The Rebel

Good news Cadmus, I think I am starting to understand your frame of mind. Unfortunately I can't find a clear cut answer. I believe what you are questioning is what is it we are looking at when we look into night sky, or when we close our eyes and see the darkness. There isn't visible light there but there is something. I think the struggle here is the psychology in not being able to accept nothingness. We are looking at the sky observing darkness but are unable to except nothing is there, yet there feels like there is an energy there. Theorising a non-visible part of the EM spectrum seems the obvious choice. The possible reasons for this is because are eyes (and their receptors) are constantly being stimulated for taking in images, giving us the feelings we are seeing something. Also not to forget is our eyes lids are thin and can let a certain amount of light in, so we are not seeing pitch black. And the atmosphere will contain a significant amount of reflected light from the opposite of the earth at night also. I think we need to remind ourselves of the situation of pitch blackness, or for example when we have been in bright light, and suddenly get put into pitch blackness. This is a true sense of nothingness, and its this frame of mind that shows how darkness is more about the lack of EM radiation as oppose to a segment of radiation responsible for causing darkness. Another question to pose is if darkness is travelling radiation, where is the source?

Probably not important now, but I've only just got access to this thread again. In my diagram I was thinking about how a sleeper you put on to the horseshoe magnet keeps it magnetised, which I believe is by maintaining magnetic flux. My thoughts went along the lines that the "sleeper" prevented fields of flux coming out the metal into the open. By adding another on the other side, the magnetic current looked like a larger magnet but using the "sleepers" instead. I'm going to have to probably print and read this now longer thread again, and see if anything bokos i've got can find answers. Would be interesting to see what Maxtor say.

Still trying to breakdown and understand your thought processes. You said before you do not consider darkness as an ether as I thought you did. You also say darkness travels. Ok then, do you consider darkness to be part of the EM spectrum and in essence a form of EM energy. If so where would darkness lie in this spectrum.

English is the way we describe scientific phenomena, if we can not use English (or cite it) to define the words you use, maybe the wrong words are being used (i.e. darkness). I struggle to define light by itself, because text books have not given me enough information to make up my mind what light is. It is very useful to describe light in terms of photons, e.g. its interactions with the eye, and also as waves. However, in my opinion light goes beyond this, and beyond the scope of this thread. I think I am starting to understand your approach. Are you considering light as an ether, that is all around us. This ether is then subject to interactions, which determine wether is in the state of Visible, IR, UV or "darkness". The problem is you describe this light or "ether" as being all around but at the same time you are saying it is being distoarted, as if it is travelling. Do you consider light to travel?, or as an ether?

I'm getting this on quite a lot of pages. Server problem???

Cadmus Firstly to "cite" the concise oxford dictionary darkness means "little or no light". Your comment about the properties of the earth shifting EM waves across the EM spectrum between visible and non-visible parts (in terms of the eye). This is misleading. Yes, the scattering in the atmosphere causes certain EM waves to be at different intensities as the earth rotates to being between us and the sun and not. However this is not by shifting. It is by the fact that during the day we are in direct view of certain freqeuncies and the "blue", UV, etc light is able hit us directly, as the earth rotates further the there is more atmosphere between us and the sun causes the redness, but this is not shifting. The way our eyes work is by stimulus from photons, (and the wave properties). As the intensity of photons increase, the nodes in the eye (forget the scientific name) become more saturated. The lack of photons causes the nodes to become less stimulated and it is this measure of how we perceive the difference between light and dark ("little or no light"). I may have named myself rebel in order to examplify my opinion of modern science and its assumptions but this is too extreme. We could go on to say coldness is an entity and not lack of thermal energy.

Are there any changes in the field direction??? I'm wondering if the metal is acting like a sleeper where field lines in the metal are going in the opposite direction to the internal "field" in the magnet. Therefore causing a closed magnetic current not visible to the outside of the sleeper. By adding the metal on the other side it is doing the same. However because there is a outer loop magnetism would exist again, but perhaps in the oppsite direction. Apologies, this is the best i could muster in paint. EDIT: Actually looking at it again, the bottom plate arrow is in the wrong direction and the side arrows shouldn't be there.

In a logic world (i.e. a computer game), the results of a software code may give the same co-ordinates for a sprite, however the and/or logic will allow the result to co-exist. For example, if two seperate software equations asks for red and green pixels to be alight at 253, 450 on the display screen, the logic will simply allow red and green to be displayed. In the real world matter doesn't co-exist in same place, hence a collision occurs.

ok, here's one I was given at work today. Four hostages are buried up to their necks in the ground, in a roughly straight line. One of them is seperated by a wall to the other three. As below A || B C D They are all facing the wall. The terrorists have four hats, 2 black, 2 white, which are placed on the hostages. A and C have white hats on, B and D are wearing black hats. They are not allowed to talk, and they can not move their heads. The wall has no reflective surfaces or holes. They are told that they will die unless one of them correctly shouts the colour hat they are wearing within 10minutes. After 1 minute one of them calls out. Which hostage is it?, and why are they correct?

Could you please expand on that.

Without a third entity I think the lasers would simply pass through each other. The only reason red and green make yellow (for example), is because both red and green are visible to us. I suppose a gas that is reactive to both UV and IR radiation would have to be fed into the air, what sort of gas to use though?? I know humiseal, detergents are good and reacting to UV.

I've always struggle with grey even though it should be simple. What sort of electron makeup causes half of it to absorb photons and half of it to reflect them. It's easy to produce grey on a screen just turn everything to half the intensity. But how come a material in what ever lighting is always grey until you can't see it (pitch black) Here's a few more - what makes something "shiny" or "glossy" Why does a piece of tin foil make the light that much brighter/intense than a plain mirror.

I'm struggling to see any strong links with time travel in it, but it seems to suggest that light, and presumably other EM radiation is capable of gravitational effects (or least a comparison between gravitional force at the weak forces) Interesting how its mentioned about the interactions between two parallel beams of light. Almost identical to the methods of defining current. Not sure how they differentiate between the lights "beams" and the electromagnetic fields that create them??

I'm not sure it is possible to supply IC's with differing voltage requirements with the same power supply unless its regulated. I remember having a similar when I was designing some measurement circuitry. Instead of getting proper regulators, I just bogded up a couple of potential dividers. At one point I tried Zener diodes but then a couple of components started to heat up. Unfortuantely I can't find any backing for this, and why lower supply IC's, suffer when higher supply IC's are added in. I can only guess that the sinking on the larger IC's, is taking current away from the perceived high resistance of the other network.

We can't use "dwell" either. as Jakiri sais in another thread the time between it being at V=0, to "having movement" is 1/infinity. Then again technically the object is always moving if there is acceleration. Maybe we our getting confused in our minds as to how an object could instantaneously not move and then move. Momentum is overpowering our thoughts maybe. But then momentum is proportional to velocity, therefore as velocity approaches zero so does the momentum.

I think we trust scientists too much, everyone can be wrong just as much as right. Countless numbers of theories have been proven and disproven. One of the reasons I have given my name as The Rebel is because I do not believe some of stuff science has come up with, its half written and unsubstantiated sufficiently. I like to pick holes and seek the truth (from the assumed/unfounded) that way.

"v=0 for some finite amount of time" Think that is the key concept here. In this scenario the time is not finite. An object under acceleration will have different velocities and different times, which could be -10ms-1, 10ms-1 and 0ms-1, etc. We can not define the period of time that an object remains at a particular velocity because it doesn't remain at all, we just know that it passes through it. Take, for example, a plot of varying velocities against time. If we take two points on this curve, a draw a straight line between them, we find the acceleration by the difference in velocity divided by the difference in time. a = (v2-v1) / (t2-t1), which in mathematical terms is just the same as a = dv/dt If we make the line shorter by making the velocities closer to each other, the time difference reduces. Until eventually when v2 = 0.00000001 and v1 = -0.00000001 etc, the time approaches zero. The difference in time never actually reaches zero though because then "a" would be undefined from the divide by zero problem. (this is the whole synopsis behind calculus methods, we approach but do not target) The words "instance" and "stopped" are subjective and can not be used to equate this scenario.

A case of same girl different knickers surely?? Do I get 9/10 for effort. Here's another question on colour though. How does the colour grey work? Is grey a weak energy level of pure white or is it a case of 50% of atoms absorbing photons and 50% atoms reflecting them.

ooo, someones envoking controversy in the relativity field. I also think the factors implemented into GPS are outside the now infamous SR formula that so many are currently quoting. Maybe when quantum mechanics becomes as run of the mill as newtonian physics is, the assumptions and flaws will become more clearer. Then we can have all the answers without quoting equations and apparent (ambiguous) relationships with real life.

It depends on the co-efficient of friction. The equations I used above, F = R sin (angle), assumed no friction. If there was friction the formula would be F = R sin (angle) - umg sin (angle), where u is the co-efficient of friction. So, we can see that if the co-efficient is high (rough), the ball experiences less acceleration by gravity. Therefore the ball will have less velocity when it reaches the end of the incline, therefore it will go a shorter distance before stopping.

You can as I have done it. My friend had a pretty bad virus on their computer, which completely corrupted their system. They was about to pay an "engineer" £80 just to wipe it. I took it to try and retrieve some personal files of first, only problem is they had a password on their user account. Entering the admin account via safe mode can allow you to access and change permissions settings. I'm not going into more info just in case there are kiddies out there wanting to get into their parents user accounts. All that said, good point about the spyware, better just to wipe it completely instead fiddling with user accounts.

What sort of password do you mean? Do you mean a user password for the login screen. This can be done by accessing the adminstrator account from the start up, and taking off a couple of access rights. I'm not sure it would be advisable to describe how on here though, in case someone takes it to the advantage of hacking another user account on his/her PC. EDIT: What sort of HDD is it as well