Lord Antares

Well, the word means ''improbable''. I guess you meant that it is improbable that such a thing would happen, because we've excluded it from being implausible due to the fact that it did. As I said, this no longer happens. It happened for a span of a few months, I think. It is not a problem as such, I don't need a solution to this, but I thought it would be interesting to hypothesize what was causing it. I was thinking it had to be something related to physics, so it would be both apt and interesting (because it's such a unique case) to discuss here.

As far as I'm familiar with the word ''implausible'', I think you're accusing me of lying? Because it can't be implausible if it happened.

Oh, wow. He is somewhat of a celebrity so it's cool that you've met him. I like him. He's very calm. On a side note, I've taken a picture with Kasparov. Some of my friends (well, acquitances) played him in a simul while I wacthed. He's a beast.

I really can't think of anyone other than Yasser Seirawan. He beat Korchnoi and he was a strong GM for sure. I did some searches and I didn't find anyone else who fits the description. Wow, that story about Ivanov. I really don't know how his title could have been inhibited by politics. It happened to Nezhmetdinov, for example, but that was in the 40s (or 50s). GM is supposed to be an international title. Strange. Anyway, I find this quote funny: So not only did he beat Korchnoi, but he also beat you

Are you sure about this? Are you sure he's not...lying? I should have heard of him if he was among the higher rated people and if he beat Karpov. Also, I don't see what these political reasons have to do with him not receiving the grandmaster title. FIDE is an international organization unconcerned with politics of a particular country. Also, the GM title is achieved by meeting certain standards and ratings. I don't see how anything could have interfered with him getting the title. Don't know about the KGB chasing him...

Yes, Strange is correct. They may or may not have evidence which says the holographic principle may be plausible, but it has no relation to reality at all or a way to prove it on a useful basis. I would draw a parallel to the definitions of dimension higher than 3 or 4. If you don't know what I'm referring to, there are theories in modern physics (particularly quantum) that define higher dimensions, such as past and present dimensions, ''superdimensions'', higher spacial dimensions etc. These cannot be proven or disproven as they have no basis in reality. They don't mean anything themselves so there is no way to prove their usefulness. Nothing is gained from hypothesizing about them. Similarly, nothing is gained from ''proving'' this holographic theory. It is impossible to prove, but even if it wasn't, absolutely nothing would change with this new knowledge.

Grandmadsters (or close to when you were playing him) are really good at playing chess purely on instinct. That's why they are so good at bullet chess. I couldn't rationalize my moves in a 1 minute game, but they seem to be able to calculate and play decent moves at approximately 1 move/second which is beyond my comprehension. This has less to do with brainpower and more to do with simple experienced. They have gotten such a solid feel for the game through experience that they can play moves which makes sense without thinking about them at all.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm asking. Yeah, that's what I thought. Hm, the Wikipea article states that the downward one comes first. All the other GIFs show it that way too. It would make more sense as well, as the cloud is the supercharged body, so it would make more sense that the discharge is initiated by it, right? You either misheard, misremembered, they mis-explained or I stumbled onto an unlucky string of coincidentally wrong explanations.

No, it's the opposite Well, no. Here's another quote from Wikipedia: Do you see what I mean now? There is no wire that connects the cloud and ground. It isn't know how exactly this travels towards the ground and in what way. I hope that clarifies what I mean to ask.

I want to know about the process of lightning getting from the cloud to the ground. I want to know how and why exactly and if there is proof of the explanation. As far as I know, the ''main'' explanation is not considered as fact, neither is any other (obviously). Here's a quote from Wikipedia: I have heard of this explanation and similar ones. Generally speaking, everyone knows that cloud particles get brushed together and thus, charged, and there is discharge from the cloud to the oppositely charged ground. Typically, the lightning flows from the negatively charged base of the cloud to the positively charged ground. But how the charge actually travels from the cloud to the ground is unclear to me. I want to know if this explanation is considered to be proven science and why so. As far as I know, it isn't.

I'm serious tho. The answer to the question is important to me.

What actually do we know about lightning? As far as I've read, the process whole process of cloud-to-ground lightning is not well understood and therefore, not proven. What parts of knowledge about lightning do we know for certain and which are unclear?

I'm not sure in what way these two stories are similar, but I liked that one So the most likely solution is that the computer picked up signals from a weather station and that's what caused it to turn on during ''bad'' weather?

Yes, you're right. They're different things. I just wanted to point out, since she asked if the change in time has an effect on the biological body, that time itself doesn't have an effect but there are other factors in space which do.

14 ''space'' years equalling 200 earth years is a great exaggeration but let's use these numbers to simplify the example. Yes, if a deer was sent to space and lived 14 years there, then came back to earth, 200 years would have have passed there, and therefore, it would be seen as 200 years old by the earthlings. Again, these are hypothetical numbers. However, there would be an effect on its body. It wouldn't age more to ''compensate'' for aging less in space as you put it, put the decrease in gravity would have a different effect on its body. For example, its bones and muscles would be considerably weakened etc. EDIT: Sorry, I need to mention that it works both ways. It depends if it's moving or standing still, as swansont said. If it was standing still with no considerable source of gravity nearby, the effect could be the opposite.

Yes, that's what I meant. A puzzle stands until it has been solved and a new one posted.

I'm looking forward to more puzzles from you. Maybe we can post them in the chess thread (http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102312-the-chess-thread/) so as not to annyo everyone with constant new threads. Because I'd like to post some new ones as well.

This sounds like sleep paralysis to me. It happens most often when you lay on your back too. Google it if you're not familiar with it. Were you able to move during this? Sorry that you feel pain. EDIT: Just realized how old this thread is. Any update?

Jerry is the most entertaining personality of them all, but I stopped watching his videos because he only plays low-rated opponents. He NEVER plays anyone close to his level so the level of tension in his games is nigh zero. I think he reached 4000+ rating on some chess site (which might be a record) because he only played patzers. That's ridiculous. I like watching Chessexplained's blitz videos the best because he posts all of his games and he plays in the auto-pairing pool (which means he gets opponents similar to his rating). Being rubbish at chess is a really, really relative term. It doesn't mean anything on its own.

Then just Qxe7# Ok I will answer all of these: 1) Re3# 2) Qxe7# 3) Qf4# 4) Qf5# 5) Qf5# 6) Qf5# (for some reason, I spent a lot of time on this one because I thought the king could go to d6, but he clearly can't) 7) Qxe7# That's why no one solved it. Too many variations. I have to admit, I didn't consider all of them but it's still correct

Of course it isn't. Edited.

I did say it's working multiple times, but yeah, now I understand what you mean. You mentioned only street lights so I didn't understand the comment properly. I, in fact, have a weather station in my house. I also have 2 other PCs and a few laptops and none of these ever misbehaved in a similar way. I'm not sure what the reference to geography or timescales mean, but you could be right.

I'm quoting the diagram for easier reference. The winning move is the clever Be4! interposing with the rook's view of the f4 square. If either the knight or bishop take on e4, then Bf4# If the rook takes on e4, then Rd5# Anything else, and Bf4#

I must repeat once again, it only happened when it was cloudy or rainy outside. It never happened during fair weather. The sample size of this makes me think that anything other than physics and weather would be unlikely. Maybe this thread should be moved to physics? Don't know about Wake-On-LAN.

That's a good try, but I see 2 problems with that proposition: 1) it happened both during the day and night which clearly doesn't apply to street lights 2) I would assume that street lights are all set to turn on at (about?) the same time, which would reflect on the computer.