tomgwyther

What if we put the cat in Schrodinger's box and dropped it down a hole we'd previously drilled through the centre of the Earth? Would it try to turn around, or realise that when it approaches the other side of the Earth it will be the right way up? Would it just sit there speculating on the inherent duality of it's own existence and remain whistfully philosophical about the whole affair?

Let's not forget that the Michael Jackson phenomena was not a solo effort, but more of a musical trinity. Michael Jackson the performer: Quincy Jones the producer and Rod Templton the writer. None of these people were what I'd call genii although they were very talented. If any one of them were missing then the whole Michael Jackson phenomenon wouldn't have happened. So I shall attempt to break the question down a little. Was Michael jackson a genius - No Was Michael Jackson a poedophile - Yes Was Michael Jackson a poedophile with criminal intent and malice of forethought - No Did the three of them together create works of genius - Yes

Could we substitute US dollars in this case for some other monetary instrument? Cows for example.

As far as I'm aware, a device for utilizing the natural flow of a river has already been invented. The device Cetus proposed sounds rather like an under-shot water wheel. One where the flat paddles of the wheel dip into the water just above the riverbed; used to power small industries like saw mills etc. it's successor was the over-shot water wheel which produced a lot more torque and could power a huge textiles mill. It - like the hydro-electric damn - could use a stored 'head' of water if necessary. Although water wheel look rather quaint these days, they can hardly meet the needs of today's power consumption

Have a read of my post, in which I do propose a consistant, repeatable experiment.

Let's do it! Give me some criteria and I'll try it out. I'm thinking a thin slab of ice made from pre-boiled water (similar to a chime bar in a glockenspiel) suspended from it's zero-harmonic point and then subjected to its own standing-frequency.

Interesting stuff. With regards to 'ghosts' (And I use the term very loosely) being images of flesh and blood people rather than inanimate objects, you would hypothetically get a lot of reported sightings of 'naked spirits'. A sort of spooky porn! In my line of work, ghosts aren't so much a paranormal curiosity; but more of an occupational hazard. Observations For example, there's one at the Theatre Royal in Portsmouth who has an annoying tendency to remove plugs from the lighting rig. I passed her on the stairs and not realising it was a ghost, I said "hello". It was only later when I asked "Who's the woman in the ushers uniform?" That I was told of the actual nature of my encounter. I've had a PA system switched on whilst the control room was empty and locked; filling the venue with the sound of Tina Turner's, 'What's love got to do with it' A regular venue of mine would often have children staring out of a particular window, who would later claim they were looking at 'the lady in the white dress' A very heavy tool bag was once dragged a few feet across the floor of an old cellar. Also had a few glasses thrown at me from the top shelf of a bar. Going back to the inanimate object phenomenon... At one event in a stately home in Wiltshire, I walked into a room which was to be used for off-stage storage and put down what I was carrying. when the singer walked in, instead of walking in a straight line, he edged awkwardly around the side of the room; put down what he was carrying, turned around an exclaimed "Where the **** did the table go!" He claimed he'd taken the route he did so as to avoid a large table in the middle of the room. A minute later, the other engineer came in and circumnavigated the empty space in the same way, with equal amazement as to where the table went, followed by a lot of blue language. Hypothesis The very idea of ghosts, spirits, spooky stuff goes against every scientific bone in my body, and demonstratively 95% of what is presented in the media is pure BS - nay - utter arse gravy. Although it is plausible that there is a physical, measurable phenomenon at work. Maybe, a sort of temporal non-locality. i.e. they we're seeing the table as it is 'now'. Rather than, they were seeing it as it was then, if past and present are considered abstract concepts. Another example: Someone could be living in my house 100 years from now and see me typing this whilst sat at my desk, then claim they'd seen a 100 year-old ghost of Tom Gwyther, the famous pianist. Experiment: For those who are interested, my mother and I have devised a scientific experiment to test some spiritualist claims after she dies. 1. We have a list of key words which a medium must mention in a single reading and score about 50% accurate. the words refer to child hood toys and are very specific. 2. There are three objects which have remained unmoved in here house for years. Her task in the after life is to move/break them. 3. For her to appear in or interact with the world on or near three specific dates in the future. I was going to save this experimental proposal for its own thread, but I thought I'd put it in hear as it seemed relevant. Unfortunately we'll have to wait about 15- 20 years for the results.

Interesting post. Further more to my research. what would happen if you replaced an entire hemisphere of the brain; with or without corpus calosum? (if it were possible!)

Hello all, I wonder if you could help. I'm building a new on-stage speaker system from scratch. Could someone check my working so as I don't accidently blow something up. A) 3 x speaker coils @ 8 ohms wired parallel = total impedance of 2 ohms B) 3 x speaker coils @ 8 ohms wired in series = total impedance 24 ohms The 'load' on circuit B is less than that of circuit A If I feed 100 watts into an the + terminal of an 8 ohm coil, whats the wattage on the - terminal? (Given that the voltage is 100v constant) I don't know the maths well enough to work out the amperage Dumb questions for a sound engineer to be asking I know, but I seldom build things from scratch. any help would be much appreciated Thanks guys

Nice post, gives one plenty to think about. I'll try to keep it brief as 'philosophy and my random thoughts are not science' IMHO, a good basis for law making within government would be to start with the united nations universal declaration of human rights. I feel the the UDHR is to law what prime numbers are mathematics; a foundation which you can start from and conversely refer back to. Another good starting from/referring to point would be the ideas the founding fathers of the USA. Those guys really hit the nail on the head when it came to how to make a great country with a near utopian governmental system, sadly the likes of Washington, Paine, Jefferson, Salomon, and Franklin are probably spinning in their graves right now. I'm all for the free market, but it must be within guidelines and government watchdogs e.g. the monopolies commission, the office of fair trading etc. Exceptions to this though would be services such as police, fire dept, coast guard, education, certainly healthcare and definately money supply. I include healthcare because - living in England - the idea that healthcare isn't available to everyone; free at the point of delivery is almost inconceivable. Having no universal healthcare seems as odd to me as a fire department which only puts out house fires for those who have the right insurance policy, or put the fire out, then send you the bill. I also metioned money supply as in recent months it's been made demonstratavley obvious that allowing private institution any degree of control over the issuance and supply of money within an economy can lead to an exponential problem which the government can do little to stop. With regard to tax and welfare, I'd be of the opinion that each gives to the state only what they can afford and each takes from the state only what they need. This idea too has sadly gone a bit wonky. references http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html http://www.foundingfathers.info/

i tend to use my favourite New York city addresses as passwords. For example: Hooters the titty bar is on 57th street and 8th avenue thus the password would be "57thand8th" a nice combination of letters and numbers. If I need a password reminder, I just think of burgers and breasts and if neccesary, look at a street map of New York. Others include 34thand5th - Empire state building 9thand33rd - hayden planetarium christopherand6th - Bar 55 jazz club p.s. none of the above are passwords I actually use

Personality has a bit of a bearing on pay too, some people command enormous wages simply for who they are. Example: If Joe Bloggs and John Smith have a boxing match, it may be a very entertaining match between two professional and/or famous boxers, and they'd both be paid handsomely. However, If you wanted George W.bush and Bin Laden to get in the ring together, you'd have to pay them a fortune, and the tickets would be like gold dust. Sports stars and pop stars are similar. David Beckham got paid an awful lot by LA Galaxy, not because he's the best fottballer, but simply because he's David Beckham.

Just had a browse over the net. It seems police in the UK can do a similar thing (Well, Kent county anyway) Although the amount must be over £1000; in conjunction with a criminal investigation. Moreover, the money must be retained in an appropriate interest bearing bank account. If the British coppers are good with money, it might be a good way to invest!

'Could' and 'Can' is basically the difference between definate and possible. e.g."If (I drink 10 pints of beer) we can predict (I will be drunk) "If (I drink 10 pints of beer) we could predict (I will fall over)

Music doesn't necessarily relax you, but it can change your mood. It's more of a philosophical question though. Consider this: "For all the things we cannot express through words; we express through music." As a professional musician myself, when I'm playing I feel as if the music is a conduit to the listeners mind. And vise-versa when I'm listening to music, I can tell exactly what the performer is/was thinking or feeling at the time. The mark of a good writer or performer is to know exactly what sounds to make and when. One gets a sixth sense as to what combinations of notes, rhythm, polyphony and tambre will trigger certain emotional responses in the listener. not a particularly scientific or academic answer I know, but it's rather difficult to explain in terms of auditory-cerebral function. As well as being a professional musician for some 10-15 years, I've also been a 'free-lance' scientist for about the same time, I'm currently researching bi-hemispheric cognitive function via the corpus callosum. I'll integrate your question into my research and let you know the results. p.s google my name if you want to have a listen to me p.p.s I hope asking someone to look me up on the web doesn't contradict the rules of this forum, if it does, edit this post and slap my wrist. Thanks. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFurther to my recent post. I found this short essay which a wrote to a friend about a year ago on the very subject of your question. happy reading... In answer to our discusion about musical scales a few nights ago. Music sounds nice because your brain is doing complex corolations between mutiple integers simultaniously. Most notably expressed by Pythagorean theorum. *(Similar constructs are used when we see in 3D) I came acroos this while reading this evening... From a Rodger penrose study of Platonian maths relation to the physical world. "This is the pure 'diatonic scale' in which the frequencies (in inverse proportion to the lengths of the vibrating elements) are the ratios 24:27:30:32:36:40:45:48, giving many instances of simple ratios, which underlie the harmonies that are pleaseing to the ear. The 'white notes' of a modern piano are tuned (According to a compromise between Pythagorean purity of harmony and the facility of key changes) as approximations to these Pythagorean ratios, according to the equal teperament scale , with realtive frequencies 1:x2:x4:x5:x7:x9:x11, where x= 1.05946... (Note 'x5 means the fifth power of X, i.e. 'x' times itself five times. The quantity 1.05946... is the twelth root of 2 which is the number whos twelth power is 2 so that x12 = 2) Note the nth power of a number is that number multiplied by itself n times. Thus the third power of 5 is 125, the forth power of 3 is 81; etc. basically, what this means is that when you hear a first and perfect fifth together for instance, you brian is aware of the precise ratio between each frequency and acknowledges its mathmatical perfection, your conscious brain (or mind) interperste this not as a nice sound, unaware that what you are actually hearing is somthing very different. Your conscious brain can also predict or imagine other ratios in this set i.e. you could imagine how the third of major seventh note should sound withou having to consciously do the maths. (now you can maybe see why I have dificulty teaching five year olds!! This type of stuff goes around my brain throughout the day!) *As for 3D images, our brain uses basic trigonometry to do that, we only experience the world as 3D in our minds because it's usefull to do so (If you want to drive a car, or make a jam sandwich or summut!) i.e.. Your brain knows the distance 'x' between your eyes; it also the respective angles to x each eys is at when looking at somthing (Your hand 'c' infront of your face for example) Thus, by knowing distance x and angles a and b your brain can calculate point c and - more importantly - distances y or z.

No, dogs have a higher core temperature while cats are lower. By increasing your body's temperature, you are attempting to sweat out the fever; 42 degrees is enough to make you sweat.

It does sound similar, although D.I.D deals with more than two alter egos and is more psychological than physical. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIt also reminds me of a talk on TED, where a nueroscientist had a stroke and described her left and right hemispheres going on and off-line. The description of the world she gave whilst her right hemisphere was working was very different to the one she gave when her left hemisphere was on-line. Also, people with Bi-polar disorder tend to have a physically smaller callosum, maybe the occasional manias they encounter are due to a sub-dominant consiousness having it's way for a while.

Alien hand syndrome - Can the brain have two separate consiousnesses? My original idea for this post was that it maybe possible to have two separate consciousnesses in one brain (One dominant and one sub-dominant.) from birth, thus giving rise to alien hand syndrome. This lead me to consider how frustrating it would be to be the 'sub-dominant consciousness; to be self aware in a body you had little or no control over except for the manipulation of one limb. Firstly, it is known to be possible to live a relatively normal life with only one cerebral hemisphere. In cases of severe brain trauma (e.g. gunshot wound to the head) an entire hemisphere is removed along with half of the corpus callosum. The patient may well have difficulties with memory, sensory perception or motor control, but can otherwise go about their daily business. Therefore, it is obvious to assume that one hemisphere of the brain is conscious and can operate independently of it's (possibly missing) other half. In the case of alien hand syndrome, could it be that one hemisphere of the brain is actually a physical sub-dominant consciousness, literally with 'a mind of it's own.'? Especially where the condition is brought about by damage to the corpus callosum and where the limb movements seem deliberate and purposeful. “For example, one patient was observed putting a cigarette into her mouth with her intact, 'controlled' hand (her right, dominant hand), following which her alien, non-dominant, left hand came up to grasp the cigarette, pull the cigarette out of her mouth, and toss it away before it could be lit by the controlled, dominant, right hand. The patient then surmised that "I guess 'he' doesn't want me to smoke that cigarette" ” What would it be like to be a sub-dominant consious? Aware of, but unable to interact with ones surroundings. If it is true that each hemisphere can and does function as an individual independent consciousness, what does that mean for the rest of us? That what we think of as one 'mind' is actually two 'minds' which are both capable of independent thought. What are your thoughts on this? I'm not sure, I'm in two minds about it. References: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/services/Functional_Hemispherectomy/hic_Functional_Hemispherectomy.aspx http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12655 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=203 http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0004-282X2001000400007&script=sci_arttext http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-12/976183734.Ns.r.html

Going back to the OP for a bit. Try asking those at the museum "Why do humans have an appendix" As it has no real use to us today - although did have way back in our evolutionary history - and we can lead a healthy life without one. One rebuttal I've heard from a creationist 6-day type is that it's a built in self-destruct mechanism which God can activate at will.

Musical genre and personality don't really correlate (I like Hendrix as much as I like Mozart) Although musical diversity may correlate with intelligence. Most idiots tend toward one genre and never really stray far from the pop charts; if they care about music at all. Most intelligent open minded people tend to have very broad and varied taste.

Although I disagree with the cost/benefit analysis approach to counter terrorism; Captain panic does have a point. Firstly, road accidents cannot realistically be comparable to terrorism. If 50 people die when a bus crashes, it is an accident. i.e. Un-planned If 50 people die when a bus is blown up by a bomb, It is premeditated murder. But in both cases financial investment is necessary for the prevention of both albeit to the former rather than the latter, due to the statistical reasons put forth in the original post. Captain panic's title (Or part therein) "Terrorism is insignificant" does hold water when it comes to cognitive investment. It's true that you're very unlikely to be killed by terrorist activities, yet we invest an inordinate amount of time worrying about it. Q: When does a murderer become a terrorist? A: When we are terrified by it/him/her/them. When a person partakes in premeditated violence against innocent civilians - by blowing up a bus - they are invariably rewarded for their efforts by global media coverage highlighting their cause, resulting in a somewhat terrified public. Terrorist acts are not perpetrated to kill per se; but to terrify the larger population. Thus, if the public refuse to be terrified, then the terrorists efforts are in vain. Investment is needed, but of a vary different kind. e.g. Lack of investment in airport security at Boston on Sept 11th. My mother walked straight past airport security with no checks at Boston airport on Sept 10th 2001, she had two hypodermic seringes and a knife in her pocket Too much investment on 24hour global news coverage of events afterwards. I've seen pictures of burning towers followed by Bin Laden videos a million times already Mis-directed investment on Guantanimo bay and various wars Every time a bomb falls, the terrorist recruiters and gun traffickers rub their hands together at another easy sell Irrational cognitive investment More people are injured by office equipment then by terrorist activities In short, don't invest in terror. Beat terrorism by not giving a s**t

One theory as to how peasants were able to stop being peasants and become land owners them selfs was to do it by force. To have an armed conflict over the right to self-govern and to issue and control their own money supply, free from a fractional reserve banking system.

Junk food: Unnecessary but profitable. As long as people keep buying it; they'll keep selling it. Maybe after a time evolution will kick in and we'll settle down to a sort of Nash equilibrium. Whereby obese people who eat when they're not especially hungry tend to die off without passing on their genes, and people with higher metabolism who only eat when its absolutely necessary propagate into the gene pool. A kind of opposite to how things used to be (Where a bad harvest would kill off the skinny guys.)

5 Km or 3 miles is about the distance of the horizon (At sea level) Thus, they will literally be running 'As far as the eye can see' I'm sure there are many poetic interpretations pertaining to this fact.

O.K. I admit it, I lost! As I am an abject loser, what is the point of the game? Is it - as it would seem - an irresistable bait for the inquisitive, scientific mind? Is the person who's idea it was trying to understand something about the human prepensity to enquire into the unknown?