These two papers, Initial results from safety testing of US AGR-2 irradiation test fuel and Key results from irradiation and post-irradiation examination of AGR-1 UCO TRISO fuel,

report on Triso tests to 1,600^o C and 1,700^o C respectively, well below the crucial temperature of 2,800^o C mentioned by @swansont I can find nothing reporting tests at higher temperatures.

There seems to be a presumtion in the last few posts that the solar system formed from the product of a single supernova explosion. This is not the case. Multiple supernovae would have contributed to the molecular cloud whose collapse led to the formation of the solar system. What is thought to be practical is to identify sister stars to the sun, from their spectroscopic signature. These would have formed as neigbours in the same cloud (compare with the Pleiades) then drifted apart. I don't recall whether such siblings have yet been idenitifed, but a literature search should turn up the answer.

Here are a couple of papers on the subject:

The evolution of the Sun's birth cluster and the search for the solar siblings with Gaia

The authors "use self-consistent numerical simulations of the evolution and disruption of the Sun's birth cluster in the Milky Way potential to investigate the present-day phase-space distribution of the Sun's siblings."

Searching for solar siblings among the HARPS data

The authors note "At present, there are four plausible candidatesreported in the literature: HIP21158, HIP87382, HIP47399, and HIP92831. In this study weconduct a search for solar siblings amongthe HARPS high-resolution FGK dwarfs sample, which includes precise chemical abundances and kinematics for 1111 stars. Usinga new approach based on chemical abundance trends with condensation temperature, kinematics, and ages we found one (additional)potential solar sibling candidate: HIP97507."

On 7/15/2020 at 1:15 PM, Gian said:

1) If the first life forms c 4y.billion ago lived about 24 hours (?) and we now live about 80years, in another 4y.billion will life expectancy continue to increase in a straight line and our descendants will have lifespans of 2.5y.millon?? If so it will certainly make intergalactic travel more practical.

There is a reasonable correlation between the mass of an organism and its lifespan. (cf. mouse, dog, man, elephant). So, unless you anticipate us evolving into 300ton monsters don't expect a 2.5 my lifespan.

Part of the explanation for extended lifespans lies in the inreasing complexity of the most complex organism: An e.coli bacterium doesn't need any time to develop a whole suite of interacting organs.

On 7/15/2020 at 1:15 PM, Gian said:

2) Is our species H.Sapiens continuing to evolve? Will our descendants become a new species or species?

Yes, we are continuing to evolve. We shall either evolve into and entirely new species, or multiple species, or our line will become extinct. Species don't last for much more than a million years.

On 7/15/2020 at 1:15 PM, Gian said:

Will the natural course of evolution without human agency cause the dinosaurs or something like them to evolve again in the far future?

Convergent evolution is common. Thus flying was independently developed by pterosaurs, birds and bats. Swimming with a "fish shape" was developed by mutiple kinds of fishes, ichtyosaurs and cetaceans.

35 minutes ago, Strange said:

there is a thread on the Cosmoquest forum that has been going for about 100 years. And not really getting anywhere.

I thought that was the intent of all threads, on all forums, for all time.

On 7/15/2020 at 2:16 AM, Alex_Krycek said:

That's fine.  You're free to interpret what you read any way you like.  I've made an attempt to clarify already; you're not interested in that.  C'est la vie. 

I am very interested in clarification, it's just that I have seen no evidence of it from you. You have moved the goalposts, but you deny this. You misapply poll results to support assertions that seem to lack any sound basis. Your posts continue to have more than a whiff of aggression. All of this you seem to be unaware of; as I noted previously this makes it difficult for readers to take your arguments seriously. You do them a disservice by your approach. Why not go back to square one and restate your argument with accompanying support, then we can debat whether there is anything of substance there.

8 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Neither, actually.  

It definitely doesn't read that way.

9 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

That there is "outrage" is your subjective interpretation. 

Based upon a very high count of negative adjectives. Those are typically associated with arguments that are closer to the hysterical rather than the objective end of the spectrum.

11 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

It's easy to read into things when contextual cues such as tone of voice, body language, etc are not present.  

Which is why it is a good idea to choose ones words carefully.

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

Just thought I’d note that according to my Grandfather my ancestors were from wales, according to my uncle they were from Scotland. Mom was a Johnson to the core.

Then, if you follow tennis, you may wish to keep an eye on Cameron Norrie, No. 3 in the UK and, I suggest, a future world top 20 player. His father is Scottish, his mother Welsh.

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

Which political quality do you find more endearing lying, or incompetence, but judging from your paraphrase I’m guessing incompetence it is.

I realise that's a lighthearted comment, but you are correct,  in the sense that incompetence is often accompanied by a sincere desire to do the right thing, lying - not so much.

2 hours ago, motlan said:

It can be compared to people phasered to another location while retaining all their memories as the same identical person.

We can agree on that. The Star Trek transportation system and your speculation are both fictional.

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Is your nit-picking game of semantics that much better?  

That appears to be a concession that:

•  you have moved the goalposts 
• such an action lacks integrity

Your arguments would carry more conviction if you could turn down the burning outrage a little. Merely a suggestion.

40 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

But because, they have been lying from the beginning I’ll probably be messed up for a long time.

I understand you have had a rough time and are understandably confused/frustrated/distraught. I don't know where you live, so I don't know which "they" you are referring to. My observation from the UK is that there has been very little lying**, but a lot of decisions revealed as poor as we learnt more about the virus, and a handful of decisions that were just plain incompetent, but not lies. Recall the saying, which I paraphrase, Never attribute to conspiracy what can be accounted for by incompetence.

**I've been especially impressed by the First Ministers of the devolved administrations of Scotland and Wales; Boris Johnson, not so much. Bluster, bombast and buffonery can only take you so far.

1 hour ago, Enthalpy said:

I suppose (but didn't check in detail) that washing powders still don't work properly in cold water. The ones I find at supermarkets demand 30°C or 40°C at least. A washing powder efficient at cold would be the proper solution.

This item on the strengths and weaknesses of different temperatures, from 20^o to 90^o , provides some relevant background to your OP.

Your focus seems to be more on economy than environmental impact. What is your justification for that?

4 minutes ago, Ken123456 said:

HARDLY innocent bystanders attacking me and God.

Have I attacked you, or your belief in your God?

4 minutes ago, Ken123456 said:

Wake up and learn.

You do not know me. It seems presumptous of you to suggest I need to wake up and learn. You have a set of beliefs that differ, presumably, in some ways from mine. Perhaps your views are correct. Perhaps not, but I can tell you that telling me to "wake up and learn" is not the best way of engaging me in a discussion that might lead me to share your views. Rather it will lead to suspect that you are just an angry, bitter and frustrated man -- that is not the sort of person from whom I would expect to learn very much. You do yourself and your message a great disservice by exposing this negative side of your character. I ask you again to reflect on what you are trying to achieve and the best way of achieving it.

10 minutes ago, Ken123456 said:

If wanted I can show much more aggression from Jesus when needed. I turn the cheek and not defend myself but go into full attack when defending God.

I haven't seen anyone attack God. A statement of disbelief in God, is not an attack  on God. Petulant attacks are not a defence, but demean the Christian message. I have witnessed many individuals turned from Christianity by just the very attitude you are taking on this forum. It is counterproductive and it certainly does not match the behaviour of the several Christians whom I respect and admire, while not adhering to their central belief.

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

If I had to guess, his objective is to get himself banned so he can go tell others how bad of a forum this is / what a successful troll he is, etc.

I fear you may be right, but I rather hope he is just frustrated and seriously misguided. Optimism is my middle name.

33 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 

You seem to be under the impression that the police commit more violence than actual criminals.  This is an exaggeration that isn't supported by the facts.

I did not get that impression from @dimreepr's posts. He seemed to be holding the view, which I share, that those charged with upholding the law must be scrupulous in following it meticulously themselves. This must not only be a matter of following the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law also. Not only should there be no bending of the rules, but every effort should be made to be demonstrably fair and equitable in discharge of their duties. I am not sure how you have misread dimreepr's stance (I hope I have not), but the result is that you have constructed a strawman.

5 minutes ago, Ken123456 said:

I asked previous moderators to share where they wanted scriptures and they did not reply to my question but mouthed off their opinion.

Hi Ken. You seem to be greatly frustrated by your experiences on the forum. I imagine that accounts for your aggression, with references to dumb ass moderators and others who mouth off their opinion. If you have been offended, isn't their something about turning the other cheek - often good advice for Christian and non-Christian alike. Setting that aside, do you feel that being aggressive in your posts, even if you feel you have been provoked, will achieve anything of value for yourself, those whom you attack, or just us "innocent bystanders"?

Perhaps reflect on what your objectives are, consider whether or not they are honourable, then determine how you may best achieve this in a way that benefits all parties. It's just a thought. Give it no regard if you prefer.

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking.

• Yes, we can travel to Mars and have done so many times, in the sense of sending robotic craft to orbit and land upon the planet.
• Yes, we can travel to Mars in the sense that the technology to do so either exists, or is capable of being developed in reasonable time frame (one or two decades)
• No, we cannot send people to Mars today, or within the next couple of years with any expectation they might arrive and survive.

Which sense of the question did you intend?

21 hours ago, The victorious truther said:

So. . . what is time then?

I go with Professor Wheeler's position: Time is what prevents everything from happening at once.

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

Right, he is able to fool 1/3 of Americans ALL THE TIME.

I'm not sure why you think that is much of a challenge.

13 hours ago, IDoNotCare said:

Why aren't more people talking about it? This needs to be done. We should have had the Projects like these housing our poor DECADES AGO. Why? I'm asking the members here, why? 

I will not attempt to answer that particular 'why', but I will offer you a plausible explanation as to why your thoughts have been generally dismissed by other forum members. In no particular order:

• You have failed to provide a concise and coherent explanation of your proposal.
• You have made many assertions, but have offered no meaningful support for those assertions.
• Your posts have seemed belligerent, discourteous and at times hysterical
• You have not been attentive to replies

Your proposals may have much value and even be the correct way forward, however emotional rants will never be as effective as rational argument. I recommend organising your thoughts, presenting them in a simple, straightforward manner, and toning down on the patronising agression. Of course, if you don't really want to convince anyone, then keep doing what you are doing.

7 minutes ago, Ajil Benny said:

I am going to withdraw my theory. I had decided to quit, The theory doesn't seems to be logical, Sorry.

There by I declare that the discussion based on this topic has come to end

This is a wise choice. You can display even more wisdom if you remain an active member of the board, but focus -at first -  on asking questions, rather than making wild speculations. They can be great fun, but they are not the best way of learning about,, or conducting, science. I look forward to reading more of your posts, but ones that ask interesting questions. Cheers.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

He's a conman par excellence.

It is true that he seems able to fool some of the people all of the time, but he has never been able to fool all of the people some of the time. That just reduces him to the rather pathetic state of conman, a role worthy of as much respect as an afficionada of Love Island.

2 hours ago, Ajil Benny said:

 

This is what I was talking about I am having confidence that this theory will prove in the future, don't discourage me

I have taken each generation gap as 0.1 so that when it will attain 10 generation the overall difference in the gene composition will be 1 , ie the gene which had been hereditary transformed from 10 generation before had been slightly changes, External factors can also trigger evolution. This will be a crazy idea to others but I am approaching in a different level .When 10 generation is reached a small traces of evolutionary changes can be seen

No. Just NO!

On 6/30/2020 at 4:04 AM, Ajil Benny said:

        The time period of evolution

There will be a cycle of mutation after every 9 generation, the evolution is a slow process and it will move on, but we can't see directly because the change taking place is very slow, but if we look at the 10 generation of older than us we could see it.The mutation (evolution) takes place gradually and it can be seen at a regular intervals (10G gap)

Law behind it : There will be a gene difference between father and son, ie the gene similarity difference is 0.1 and the similarity difference between the gene that we get from father and mother is 0.1. When the genes are transferred from one generations to other there will be change in genes of 0.1 from each generation which confrim that after each generation a small change is happening in genetic material.This change will be passed on to next generation.Which makes that after the 9th generation a small mutation takes place.

This rule will be only applicable when we compare us from that of old generation, the change will be minute

I hesitate to say that you are confused, since you have not acquired sufficient knowledge of your subject to reach such a progressive state. Rather, you are wrong on just about everything you have said. Obviously you share an interest in evolution, as do those who have replied in this thread. I think that's a good thing, not least because I am your companion in such an interest. Unfortunately the only statement I can see that may be thought true is "Evolution is a slow process".

If we look back ten generations we find that while the alleles (variants) of genes may be different in some cases, nearly all of those differences are due to mixing of existing alleles during fertilisation. In terms of evolution this will produce only short term differences that are easily reversed. Until you have taken this concept on board (then several more) there is no point in you wasting your time with wild, unfounded speculation.

There are some very knowledgeable members on this board - I think some of them are professional biologists. You should take advantage of their presence by asking question that will help educate you on the subject, instead of proposing crazy ideas.

On 7/9/2020 at 1:57 PM, dimreepr said:

There's no science involved here... Just a foolish megalomaniac's vision of "better"... 🙄

I'm not sure it is even that 'positive'. If you are correct - and perhaps you are - at least we could say the decision was made with the intention of making things better, even such a decision was misguided. Unfortunately, I suspect it is much more a matter of lashing out to satisfy his narcissism. The only thing it is intended to make better is how he feels. I console myself with the thought that democracy doesn't usually turn up such a total catastrophe.

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

Another driver told me he tested positive, but never got sick. Now that he is immune he shouldn’t have to worry about the mask. I suspect they were making conversation looking for a sympathetic ear from a patron with a similar view.  I don’t argue with bus drivers, but I don’t understand why someone would think that I would have nothing to fear simply because they are immune. Unless, their, or maybe my thinking is wrong. I’m just trying to figure out why it is so easy for apparently everyone to be so absolutely confused this late in the day?

I've emphasised your last point. The answer seems clear to me: the confusion arises because we, or more precisely the medical 'establishment', is still unclear about many characteristics of the virus:

• We do not know why there is a large difference in severity based upon:
  • Age
  • Sex
  • Ethnicity
• We do not know, with confidence, the full range of symptoms
• We do not know what proportion of the population with the virus are asymptomatic
• We do not know how effective masks may be in halting the spread
• We do not know what proportion of those who recover from the virus will carry antibodies
• We do not know to what extent those antibodies will provide immunity to reinfection
• We do not know how long any immunity will last
• Etc.

Given what we don't know, given the diveristy of views from experts, given the changing pattern of advice, given the different responses of different governments, I am not surprised that the public at large may be confused.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Of course it is, was that ever in doubt?

The OP doubted it, else he would not have offered such a flawed argument for a money free society.

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Yes. That's his point.

Thank you. I was beginning to think the problem was me.