Lord Antares

It's a lot different for the older scientists, as not much was known at the time and therefore, the current issues were a lot simpler.

I agree that it's unlikely for anything from (mid?)20th century and upward.

What do you mean hacked lol? Are you suggesting that someone would write code which keeps track of the weather and would make it so that whenever it detects clouds outside, it would make the PC turn on as a malicious prank?

Yes, the computer is legitimate and it worked fine for a few years prior to that as well as a few years after that.

No, it wasn't in sleep mode.

I want to preface this by saying that this is no longer a current problem I'm experiencing, it's just something I'm curious about.

OK, so a few years ago, after I was lying in bed at 3 or 4 A.M. the computer turned on by itself. I found it weird, but I just got up, turned it off and got back to sleep. When I woke up, I found it turned on. After the first few days, I realized the computer would turn on several times during the day when there was thunder and lighting outside.

I realize there is a connection between a thunderstorm and electricity, but I was still stumped as to how this was happening.

The more time went on, I realized that it would turn on whenever it rained, there wouldn't have to be lighting involved! Further on down the line with a larger sample size of days and different weather, I concluded that it would turn when it was cloudy! There wouldn't have to be any lightning or rain, it would just have to be cloudy (the rainy cloud type like any of the stratus clouds or cumulonimbus, but not cumulus or cirrus etc.).

It never turned on during fair weather, not one single time. It would turn on a few times a day whenever it was cloudy.

I did a quick google search right now, and not ONE single result on all of google came up connected to computer turning on and rain nor lightning nor cloudy weather.

As I said, this problem is no longer current (no pun intended), but seeing how I'm on a science forum, I'm really curious to know how and why that was happening.

Fair enough.

Am I allowed to post the solution, as it's unlikely anyone will solve it, seeing how all 5 people who play chess have had their go?

If someone wants to go this route the zztop approach of self learning followed by academic qualifications certainly seems sensible.

Well, that just benefits your experience of getting a degree. It makes it easier. As I understand it, OP didn't want a degree at all. I'm saying it's possible to attain a respectable amount of knowledge without going to college, you will never be recognized. That's why I don't advise it.

There is a solution. I just didn't want to reveal it. It's just not as straightforward as the title suggests.

But I might, seeing how it is unlikely to get solved.

I want to reiterate the very important point that while it may be possible to reach the level of understanding that a professional physicist has, you WILL NOT be recognized as one.

If you want to make any money out of physics, that is a very important thing to consider and it's why I believe just getting a degree is better.

 

I am sure someone will solve it here too !

As I said, I know the solution but I won't spoil it

 

But 2) has me stumped at present.

Well, Mr. Commander solved it; good thing you are trying on your own.

Very good, commander. Yes, the first one has already been solved.

Also, could you please use standard chess notation for the moves? It's easier to understand.

Good job, anyway.

?

What do you find unclear there? If knight takes the rook on d4, then the black knight will take white's rook on d3 and there is no mate next move.

Good job mate.

Only thing is, it should be 1...g3, not 1...g4, but I know that's what you meant.

Come on guys, the first one isn't hard at all. Anyone?

Oh, the other diagonal.

But that's a mate in 4. The puzzle requires a mate in 3.

No, that doesn't work. The pawn couldn't move to b6 because it's pinned by the bishop. It's an illegal move.

You had the right idea tho.

do not judge me very hard, since I have asperger and I had to leave school at age 13 for bullying,

I'm sorry but why is this relevant? The fact that you have Asperger's does not make your theory more or less credible. Would you not prefer that we treat you the same as any other person?

Anyway, the problem with a theory not containing maths is that you cannot prove nor disprove it. There is no quantifiable way to test it. I could postulate that there is a microscopic gobling cruising around space and he is the one who creates black holes. There is no way for someone to prove or disprove that so it's not a workable theory. This is why this cannot be presented in the format that it was.

You could even present a hypothesis without math but it would have to contain some kind of evidence or something that points to it. Even then, it couldn't be proven or disproven until someone provided some math.

1) White to move, mate in 3

2) White to move, mate in 3

When referring to either puzzle, just type in ''1)'' or ''2)'' before the solution/attempt as a quick way to know which one you're talking about.

There are LOTS and LOTS of resources for you to learn from. Never underestimate how much skill chess takes.

I myself started learning from a channel on youtube called Chess Network. I am at work so I won't search for it but just type it in the search bar. He's called Jerry, he's a national master and his channel is focused more on beginners than other players.

Look through his beginner series and analyses of his own games from some years ago. You will probably find that of much use. Watching those videos is when chess really ''clicked'' to me.

Also, when you learn the basics of strategy, you will need to know how to open up your game. Thechesswebsite channel on youtube teaches the basics of openings.

Another thing that helped me IMMENSELY was Joshua Waitzkin's training mode in the Chess Master program.

I hope that helps.

Look mate, I did it for you, so I would save you the 5 seconds worth of trouble and so this thread doesn't get locked:

''LIGHT AND GRAVITY Theory of gravity by Francisco Gómez Paulet Gravity is an effect produced by a set of processes in which the following universal actors are involved: - Dark energy, - Dark matter, - Ordinary matter, - Light across its whole broad spectrum. Firstly, dark energy is caused by particles of dark matter repelling each other; if a vacuum of these particles was created, dark energy would attempt to fill it in,

which is why the universe is constantly expanding. Since science discovered electricity, it was determined that its passage generated energy in the form of photons, saying that this phenomenon was caused by the friction of electrons passing through atoms, which is still the official version today. What actually happens is that when electrons jump from one atom to another, they stir up particles of dark matter, causing these to collide with each other and to join together in the form of photons; the greater the energy with which photons form, the greater the frequency in the light spectrum.

Gravity is caused by a flood of dark matter towards the centre of the planet while pushing ordinary matter with it; when the particles of dark matter collide with those coming in the opposite direction, they become photons, which can travel freely throughout the dark matter without altering its continuous flow towards the centre of the planet. It should be noted that this process would not be possible without the participation of ordinary matter, because this acts as a communicating vessel, that is, it directs particles of dark matter for them to collide with each other accurately.

To conclude, in the centre of the planet a constant vacuum of dark matter is created, caused by the generation of photons, and dark energy will attempt to fill that vacuum by creating a torrent of dark matter, which drags ordinary matter to the centre of the planet, thereby producing gravity. In order to defy gravity, one must take an umbrella-shaped surface and generate a sufficient amount of electromagnetic waves (photons) on it to cut the flow of dark matter, thereby achieving a state in which the ordinary matter beneath this surface is free of gravity and can float; in order to generate a large amount of photons, one should apply high-intensity ultrasound to the surface while charging it with positive static electricity.

This system seeks to generate large amounts of lowfrequency waves, as these are the waves which require the least energy for generation.

This is just a theory, with my respect to Albert Einstein. 15 August 2016.''

Was that so hard? Now you can answer the questions.

Nope. Think checkmate in TWO. You have to calculate till mate, otherwise it's just a guess.

As I said, the move isn't obvious at all.

There are methods to induce temporary paralysis of limbs but they take time and focus. Nothing like what you're searching for. The only way you could reach instant paralysis as you ask is via rapid hypnosis but that would work just for the first time if at all.

You should reverse your thinking. You should first focus on finding this ability to paralyze and only then hypothesize about uses of this discovery, not have a device that solely depends on you being able to discover this remarkable phenomenon which has never been done before.

But how can it then be proven if there are infinitely many numbers to test? The list cannot be completed.

Maybe you meant to say ''find one that doesn't match'', instead of ''prove that all match''?

You should play some. Maybe with me if you like. I opened a chess thread not so long ago, but not a single soul responded, so I'm surprised to see this kind of puzzle be popular.

Anyways, I checked the puzzle with an egine because I suspected it wasn't a mate in two (no offense to the OP, but you can't know someone's chess level on a forum where they don't respond to chess threads lol). It's actually not straightforward at all. There is a lot of possible tactics involved because there are so many variations to calculate. You would think that any mate in two puzzle would be piss easy, but nope.

There is no mate on f6. The black pawn is defending f6. Taking the e7 pawn isn't mate either.

EDIT: I assume you meant Qe6+. Black can just take the queen with the king.

Oh please. Can you provide evidence of said psychics? If you cannot, that means you have no proper reason to believe in them yourself. The James Randi challenge has never been claimed despite it being offered for a very long time. No one has ever proved any psychic abilites. On what basis do you claim that there are real psychics?

Your ''questionnare'' is preposterous.You don't get to decide who takes part in this thread. Also, if you want only people who believe in psychic phenomena to post, you will find that probably no one will take part. Not to mention that your little ''questionnare'' has absolutely nothing to do with the existance of psychic phenomena or lack thereof.

The rules of this forum are that pseudosciences are allowed, however, if you make a claim, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence for it. You've made a claim that you know of real psychics. I suggest you focus on providing evidence and discussing the thread title, instead of arrogantly posing a questionnare for you to decide who is even ''qualified'' to take part in this discussion.

This forum gets a fair share of people like you. All of them claim to be the single most intelligent life form on earth.

Why do you take a small sample of a few friends and from that deduce that you will win every argument in your life based on (supposedly) winning arguments with your friends?

This is not an attack on your persona. You opened a thread with no content and no value. Why did you not just open that psychic thread which you will go on to win logically, as you say.

You will find that there are a lot of very smart people here. I suspect that you won't win any kind of argument on psychic matters. You will then either proceed to ignore everything and call the people here stupid, or you will learn some humility.