swansont

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.

But you’ve claimed rather more than this. I don’t think there’s any argument that intelligence can improve your chances of survival. From an evolutionary standpoint it’s a tradeoff of whether it’s worth it, because a bigger, more complicated brain requires more resources. Mounting evidence of what? That other organisms have intelligence? That’s not a paradigm shift. Are there scientists who think there is no intelligence in other animals? If “mind in nature” means something else, then you’ve not communicated it very well. I do object to the way intelligence is used in some cases. If you took this same approach in physics we’d look at how an object accelerates when dropped but reaches a terminal velocity, or how a fluid in a system moves faster when pressure is lower, and ascribe it to intelligence, which is ludicrous. It dilutes the meaning of intelligence to bandy it about so casually. As for the wall of text, that’s generally agreed to be an ineffective technique. You should not rely on the reader to pick an example. You’re making the argument, so you should be in a position to present the best example.

I can’t help but notice this doesn’t address the point at all. Just distraction.

1. Trump does not get held to this standard, one of many “accurate reporting” issues that exist (sins of omission ate still sins) 2. Sleeping in is completely consistent with having jet lag.

This isn’t the “humor” section And…? Is there an official expiration on jet lag? The one-hour DST shift messes me up for a week.

But again, we’re skipping past the discussion of whether to do it. Would it stop the media penchant for peddling narratives? Does anyone think they would pivot to actual reporting, or go on a “dems in disarray” binge that would put the current “reporting” seem restrained. My bet would be on the latter What happens when some big flaw is revealed in the replacement candidate, that comes to light when they’re placed under scrutiny? Are you going to replace that candidate, too? edit: take a look at all the stuff about RFK jr that’s come to light recently, only because he’s running for president.

Because rocket launches never fail and deposit their payload back on earth (either immediately or from a decaying orbit).

The sun’s mass is 2 x 10^30 kg, and it converts about 4 x 10^9 kg per sec into other forms of energy (ultimately, sunshine) The volume comparison isn’t relevant. The earth isn’t made of (mostly) hydrogen, nor is it undergoing fusion

6 + 200% makes no sense to me. This sounds like an example made up by someone who doesn’t understand math, and is just throwing some numerical terms together. 200% of some number would make sense, but that’s multiplicative, not additive

The clamor is fueled by media hype (it’s not actual news, nor is it reporting) that feeds on itself, just “but her emails” (which I hope everyone realizes was a massive failure of responsible journalism)

There is an order of operations in math (you multiply and divide first), but perhaps you should use an example that isn’t nonsensical. Adding numbers and percentages, for example. How does 200% + 6 become 12 + 6? 200% of what?

I fail to see how intelligence would reduce randomness, though you don’t specify what randomness you’re talking about. If I flip a fair coin, the odds of heads or tails is 1/2. My intelligence has no effect on that. So perhaps you can clarify what you mean, instead of appealing to these vague notions.

Who is Stephen? ”I don’t understand” is not an indication of problems with science.

I said randomness affected by mind, which is functionally the same thing, not the opposite. I’m not seeing the connection.

Not at all. I’m citing protocols we follow here on SFN. If you make a claim, you should be prepared to back it up. Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy. https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm#:~:text=Shifting the burden of proof%2C a special case of argumentum,questions the assertion being made. But people believing in a disease is not a requirement; science is all about the stuff that’s true even if you don’t believe it. Scientists (or bureaucrats) aren’t required to convince random idiots who reject (or are agnostic toward) science in order to try and implement solutions. You’re right, we should pull all government funding of dyson sphere construction. i.e. I’m not sure that a project nobody is pursuing is a valid counterexample.

! Moderator Note If you can’t meet the minimum level of what we require from speculations, your threads are going to continue to be shut down. And if you spam us by re-introducing discussion that’s been shut down, you will be banned

You made the claim. You own the burden of proof. Surely you’ve noticed how “prove me wrong” is received. It’s usually a tacit admission that one is blowing smoke.

But here we expect a certain minimum amount of rigor.

And then you spoke of randomness being affected by “mind” and how “mind” is the source of complexity in nature.

Your technical analysis is quite convincing. The way you broke down the costs to show this…breathtaking.

It’s not an example of a winning strategy. It shows that a candidate stepping aside because of some perceived millstone does not solve the problem.

I’m confident that the neuro-field does not claim that mind is tied in with randomness and the universe, and further, you are making claims about the mind that are difficult to accept as serious if it’s such a vague notion.

“I represent the heart of a congressional district once represented by Lyndon Johnson. Under very different circumstances, he made the painful decision to withdraw. President Biden should do the same,” Doggett said in his statement Tuesday Yes, LBJ stepping aside worked out really well for the Democrats

Not seeing the change doesn’t mean nothing has changed. The faces have been rotated 60 degrees Anyway, this is splitting hairs. Change isn’t time, change does not cause time. The muon argument is a rebuttal to the claim that time is motion.