swansont

How would you do this? On an asteroid that’s a few hundred meters across? What if it’s not orbiting the sun? Why do you need a “cloud” of drones/satellites? Wouldn’t a few dedicated telescopes suffice?

Why does it matter? The strong interaction is already stronger than the electrostatic, dipole interactions are weaker, and induced dipole interactions weaker still. vdW forces only matter when you have a neutral particle, so there is no direct force of attraction, which isn’t the case here. It would be a tiny correction to the binding energy, assuming it’s not zero. And it would probably only be a (small) factor if you only had a small number of nucleons, because with more the effects would tend to cancel. Deuterium, Helium and perhaps Lithium and Beryllium. Once you have nucleons on both sides of your target, symmetry cancels all this out.

Your whole post screams, “citation needed!” (except the parts that are 50-70 years out of date. I mean, what’s the relevance?)

The dipole moment depends on the charges and their separation. The separation would be small, since the particles are. ~5 orders of magnitude smaller than in atomic systems. The charges are smaller, too, so you’d have a smaller moment because of that.

vdW forces are from induced dipoles where there are + and - charges, and you don’t have that here. But there’s a lot more to this; you’re obviously not getting the whole thing in a few sentences. Spin has an effect, for example. The dynamics of the interaction vary depending on whether you’re looking inside of a nucleon or between nucleons. This isn’t a deep dive into any of that.

Bumping this. Posts making such accusations with be deposited in the trash can

The fact that neutrons can be bound shows that they attract. You can make a neutron beam, but not sure how you’d get a coherent beam. A coherent beam might be more of a problem, since the neutrons would have basically the same speed, and thus have little KE in the beam’s frame. I suspect you’d form dineutrons which would very quickly decay to deuterium or a free proton snd neutron. Neutrons with different energies wouldn’t get trapped in each other’s potential well so easily.

! Moderator Note If you aren’t going to contribute to an answer to the question, consider not posting in that thread. Strongly consider it.

They tend to increase the binding energy per nucleon of nuclei, which one would interpret as an attraction. Also, mirror nuclei (same number of nucleons by neutron and proton number switched) show that all the nucleons attract each other in the same way. The interaction has a limited range, though. You can’t form a stable nucleus with just neutrons, or mostly neutrons, though, because it’s energetically favorable for neutrons to decay into protons in those situations.

It asks you to draw what you see. What did you see?

Broad topics tend to spawn multiple lines of discussion. We prefer one topic per thread.

Still too broad. Behavior and government are not really interchangeable Please narrow your focus.

James Burke. Connections just blew me away as a teen and The Day the Universe Changed as a young adult.

Beam of energy? Slowing particles with photons (the closest thing here) is inefficient; photon momentum is E/c. The force you can exert with photon absorption is P/c (P is power) so 300 Megawatts gets you a whopping 1N of force. Single atoms subject to visible light only change speed by a few mm to a few cm per second (depending on the mass) by scattering a photon.

Fallout isn’t the radiation from the explosion, it’s contamination - the radioactive material leftover or activated in the explosion i.e. the radioactive fission products and anything that becomes radioactive from absorbing neutrons. These things can be radioactive for years

The material from the explosion might eventually enter the atmosphere

Some/most of which will go to pay his lawyers

Yeah, it’s not going to be a nice sine wave, so you’re going to get a bunch of Fourier components, and probably with multiple different principal frequencies

! Moderator Note Responding to a request for credible sources with more conjecture isn’t really the direction we were hoping this was going to go. Even if this had been posted in Speculations it would be closed down for a lack of rigor, but you posted in a science section without making any attempt at presenting any science. We don’t have a WAG section. Stop posting WAGs. (Wild-Ass Guesses, in case you’re not familiar with the acronym)

I don’t accept this as true. Any group might not have an inherent feeling for some of the issues of others, but governments do have the capability of solving problems for diverse constituents. They just need to study the problems and have empathy. Some lack the desire or ability to do so, but that’s not universal.

Net or gross? Source?

This is not helping convince me that you have a rigorous, scientific argument. Perhaps you should start with some credible sources, researching how anxiety can affect breathing.

! Moderator Note What is your inquiry? I don’t see anything but some hand-waving and a tenuous connection between breathlessness and drowning. Nothing resembling rigor.

“everything” is rather open-ended. Can you narrow this down?

You’ve given no explanation of how one might find “time” in matter. This is just way too vague to be testable. Not enough to comply with the rules of speculations.