Rhidian

My issue with J. Random's statement was that he said that Wireless signals do affect sleep, but then goes on to say it's due to a nocebo effect, which means that the signals themselves are not actually affecting the sleep. You're right though, Dodgey, it is silly for me to be all technical with light and sound. When I posed the question of "Do wireless signals affect sleep" I used the word "wireless signal" rather than "Wi-Fi" because I wasn't wanting it to be Wi-Fi exclusive, but I glanced over the fact that in common usage wireless signals = Wi-Fi.

The Nocebo Effect by definition cannot be a mechanism, since it doesn't explain how wireless signals cause the effect; it's just a response that is observed. That being said, although I used Wi-Fi as an example of Wireless signals in my opening post, that's not what a Wireless signal exclusively is. Visible light and audible sound are technically wireless signals as well, which others in this thread have mentioned could be a possible cause. In that case, it would be more correct to say that the Wi-Fi shouldn't affect sleep while light and sounds generated by the computer/router might, which was already said in this thread.

Is it possible that any high-pitched sounds generated by the electronics could be impacting sleep? We're not conscious of high-pitched sounds as we age and lose hearing sensitivity, but might they impact someone who could hear them to some degree (or not)?

Something that I have noticed is that whenever I go to sleep with the Wi-Fi and my computer both on in the same room, my quality of sleep is decreased (I don't feel as rested when I wake). It's such a consistent phenomena for me that I usually turn them off when I go to sleep unless I'm needing the computer on overnight. Do wireless signals affect sleep, and what might the mechanism be if so?

Well, in the future scenario described in the first post, reducing greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect past the point of no return, since that point is defined as the point at which the greenhouse gasses are already at a sufficient enough concentration to trap radiation. Reducing emissions would be a supplement to other solutions that aim to reduce the actual concentrations in the atmosphere. To that end, the solution would most likely be to reduce the concentrations of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or to somehow limit the UV radiation that enters or remains in the atmosphere. To the mods: I apologize, I should have picked a better title for the topic. I am not trying to espouse a conspiracy theory like saying that point has actually already happened; rather, I was wanting to create a discussion on what humanity could do in a theoretical scenario. Is there a way for me to change the topic title?

Imagine a scenario where, in the future, Global Warming has been confirmed to be past the Point of No Return. Where it has been proven that should the Earth be left to its natural devices with no human intervention, the average temperature would keep going higher until it reaches unhabitable temperatures. In such a future, what would humanity have to do in order to return from the Point of No Return? What man-made solutions would be needed to change the average global temperature back to a sustainable level?

Precognition would (and should) work better on events closer to the present, as there are less factors that could change what is seen. If I am in an orchard and I look 2 seconds into the future, I might see an apple falling from a tree across from me. No matter what I do within the two seconds, that apple will still fall. Consequently, if I tried looking 1 hour ahead into the future and see the apple falling, I would have much more time to walk up to the tree and get the apple down (thus changing the seen future). Future events will tend towards 0% or 100% probability as they come closer to the present (hitting 100% when it occurs, or 0% when it does not). The further you look into the future, the less likely you are to see 100% probability events.

Going off of the ideas in this thread, for paradox free (and useful) precognition, it would have to work as follows: 1. Only things or events that have a 100% of occurring in the future can be seen, regardless of whether it is known ahead of time or not (immutable parts of the future) 2. Things that can be changed or in other words not having a 100% possibility cannot be seen; this takes into account the possibilities of the precognition itself having an effect This form of precognition would not have someone seeing themselves perish in a car crash (unless it was unavoidable), as they could still take measures against it and thus change that part of the future (not 100% chance). They could however see winning lottery numbers in the event that those wouldn't change regardless of how much that information is spread. This would also solve the problem of concurrent users which often plagues Time Travel. Two or more people using the power at the same time would be limited to seeing the same things which cannot be changed, regardless of what others might do. Of course the drawback to such precognition is that its usefulness is highly curtailed. The events that are seen cannot be changed, though with the power it would be possible to modify preparations and/or response to such events. Best example would probably be of a meteor falling to Earth with a 100% chance. It would be impossible to stop the meteor from falling, but preparations can be made (evacuations, etc) that make its aftermath not as bleak.

How likely would it be for me choosing 1,2,3,4 instead of 1,3,3,7 for my lottery ticket to change what the winning ticket numbers will be?

So then there would have to be a distinction between two different types of precognition: one that takes the precognition itself into account, and the other that does not. In the first one that takes the information gleaned by Precognition into account when showing a specific future, then Mr. Burns would see himself winning the lottery with numbers 1,2,3,4. Yet such a view of precognition completely ignores free will; what if he doesn't really want to win the lottery (due to other issues afterwards)? This itself would run afoul of paradoxes really fast. The second version (the one I am basing my arguments off of) is more inline with the multiple possible futures theory. Take Schrodingers Cat; if a future shown via precognition doesn't take the act of precognition itself into account (ie what would have happened if you didn't look into the future), then you would be able to see two possible futures; one where the cat dies, and the other where it lives. You could take a hammer to the box and make the question a moot point anyways, but that would be a consequence of free will. If free will exists (and thus the ability to act on information gleaned by precognition), then it's impossible for there to be a single immutable future (which, in turn, would allow this type of precognition work).

At the instant right before Precognition occurs, the Future has you dying in a car crash. The Future seen via precognition is that future. Immediately upon taking that information to the present time (the moment after Precognition is used), that Future is no longer relevant as the Future has changed. If Precognition is used a second time, the Future you would see would be one where you don't die in a car crash, as in that particular Future you took measures to avoid death. The first future has ceased to exist, but that doesn't matter since it didn't change the past. The information you received through your senses have changed your actions. For a non-abstract example of this same concept, consider a person planning a picnic. At the time they are planning the picnic, they think the picnic will be held under sunny conditions. However, as the picnic is being finalized the person sees in the weather report that there is a 90% chance of rain for the next five days. This information, which did not exist prior to seeing the weather report, has changed the plans for the picnic. One moment the picnic is being planned for sunny weather, the next moment rain is being taken into consideration. Truthfully though, the 'how' of such a phenomena could occur is detracting from the original question. Assuming Precognition or Time Travel is possible, why would Time Travel be used when Precognition can accomplish many of the same effects without the paradoxes?

That's why I said that it is an approximation. The closest real-world analogy to my example is how Weather forecasting works.

Not really. I did just describe the Minority Report though. There's very little difference between Prediction and Precognition. We try to predict things all the time. The difference between the two is a matter of scale (and sources of data).

Precognition could be approximated by a super computer running an incredibly advanced simulation of the future based off what is most likely to occur. With Big Brother collecting tons of data about personal habits and Science itself describing how the rest of the world works, it's not too big of a stretch to think that such a super computer would be possible far into the future (ignoring all of the hacking and privacy issues such an object would entail).

Consider the following scenarios: Time Travel- The date is March 21st, and Mr. Burns discovers that his lotto ticket with the numbers 1,3,3,7 purchased on March 10th did not win the jackpot. The winning number was 1,2,3,4 instead. Mr. Burns time travels to March 10th, and purchases the lotto ticket with the numbers 1,2,3,4. Mr. Burns returns to his present time (March 21st) to reap his winnings from the now-winning lottery ticket. Precognition- The date is March 10th, and Mr. Burns is about to purchase a lottery ticket. He looks 11 days into the future (March 21st) and sees that the winning combination will be 1,2,3,4. In his present time (March 10th) Mr. Burns purchases a lottery ticket with the numbers 1,2,3,4. 11 Days later on March 21st he finds that his ticket wins and reaps the winnings from his lottery ticket. Why should Time Travel be used when Precognition avoids all of the causality paradoxes plaguing Time Travel and can work just as well?

Converting water into gold (or as you are saying, air into chicken) would require reassembling the subatomic particles themselves to create the necessary materials, which is a matter of nuclear activities (and would likely require a massive input of energy). If you have the required elements already, that might be more feasible, but that would still require huge amounts of energy. Just turning Graphite into Diamonds, for example, isn't something we have the capability of doing yet (that I am aware of).

Rather than getting input into the brain, I think it is far more likely/feasible to go the other direction, where a BCI is used to get output from the brain to control external things. I think this is a big area of research in prosthetics. Though at the moment I think most things just use proxies to interpret brain commands, ie precursor muscle movements indicating you want to move (or eye movements to determine what you want to do).

Banned for not recognizing a post from the Science Labs forum

Granted, but they don't respond. I wish that the Universal Constants (like the gravitational constant) were not constants.

Rather than putting missile launchers on the moon, what if a country threatened to blow up the moon itself? It would be much easier to do provided they had enough firepower. If they don't even bother with the threatening, the apparent lack of target when the missile is launched towards space would give enough time to prevent the attack from being interrupted.

Assuming that the world would unite their efforts to stave off a huge asteroid impact, why wouldn't we just send up everything we have at it? Send both manned and unmanned missions, send multiples of each, and increase the likelihood of the mission succeeding even if one part fails. Though for the original question choosing only one, just mass produce a bunch of unmanned vehicles and throw it at the problem.

If you have a Science Lab to restore the experiments each time, then sure. But at that point it's a conscious choice the player is making, and waiting 100 ingame days between getting the full experiment points again from a planet is inefficient if that is the only ship used. Though now that I think about it, the Probe problem still exists due to how experiments can't be reset without the presence of a (manned) Science Lab. I suppose it would be possible through cfg editing to add a Science Lab module to a probe core and set the dataTransmissionBoost and crew required to zero. On another note, it seems like a good number of Science Parts make their own extension of the ModuleScienceExperiment class and add their own functionality to it. The way the compatibility should work is this: This mod (and cfg file) will not have any effect on parts that use the extended ModuleScienceExperiments from the cfg files of other mods. Or put another way, other science part mods will work exactly as described.

What exactly do you mean by an impossible solution? Do you just mean imaginary numbers being in the solution would qualify it as impossible, or is there some other meaning?

It might be better to consider this from the opposite perspective: If we one day a) discover an alien species and have some method of travelling there and communicating (stealthily), what would happen? Should select members of whatever alien rulers discover our existence, why would they hide us from the alien population? More than likely it would be whatever military the aliens have that would discover us first if they have the tech to do so. If they don't show any signs of suspecting we exist, I suppose humans would try to discreetly study the aliens as much as possible. Failing that, and contact with the aliens military is made, the first barrier to communication is simple yet significant; there would be some sort of language barrier. We wouldn't know what the aliens are really like, and they wouldn't know what we are like. As such the delegates from both species would be kept separated by space as they try to communicate with each other. It's unlikely that they would fire us down (or we would attack them) unless it's obvious that one is hostile to another. Now should communication ever be made, the first thing both sides would attempt to determine is the threat level of the other side. If we visit their world, it's highly unlikely that they would know where Earth is (unless they trace communications back to Earth), so they would not be able to effectively gauge our military capabilities. Reversing that for the original scenario, if aliens manage to communicate with us next to Earth, it would be unlikely that we know the true capabilities of whatever race the aliens come from. Which gives ample reason for the world leaders to keep everything peaceful in the off-case that a huge planetary-wiping armada would arrive in retaliation. Should they have the tech capabilities to remain hidden from amateur space observations, it's likely they would have a huge tech advantage in general. As for why alien existence would be kept a secret from the general population? I don't think there is any reason to keep it a secret. On the contrary, if the alien is already in contact with representatives of the human race, I don't see any reason for the alien to continue hiding their presence from everyone else.

Is it possible to change the position of a celestial body? If so, what function would be necessary and what effect might it have on the On-Rails simulation for orbits (ie if I moved Kerbol).