Area54

These two papers, Initial results from safety testing of US AGR-2 irradiation test fuel and Key results from irradiation and post-irradiation examination of AGR-1 UCO TRISO fuel, report on Triso tests to 1,600o C and 1,700o C respectively, well below the crucial temperature of 2,800o C mentioned by @swansont I can find nothing reporting tests at higher temperatures.

There seems to be a presumtion in the last few posts that the solar system formed from the product of a single supernova explosion. This is not the case. Multiple supernovae would have contributed to the molecular cloud whose collapse led to the formation of the solar system. What is thought to be practical is to identify sister stars to the sun, from their spectroscopic signature. These would have formed as neigbours in the same cloud (compare with the Pleiades) then drifted apart. I don't recall whether such siblings have yet been idenitifed, but a literature search should turn up the answer. Here are a couple of papers on the subject: The evolution of the Sun's birth cluster and the search for the solar siblings with Gaia The authors "use self-consistent numerical simulations of the evolution and disruption of the Sun's birth cluster in the Milky Way potential to investigate the present-day phase-space distribution of the Sun's siblings." Searching for solar siblings among the HARPS data The authors note "At present, there are four plausible candidatesreported in the literature: HIP21158, HIP87382, HIP47399, and HIP92831. In this study weconduct a search for solar siblings amongthe HARPS high-resolution FGK dwarfs sample, which includes precise chemical abundances and kinematics for 1111 stars. Usinga new approach based on chemical abundance trends with condensation temperature, kinematics, and ages we found one (additional)potential solar sibling candidate: HIP97507."

There is a reasonable correlation between the mass of an organism and its lifespan. (cf. mouse, dog, man, elephant). So, unless you anticipate us evolving into 300ton monsters don't expect a 2.5 my lifespan. Part of the explanation for extended lifespans lies in the inreasing complexity of the most complex organism: An e.coli bacterium doesn't need any time to develop a whole suite of interacting organs. Yes, we are continuing to evolve. We shall either evolve into and entirely new species, or multiple species, or our line will become extinct. Species don't last for much more than a million years. Convergent evolution is common. Thus flying was independently developed by pterosaurs, birds and bats. Swimming with a "fish shape" was developed by mutiple kinds of fishes, ichtyosaurs and cetaceans.

I thought that was the intent of all threads, on all forums, for all time.

I am very interested in clarification, it's just that I have seen no evidence of it from you. You have moved the goalposts, but you deny this. You misapply poll results to support assertions that seem to lack any sound basis. Your posts continue to have more than a whiff of aggression. All of this you seem to be unaware of; as I noted previously this makes it difficult for readers to take your arguments seriously. You do them a disservice by your approach. Why not go back to square one and restate your argument with accompanying support, then we can debat whether there is anything of substance there.

It definitely doesn't read that way. Based upon a very high count of negative adjectives. Those are typically associated with arguments that are closer to the hysterical rather than the objective end of the spectrum. Which is why it is a good idea to choose ones words carefully.

Then, if you follow tennis, you may wish to keep an eye on Cameron Norrie, No. 3 in the UK and, I suggest, a future world top 20 player. His father is Scottish, his mother Welsh. I realise that's a lighthearted comment, but you are correct, in the sense that incompetence is often accompanied by a sincere desire to do the right thing, lying - not so much.

We can agree on that. The Star Trek transportation system and your speculation are both fictional.

That appears to be a concession that: you have moved the goalposts such an action lacks integrity Your arguments would carry more conviction if you could turn down the burning outrage a little. Merely a suggestion.

I understand you have had a rough time and are understandably confused/frustrated/distraught. I don't know where you live, so I don't know which "they" you are referring to. My observation from the UK is that there has been very little lying**, but a lot of decisions revealed as poor as we learnt more about the virus, and a handful of decisions that were just plain incompetent, but not lies. Recall the saying, which I paraphrase, Never attribute to conspiracy what can be accounted for by incompetence. **I've been especially impressed by the First Ministers of the devolved administrations of Scotland and Wales; Boris Johnson, not so much. Bluster, bombast and buffonery can only take you so far.

This item on the strengths and weaknesses of different temperatures, from 20o to 90o , provides some relevant background to your OP. Your focus seems to be more on economy than environmental impact. What is your justification for that?

Have I attacked you, or your belief in your God? You do not know me. It seems presumptous of you to suggest I need to wake up and learn. You have a set of beliefs that differ, presumably, in some ways from mine. Perhaps your views are correct. Perhaps not, but I can tell you that telling me to "wake up and learn" is not the best way of engaging me in a discussion that might lead me to share your views. Rather it will lead to suspect that you are just an angry, bitter and frustrated man -- that is not the sort of person from whom I would expect to learn very much. You do yourself and your message a great disservice by exposing this negative side of your character. I ask you again to reflect on what you are trying to achieve and the best way of achieving it. I haven't seen anyone attack God. A statement of disbelief in God, is not an attack on God. Petulant attacks are not a defence, but demean the Christian message. I have witnessed many individuals turned from Christianity by just the very attitude you are taking on this forum. It is counterproductive and it certainly does not match the behaviour of the several Christians whom I respect and admire, while not adhering to their central belief. I fear you may be right, but I rather hope he is just frustrated and seriously misguided. Optimism is my middle name.

I did not get that impression from @dimreepr's posts. He seemed to be holding the view, which I share, that those charged with upholding the law must be scrupulous in following it meticulously themselves. This must not only be a matter of following the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law also. Not only should there be no bending of the rules, but every effort should be made to be demonstrably fair and equitable in discharge of their duties. I am not sure how you have misread dimreepr's stance (I hope I have not), but the result is that you have constructed a strawman.

Hi Ken. You seem to be greatly frustrated by your experiences on the forum. I imagine that accounts for your aggression, with references to dumb ass moderators and others who mouth off their opinion. If you have been offended, isn't their something about turning the other cheek - often good advice for Christian and non-Christian alike. Setting that aside, do you feel that being aggressive in your posts, even if you feel you have been provoked, will achieve anything of value for yourself, those whom you attack, or just us "innocent bystanders"? Perhaps reflect on what your objectives are, consider whether or not they are honourable, then determine how you may best achieve this in a way that benefits all parties. It's just a thought. Give it no regard if you prefer.

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Yes, we can travel to Mars and have done so many times, in the sense of sending robotic craft to orbit and land upon the planet. Yes, we can travel to Mars in the sense that the technology to do so either exists, or is capable of being developed in reasonable time frame (one or two decades) No, we cannot send people to Mars today, or within the next couple of years with any expectation they might arrive and survive. Which sense of the question did you intend?

I go with Professor Wheeler's position: Time is what prevents everything from happening at once.

I'm not sure why you think that is much of a challenge.

I will not attempt to answer that particular 'why', but I will offer you a plausible explanation as to why your thoughts have been generally dismissed by other forum members. In no particular order: You have failed to provide a concise and coherent explanation of your proposal. You have made many assertions, but have offered no meaningful support for those assertions. Your posts have seemed belligerent, discourteous and at times hysterical You have not been attentive to replies Your proposals may have much value and even be the correct way forward, however emotional rants will never be as effective as rational argument. I recommend organising your thoughts, presenting them in a simple, straightforward manner, and toning down on the patronising agression. Of course, if you don't really want to convince anyone, then keep doing what you are doing.

This is a wise choice. You can display even more wisdom if you remain an active member of the board, but focus -at first - on asking questions, rather than making wild speculations. They can be great fun, but they are not the best way of learning about,, or conducting, science. I look forward to reading more of your posts, but ones that ask interesting questions. Cheers.

It is true that he seems able to fool some of the people all of the time, but he has never been able to fool all of the people some of the time. That just reduces him to the rather pathetic state of conman, a role worthy of as much respect as an afficionada of Love Island.

No. Just NO!

I hesitate to say that you are confused, since you have not acquired sufficient knowledge of your subject to reach such a progressive state. Rather, you are wrong on just about everything you have said. Obviously you share an interest in evolution, as do those who have replied in this thread. I think that's a good thing, not least because I am your companion in such an interest. Unfortunately the only statement I can see that may be thought true is "Evolution is a slow process". If we look back ten generations we find that while the alleles (variants) of genes may be different in some cases, nearly all of those differences are due to mixing of existing alleles during fertilisation. In terms of evolution this will produce only short term differences that are easily reversed. Until you have taken this concept on board (then several more) there is no point in you wasting your time with wild, unfounded speculation. There are some very knowledgeable members on this board - I think some of them are professional biologists. You should take advantage of their presence by asking question that will help educate you on the subject, instead of proposing crazy ideas.

I'm not sure it is even that 'positive'. If you are correct - and perhaps you are - at least we could say the decision was made with the intention of making things better, even such a decision was misguided. Unfortunately, I suspect it is much more a matter of lashing out to satisfy his narcissism. The only thing it is intended to make better is how he feels. I console myself with the thought that democracy doesn't usually turn up such a total catastrophe.

I've emphasised your last point. The answer seems clear to me: the confusion arises because we, or more precisely the medical 'establishment', is still unclear about many characteristics of the virus: We do not know why there is a large difference in severity based upon: Age Sex Ethnicity We do not know, with confidence, the full range of symptoms We do not know what proportion of the population with the virus are asymptomatic We do not know how effective masks may be in halting the spread We do not know what proportion of those who recover from the virus will carry antibodies We do not know to what extent those antibodies will provide immunity to reinfection We do not know how long any immunity will last Etc. Given what we don't know, given the diveristy of views from experts, given the changing pattern of advice, given the different responses of different governments, I am not surprised that the public at large may be confused.

The OP doubted it, else he would not have offered such a flawed argument for a money free society. Thank you. I was beginning to think the problem was me.