StringJunky

;It communicates via quantum entanglement...they figured out how to send information with it.

At 4 seconds load time that's about 56 seconds faster than yesterday....nice one Cap'n. In practice it's now loading as fast as any other website I visit.

That will be a trial of their full version and not the free one.

I don't know if this relevant to the problem but whenever I ping this site all packets are always lost and has done since I can remember.

Not having a speculations section would send the signal that this forum was closed-minded which is anathema to the spirit of science. In reality, It's probably no different to Arxiv which is the repository for some mainstream science research. Although the articles within in it will be be well-researched and presented, the vast majority of them will be wrong, in the final analysis, as accurate descriptions of reality. It's important to have an area here as a matter of good scientific principle where novel ideas can be expressed, even though most of it is not very good. I think the best way to look at speculations is as a sandbox for exposing ideas to critique without muddying the waters of the proper science sections for people that want to learn the established science.

A key element in initiating laughter seems to be surprise when faced with the unexpected ...laughter diffuses shock or embarrassment which is socially negative. It's a socially acceptable means of expression when faced with the absurd ...we have evolved to use this as a mechanism to relax because it releases endorphins which chill people out and also dopamine because it excites them. I would guess the dopamine is released first in the laughter phase then the endorphins follow to compensate for elevated dopamine levels.

Yes, my original apparatus was somewhat cumbersome but I was thinking economics and keeping it down. I'm thinking on the lines of a foot pump with a pressure gauge attached to something like you mention that has a car-type tyre valve fixed to it. I have access to a compressor as well.

Will the popup rig stand upright under pressure equivalent to say 1 foot depth? This is a new one for me. Or do you mean there still needs to be some water in the lower half, assuming the pipe is upright?

This is a question related to fishing with baits that are buoyant and anchored down by a weight off the bottom of a lakebed like in the image below: When the water pressure gets too high the hook and popup lie flat on the deck. I'd like to see what happens to my popups in 15ft of water and see if they are still popped up and if not I will have to research popup media that work at that depth. One idea I had was to get a 16ft length of 6inch or so wide pipe with a clear container sealed on the bottom of it. This apparatus would be supported upright and then filled with water. I would then lower the rig to the bottom of this and see in the clear container if it still stayed popped up. My question is: Would the pressure at the bottom be directly equivalent to that of the same depth in a lake or would it be different? Any other ideas for doing this test would be appreciated as well. .

Best to store your data away from the operating system. An external usb hard drive would be best if you have a lot.

I would conjecture, on a neurological level, that without memory (ability to remember the past aka time) we could not visually sense movement since it would require a past image's position to be remembered to compare to the current one to observe the illusion of movement, so, the observation of movement is constrained by time whichever way you try to look at it.

I would imagine Swansont has time quite sorted in his mind to a degree most of us can learn from and I am keen to understand what he knows, he works with measuring time: he designs atomic clocks for the GPS. If you notice, he never shoves his position down anybody's throat to add weight to his argument ...now you know... please show him some respect and think carefully before you reply. He's a well respected scientist.Quite frankly, I think you are blinding yourself to better understanding with your stubbornness. I'm not saying don't argue with him but don't be so off-hand and dismissive...he doesn't deserve it.

However you demonstrate motion you will also be demonstrating time.because it will be moving at d/t. You can't describe motion without space or time....it is a function of .both together.

Eh?. Is this not time...an "ever moving now"? If you had no faculty to remember, time would effectively not exist for you but the fact that you can remember immediately-preceding events allows you to see the change in position or state ...this rate of change is part of the description of time. You seem to think humans invented time. No we didn't. Evolving various levels of memory systems allowed us to sense it and ultimately describe/exploit it. There must have been prior cause for us to evolve to sense it i.e. it was already there. Did we invent time dilation or did we discover it? If you say we invented it why would we do that...what useful purpose would it serve us? If time dilation is a reality, as described by SR - which has been tested to death - it follows, quite simply, that time is a phenomenon extant to our own perception i.e it exists as a function of the universe. Time and space are components of the framework upon which everything exists...you can't talk about space without time and vice versa.

Yes, I agree. In the room or out of the room this is the closest to perceiving it you'll get short of touching it. The resulting pattern of collisions with the box is actually a record of past events that then collide with your senses creating new patterns which are then interpreted by the brain. The fact that these recordings were made in the past takes us even further away from any chance of perceiving external current reality. What we actually see in our minds is a model based on current incoming sensory data mingled somewhat with data from past memories into a cohesive impression of the world around us. Thinking about the original question: perception is the process of building an impression of the world around us which we call reality...reality being those things that we believe exist independently of our own existence.

I suppose you could define one aspect of reality as: That item or property which can have a state of presence independent of an observer. Another thing, semantically, reality is a mental construct and perception is a process so they aren't synonymous although people often treat them as such.

Via the bloodstream using vasodilation and vasoconstriction i think: the former for when it's getting too hot and the latter for when it's too cold.

The notion of reality is subjective at a personal level but we can get a more objective view by seeking an Intersubjective consensus based on repeatable observations or experiments. Where there is commonality we can agree that such is so within the defined parameters which is relatively better than an individual assessment i.e. improved negation or consideration of variables.

He stood on the shoulders of giants allowing him to see further.

Hmm...makes a change from someone comparing themselves to Galileo I suppose...

Before I called it maths, as a child, I called the subject sums so that's maybe where the end s stems from..

I enjoyed your mock-petulant rant...I understand where you are coming from. Much to your disappointment it is "maths" every time for me. though Probably, the correct form should be math's with an apostrophe in place of the missing letters.

If this is something you are worried about for yourself or someone else, an online forum that has no qualified doctors is not the place to ask...bite the bullet and go and see one.

If the BBC say "maths" then it must be standard in the UK. Skitt's Law... love it.