John Cuthber

With an accelerator you take some ions and hurl them at a target with a fairly well defined energy of- say - 100KV. They hit the target and, if you are lucky, they react and you get neutrons. With a tokomak, you heat some gas to say 150 million degrees until some of the ions are fast enough to react when they collide. But most are not moving that fast. The average energy is only something like 15KeV. My old colour telly did better job of accelerating things than that. So, the difference is that with an accelerator, all those primary collisions actually have enough energy to produce fusion. But with a tokomak nearly all of them don't. It's far from clear which system is more efficient. Something like this might give you the best of both worlds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_electrostatic_confinement

How do the colliding nuclei know whether they are in a solid target, or in a plasma? At these sorts of energies, the atoms are not held in place by a lattice. If a fast deuteron hits another deuteron it's going to lose a lot of energy whether the second one is in a solid target or in a gas.

And if the slaves dug a ton of ice a week out of the mountain snow, could Caesar have added a ton of ice to his drinks every week?

How do they compare (dollars per neutron) with the other sources? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_source

The problem is that they are clearly misled into thinking this. Remember Trump saying the Mexicans would pay for the wall? That might have seemed like a great idea from the point of view of many of those who voted for him; but it was a lie. And, in fact, it wasn't a good idea anyway.

No That's why, when it comes down to it, the experiment works.

If the "man in the street" sees Trump and his party as an ally, it's because he has been misinformed.

You seem to think that saying "it never works for n is 3 or more" is somehow a contradiction of "it sometimes works for n =2". Try reading more carefully. Also, you keep saying "Wiles "proof" is some big bs I assure you." Can you explain his proof and what you think are the problems with it? Nobody is going to take you seriously unless you can show that you understand the subject, and so far you are a long way from doing that.

It's interesting to note that they didn't realise that, if all your ideological allies are liars, you should change your ideology.

It's also important to recognise that Wiles proved it it true, even for numbers that are too big to fit into any computer. There are only something like 10^80 particles in the known universe so no computer -even one which is described by the potty mouthed Mr Eidad as "serious" - could ever test the theorem for numbers like n= 10^81 because there isn't enough stuff in the universe to make it from

Actually, the whole point was that he proved it NEVER works.

Today I learned that someone actually did a check on how well waterglass preserves eggs.

And they can be different, in which case the "proof" fails. A "proof" that doesn't always work isn't a proof. Did you not understand that? It's like saying that all pairs of numbers add up to 6 because 2 + 4 is 6. And when someone says but 5 and 5 make 10 you say "But they can be 2 and 4 and so my proof stands". It's meaningless. Also, please give us an explanation of Wiles' proof so that you can show you are in a position to criticise it.

This bit "x^n + y^n = z^n x = y x = z" is nonsense x is not the same as y and x is not the same as z. In the case for n=2 (where it does work) the bet known example is 3^2 +4^2 =5^2 x=3 y=4 and z=5 (and n =2) All the 4 numbers can be different.

Interesting, . There's certainly evidence that a contractor working for "the government" will pad their bills- because "the government can afford it". They do the same when working for large companies. So, if there was a discussion about the efficiency of having some service- say road building, for a community - provided by a municipality or by a company on behalf of the community, the contractor would rip off both groups (because, as you say, "they can"), and it wouldn't really affect the outcome of the discussion.

With a computer you can test it for any number- but not for every number. Do you understand the difference? Your "proof" is like saying Pythagorean triples don't exist because 2^2 =3^2 is 13 and 13 isn't a square number. Just because it doesn't work for that choice of numbers doesn't mean there are not other numbers where it does work (for example 3 and 4) Please summarise his proof- just to show that you understand it well enough to comment meaningfully on it.

Who says that the OP - or anyone else involved - is a "she"?

How do you know? It's unlikely, but possible that Fermat came up with some brilliant solution.

OMG! Someone might put chemicals on their face (which is also made from chemicals). Incidentally, this isn't quite right "that list was to show you all the chemicals that make up a real blueberry.". The list is only a small fraction of the chemicals that make up the berries.

Zinc is also an essential trace element. If the post had said "taste the mixture" you might have had a better point. The furnace isn't that different from a zinc smelting furnace so it's possible that the zinc is being made, but in smelting, you need to be careful to quench the gases or the zinc is oxidised back to oxides. Certainly, zinc burns if heated in air so I can't see how it would survive the process.

You can get food grade iron oxide and food grade charcoal, so I don't think using them as makeup pigments is a problem. There are alternatives which are pretty spectacularly bad ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohl_(cosmetics)#Health_concerns

That may well reflect that fact that you didn't ask for links. Did you post what you thought you did? Also, it's a bit of a tangent, but- since you did say it- perhaps you can explain what you meant by this. "... the only studies out there are atheistic" All scientific studies I have seen were essentially agnostic- it didn't matter whether there was a God or not. Perhaps you could explain how you would do the study in each of the two ways: aesthetic and not-atheistic. Thanks.

Well, there may be one- I can't rule it out. But there is no reason to suppose that an afterlife exists. There is also no real reason to assume that we are not "reincarnated" as pancake like objects in a parallel universe where everything was the same- except Trump lost the election because his hair inexplicably turned ginger just before the vote. I can't rule it out, but it would seem an odd thing to believe.

Food and living space. Their food is your body.

Homosexuality has been found in many species and can be considered perfectly natural. However homophobia has only been observed in one species and might, therefore, be considered unnatural..