MigL

This whole thread seems pointless; we've all fallen into your trap. Only thing I learned from this thread is that INow is a bad tennis player .

So you are saying that discriminating amongst differing traits as to which is more desirable, is always wrong. Even if one attempts to use it for a 'good' purpose, like selecting out a genetic disorder. Yet when I suggested that discriminating according to 'racial 'traits is wrong , even for the 'good' purpose of Affirmative Action, you ( and others ) were totally against it, and that I was misguided. You really should be more consistent with your arguments. Or do you get to pick and choose when to apply your high ( superior ? ) morals/ethics ?

I was involved in that thread also ( if it's the one concerning barriers to education ), and I don't recall eugenics being discussed at all. Eugenics: the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with desirable hereditary traits. We do this all the time with animals and has led to the domestication of many species. It is even somewhat practiced when selecting characteristics of the father, during artificial insemination from a sperm bank. This is a science forum and humans are just another species. Aside from moral/ethical considerations, I don't see the objection to discussing eugenics as defined above. If MSC has a different definition for eugenics, I'd be interested in hearing it. I don't relish 'walking on eggshells' with my posts because he misinterprets meanings, or is easily offended, and reports people. edit As for the rest of the 'bitch session', I suggest PM. Nobody needs to air their dirty laundry in public.

China has 'successfully' activated its own version of a Tokamak fusion reactor China successfully activates nuclear-powered ‘artificial sun’ (msn.com) China has been collaborating with ITER on such developments. It will be interesting to see if they have implemented any new solutions or technologies to the problem.

"Such is the case" that this is a Science Forum, and "it seems" that your post is derailing this thread. Please post this kind of crap as a separate topic, in the Speculation forum, where it can be properly ( and easily ) debunked for lack of evidence and general ignorance.

Repulsive gravity would need negative mass; that is not a possibility. If an electron and positron come together, the photons produced have, at least 1022 MeV, which is twice the equivalent rest mass of an electron. If one of the two had negative mass, the resultant would be zero.

I don't follow this, md; maybe you can elaborate; Mach's principle states that the global distribution of mass in the universe, determines the local properties of inertia. So, I'm not sure what the connection is. Further, prior to the last symmetry break where fermions and some leptons bosons acquired mass ( see Swansont's post above ), the Strong ( color ), Electroweak, and most importantly, Gravity, were distinct interactions. And a distinct Gravity implies space-time. IOW, mass is not required for space-time.

If I want to read a book, I expect an engaging plot, with interesting protagonists. The story needs to pull me in, such that I become part of that world. Your 'book' does none of that, so I stopped reading after the first paragraph. If I want to read a scientific paper, an introduction will explain the general aim/goal of the paper, It will have references and a peer review, so that I know if it interests me, is based on accepted science, and is valid science. But I certainly don't come here to read scientific papers, although people do link them. When I want to have a discussion, I expect a clear well-laid out argument, which starts off with a general summary. After reading that, I can decide if I'm interested and whether I want to participate. I should not have to read 20-30 pages before I know if there's anything worth discussing, or even any actual science. As your post currently stands, yes, an 'anti-gravity' drive does defy the laws of Physics, because 'anti-gravity' is not possible within the framework of accepted Physics. That is in the title of your epic work, and basically as far as I read. If by 'anti-gravity' you don't actually mean repulsive gravity, I suggest a much simpler presentation of your ideas that gets right to the point. I don't have that much time to waste. Another thing. If your post wasn't so long/bad, I wouldn't have had to write all this. So you still managed to waste my time.

Makes no difference to an EXAMPLE. For all you know, I'm female; how is this pertinent to the argument ? Sure; nobody knows what's communicated. Nobody knows what is paid. Nobody knows what's learned. Nobody knows what's stolen. Or knows what's real. Or what's true. Etc. Etc. Etc. None of those statements make any sense. I guess you have no choice but to keep wondering. Or are you merely asking how dominant genes are passed on to the next generation ??

Don't want to use your term, as it seems derogatory. Some people in the autism spectrum disorder have a much more 'narrowed/focused' train of thought. While a majority of people have a multitude of things going on in their heads, some are able to narrow their focus on just a few particular tasks, and do them extremely well. But, what do I know. I'm basing this on the Ben Affleck move 'The Accountant" ( best thing he's done since Good Will Hunting )

And while the British Empire did have a few redeeming qualities which benefitted some colonials, no-one ever benefitted from burning at the stake.

I have an even more simple example, Sensei ... Let's say SerengetiLion is ugly as sin, while I am ridiculously good looking. ( I assure you, not far from the truth 😁 ) I have access to many more females than he does, and father 8 boys to his two. Let's say we pass on our ugly/beautiful genes to our kids, and the same thing eventually happens to them. After two generations there are 64 of my beautiful boys and four of his ugly ones. After three generations 512 beautiful boys and only 8 ugly ones. The exponential growth of beautiful kids far outpaces the growth of ugly kids, until another environmental factor becomes active; the supply of available females diminish, until all the ones available choose beautiful boys as partners, and there are none left to reproduce with the ugly boys, who can no longer pass on their genes. The ugly boys then go extinct. What exactly, do you think needs to be communicated to achieve this ? And to whom ?

What is NOT clever is the total misunderstanding of evolution, as Studiot also points out. A giraffe did not 'grow' a long neck in response to the difficulty of reaching the top branches. What actually happened was that giraffes with slightly longer necks have a favorable advantage to reaching the top branches. They then do better than the others ( with shorter necks ) at the survival game. Over time, this environmental forcing results in longer, and longer necks better adapted for survival. Really not that difficult if you think about it.

Again I defer to CharonY's expertise on the matter, but it was the first dose which was in question with the Oxford study. As these vaccines are meant to trigger a response from the host's immune system, an 'overreaction' is sometimes a bad thing ( see Cytokine storm ). Maybe the half initial dose produces a more favorable reaction from the immune system, without overloading it, and 'primes' it to better 'remember' the proper response when the second full dose is introduced. Kind of like a 'warm-up' for the immune system. Also not 100% sure, but the vaccine 'mimics' the spikes of CoV2 to produce an immune system response in the host. IOW, the different spikes produce are designed to produce the same result. I would think, then, that any/all spikes which produce that result, will work as a booster.

There are many factors to consider... Should an Oncologist withhold cancer news from a patient because of the emotional 'hurt' it will cause ? On the other hand, if your wife asks " Do these jeans make me look fat ?", run out of the room. There is no possible answer that will save you from a long scolding. ( no, I'm not married; but this generalization applies to girlfriends also )

Sorry for misunderstanding Studiot. Further to what INow has said, all the leading vaccines work by 'engineering' protein sequences onto the corona spikes of a 'dummy' virus or sterile ( cannot reproduce ) virus. These 'engineered' spikes mimic those of CoV2, and stimulate a response from the host's immune system either in the way of anti-bodies, or 'remembering' and producing the required anti-bodies. Any further introduction of the vaccine would be equivalent to a booster, and should have no adverse effects over the original. Maybe CharonY can elaborate further, but I would think that if these vaccines work as intended, this would mean no further worries about any coronaviruses. As soon as the new virus ( SARS, MERS, SARS-CoV2, etc ) is sequenced, the new protein configuration is 'engineered' onto the spikes, with resultant immunity. I believe the work at Oxford was started during the MERS outbreak, and modified quickly for use against CoV2. At least, that is my simplistic take on the matter.

I think his intention is to get neutrons close enough together, as opposed to protons which have coulombic potential to overcome, such that when they decay, the resultant protons are close enough already to fuse. Not sure if neutrons in such close proximity are not equivalent to a bound state ( if at all possible ), in which case there would be no decay.

You guys in the UK have already approved the Pfizer/BNT vaccine for emergency use, haven't you ? The US is close to granting approval, and we, in Canada, may be a couple of weeks behind.

Well, now that MSC is taking a vacation, and the Princess went back to Venus, maybe I can get some attention again ... Learned something interesting while reading up on Affirmative Action in various States. It seems California is without an AA program, and they've been trying to pass one into law for some time. Apparently, the Affirmative Action proposition that recently failed in California involved having to remove anti discrimination provisions in the state constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race, gender identity or sexual orientation. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-california-rejected-affirmative-action-again/617049/ If affirmative action is intended to help these groups, why do you have to eliminate anti discrimination language to implement it? I would guess because it is discriminatory. So which is more beneficial to society, anti discrimination laws or Affirmative Action ?

Somewhat like atomic weapons. The world has been trying to control their proliferation for 70 years. It's impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

Actually, no. J Biden wins by Electoral College certified votes; not the popular vote. And sore Losers seem to think they win by repeating the phrase "election fraud" on the news. Where do you think you live, Airbrush; in a country where elections make sense ?

That's a trap we all fall into. These issues can be emotional for many people. Nobody makes a good argument from anger.

Other than the fact we are discussing barriers to equal opportunity in education, and not barriers to equal results in education, I really don't see a reason for the neg rep given to Studiot. All society can do is provide equal opportunity. Equal outcome is vastly more dependent on the individual. Let's not confuse the two.

Except f you read back two posts you'll notice Strange said energy is a source of space-time curvature. IOW, energy gravitates.

Mine says I do not have permission to open ( my own file ). Anyway study it it well and if anything confuses, ask questions about it. We will gladly answer. Better learn how to use that tool.