers carry field markers and after exactly 100 meters simultaneously puts them down, won't the markers form a straight line? If you as the commander in the middle want to throw a box of ammo to Spyman at the outermost right, do you throw it backwards?

This picture and explanation I don't understand at all:

As I understand accepted science and interpret the others posters we all seem to agree that simultaneously when Spyman observes Michel at point A, Michel is causing new events at point B as in your image below.

While I agree that a self-aware machine would not be human or even think like a human, I still maintain that I would consider it to be alive. A Turing Test might be able to determine a rough level of intelligence for an machine and its software, but I don't think it suffices to determine if any machine or creature is alive or self-aware or not. If we someday find and meet with an alien civilization, they will very likely be different from us, both in thoughts and apperance. They would be alive, think and act rationally but yet be very inhuman, more inhuman than any machines that we ourselves might build as copies of us. I am not certain these aliens would be able to fool us that they are human in a such a test, because they are simply not human enough. Still it would likely be evident for us if they are self-aware and intelligent or not. It might also turn out sometime in the future that it is fully possible to build a stupid machine that is not self-aware but yet are able to fool us, by cheating and using help from data crafted by its creators. Because the creators would be self-aware humans with the knowledge of what type of data the machine needs to have access to, in its task to successfully fool us. Yes, I also think transhumaism will happen and cause a lot of turmoil during the initial transition. Depending of the level of transhumanism I might consider them still human but in more extreme cases I would regard them as posthuman. But I don't see any reason that transhumanism would disrupt or prevent advancements in robotics, more likely it would accelerate such development. Robots are already our servants, doing boring or dangerous work, if it ever will be possible to boost their brain to self-awareness then it is certain that someone will.

Thank you Michel, but you shouldn't wait for me, I can catch up. In my post #53 I showed you that you are causing new events in my present, can you please tell me what you think is wrong with it and why? I agree that the observable universe is in the past light cone of the observer, but that is no evidence of where things are. If we are out walking in parallel and take opposite sides of a wall, I don't think you disappears or stay behind because I can't observe you. I can still assume that you continue to walk in parallel with me on the other side of the wall and later when the wall ends confirm if you did. Yes, communication to something in the present is impossible, but you can't communicate with something in the past either, only something in your future light cone is able to recieve your signals. As such if Spyman is the observer in the center of your image and sends a light signal towards Michel, then you will not see that signal until at point C, which is at the opposite side of B from A where your worldline intersects my future light cone. No, you are continuously on a parallel path with me and causing new events at the intersection with the surface of the present. Why can't something be in the unobservable part of the universe? Why is it physically impossible for you to be in my present at point B? I can only observe you at point A but you can't hear me talking until point C. I think that your mass is continuously warping space along your worldline and this warp spreads out with the speed of light from around you. As such if you imagine that you are carrying a beacon emitting a flash of light every second, then gravity spreads out like the rings of light in a growing sphere around you, except that gravity is not flashing but continuously bending space between the flashes too. At every location along your worldline you are causing new events which sends out more gravity into your future light cone which can be measured when they reach an observer.

AFAIK that is NOT in line with scientific consensus, objects presence are not determined by whether they are instantly observable or not. Lets say you and I meet and synchronize our wristwatches and set their alarms to time T before we travel in opposite directions to distance X. Then the alarms in both our clocks will start to beep simultaneously totally independent of whatever distance X. (Without any influence of relativistic effects.) If your clock is on your arm and beeping exactly when my clock is beeping then you must be in my present and not in my past. When distance X is known I can calculate when I will see you signal to me that your clock alarm is beeping and confirm that it did start at time T.

Robots have some advantages but they also have disadvantages, for instance robots needs batteries to survive and I am not so confident batteries will be easier to bring with you and recycle in space than oxygen. But by far the most obvious problem with robots that have free will is that they can't be trusted to always take the best decision for biological life when they themselves are mechanical. What prevents them from determining that they would be better off without the capsules in the cargohold that contains these pesky biological organism and simply dump them to gain survival advantage? And why would they want to travel a long time and very distant to another Earth, there are probably plenty of more attractive targets out there at much closer range for mechanical lifeforms? Once we are locked away in capsules we are no longer their masters and nothing more than their prisoners, at their mercy, consuming their resources.

I agree with The Observer, the article points out that: Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it’s not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter. Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the dark matter phenomena don't exists. Further down it is even stated: these new findings all but confirm that "without a doubt that there is a dark matter concentration in that piece of the sky."

Then please explain your concept and how it differs from common thinking so that we can judge it for ourselves. I accept the above as in line with scientific consensus, however it don't seem to be in agreement with your concept: Or did you suddenly change your concept? All events that we can observe happened in the past but you are forgetting that the only events we can affect is in the future. The basic configuration of a Minkowski diagram includes the future too, with a forward lightcone enclosing everything we can possibly interact with. There is no ambiguity here either: the present is were actions takes place and the past is not interactable. No, I have not made any such claims at all.

Ok, my point was rough and personal, I apologize for any unwanted emotions I may have caused. However you did ask why the "forum prefers to ignore" all your questions to which I replied honestly and sincerely. You really should be, if you want to take part in a community and have discussions in good spirit then you need to care about your reputation. I don't know the correct term for it either, I ment when one poster make several post in a row without any reply from someone else inbetween. I think it is generally frowned upon in forums but I personally don't see it as a bad thing. It's only my personal opinion from regularly viewing today's posts, since it clearly affects your conclusions you know it is relevant. A lot of members here don't have english as their first language, I am one of them and I am sure I make a lot of grammar and spelling mistakes even though I do my best to avoid them. Thank you for pointing it out, none offence taken. I won't disrupt your thread further, I hope it turns out great for you.

Sure but most people likely remember you from the ontology threads which didn't go so well. I myself don't belive in "psi phenomenas" and are not really interested in discussing it. I just accidentaly stumbled over your thread and noticed that your chain-posting had ended with you assuming that you were getting "ignored in the unnoticed speculative/pseudoscience basement" but Speculations and Religion seems to be the two most active parts of this forum, so if people don't show up here then either the subject is boring or they presuppose posting is futile.

Yes, I agree, but if you read my statment once more you will see that I did not make any attempt to defining life, I never said that other creatures with different properties would not be alive, all I said was that I would consider such a creature I described to be alive. The fact that there exists other types of lifeforms does not make the robot in question less alive. I seem to interpret the OP differently than you, I think leugi is more interested in discussing whether such a being would be considered alive and if they could be our inheritors which upholds the human legacy when our race has died out. You have not told us your opinion thereof, would you consider this robot to be alive, do you think they could continue our civilisation?

Maybe people simply choose to ignore you because you don't seem to listen when they tell you why you are wrong.