swansont

It’s an antacid, but not particularly soluble. But they don’t say specifically what happens to the carbon. If it precipitates out (Magnesium bicarbonate?) then the ocean can absorb more CO2.

That would be nurture, then, right? If you have to be told not to do something you might be inclined to do otherwise…

The main point was that you did not substantiate your claim - a long-standing pattern - and stated a conclusion without actual evidence or eliminating other possible explanations. IOW, not providing any proof and yet claiming that something was proven. No links, not even to the infographic you pisted.

Links? Citations? Pretend this is a scientific discussion. No mention of Iceland in your link.

Or that boats dock on the coast, and that the EEZ is 200 miles.

The negatively charged particles aren’t atoms, they are electrons. The fission fragments are the positively charged atoms.

gamer87 has been suspended for repeatedly bringing up a closed topic.

! Moderator Note Your silica gel discussion privileges have been used up.

It depends on how highly ionized they are

They have a magnetic moment, though, so they can be affected by a magnetic field and have been confined in a magnetic trap. But these neutrons were slowed by other means.

Once you decide that physical law doesn’t apply, you can’t use those laws to describe the behavior. It’s all interconnected.

Light doesn’t need to diverge for this implementation. A 1 m^2 non-diverging beam projected on to the ground will cover more than that area if the angle isn’t 90 degrees. Probably by 1/sin(theta)

It’s curious that you specify a detonator when it could be any sort of electronics. But as exchemist suggests, a common thermostat will do this, as will thermocouple and thermistor circuits.

The invariance of the speed of light can be found in the theory, which is confirmed by experiment. That the value was finite dates back to at least the late 1600s https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/cosmic-horizons-book/ole-roemer-speed-of-light All this, and evolution from a common ancestor - all was backed by evidence, and had a theoretical foundation. That’s what convinced people.

A derisive term for newer development “cookie cutter” developments is McMansion

And physics allows us to calculate the size of these effects. Have you done so? Unless you think space weather affect construction quality and building codes, the number of fatalities is irrelevant

Lots of different types/descriptions in the US Ranch, bungalow, Victorian, townhouse, cottage, colonial, split-level, tudor, and others

Whatever you can measure - momentum, position, energy, time…

Doesn’t this assume AY + TH < 100?

What if your signal can’t penetrate the vacuum chamber? Proposals such as this generally have to mathematically describe what signal they expect, and why

Why not have the detectors in the vacuum? This sounds vaguely similar to the dynamical casimir effect experiments https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Dynamical_Casimir_effect

Then we’re done here

We detect actual gravitational radiation in LIGO, which is exceedingly weak, and this shielding you propose should be proportional. It’s one thing to say it’s responsible for gravity and another to say it’s too weak to measure. You can’t have it both ways.

If you are positing some new radiation we can’t measure, then we aren’t observing it. But you need some independent confirmation of this. This is science, not science fiction.

What atoms with virtually no net charge? The fission fragments would be highly ionized. This isn’t the sticking point. Because they are charged they deposit their energy in a short distance, as they collide with other nuclei and ionize atoms along their path.