swansont

! Moderator Note If you developed this, you must be Daniel Grossman, who has been banned. Bye.

Repeating it doesn’t make it true. We can study how much pain someone is in and effectiveness of drugs, even though it’s subjective. As TheVat notes, we have language.

Was it pure lead? It could have been an alloy; AFAICT adding a little copper, tin or antimony makes it harder and you don’t generally find pure lead in nature.

Yes, it does. Science requires objective results and rigor (falsifiability, repeatability, etc.) If you think there is something non materialistic going on, you’re doing religion. You can study it in a measurable, objective way, too. I responded to something I quoted (“humans are not special, consciousness might be”) so your confusion is…confusing. If everything is conscious, then consciousness is ordinary. Not special. Nope. Creationism is religion, not science. I have no interest in diving into this quagmire. It doesn’t belong in a science discussion.

No the point is that labels don’t matter; they don’t change how things work, or look. You can’t study consciousness? If I Googled for scientific studies of consciousness, I would find nothing? Surely you jest. If everything is conscious, then no, it is not. That was a point I made not long ago. The parts are not interacting? How does it stay intact? If atoms are conscious, how can a table not be? The same interactions are present. What is the “clear unity of purpose” that a plant has? What is its goal? Again, these sound like creationist talking points.

How did we get from “everything is made of neutrinos” to the Big Bang?

The whole “we don’t know where the mind resides” narrative reminds me of discussion of ufo/aliens, where “it’s unidentified” is erroneously equated to “it’s aliens” and creationism, where “we don’t definitively know how life arose” is erroneously equated to “goddidit” It’s a bad script to follow.

Yes, and AFAICT it’s completely unaffected by the label you hang on it. If I call a rose a floofernurg, what actually changes about the biology or the aesthetics? Nope. You’ve not shown that anything changes. Much like being able to say you’re rich. There’s a psychological shift. Not a scientific one. There’s a bias that occurs because of the view that humans are special, but that’s driven by religion and perhaps philosophy (the article touches on this) so that spilled over into biology (scientists are human, after all). There are people who insist that humans aren’t animals, but that’s not driven by science. Purpose would be your burden to show, but I don’t see how expanding the scope of what is considered conscious gets you there. As the article points out, you have a tough job explaining why some things are conscious and others are not. Like a lot of biology, that demarcation is going to be fuzzy and shifting that line doesn’t eliminate the problem, but likely makes it harder. e.g. an atom is conscious, but certain collections of them are not.

Yes, the wealthy are always held accountable for their transgressions. </sarcasm>

The Coulomb barrier is given by U= kQq/r^2 Having 6x the charge means the barrier is 6x higher (It’s also wider, which would affect tunneling) so the naive solution would be that you need 6x the KE, but there are also momentum considerations since the masses are quite different. But it will be of order a few MeV

You still have the problem. All you’ve done is redefine things. It’s like Syndrome says in The Incredibles - when everyone is super, nobody is. It would be like redefining “rich” to mean having at least $1000, and then giving everyone $1000. Nothing really is changed all that much, and there’s a huge disparity in wealth because billionaires still exist. But hey, we’re all rich. Saying everything is conscious is a semantics issue. It doesn’t really address any science. You don’t know any more than you did before. You still have to figure out why there are different levels of consciousness, and why, unless you think humans and other animals are just exhibiting stimulus/response behavior, in which case we’re done. Problem solved. And you’re going to have the issue of having to accept and defend inanimate objects being conscious when they fit into this suddenly very broad definition.

Yes, we’ve known this for quite some time.

I’ve only seen it in terms of atomic de-excitation and tunneling

Has that ever been observed in nuclear decay?

Ah, so that’s the strawman you’re “dismantling”

I would think that other available sources of electricity would set the price. You can’t just choose to jack up the price. And if a business realizes that fusion isn’t cost competitive they won’t build the plant.

Who is telling Biden this? Actually telling him, not mouthing off online. —- At this point in the 2016 cycle, Clinton was polling about 10 points above Trump. Polls aren’t votes. There’s a lot of campaigning left to do.

Likely, and some descriptions might be a little sloppy and use “bigger” to refer to the energy (or mass), which is ~125 GeV (GeV/c^2) as opposed to a proton, which is slightly less than 1 GeV

I’d be interested to know where you heatd that. I’d be surprised if there was a physical size associated with it. It’s not a composite particle, so there are no constituent parts. It can’t decay in steps; once it decays it’s not a Higgs anymore. But the decay products could also be unstable.

Cold neutrinos, perhaps. But where are you going to find a space with only neutrinos in it?

No. There are multiple problems with that scenario. Spin, Pauli exclusion, a mechanism to form a bound state, lack of evidence of an electron being a composite particle even if you could. Probably more. Attacking this from a position of ignorance about physics isn’t going to go anywhere useful.

Electron capture is slightly affected by pressure. Otherwise no. (There have been a few anomalous results showing some temperature effects but they aren’t repeatable)

We don’t, in fact, “know” this. Neutrinos would only be present if the decay involved the weak interaction. Nope. This is fiction, based on flawed understanding.

Which one, hydrogen or carbon? It’s different. Nuclei have to overcome the Coulomb barrier (electrostatic repulsion) to get close enough to fuse. Two protons don’t fuse easily (you’d form He-2) but deuterium and tritium do; they require about 0.1 MeV. It’s not an exact number, because the particles can tunnel through the barrier

No you claimed fusion was “not gonna be cheap” and have not done anything to back up that assertion.