swansont

And yet you have not done so The Planck force is just a number for a particular scale. It’s not a kind of force.

You can't claim this without being able to point to success this approach has had somewhere. Anywhere. Wait, what? Does anyone think mind produces brain? Back on page 1 you were asked to clarify what you were talking about. Did you ever actually define what you mean by "mind"? You said it was not just consciousness, but we know where in the brain the areas for speech and memory are, along with judgment, thinking and reasoning, problem-solving, emotions and learning. Surely these are aspects of "mind"

The funding pie, as it were, is finite, but there is more than one pie. In the US, government-funded fusion research comes from the Dept of Energy. It's competing with other energy research, not research funded by the Dept of Defense, life sciences from NIH, or basic research from the NSF. And diversity of projects is risk mitigation - it's not like only fusion is getting funded. Solar got funding, and it paid off. There is also private research funding for fusion, from people who think it will become profitable. They get to choose where to spend their money.

! Moderator Note You need to address issues that others have raised. Failure to do so means you are soapboxing, and that continued rule violation will get this shut down.

Most of the difference between collecting light for power vs signal would be in the electronics. The area of the dish/array would depend on the signal size. You’d need more than one, so that one would always be viewing the source.

Mordred was underselling things with “We cannot measure anything at Planck volume” It’s not like we’re only an order of magnitude or so away from measuring something at a planck length. It’s around 15.

! Moderator Note Just linking to another discussion fails to comply with rule 2.7 You had a previous relativity discussion, which was closed, and were told not to re-introduce the topic. We’re not doing this again.

! Moderator Note Two things: 1. we don’t allow link-shortened addresses, owing to security concerns. A google docs link should be going to docs.google.com 2. polls or surveys should be placed in https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72905-polls-surveys-and-tests/ (no discussion there, so if your post is too vague, people won’t respond)

What has your simulation produced?

I missed that. It is quite a bit. (though I wish they’d use proper units)

It will be the demand though, not the 5G itself, which is more energy-efficient than 4G https://www.viavisolutions.com/en-us/resources/learning-center/what-5g-energy-consumption “Based on data bits per kilowatt, 5G networks are 90% more efficient than their 4G predecessors.” ~140,000 cell towers in the US https://www.lightreading.com/digital-transformation/us-cell-towers-and-small-cells-by-the-numbers and one site said 5G towers use of order 10kW, so that’s 1.4 GW, which is not a lot over the whole country

It would look a lot like a solar power array, which are also photon collectors. It could be a dish, if you wanted to do it that way (some solar power arrays act like that, with a mirrored surface rather than with a mesh) edit: The laser ranging with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is indeed a telescope dish. https://pgda.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/55

But it’s not called the WAG forum. It has rules.

Brains don’t, but skulls do. So the volume of the brain is discernible if the skull fossil is sufficiently complete. And I think this contains some information. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocast “While an endocast can not directly reveal brain structure,[1] it can allow scientists to gauge the size of areas of the brain situated close to the surface, notably Wernicke's and Broca's areas, responsible for interpreting and producing speech.”

Should be, but is it? Sometimes iCloud just mirrors the device. One needs to check.

One should include some part of the research findings “The byproducts generated by the reentry of satellites in a future scenario where mega-constellations come to fruition can reach over 360 metric tons per year. As aluminum oxide nanoparticles may remain in the atmosphere for decades, they can cause significant ozone depletion.” (Moved from Science News, since this isn’t a news source)

What does gravity have to do with anything?

Claiming we’re running out means quantifying how much we have, and how much we use. Otherwise this is just empty rhetoric. Science forum, remember? “the burst emitted more energy than the lasers delivered. But it didn’t produce enough energy to run all the lab equipment powering the lasers. It took some 300 million joules of energy from the electrical grid to do the experiment” https://www.snexplores.org/article/breakthrough-physics-experiment-fusion-energy 300 MW-s of energy might sound like a lot, but 300 MW-s is less than 0.1 MW-hr, and the US alone produced more than 4 billion MW-hr of electricity in 2023. One part in 40 billion, of just one country’s generation. That’s a tiny drop in the bucket. It’s not “vast”

Projects don’t work, until they do. R&D projects don’t work, almost by definition, while they are ongoing. If you can’t define the threshold, numerically, of what is or isn’t ethical, then this is just bullshitting

Define “vast” numerically. How much energy was expended before the year ~2005 to develop solar power? Should we have stopped because solar was so pitiful at that time?

No, it doesn’t. I did not ask for the number, I asked how you can get this configuration. You can’t arbitrarily declare the masses are this close, or that it’s spread arbitrarily thin. Masses come in discrete chunks - electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. In an atom, the neutrons and protons only get to around 1 fm (10^-15m). The planck mass is just a derived number, as are all of the planck terms. There is no guarantee that you can configure a system to have these parameters. It’s a unit system, but nothing more.

You could test this yourself by taking a test photo, backing up your phone, and then deleting the photo.

CharonY is correct in terms of monetary benefit, and that there is no other direct benefit to you. There is an indirect benefit in that peer review requires reviewers. If nobody does it, the system grinds to a halt. If you expect others to review things you write, you need to occasionally review articles.

Like I said about your conjecture regarding evolution, I don’t see where fairness enters into this.

Since you avoided answering my question, you force me to repeat it: How do you get that much mass in such close proximity?