studiot

Thank for telling us. +1 We should all do what we can to progress the situation, even if it is just swapping data. I'm glad someone reads my posts properly. +1

It would be better if you listened a bit more and preached a bit less. The highlighted statement in you post is just plain wrong. There are many quantities in Science where the unit is 'counts'. In that case the unit is exact to any number of decimal place you care to mention. You do also realise there are many other numbers than are present in the decimal system ?

I've seen nothing yet to make me think you understand those quite difficult concepts you are throwing about. Energy Infinity Singularity They all have very particular meanings in Science that are similar to but much more restricted than in general English. Please also take note of this excellent statement by swansont. +1

A point worth making is that even a pancake has thickness.

I'm glad to see someone has the entire history of peaceful fusion at their fingertips. Not so glad to see they couldn't make better use of it than petty quibbling.

Whilst gravitational sources include some hydroelectricity generation collecting natural rainfall for the lake, no I was referring to tidal generation. The largest tidal generator in Europe was installed in Orkney a couple of weeks ago. 'Most powerful' tidal turbine starts generating electricity off Orkney - BBC News also see some older ones (Shetland) Case study: Nova Innovation - Shetland Tidal Array | Scotland's Marine Assessment 2020 Australia has lots of sun, we have lots of tides.

Most people do not understand the origin of the term 'frames' and what makes them special and different from just coordinate systems. I am sure the OP is not listening to anything I say so I can't tell him. +1 for your previous post about the finger and eye experiment. Do you know about the second part of that experiment - the flying double thumb ? I think I am going to win that bet with myself that this thread will reach 5 pages of silly argument before the Moderators get fed up and close it.

As a mechanical engineer you will be familiar with tech drawing and projections, perhaps less so with cartographic projections. You seem to be using a Mercator projection which does not preserve shape in the large. For that you need something like a Goude projection. (fig 18 here) https://www.cbsd.org/cms/lib010/PA01916442/Centricity/Domain/1691/Map Projections- Text.pdf Shape is actually a poorer indicator of continental fit than the rocks themselves. Are you aware of isotope distribution analyses we have for Earth material different extra terrestrial bodies ? Animated Mercator pictures that rotate large landmasses must of necessity distort the shapes as they rotate them, something you can see in your animation. Perhaps you could also offer some calculation of the masses involved in your 'ball' of extra terrestrial material and compare these with the masses of continental material on your map.

This is a really clever trick, though I have never seen any conjuror perform it. Here is a picture of particles in superposition.

I have always loved this Norman Rockwell picture 600 × 635

Thank you for listening. It never was a mistake IMHO. But you missed some tricks out of your list. Geothermal and gravitational sources are both more reliable proven technology with a much greater service life expectancy than either wind or solar (of course both wind and solar rely on the same source).

Surely this belongs in the stories section ? Sounds like a job for an EE Doc Smith's Lensman.

Sorry, that's nothing to do with pressure. Mistake. I wondered if you meant to refer to Curie temperature as emergent ? It is certainly a tipping point.

I can't see why you merit a downvote for you opening post so I have added a balancing +1. It is clear from your second post that you are using old data, which is not only incomplete but in part incorrect to draw your conclusions. So you seem to have a genuine misunderstanding. Yes there have been many hypotheses over the years concerning the origin of the Moon and we still cannot be sure of the true origin. But, as we gather more data we can at least rule out those which do not fit observations.

I didn't say otherwise, did you not read the thread title ? This is completely off topic which is about using fusion energy to generate electricity. Read my comment you replied to again and you should be able to see that you have misread it.

A water planet ? Where did the water come from ? With Techtonic plates ? How did they arise on a water planet? Where did I say there would commonality between moons ? But the composition of the Earth, Moon, comets, meteors, asteroids, and of course the other planets and moons in the system are all different. But comparisons can be drawn. There was a hypothesis the the opposite happened. The present Moon separated from the Earth, leaving behind the Pacific basin. I think lunar geology has since disproved this one.

The reason I mentioned steam driven generators at the end of the exchange line is that we don't have many other feasible generation methods to hook a fusion reactor to. MHD direct has not yet been made to work, although feasible in theory. Wind and water turbines, or solar panels are not really suitable.

The short answer is no, not on the evidence we have available to us. Do you have any evidence to support this ? Like for instance a comparison of the rocks on the existing Moon and those on Earth ? Or some other explanation of Rodinia and Pannotia ?

Well I'm sorry I bothered, I won't bother in future.

Lovely. +1 Meanwhile back to the 1960s, us thick and uncultered scientists had to do an auxiliary O level in History of Art, for the good of our souls. To my suprise I discovered the art teacher ran an after school project hand grinding and polishing lenses and mirrors for an astronomical telescope for the school. The project had being going for a couple of years by my time and was not expected to be finished before I left.

Yes it is disappointing that we have not yet even passed the first hurdle, that of sustained controlled fusion. Obviously this needs to be achieved before we can overcome the technological details of extracting worthwhile energies from the process. We don't yet know what sort of process we will have only that extraction stragegies will necessarily depend on the process. If the process simply produces heat, it seems most likely that there will be a steam turbine/generator at the end of the chain. But different avenues of possible processes have been explored since Zeta, the first attempt I was aware of. Knowledge of the then hardly understood processes of Magnetohydrodynamics and Plasma Physics has been greatly enhanced since that time, as have new magnetic methods using superconductors and other better magnetic materials and ignition methods using lasers. So the research and attempts have not been in vain. I still wonder if the final solution will not by direct generation by MHD methods. As to your point about pitching for funds and other backing, Sadly successive UK governments have been busy dismantling research establishments wholesale and even have a track record of cancelling projects that are working well. So many enterprises have to function in a stop-go, stop-go world, never finishing anything.

Claimed to be the hottest place on Earth https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-59601560

My thoughts are that drawing on Navier Stokes as a comparison is not enough to posit dark energy or dark matter. N-S has the characteristic that, although difficult to insoluble, it arise purely from conventional dynamics. No additional Physics is necessary. Bringing the numbers game into consideration; The suggestion to messers Navier and Stokes that a large enough lump of metal could spontaneously explode would have been fanciful. But their work did predate knowledge of radioactivity. Later (and therefore additional Physics) can be used to predict the size of a lump of Uranium that will spontaneously explode as a fission bomb. The size is not of astronomical proportions. Astronomical sized bodies of lighter elements such as hydrogen, helium etc will spontaneously ignite in self sustaining fusion dynamics. I would suggest that both of these activities are emergent phenomena. So I suppose that N & S might have thought such phenomena emergent but with the addition of new Physics. Yes Physicists love to separate out or isolate effects. But can this always be achieved ? Consider adding 3 + 4 = 7 Yet if we add a vector of magnitude 3, separated out from a vector of magnitude 4 by orthogonality we get a vector of magnitude 5. Is this an 'emergent' pair ? More numbers The number of bricks to form my arch is irrelevant. The pieces may be much smaller than a brick - pebble sized - or much larger as large blocks of stone. Obviously many more small pieces will be needed to form the arch than from large pieces. It is even conceivable to form the arch of a single piece - you do not actually require two or more interacting pieces ! A small point about corbels. There is no emergent structural action in a corbel as there is in an an arch. Corbels and arches act in structurally different manners. Corbels work by supporting a bending moment in the bulk material , which has small but not zero tension stength The configuration is such as to allow the tension remain within these low limits. But in a true arch there is zero bending moment and zero tension. This really is an interesting thread, which is showing up some interesting answers.

How does any of this affect my technical comments ? Did the peer reviewers not ask what was being plotted on the axes ? The article I was presented with was almost certainly not peer reviewed. Perhaps the Nature article was, I don't know. Perhaps the Nature article told us what was being plotted on the graph axes. I lost the will to plough through paper, referring to paper, perhaps referring to........ Rayleigh introduced his waves in 1885, although these are not Rayleigh waves.

Well researched and reported. +1