swansont

IOW, propaganda is effective

Find out what the known reserves are, and how much is being used each year to justify the concern. Science discussion, instead of gloom and doom rhetoric (Aluminum is not mined, BTW. Bauxite is, and processed) Lead is about $2000 a ton. That should suggest how difficult it is to obtain. It’s not a rare substance. If it becomes rare, such efforts might be economically feasible. With ~25 million tons mined in 2021, I think the amount list to bullets is probably minuscule by comparison

Biden had a cold. Kindly stop with the GOP lies/talking points https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4744889-joe-biden-has-a-cold-debate/ Nobody. It’s too late in the process, and you’d be throwing away the advantage incumbents have (name recognition, track record)

Clean energy is only a small fraction of total energy — 80% of energy is still from fossil fuels. Even if we just look at electricity, renewables only account for 29% https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/raising-ambition/renewable-energy How can you be sure we don’t need to pursue fusion? Do you have some crystal ball that can see into the future? Your “knowledge” isn’t based on any facts or analysis that you’ve shared. It’s just been rhetoric, with a vague assertion that this is an ethics issue. Your points thus far has been that we’re using vast amounts of energy to achieve fusion, but we aren’t, that the money could be better used elsewhere but haven’t explained how. You’ve had several people explain how research isn’t fungible but that doesn’t seem to have had any effect. Your point also seems to include the notion that since the efforts have not yet been fully successful that we should pull the plug, but somehow my examples of other efforts that took time and multiple iterations before success was achieved are somehow irrelevant. One thing you haven’t discussed is the advances in technology that are part of any large multidisciplinary research effort, that can be exploited by others. The benefit is not limited to the end product. Is it ethical to shut down research that has helped make (and could continue to make) e.g. medical device advances?

Is there some analysis that stokes this fear?

The diagram doesn’t agree with the Pythagorean theorem. The distances do, but the forces do not; if there is no acceleration, the forces have to add to zero. If the force from BC is 102.3 N, and AB is 81.3 N, it works.

Yes, to say that we expect something above that level.

Quantum mechanics might not make sense to you, but to claim that observations are not precise enough is absurd. QM makes quantifiable predictions that agree with experiment, as opposed to your conjecture here, which make no quantifiable predictions.

It’s like an old joke about getting directions in New England - “You can’t get there from here”

Can’t do that without a massive drop in population. My guess is the masses would rise up in revolt.

I guess Edison’s lab should have given up on finding a viable filament for the incandescent light bulb after a thousand tries. People worked on inventing a telephone for decades before success. They should have quit, though. And cellphones - the basic technology existed in the 1950’s. They couldn’t do a decent job of it in a few decades, so they should have moved on.

How do you have a totally free-market capitalist economy if nobody has a job? People not earning money can’t buy things. Working? What’s that?

How do you want it to look? That’s the beauty of fiction. The element of truth in this is that we make the rules, so it will work however we want it to. You could e.g. go full communism and everything is shared equally. But you have to describe the rules to know how it should turn out.

! Moderator Note Enough.

I didn’t say tiny, I said finite. Fission is a little like combustion - it’s been in use a long time, and a lot of improvements have already been developed. But the DOE budget for fission research is more than that for fusion — north of $1.5 billion a year. https://www.energy.gov/ne/our-budget One thing to understand is that bigger research budgets don’t magically result in more and better research. Research programs don’t just appear out of thin air, or expand that easily. You need trained people and it’s not like there are a bunch of unemployed fission researchers just waiting around. You also need something new to research. If all you’re doing is the exact same research that others are doing, it’s a really inefficient use of the money. You want to investigate different approaches, to ensure the best solution is found.

You have not applied it to an experiment. Stop telling us what can be simulated, give us the result. If you have no result to share, you can’t say it can be simulated; there’s no evidence of that. Animations are not a substitute for results

And yet you have not done so The Planck force is just a number for a particular scale. It’s not a kind of force.

You can't claim this without being able to point to success this approach has had somewhere. Anywhere. Wait, what? Does anyone think mind produces brain? Back on page 1 you were asked to clarify what you were talking about. Did you ever actually define what you mean by "mind"? You said it was not just consciousness, but we know where in the brain the areas for speech and memory are, along with judgment, thinking and reasoning, problem-solving, emotions and learning. Surely these are aspects of "mind"

The funding pie, as it were, is finite, but there is more than one pie. In the US, government-funded fusion research comes from the Dept of Energy. It's competing with other energy research, not research funded by the Dept of Defense, life sciences from NIH, or basic research from the NSF. And diversity of projects is risk mitigation - it's not like only fusion is getting funded. Solar got funding, and it paid off. There is also private research funding for fusion, from people who think it will become profitable. They get to choose where to spend their money.

! Moderator Note You need to address issues that others have raised. Failure to do so means you are soapboxing, and that continued rule violation will get this shut down.

Most of the difference between collecting light for power vs signal would be in the electronics. The area of the dish/array would depend on the signal size. You’d need more than one, so that one would always be viewing the source.

Mordred was underselling things with “We cannot measure anything at Planck volume” It’s not like we’re only an order of magnitude or so away from measuring something at a planck length. It’s around 15.

! Moderator Note Just linking to another discussion fails to comply with rule 2.7 You had a previous relativity discussion, which was closed, and were told not to re-introduce the topic. We’re not doing this again.

! Moderator Note Two things: 1. we don’t allow link-shortened addresses, owing to security concerns. A google docs link should be going to docs.google.com 2. polls or surveys should be placed in https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72905-polls-surveys-and-tests/ (no discussion there, so if your post is too vague, people won’t respond)

What has your simulation produced?