Strange

I am not sure that your inability to copy from Word is the problem. How about engaging in some intelligent communication in the thread you started: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/101872-the-ultimate-unifying-theory/

Fascinating. Thanks.

According to the article above, it is much worse than that. The state pays about twice as much per capita, but the individual also pays about twice as much. The total cost is even higher. So even if one agrees with the principles of the US system, it is still totally broken in its implementation.

I guess that depends on the technology. The ultimate limit will be set by the size of the device and the fact that changes can only propagate at light speed.

1. Hawking not Hawkings 2. What particles are those, that do not fit the standard model? 3. Stephen Hawking is a cosmologist and expert in expert in general relativity, not a particle physicist, so it is not "his" standard model.

You have been asked for one example. One. You have not been able to provide even that level of support.

That doesn't seem right: nuclear fission (or fusion) converts a fraction of the mass to energy. No.

There is no such thing as quantised GR. And in GR time is not quantised, it is continuous so there are infinite "instances" per second. Like it or not.

OK. So you don't know how transistors work. Feel free to ask some questions in a new thread. There are trillions of neutrinos passing through you every second. They are moving at pretty close to the speed of light. http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_chapter.asp?id=37 The transistor was designed based on knowledge of semiconductor physics (i.e. quantum theory). Five points on the Crackpot Index, right there.

A technological limit doesn't say anything about the nature of reality (whatever "reality" means...) No one knows. In GR time is (must be) continuous. There is no theory or evidence currently that says it is quantised.

That is an extraordinary report. I had no idea that the US system was quite so messed up.

That doesn't make very much sense, I'm afraid. What malpractice are you referring to? As you say, penis transplants are pretty rare and only done where essential. You seem to be talking about some widespread practice, but it isn't clear what.

Given the fact that several religions, as well as languages and most types of music, film-making, art and so on, have spread through most of the world: not too difficult.

I can't see any quantitative data on that page. Could you specify which specific post contains the ranges of measurements and how well each skull fits within each range? No one said that they are all equally different. But your opinion that the last is unique is obviously not shared by everyone who looks ate the pictures. I am sorry, I reject absolutely the idea that you can replace quantitive data with "it looks to me". That is some kind of anti-science. Great! I will leave someone who knows more about the subject (and cares enough ) to check whether this data confirms or falsifies your hypothesis. (Just to be clear, I don't know and don't care whether you are right or wrong; I am just concerned with the methodology.) Your link is broken. It looks like it should be: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jca

I don't see a conflict there: religion often evolves as it spreads into new cultures. Sometimes splitting off to form new religions. I think it makes some sense. Racism seems to be related to the innate concept of in- and out-groups. Without those there would be no racism and, possibly, instead of organised religion (and different religions) there would just be spirituality.

OK. I get it. You claim that only quantum effects are truly random. Do you have a reference that supports this claim? (How many more times do I have to ask?) Or is it something you made up yourself? Note: the many worlds interpretation is not really relevant as: (1) there is no evidence that such other worlds exist; (2) we have no access to the results in those other worlds so we cannot use them to distinguish truly random numbers generated by quantum effects from truly random numbers generated by non-quantum effects (3) other interpretations result in a single value and so the claim that quantum effects produce different random results is not an essential part of QM.

Do you have a reference to this? Because I have not come across this before... They use thermal noise. Can you prove that this is less random than quantum effects? Or that it is not a TRNG?

The trouble is, that it is based on your (personal) perception of the visual differences between skulls. (And a limited number of photos of skulls.) A real theory would be based on objective measurements and statistical analysis of those measurements. Which reinforces the above point. Anyone looking at any one of them could say that it looked completely different from the rest. A case could be made, just on the basis of "visual similarity" that any one is the outlier. Or that they all are are. Without data, there is no way of distinguishing between you thinking the last is completely different and Fred thinking it is the first that is completely different from the other three.

That would be USING expired medicine, surely. (Also just joking.)

What two special cases are those?

What is a quantum coin toss? What does this have to do with quantum computing? (Apart from both having the word "quantum" in.) This is the bit I am really trying to understand, and you keep going off at bizarre tangents.

Actually, it doesn't say "one step", it says "one Planck length". There is, as far as we know, no "step" involved. It is a unit of time chosen to make various constants, such as the speed of light and G, come out to equal 1. (Whether that makes it "made up" or not is open to debate, I guess.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units No one knows. An infinite number, maybe (if time is continuous, as it appears to be).

I haven no idea what that means. And you still haven't explained why you think a quantum computer will be more able to generate true random numbers. Can you do that now? Or are you too stoned? There is no evidence that the human brain is a quantum computer. And why would that affect the behaviour of a PC anyway? But if it has an appropriate Intel chip then it can generate true random numbers (despite your denials that this is possible).

But if the virus is actually a trojan or key logger, and someone steals all the money from your bank then all those backups won't help.

As the word "local" does not appear on that web page, I assume that when you say "local communication" you just mean "communication". 1a. Is that correct? 2a. Why do you include the word "local"? 2b. This contradicts the earlier link you gave for quantum observation. Why is that? These do not have any apparent connection to "quantum connectivity" so: 3a. What is "quantum connectivity"? 3b. What evidence do you have for a connection between "quantum connectivity" and language semantics and neural representations? 3c. How do you measure language semantics and neural representations? 4a. Could you be any less specific? I can't help conclude you are deliberately posting nonsense (i.e. trolling). 5a. What evidence do you have for quantum entanglement in neural communication? 5b. What evidence do you have that hypercomputation exists? 5c. What evidence do you have that synaptic hypercomputation exists? Basically, you are simply repeating the same old made-up nonsense and not providing evidence. I will suggest that the moderators close this for lack of science and likely trolling.