Bufofrog

Great article! Inspiring while simultaneously depressing.

You really are a hoot! For some reason I get a kick out of your "chicken little" routine. Cracks me up every time.

It seems you got a loose end or two on your conjecture.

Too bad, I was hoping you were willing to learn a little. Oh well, it's your choice.

This is where your conceptual error lays. D is actually the distance the first photon travels to the receiver. Which is the beginning of the light pulse. Your "adjusted speed" is the end of the light pulse, the time is (T1 + t). So you have the wrong distance 'D'. The distance should be, D + v/t. So you second equation should be: (D + v/t)/(T1 + t) = c

I think the problem is this part. That is not right. Less energy is received than was transmitted. He thought you might think, "isn't energy conserved?" So he answered your presumed question by stating, "energy is frame dependent".

Reading up on this a bit, I found that even commercial light water reactors do get an extended life from the formation of Plutonium. It is still necessary to remove the breeder reactor core to extract the Plutonium and put it into a new core. This reason primarily due to the poisoning of the core by fission products.

I have never heard of anyone attempting anything like that and frankly doubt that it would be possible. I have been out of nuclear power for 35 years, but I can't imagine something like that would be possible. For instance part of the reason you replace the core is not to lack of fuel but due to fission products acting as a poison (absorbing neutrons).

Now that I think about it you probably can, thank you for questioning that. You of course cannot simply make more Plutonium than the Uranium in a breeder reactor and then have the reactor continue to run on the new Plutonium. The core must be removed and the Plutonium must be extracted and then put into a new core to be used.

Uranium U235 is mined. Only a tiny amount of uranium is 235 is naturally occurring, the majority of the Uranium is you 238. It is a very difficult procedure to isolate the uranium 235 from the uranium 238. Breeder reactors can make fissile material from the neutron capture of uranium 238 to form plutonium 239. Only a small amount of plutonium 239 is produced, and it again is difficult to isolate it from Uranium 238. It is not possible to construct a breeder reactor that produces more fuel than it consumes. Edit to add: U235 is a fissile material and U238 is not.

Yes, I believe this correct.

Take a look at this. This is plenty of other information on this, just google it.

The energy from a power plant is much more than the energy needed to produce usable uranium. The same is true of coal. That doesn't mean overunity though. We are simply utilizing the potential energy in the uranium or coal.

The distance between photons is not the frequency of light. Each photon has a wavelength and the decrease in frequency of a light source moving away is seen in the each photon.

Oh boy, you are going to get to play the martyr.

I feel that you don't know what you are talking about.

The black hole will not destroy the earth, just sayin....

It is a bit difficult since i am not sure what your goal is but here is some advice. 1. Remove the 4 sdiskusage items from the 3 cases and put them in the graph title (since they are the same in all cases), something like "Comparison of CPU performance with a sdiscusage of total=bla bla, used= bla bla, etc. 2. for the virtual memory and the memory usage i would change them to megabytes a terabytes assuming that the numbers are bytes. 3. change the rss to rss x 10^-6 4. change the time from sec to sec x 10 That should make all of the changing variable to th range of about 2 to 16 so you can see the differences easily. Hope that helps or at least gives you some ideas.

I would rather have the water. Now getting back to the OP question, the reason that we won't build pipelines from the eastern US to the west is the cost.

It would cost to much money to transport water through pipelines.

The answer is quite simply, money.

Ewwww. What a weird thing to even wonder about.[shudder]

It is a problem relative fantasy I suppose. Maybe we should try to cure sadness, so everyone will be continuously happy. If we cure aging then we will have to cure reproduction to prevent overpopulation. Except I will bet part of the curing old age fantasy also means we will colonize the galaxy or some such nonsense. You are born, you grow up and you die. That's the plan. Thousands of years ago it was possible for a person to live to about 120 years old, in this modern age it is possible to live to about 120 years old. Hmmm, kinda seems like a hard stop. Modern medicine has greatly increased our quality of life, it has decreased infant mortality and increased our average life expectancy, it has done nothing to allow people to live beyond about 120 years. I get it dying is scary, but the fantasy of curing aging is about as useful as the fantasy of going to heaven and living for ever and ever

No, it would be a waste of money. It is not a problem. I wouldn't give a $1000.

My family was on a walk through the woods with another family when I spotted a copperhead (a type of pit viper) so I caught it and showed the kids how to identify pit viper and the dangers of being bitten. I opened its mouth and showed them it's fangs which made a scary impression on them. When my wife caught up to us and saw the snake she was not amused, the other family and all the kids were quite interested though. Snakes are surprisingly docile creatures. If you gently hold a 5 ft long black snake (a non poisonous snake) by the head for a few minutes it will usually relax and it will not try to bite you anymore and will crawl around on you like pet. I can't think of another animal you could do that with. I would never attempt to pick up even a mouse without protective gloves