Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tim.tdj

  1. Hi Phi Thank you very much for your reply. Correct me if I am wrong but what you generally seem to be saying is that salt has a tendency to dehydrate you. Am I correct? Is it perhaps the case that there are some circumstances when salt dehydrates you and other circumstances when salt aids hydration?
  2. Hi Phi Thank you very much for your reply. Unfortunately, I can't find the original article I read but I have just found another one which says something similar. It basically states that as a result of osmosis, extra salt in your blood sucks water out of your cells. The other article went on to say that you pee out the water that has been sucked out of your cells. You can see the article I have just found here: https://sciencing.com/drinking-salt-water-dehydrate-you-6454208.html
  3. Hi Everyone There is something which confuses me. I have read that if you add salt to water, it helps with hydration. I have also read that adding salt to water makes you pee more. Wouldn't this cause dehydration? How can both of these statements be true? I would be very grateful to anyone who can remove my confusion about the relationship between salt and hydration. Thank you very much. Kind regards Tim
  4. What if i want to be as close to 100% as i can get that none of my data will be corrupted? Surely If I just backup to one other drive, I am still a bit vulnerable?
  5. Hi Koti Thank you very much. Why do you think that RAIDs are useless in home environments?
  6. Hi Koti Thank you very much indeed for all your help. I have just one more question: If I was to create a RAID 1 array with four hard drives and I was to use the btrfs file system, do you think that this would be pretty bulletproof against data corruption or can you see any potential flaws in this set-up?
  7. Hi Koti Thank you. Do you know if there are any circumstances whereby an error (such as a single bit flip) can develop on a hard drive without the hard drive detecting it? Or do all of the latest hard drives use mechanisms such as checksums to detect errors?
  8. Hi Koti Thank you very much for your reply. I was not actually meaning the other way round. Can RAID 1 systems detect all types of errors that can occur on a disk or are there some types of data error it can't detect and therefore wrongly think it is the correct data?
  9. Hi Koti You seem to be implying that the RAID 1 system can always detect if it is attempting to read data from a bad sector and if this is the case, it will get the data it was attempting to get from the other disk instead. Am I correct?
  10. Hi Koti Thank you very much for your reply. It has just occurred to me that a hard drive in a RAID 1 array can possibly remain "functional" in the array even when it has some bad sectors and that file corruption due to bad sectors can spread when RAID 1 arrays are rebuilding after a hard drive has been replaced. Is this true?
  11. Hi Everyone I have read that RAID 1 arrays work in such a way that when a file is copied to a RAID 1 array, it is copied to all of the hard drives in the array simultaneously. In other words, it is not copied to just one of the hard drives and then copied from this hard drive to the others. I have also read that if a bad sector occurs on one hard drive in the array, the resulting data corruption can spread to the other drives. What I don't understand is how both of the above statements can be true at the same time because how can the corruption spread if data is not being copied between the hard drives in the array? Thank you very much. Kind regards Tim
  12. Hi Swansont Thank you very much indeed for all your help. I will have a look at the Khan videos.
  13. Hi Swansont If this is not the place where non-experts such as myself can communicate with experts such as you in order to explore ideas such as mine to find out how plausible they are then can you point me to another forum on the Internet which serves this purpose? The fact is that, because of events in my life beyond my control, I do not have any direct access to academic expertise. Such access is the privilege of the few. Without the support of academic expertise, it is very difficult for me to develop my ideas and to verify that they make sense to the scientific community. I find this deeply frustrating because I am insatiably curious about this sort of thing. Just watching scientific documentaries and reading science articles in magazines and on the Internet is not enough for me. Sometimes when I am listening to the scientists speaking on these documentaries or when I am reading what they have said in the articles, I often want to ask them various questions. Sometimes I have sent them very polite emails asking them the questions I wanted to ask them but the vast majority of the time, I have never received a reply. Can you understand my frustration? I would, however, like to point out that I am actually deeply appreciative and grateful for the time that you and your colleges on this forum have all given me with this with your expertise. Thank you very much indeed for this.
  14. Hi Swansont Thank you very much for your reply. I fully realise that what I have proposed is not a sharply defined model and I have no way of obtaining any evidence that it is correct. I am merely exploring a possibility. I expect that many important scientific ideas have emerged as a result of, at first, taking the first few tentative humble baby steps which is what I am doing here with this analogy. The "spinning coin" in my metaphorical analogy is only meant to represent a piece of information or mechanism which gives information to the entangled particles at either end. It is not meant to represent an actual particle which can travel through the wormhole.
  15. Hi Eise Thank you very much for your reply. After reading what you have said and also reading about the "wormholes" or "gravity channels" mentioned by other people in this thread, I think that I may have managed to combine what you have said and the "wormholes" into a metaphorical analogy about what I think may be going on. I hope you don't mind me speculating here. Firstly, I get the impression that the most important concept that you mentioned was the conservation laws. Here is my metaphorical analogy: Imagine that there is a coin spinning fast in such a way that the axis of its spin is exactly half way along a "wormhole" between two entangled particles. When one of the two particles gets "measured", the coin stops spinning and gets sliced along its edge and the "head" of the coin emerges from one end of the "wormhole" and the "tail" of the coin emerges from the other end. Hence the correlation. This therefore preserves the laws of conservation. One remaining problem with this is that according to Einstein's relativity, absolute simultaneity does not exist. This means that there will be times when both particles are measured close enough together in time that there is disagreement as to which of the two particles was measured first. I think that the solution to this is to ask the following question: "Which particle was measured first from the perspective of the wormhole?" Another way of putting this is as follows: "From which end of the wormhole was the "spinning coin" measured first?" How plausible do you think my metaphorical analogy is? EDIT: Can you see any problems with it?
  16. Hi Eise Thank you very much for your reply. However, I'm afraid I don't understand it. As I see it, if two things (A and B) are correlated then at least one of the following three statements is true: 1. A causes B. 2. B causes A. 3. Something else causes A and B. What you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) seems to suggest that in the case of quantum entanglement, none of the above three statements are true. Have I misinterpreted you? Hi Itoero Thank you very much for your reply. Sounds like a very interesting idea.
  17. Hi Swansont and Strange Thank you both very much for your replies.
  18. Hi Swansont Thank you very much for your reply. So I guess that we do not currently have the means to answer this question. Do you think we ever will be able to answer it or do you think that there is some sort of fundamental barrier that will always be in the way of the answer?
  19. Hi Everyone I would firstly like to start by saying that I fully understand why us humans are not able to use quantum entanglement for FTL communication. It is because we can't force an outcome without breaking the entanglement and we can't detect as soon as a measurement has been made at the other end. My question is this: Does quantum entanglement mean that the Universe itself has privileged access to a means of FTL communication for its own administrative purposes? (I can't see how quantum entanglement would work otherwise.) Thank you very much Kind regards Tim
  20. Hi Swansont Thank you very much for the clarification.
  21. Sorry, I misunderstood. Yeah, I agree with you that the idea of everything that we have ever experienced being prewritten into the Universe is a very radical idea because it is all so complicated and intricate. It might be the result of mathematics which are way more complicated than the mathematics that produces the Mandelbrot Set. It implies we are living inside mathematics. Anyway, remember that as I mentioned previously, I am being a devil's advocate about the SpaceTime Block concept as I don't personally believe in it. I might be wrong though.
  22. What we perceive might be misleading . "Reality" at the most fundamental level might be be much closer to the representation I mentioned than what we perceive. I don't know if the analogy of ink on paper can be extended this far. The events prewritten into the SpaceTime Block (if that is really what the Universe is) would be an integral part of the SpaceTime Block, they would not be separate from it. I agree that the SpaceTime Block is a pretty radical idea.
  23. Hi Studiot The timelines themselves are not outside time. The hypothetical perspective i mentioned from which we are viewing it is outside time. It is like looking at a piece of paper with a graph with an x axis and a t (time) axis. By looking at the piece of paper, we are outside the time represented by the t axis because we can see the whole of the graph at once. Your two particles would be represented by two lines of different lengths drawn on the piece of paper I mentioned above which represent the different lifespans of the two particles. This drawing does not change. The debate the scientific philosophers are having is whether the Universe at the most fundamental level is like the unchanging piece of paper with unchanging timelines predrawn on it or the Universe is as we perceive it (we perceive it changing).
  24. Hi Studiot Very interesting reply. From the perspective outside of time (I am being a devil's advocate here because I don't actually believe in such a perspective), this can be seen as two time lines (one for each particle) where one line is shorter than the other. From the perspective outside of time, these lines do not change.
  25. Hi Swansont Thank you very much. You have made it somewhat clearer. What you seem to be implying (correct me if I am wrong) is that the CMB is not as much of a fundamental entity as I am thinking it may be. (I expect that you can probably see why it is very tempting to view the CMB as being the basis for a preferred reference frame.) I think that we basically need to wait until more laws of physics are discovered and then run tests on the newly-discovered laws of physics to see if a preferred reference frame emerges. I am guessing there is not much else we can do to answer this question until then.