Delbert

Currently, I understand 95% of the universe is consists of dark matter and dark energy - which I believe are unknown (I think an American politician summed it up by saying "known unknowns"). I can recall once in my youth (I won't say how long ago!) and fiddling about with electronic bits and pieces, I looked at a wobbulator trace on an oscilloscope. The beat from a 5MHz marker was a double hump - as we all know. The point being that at the centre point where the wobbulator frequency was the same as the marker frequency there was no output! In other words there were two signals but they were effectively invisible. The usual explanation was that they cancel out each other (zero beat), but perhaps an alternative explanation is that at that point the two signals were in a state of superposition, as they were both there and not there at the same time. As someone once said to me: there could be all sorts of stuff flying about that because it doesn't react with anything we know about, is completely undetectable and invisible. Perhaps this 95% of the universe being unknown is only the start. It's probably 99.99999%!

Correct. I understand semiconductors have been using this phenomenon for a long time, to the extent they wouldn't work without it.

Consciousness has nothing to do with it. I suggest consciousness is a debatable concept in any case. If anything, it is a collective name for the complex chemical processes that take place in that lump of sponge in our heads, and nothing to do with things like two slit experiments. Perhaps you've taken the phrase in the above video about looking at the slits too literately. If there is a connection, it is only the detection (in our eye) of photons associated with the photon or electron we're trying to observe that then affects the photon or electron we're trying to observe. Or something like that!!! I suppose one might then ask what happens to the photon if our eye isn't in the way? Maybe it zooms off into space and doesn't react with something for a few million years! If so, presumably at the local level events will unfold to fit the physics of it's non appearance or reaction. Perhaps my imagination is wandering into heights of hyperbole once again. I'll agree that in the apparent common sense world that millions of years of evolution have engrained into our minds and thought processes, the subatomic world might appear weird.

I suppose it depends how long the wall is. If the length of the wall is shorter than the wavelength of the water wave the situation will be different. Just saying a wall without defining it's length is not good enough, the wall has to be longer than the water wave. It seems you're viewing the electron or photon as a little billiard ball. It cannot be a definable object as we perhaps understand a definable object - if for no other reason than the consequence of two slit experiment. If it were a definable object it would have the properties of such - like volume, surface area and so on. The billiard model is the Rutherford model - just a way for us simple humans to deal with the things. Doesn't mean that's what they are like, or anything like.

"When an electron is fired"? If it was a definable object, then it simply couldn't go through two slits, be everywhere at the same time or any other weirdness we care to ascribe. Saying it 'travels' is an assumption. All we can say is there's an event at the source followed by an event at the destination. What happens in between is anybody's guess. When we attempt to detect the thing (I'm calling it a 'thing' for convenience) at one of the slits, we've in effect created a destination, which then becomes a second source - and so on. In other words a completely different situation or experiment as evidence by the different result (no interference pattern). What happens to this thing whilst what we would refer to as actually being 'in flight' is an assumption - and I suggest there's no place in science for assumptions. I further suggest we have no evidence whatsoever that there is a thing (electron, photon or whatever) actually flying from place to place. And what's more, if it were an actual 'thing', then the thought of it passing through two slits at the same time (or more if there are more than two), then that's something from Alice in wonderland and has no place in science. In other words it can't travel through two slits. And if it's deemed to have actually passed through two slits (as evidenced by the two slit experiment), then it cannot be an identifiable object. What is it then? My conclusion is that there's an event at the source followed by an event at the destination. What happens in between is probably some sort of maelstrom of interactions and interchanges. A thing that we might call an electron or photon never travels from A to B. Which begs the question whether or not such things actually exist - but doubtless my imagination is now running into the heights of hyperbola!

Talking drivel and now ignorance and selfishness. Such notoriety so young in life.

Yep. No problem at all. Are you honestly telling me that one has to be some sort of expert to fill in such a form? I cannot believe a government department produces a form for the general puplic to complete that requires expert guidance to complete. I can only conclude I must be some sort of expert, because I've never found it necessary to engage or seek such advice. That's a coincidence, because your response seems the same to me. All I was trying to convey was that if someone actually knows what it is they are not being taught, then just go out and find out all about it. It's not knowing what it is you're missing, I suggest, is when things become a tad more difficult. But that wasn't the question. In my case I just went up the library and read everything I could get my hands on. Why can't people do these simple things. No drive.

Awareness of the law? Now that's interesting because I've been filling in such forms for more years than I can remember and I've never looked up any law. I just fill in the £$%^ form. But perhaps that's where I've been going wrong. Concern over what they were not taught! So they know what they were not taught. And what's more, and as I think I've said previously, I had what I would call sod all education. The school I attended was religious and it is clear that they considered that would provide all that's necessary (Interestingly, such schools are in the news recently. Well they've been around for some time). When I left I could just about write my own name, and even just being able to write this (I couldn't live without spellcheck) doubtless it may be viewed I'm still the same. But if I have progressed, it's because I've done it all myself. I didn't say or express concern over what I was not taught. I wouldn't have known what it was, anyway. If you know what you were not taught, go out and find all about it and learn.

Adding up and taking away is all that's necessary for a tax return, or the documents you mention. And I think adding up is not limited to the human species, as I seem to recall some experiments show even some birds can to adding up, and even solve puzzles. I understand brain power (if that's what you want to call it), is a consequence of the ratio of brain weight to body weight. Can't recall what it is (it'll doubtless be on the jolly old internet), if the ratio of brain weight is above a certain value relative to body weight, the creature will be, what we call, intelligent. In the bird family, I think it is crows have a high brain weight to body weight. Anyway, as I mentioned above, according to a recent study our brains have shrunk compared to our ancestors. In other words, and not to put too fine a point on it, the interpretation surely means our ancestors required more brain power to survive out there in the environs than what we do currently in our cushioned and cosseted world.

They are not life skills, they are renting a car, driving to his hotel and setting his alarm. I think you forget, our brain has evolved to what's necessary to do what the native was doing - assuming that is, you believe in evolution. Our hands didn't evolve to put together a computer, car, watches, build skyscrapers and all the other things, it evolved to do what the native was doing. We just found a different use for said equipment. And what's more, I seem to recall reading recently the results of a survey that compared the brains of our ancestors thousands of years ago to modern humans, it found our brains have shrunk!! That is smaller. Sorry, I can't recall where, so unless it can be found on the internet, you'll have to take my word for it.

Yes, and I believe there's an element of it in the animal kingdom. But it is probably a transient thing. What springs to mind is Emperor penguins that have lost their own chick. They fight over and apparently try to foster any chick that becomes detached from is parent - sometimes killing the chick in the process. But from what I understand any chick that does get effectively 'captured' by one of these frustrated penguins, will not survive. Presumably because these foster parents are almost certain to separate (if they haven't already), presumably because they've lost their own chick. Now, I'm not fore one moment saying that's a direct comparison to human situations, but it seems to me the natural connection is important. Perhaps it's something to do with the desire to pass on one's own genes.

Not just kids, I suggest, but perhaps most of the western world. I seem to recall a situation whereby an aircraft had made a forced landing in a remote part of the world (somewhere in Australia I believe). A local native inhabitant noticed the forced landing and watched them from distance until they started to become weak through lack of food and water. Deciding it was then save to approach the weakened group, the native offered to show them how to obtain food and water sufficient to survive until finally rescued. Clearly, the native had all the skills needed to survive, whereas the westernised occupants of the plane, with all their technology, had no idea whatsoever. The native had all the life skills needed.

I don't think I ever made any suggestion or inference about my stepparent being a bad parent. My stepparent had no biological connection to me, her only connection was through marriage. And that disappeared as a consequence of my father's death. I infer no blame or criticism, I just stated the facts. My only view is that that was a consequence of nature. Watch any wildlife program - we are no different, i.e. the lion cubs killed by the new lion after the death or other disappearance of the previous male lion. I'm not suggesting we go as far as killing, but the driving force is going to be there - we are no different. The relationship to a child by one or more stepparents will doubtless work, but if they split for whatever reason the situation may be different. Doubtless that remark will cause some upset, but as the driving force that makes us to anything, nature will prevail.

I think he did: "For some reason I had the (potentially stupid) idea that some types of solar panels could work like radio receivers".

I'm sorry, but you forgot to mention the third or possibly forth individual involved - a homosexual couple cannot produce a child, one or both are not parents, they are stepparents. And as for care, what they have to go through in caring for a child is no different or more difficult than a heterosexual couple. And as for this obsession about gender arrangements, elevated to the point of something particular or special, it is nothing of the sort. They consist of either parent and stepparent or two stepparents, which might even be viewed as foster parents. And I believe there are laws about foster parenting.

Yes, I agree. And in addition to what I've conveyed above, the sideways battery was retained in place within the torch body by a piece of plastic foam stuffed inside! Perhaps I could be forgiven for thinking the torch had been designed - or rather, put together - from available bits that happen to be on a shelf! Anyway, being me I'll doubtless just go and buy a new one.

I don't think that's possible, if, for no other reason than the charging electronics will almost certainly be unsuitable for a lithium-ion replacement battery. Suppose it'll have to be yet another new torch. I say another because this is the second. And what's more, the first was a cheapo (£10) and lasted far longer than the above expensive one with a sideways battery!

We're probably going off topic here, but what I conveyed is documented and therefore not just experience. And what's more, how far do we go with experience? For example, I perform an experiment and I convey the results; is that hearsay? Because as far as I can see, that's what you are saying. But returning to the subject. In addition to what I've tried to suggest, it seems to me the particular section of society that seem to be claiming a monopoly on better parental care, are, from what I've heard on the media, at the same time also apparently on the bandwagon of equality. And yet at the same time they appear from this topic to imply things are not equal. Indeed, cannot ever be equal as a consequence of their biological connection to the child, and therefore are inferior in bringing up a child compared to other parental arrangements. Outrageous pomposity.

I understand anecdotal to be hearsay. In contrast, I reported fact. If I reported something I had heard I would agree with you. Anyway, trying to return to the subject. For me even the title (Shock for right wing) seems nothing more than trying to score points - not scientific, I would've thought. Taking an elevated position to criticise others they think have taken an elevated position. Reminds me of someone who said: I can't stand stuck-up people! That's assuming there's some connection between parental gender arrangements and the political right wing (I assume that's what right wing refers)? I'd be interested to know what it is? You haven't the monopoly of anything. I don't know why I'm replying to all this, as it seems to me a discussion about nothing. Children have been living with a combinations of stepparents, parents or foster parents for a very long time. And to infer that there's something special if the gender of said parent and stepparent (or stepparents) happen to be the same is making an issue where there's no issue. And to label biological parents as somehow deficient in raising a child is an outrageous conclusion.

Thanks for the info. As you say the electrolyte is probably in gel form. The torch is only about a year old, but clearly the battery has failed. Perhaps the battery was on the shelf for sometime before it ended up in the torch! I would've thought in today's world a lithium-ion battery would be a far better option for such a torch. Especially as I understand that it's not a good idea to fully - or even half - discharge lead-acid batteries, on account of lead exchange. Lithium-ion batteries seem to work superbly in my lawnmower, grass strimmer and not to mention portable computer devices.

As far as I'm aware lead acid batteries have to be maintained in an upright position. Well, perhaps I'm wrong because upon disassembling my large recently expired rechargeable torch, I discovered its battery mounted on its side. Which I'd have thought not conducive to the liquid being able to cover the cells. I might add that the torch is not very old (it wasn't cheap either), and my thinking is its premature death is because of the battery mounting. Has anyone any thoughts?

"What a child needs is a good caring balance" - who on earth would question that? You then go on and appear to draw some conclusion that a homosexual or lesbian relationship would be more able provide such. Apparently implying the outrageous conclusion that a heterosexual relationship would be less able to provide such. I'm sorry, but that's a terribly biased indictment. And what's more, said relationship you're apparently elevating to the heights of perfect family harmony, is nothing more than a parent and stepparent or two stepparents. In other words, there is at least a third person involved in such a relationship, which you don't appear to have mentioned at all - there may even be four people involved. Anyway, I can relate to you that my stepmother disowned me upon the early death of my father. Presumably she felt no connection because there was no biological connection. In other words, whilst my father was alive it was all a charade which fooled everybody. So, if my experience is anything to go by, a parent and stepparent (which is the relationship you appear to be enthusing about) only works whilst they are both together. Separation or departure by the biological parent (if there is one) may well result in rejection of child or children.

According to my understanding of biology and doubtless placing myself in great danger of being labelled as something (jerk you appear to label some), straight parents - as you characterise them - are essential. I'll endanger myself a tad further. I can recall a news report whereby a homosexual couple had decided to become parents by having a child. I'm sorry, but at least one of them must be a stepparent and not a parent.

Life skills = common sense. And has common sense, ever at any time, been on the curriculum? Quite frankly, if children are deemed to be leaving school devoid of common sense - sorry, life skills - then something has failed completely. I can only report my experience at school. We arrived. The register was marked. The teacher said: I'm just popping out to speak with the headmaster. Any other times when she was actually in front of us, she would talk about religion, or put the radio on if there was a church service. Presumably she thought that was a sound preparation for life. I can categorically say without contradiction that when I left school I could write my own name. Anyway, with these sort of arguments I recall the late great Bill Shankly: I never had an education, I had to use my brain.

Use Gaffer or Duct tape to repair the cracked plastic blower housing. I believe such tape has been used to repair just about anything, often rendering the item better and stronger than before! I understand it's even been used to maintain human life aboard a space capsule.