Leaderboard

Star fusion isn't something I spent a lot of time studying but assuming faster processes are involved the metal percentages of the cosmos would show higher metal contents. I wouldn't know if the heavier than iron processes involved would have an easier or more difficult time.

I don't think there is a single answer. As Swansont pointed out drinking a cold beer on a hot day will help cool you down. However even on a hot day I drink my coffee hot out of daily ritual/habit. I suspect the room temp water thing is just your own habit. Ones body actually has to warm the water. There isn't any additional hydration benefit to drinking cold water. One hydrates more easily with room temp water.

2 contextual things I think you missed: - "Work hard" is relative to ones own abilities and efforts which is why included "and was honest". - "Work hard and play by the rules" is a well worn and tired Republican saying used to celebrate capitalism. My use of it was meant to be ironic which is why followed it by saying people lie, cheat, steal, and fight to lie cheat and steal some more. It is not the board majority of people I am referencing as liars and cheats. Rather it is just a small minority just as today only a small minority are billionaires. Look at the level of manipulation and control that small minority has though. Again, I believe any number of economic and governance systems could work. Communism could work, Socialism could work, a Monarchy could work, a Theocracy could work, and etc. What undermines all systems is the corruption and loathing towards each other. Reinventing the bucket won't fix a sinking ship. UBI won't make people happy. Countless studies have been done and there are many philosophical theories out there about. If you want to go in-depth about happiness we'll need to start a new thread most likely. What I think can be definitively stated is that there is no empirical link between income and happiness. No only that but corrosive behaviors which are associated with poor menatl health like addiction, sexual abuse, physical abuse, abandonment, and etc exist across all income levels imaginable. The OP is asking how we'd create Utopia. For me the answer is a behavioral one more so than a structural one.

Heavy nuclei are formed in neutron star mergers, but I can't say if you'd end up with more heavy elements from that since it should be easier to make black holes.

Humans are selfish and competitive by nature just as most predators are. Many of us have need others to lose so that we can revel is wining. Worse still is that for some the feeling can never be fully satiated. The challenge of creating equitable societies is seldom about the availability of resources or there distribution but rather is how we humans behave. How does an equitable society exist while under never ending assault from selfish, greedy, angry, often violent segments of the population who work tirelessly to undermine it? Even if it is only 1% that is enough to sow fear, distrust, discontent, and all the other things which plague societies. Obviously equitable societies can't cast out or kill agitators because that would mean they were no longer equitable. It is a bit of a catch 22 the way I see it. Refusal to stand strongly against a strongman empowers strongmen yet to stand strongly against them results in war where everyone basically becomes strongmen. As a kid I saw what I believe was a twilight zone episode, but could have been something else, where a scientist was wakened from some sort of cryo sleep into a Utopian future. The scientist had gone to sleep 50yrs earlier in hopes his cancer could be cured in the future. The Utopian future provided for everyone. No one was hunger, homeless, depressed, or etc. All was perfect. The Utopian govt had awoke the scientist because they needed his help to access an old weapons system he had help designed. A meteor was headed towards earth and the Utopian govt wanted to bow it up. The Scientist agreed to help and got the weapons system online for them and then he was immediately detained. Turns out there was not a meteorite. It was a U.S. military space shuttle carrying the U.S. President and numerous govt officials. The shuttle had fled earth during a third world war many years prior and was finally returning. The Utopian govt blow it up for fear the officials would come back is destroy their perfect society. They acknowledge it was genocide but insisted it was necessary genocide. The scientist rebuked them savages. Both the scientist and the Utopians were right.

The goal posts seem to have been moved. The Kim legacy in North Korea and their human rights and authoritarianism has always been part of tensions. In the last 2 decades Kim Jung-il and Jung-un pursued WMDs as a strategy to protect their own hold on power. By meeting with Kim and exclusively addressing the WMDs while ignoring all other concerns and making concessions without consulting our allies in the region rewards the strategy Kim Jung-il and Jung-un have implemented. By developing WMDs Jung-un earned himself a seat at the table and is no winning concessions without changing course on anything. Simply being willing to talk if progess enough. Why shouldn't Assad or Iran take this strategy? If having weapons earns you respect and one on one good faith diplomacy why make deals in advance. This is especially painful for Iran who made a deal with the U.S. not to develop nukes just to have the U.S. turn around half way through and demand a new deal. This lesson here for authoritarians around the world might be to get nukes first and then negotiate from a position of power.

So, you cannot Cite any articles to support your statement or claim : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." Now you "Move the Goalposts" and state or claim " there is still an unknown factor and that the situation involving "inherent fear" is at best still debatable." ? Then you choose to 'Muddy the Waters', so to speak, by making another statement or claim : "We are certain of many scientific theories..."? beecee, if a theory was certain (free from doubt or reservation; confident; sure: established as true or sure; unquestionable; indisputable:***), would it still be a theory? *** http://www.dictionary.com/browse/certain

To your point about Putin he appears to already be filling the gap as Marcon is in Russia attempting to find workable solutions for Iran, Syria, Ukraine, and NK. A meeting with Kim Jung-un has been discussed for years but the trigger was never pulled because it was broadly understood that such a meeting would legitimize Kim. It is along the same lines of not negotiating with terrorist, we don't give tyrants positive photo ops. This is exactly what Trump has done. I have no problem with the administration speaking with North Korea. Communication is critical. The error has been in the celebratory way Trump has promoted the talks. It has heightened Kim Jung-un's global stature. Trump has done what previous admins, regardless of party, knew better than to do. The notion of a free Korean peninsula free of the Kim family is dead. Kim Jung-un has been elevated from tyrant to accepted/respected leader of North Korea. North Korea's nuclear test sites are too damaged from previous tests for further use. Kim played to Trump's ego by letting Trump take credit for the closing of test facilities which had to be closed anyway do to Kim's own activity. In trade Kim has solidified his international standing. Two years ago the walls were closing in on Kim and his future was tenuous. Today Kim fields phone calls from leaders all over the world and his future in bright. All Kim really has to do at this point is not perform anymore testing (he already has nukes) and the global community is fine with now. It is a huge win for Kim Jung-un, huge.

Consider 2 spaceships going from planet A to planet B on the same path and with the same velocity very close to c. One is ahead of the other by several millions miles and is just a few 100 miles from planet B and the trailing one is a few 100 miles from planet A. Since they are going close to c an observer at rest watching them off to the side sees their separation actually appears very small. He adds their separation to the distances of each to the respective A and B planets and calculates the distance between the two planets and finds it now much smaller than he hnows it should be. How can this be? This same reasoning can be applied to Einstein's explanation of the electro-magnetic effect and it can be concluded his theory does not explain this either. Once I posted the spaceships example before on one of these sites and was told "This site is physics not math". I'm puzzled why I didn't counter this remark with, "This is science not religion". I will give details why relativity doesn't explain the magnetic effect of an electrical current through a wire later-its not complicated.