swansont

Yes, you often get a gamma. There are exceptions; tritium is a notable one. (C-14 also, I think) That’s why tritium is used as a source for radioluminescent emergency exit signs

Simple. There isn’t, I stated that, and I never claimed there was. I said there is shift in mass, which there is - the slugs move and the platform will also. You can only do this once, since your slugs do not return to their original position. (It’s not a cycle, or ”loop”) If they did, the position would revert to the original.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion board, not your blog

F = dp/dt There is no external force, therefore there can be no change in momentum of the center of mass No blessing necessary, just understanding first-semester physics. Your setup does not specify that this happens, nor does it say which direction the balls rotate (if they are counter-rotating the platform will not rotate) but the rotation of the platform is irrelevant. You need to analyze this from a non-rotating frame of reference. Where the balls go relative to that frame’s coordinate system. You said the slugs are redirected 180 degrees. Now you are saying something different. You need to be more specific and consistent in your framing of the problem.

Nanotechnology would imply an electron microscope. An optical one lacks the necessary resolution

Zero. The platform will have moved up slightly, owing to the shift in the mass.

Any discussion of AI is a distraction. It’s irrelevant to the discussion.

Worse than what? If people died of a heart attack when they’re 50, they don’t have as much of a chance to get cancer. But if they avoid or survive that heart attack, which happens more these days, they can subsequently get cancer. All statistics have to be assessed with the understanding that overall mortality is always going to be 100%. If one number goes down, another one has to go up.

I don’t suppose you can make any specific predictions or have any evidence to present?

I recall something from long ago called the GRAS list - Generally Recognized As Safe (in the US) https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generally-recognized-safe-gras I think older substances were grandfathered in, if they’d been used for a long time with no known issues. But newer additives had to undergo safety studies

Years. You also have to determine the proper dose; each early step might test for 6 months to a year, and phase III is multiple years. There’s likely administrative delays between the steps as you line up participants. “There is no typical length of time it takes for a drug to be tested and approved. It might take 10 to 15 years or more to complete all 3 phases of clinical trials before the licensing stage. But this time span varies a lot.” https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/find-a-clinical-trial/how-clinical-trials-are-planned-and-organised/how-long-it-takes-for-a-new-drug-to-go-through-clinical-trials

You have to test for efficacy and safety; ethics requires small trials before large ones.

For me it’s Overcome By Events —- Why should dying be an identical (or nearly so) event for everyone? Strange for British English to drop a vowel like that. One expects extra ones.

As CharonY pointed out, progress necessarily slows as the numbers go up. Another possible confounding factor is that as survivability goes up, your chances of getting some new cancer goes up (you can’t get a second case if you’re dead) and mortality from that is likely going to be higher, if just from being older. Until you can actually eliminate cancer, you’re stuck with this, since everybody has to die of something.

Cousin Mallory (no relation)

Not in the US, for cancer as a whole. The trend is toward a larger fraction surviving 5 years https://progressreport.cancer.gov/after/survival

I don’t think that’s the whole story; forcing the electrons to combine with protons to form neutrons requires energy. You have the degeneracy pressure until you can do that. Or at least, that’s how I understood it.

Don’t reintroduce this unless you have an actual model, and can comply with the rules of speculations.

OK, then

That’s your job. That’s a pretty useless hint.

You’re going to need more than just blurting out physics buzzwords.

One issue is that really heavy nuclei don’t remain intact for very long. There might be some isotopes that are longer-lived at the next magic number (filled shell) of neutrons and/or protons. Pb-208 is doubly-magic, with 82 protons and 126 neutrons, and is the heaviest stable isotope. “Further predicted magic numbers are 114, 122, 124, and 164 for protons as well as 184, 196, 236, and 318 for neutrons.[1][4][5] However, more modern calculations predict 228 and 308 for neutrons, along with 184 and 196.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_(physics) So that’s where to look. We’ve seen 114 protons.

! Moderator Note Suggestions, Comments and Support is geared towards issues on this site. Our moderators are humans, (or bipedal primates, at least). Can’t really do anything about any of these issues.

Our model of atoms comes from quantum mechanics, and from the math it includes it makes testable predictions, which can be confirmed by experiment. You have provided no such framework.

! Moderator Note this isn’t a Dan Brown fanfic site Don’t reintroduce whatever this is.