md65536

I disagree. Along the lines of what Phi for All said about government being a tool, conspiracy theories let you easily believe that "the people who secretly control the government are organized enough to do that sort of thing." The government making seemingly birdbrained decisions is proof of nothing. Okay so their actions look bad and 700,000 or so are perhaps worse off, but ask yourself this: Did the recession or the response to the recession remove any power from the people who had it before? (To answer my own question I'd say of course there are exceptions but generally people with power tend to be able to hold on to it, but that's also not evidence of anything unexpected.) I don't think that's weird. I would guess that it's a name Time To Tell All heard before and used intentionally for intrigue. I'd guess that the misspelling is similar to how people who've heard of him but haven't actually studied him sometimes quote Steven Hawkins. Anyway I don't think we can trust Time To Tell All. His/her posts were edited after their account was hacked by secret DoE goons. Yes, it's unfortunate that conspiracy "exposers" only harm their cause by making people resistant to belief. I suppose it's a mistake to try to argue anything that requires belief anyway. Conspiracy theorists should learn from churches, how to provide incentives or threats for belief. It plays right into the hands of the shadow government. Threads like this make me realize that "I want to believe", like I'm always hoping for the strange and unbelievable to be true, and it impairs rational thought.

That is just what a member of the Illuminati would say!!! That is just what a member of the Illuminati would say!!! I apologize. I was half being serious and 0.4 being ironic and 0.35 being dickish. I'll have to look up the other thread. There are certainly cases where big business conspires to negatively affect the lives of scores of people in the name of profit. There are certainly cases where companies conspire to profit at the risk of gravely injuring people. But, accepting that the OP's evidence is discredited, is the scenario presented realistic, and is there evidence of such cover-ups, and/or of these "disappeared" people? Is there any chance that a discussion could turn into an investigation and uncover something new? Here, like with a recent story about Reddit, some internet discussions seem good for exposing hoaxes, but is there any chance of exposing a cover-up? I suppose it's a waste of time, if OP is just making it up. But I guess I'm hopeful for some real piece of evidence that could be investigated. I mean, what are we going to tell Barbara Schwartz, that we didn't even try to figure out the mess?!

The ridicule and ad hominems instead of attacking the evidence (at least everything after imatfaal's post) prove that using ridicule is a good cover-up technique, as it spreads and makes people quickly stop caring about the question of evidence. I know not everyone here could disclose this, but I wonder: Are you an intentional participant in the conspiracy, or are you a pawn unwittingly swept up in the forced meme of discrediting whistle-blowers?

So what mechanism are you proposing is behind this? And what does it have to do with unifying electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces? There are many possible explanations that don't break accepted physical laws: - It may be coincidence. - You may be crazy. - Your perception and memory of the experiments may be flawed or biased, especially given that you see no problem with ignoring any non-supportive data. - The "psychic" in your story may be somehow mentally "in tune" with the other subject. For example, whether there is a known trigger for calling, or a pattern to the calls, or an ability for the psychic to simulate the mental process of the other subject... these do not require new scientific laws. Even extraordinary mental abilities are not physically impossible, even when the ability is subconscious and the person doesn't know why they have the ability. Given that you've ruled out all possibilities within accepted science, what is your "expanded science" explanation of experiments?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_distribution#Memorylessness Essentially, an exponential distribution ... uh... i think you would say that it "looks the same" at any point as it did in the beginning. So the chances that next three tosses will be TTT is the same after 1000 tosses as it is after 1 toss. The history (memory?) of what has just happened has a great influence on the total (historical) outcome of the random process, but it doesn't have an influence on what happens next. So, while there's a 1/1024 chance of getting 10 tails in a row, if you've already got 9 tails in a row then the probability of getting a tail next is still 0.5... Ie. the probability of getting 10 T in a row, given the case that you've already got 9 in a row, is now 50%. The probability of the next 10 tosses being T is still 1/1024. (So at that point there's 1/1024 chance of getting 19 T in a row! That is... in the on average 1/512 cases of getting 9 T in a row, there's a 1/1024 chance of getting another 10 in a row, ie. overall 19 T in a row should happen on average 1 in every 2^9*2^10 = 2^19 (half million) cases). Your bet would be bad I think, because you're letting the slim probability of what has already happened affect your perceived chances of future events. But once something has happened, no matter how improbable, the probability of its occurrence changes to 1 given new information that it has indeed occurred! I might bet the debt of Greece that you wouldn't get 20 T in a row in one chance, starting now. But I wouldn't make that bet after you'd already got 19 in a row!

This video explains some of the probability stuff: The probability of an arbitrary sequence of coin tosses being eg. T,T,T,H is the same as for T,T,T,T since H and T are equally probable. You should average nearly 2 tosses per attempt (just like the average number of children is 2 per couple). If you can toss once every 3 seconds, that would be about 102 minutes for a sequence of 10 (though that's faster than the videos). For a sequence of 20, working 8 hours a day, I figure 218.45 days! 3s * 2 tosses * 2^20 / 3600 s per hr / 8 hr per day But as explained in the video, that would be the average time it takes to get an average of 1 success. Haha yes, that would be... 1 in uh... some really big number that I can't quite seem to remember...

Ah yes, but the math is still sound. If you ignore the infinite series after some arbitrary cut-off because it becomes improbable, you must accept that a couple might reach that cut-off and not have a girl. Say you choose 20. If a couple has 19 boys, it is a mistake to think that the next one will surely be a girl because 20 boys in a row is improbable. The probability of the next child being a girl is still 50% (assuming this is still just a random case). Such a case with 20 boys should happen once in roughly a million cases. So especially if it's a big island, it can happen. As for 5 or 6... 1/32 and 1/64 couples respectively will have that many boys. Regardless of any actual case, the precise proportion of girls to boys expected is 1:1. You can ignore the improbable unlikely cases, and actually compute the epsilon error in your approximation. The higher you choose your cut-off, the smaller epsilon you'll have, and the closer your estimate will get to 0.5. The moral of the story is that if there is a simple reason that some maths will work out some specific way, then it isn't a coincidence that they work out. Even if it involves adding up some complicated infinite series or considering every possible case separately, it will add up to an equivalent simple answer. For example, if you change the puzzle to make it more reasonable and say "After 6 boys, a couple will stop trying", then you've removed the infinite series, but the proportion is still 0.5. --- Oops I mixed up an infinite series of babies and one of population. But hopefully the point still makes sense.

I see what you mean now. The interesting thing is that I think if you remove the "simplification", the answer is the same and your reasoning still holds. But if you (ie. others) try to simplify the problem with bad assumptions, it doesn't just simplify it but changes it. I should have been more precise about what may be assumed. Yes, I agree.

Do you mean that allowing such an assumption makes the puzzle easier? I disagree that it doesn't apply, because it changes the puzzle and changes the answer... I think if it's a complication it's a necessary complication. I think the spoiler you quoted does apply, because it was used in zapatos' reasoning (that the process had been completed) and in michel123456's (that improbable cases that don't end successfully can be ignored). And yet... I believe it is not always equally likely that there are more girls, as that there are more boys... For a mathematical reasoning, see question 5 in the linked article: http://www.wired.co....-work-at-google ---- Here's another question that should be easier to differentiate from the thread's main (corrected/"new") question: Would you expect there to be a greater number of families with more girls, or with more boys? I'm also curious about what your first instinct might be.

Does this question have a different answer then? If so, why? Or to be clearer: If there is an unequal number of girls and boys, would it be more likely that there are more girls or boys?

Yes, this is the answer that I was going for, explained more simply than I could!

Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant that each couple individually keeps trying for a girl. A couple only stops when they have their own girl.

I think that you've answered the question for a specific set of cases... a "proof by example". It's not obvious (at least to me!) that the example applies to the general case. But I think the reasoning is the same or similar for your case and the general case. Also, I did say you could make assumptions to avoid complications, and I didn't limit that, so I suppose it's an acceptable answer! The new question can be answered more simply, but not necessarily more easily reasoned about???

Yeah! Why can't they explain the maths without using maths? It's almost like they don't even understand the physics themselves, without the maths...

Using "\cdot h" instead of "\cdoth" seems to fix it.

Interesting. I think I've made an error. I think what I really wanted to know is the original wired.com question: "What is the proportion of boys to girls in this country?" I think my modified question has a different answer!

I'm guessing that a pin head that's not concave would contact a perfect sphere at a single point? Then is should be the same as if you spun the sphere on a perfect horizontal plane (also a single contact point)? I don't think such a thing is physically possible, but I guess theoretically it would have no drag? Would the friction on the point be zero if the the contact was a single point? If no, I'd guess that the weight of the sphere would be a major factor (heavier = more friction). Or would a perfect sphere have no friction even on any surface, even held in your hand??? I would even guess that if it was really perfect, then relativistic frame dragging might be the biggest factor in slowing it, or generation of heat from tidal forces, or changing magnetic forces or something??? All very small I'd guess. In conclusion: I don't know! I think so!

There is an isolated island on which all parents want a single baby girl. Every couple on the island will try to conceive as many children as needed until one of them is a girl, at which point they'll stop. New question (after reading zapatos' answer): What is the average or expected proportion of boys to girls on this island? You may assume an absence of any factors that unnecessarily complicate the puzzle, such as multiple births, infertility, deaths etc. THE CHALLENGE is to figure out and justify the answer without using any maths, only logical reasoning. This is a lot easier if you already know the math solution, so don't peek! The question is adapted from here: http://www.wired.co....-work-at-google where there is also the math answer, as well as some other mental exercises. Note: The original question was: Would you expect there to be more girls or boys born on the island? But I think this is harder to answer with logic only!

Well alright I'll give it a shot. Yes, everything exists as pieces of pure energy, immersed in a field of time flux. This time flux is flowing, moving from one location to another, and locations are made out of energy carried along by the flux. The time flux is a quantized with supersymmetry, so it forms evenly spaced blobules, making the field lumpy. Blobs of energy have to flow over the bumpy time flux like over little hills, thus existing as energy waves. Is that what you were looking for?

I think so. You're looking for the "I have a differing opinion and idea. Now someone explain it to me!" forum. There is one for that, but it appears to be locked. I think that one can only answer your question if one imagines similar misconceptions about energy to those that you have. I think a satisfying answer would be fantasy and come from someone's imagination, not knowledge. As mentioned, one would have to imagine what an energy wave might be, before explaining anything about it.

This puts us right back to the beginning of the thread, only now I understand what everyone else meant. Energy to you is a thing; I thought it was too. It is not. If you're using the word to describe your own special meaning "to you", then you'll have to explain what that is, because others are treating your words by their actual meanings, and they don't make sense. Do you want to ask, "Is everything in the universe a real and viable thing wave?"? My current guess of what you're asking is "Can everything in the universe be described in terms of a single property 'energy' and a wave-like behavior?"

I've just tested this out and he is correct.

I think that your original question might be like asking "Is a truck full of tomatoes nothing more than the weight of a load of tomatoes and the motion of a truck?" I would say "no" to this question and your original question, because there are additional properties that I think are essential. For example, what makes a tomato a tomato is the sum of its mass (yes, which can be expressed as a quantity of energy) but also the arrangement of its matter, and maybe additional properties like charge, etc. I think that a tomato is nothing without its quantity of energy, but is probably also nothing with all other non-energy properties removed. All this means is that the properties of a tomato can't be separated and exist independently. (You can't separate the tomatoes into a pile of mass and a pile of red, for example.)

As an analogy, let's say that all cars have a color (even pure black matter radiates frequencies in non-visible light), and are hollowed out as a shell to allow a driver. It would not make sense to speak of a car without color, so it is tempting to mistakenly think that the car is made of color. Then I can ask "Are cars nothing more than color shells?" Just like a car is not made of color, things aren't "made of energy". Yes, you could not remove all color from a car and still have it exist on its own, but it still has other properties which cannot be described in terms of color. Matter etc too has other properties that cannot be described as energy (I think). I assume there are some properties that can be zero or non-existent and others that can't. Eg. you might remove all "horsepower" from a car and still have it exist, but if you remove all "shape" it no longer has a meaningful existence. I think the following questions might make sense: - Is there any physically measurable thing that doesn't have energy as a property? (No?) - Is there any physical thing that is homogeneous with 0 total energy and still has a physical existence? (No?) - Is there any physical thing that only has properties which can be equated to some form of energy? Ie. is there such a thing as can be described as "pure energy"? (No?) - Is there any physical thing that exists with absolutely no movement? (No?) - Is there anything whose movement can't be described in terms of waves? (No?)

Then, I'm guessing the reason "energy wave" doesn't make sense is that energy is a property of things, not a thing itself. If you speak of a quantity of energy, it would have to be in the form of something else. Similarly "length wave" wouldn't make sense, or speaking of a length propagating. So then, I'd interpret the meaning of the original question and rephrase it as: "Is there any physical thing in the universe that has no energy property, or can still meaningfully be said to exist with zero energy? And is there any physical thing which either has no movement or a movement that couldn't be described as a wave?" ... or perhaps, "Is there no property of things that can't be described in terms of energy or wave properties?" Eg. if a particle has a 'spin', is that something more than a form of energy/wave? If so the answer would be "no; there are things that are more than what can be described only in terms of energy and waves."