swansont

Wut They shoved all the downside/problems to the latter part of the article. How does the reactor shut down? Can the decay heat keep the salt molten? How are they making electricity? As I recall, a huge problem in these reactors is primary-secondary leaks. How are they dealing with that? (it won’t be as bad as with liquid sodium, but I imagine it’s still an issue)

This is related to whistleblowing…how?

There's evidence that supports one. Not so much for the other. There's evidence that supports one of these. Not so much for the other.

! Moderator Note Unfortunately this violates our site's rules (2.7) about linking to sites and documents, and relying on document attachments.

Right, because it's not like something like this has ever happened! <wink, wink>

Just to clarify, because this is a little unclear: fission is not the source of heat after shutdown. It's called "decay heat" and comes from the decay of the fission products. As I stated earlier, the thermal energy you have to deal with in fusion would be the couple of grams of fuel at whatever the plasma temperature is.

The link provided by the OP suggests it is, or at least can be. Variants of the theorem include multiple and even infinitely many typists, and the target text varies between an entire library and a single sentence. ... For n = 1 million, Xn is roughly 0.9999, but for n = 10 billion Xn is roughly 0.53 and for n = 100 billion it is roughly 0.0017. As n approaches infinity, the probability Xn approaches zero; that is, by making n large enough, Xn can be made as small as is desired,[2][a] and the chance of typing banana approaches 100%. The same argument shows why at least one of infinitely many monkeys will produce a text as quickly as it would be produced by a perfectly accurate human typist copying it from the original.

The context of the OP's argument is often "evolution can't happen because randomness" and then showing the big numbers as the conclusion. This ignores the point that chemistry isn't random (as we've brought up a few times), and is falsified by the Miller-Urey experiment (and yes, while it's true that the conditions of that experiment are likely not those of early earth, it demolishes the notion that such probability calculations are relevant, because you would calculate a low probability of those amino acids being formed, and you would predict the formation of molecules that don't form.) One part of the rebuttal to the OP is that only the creationists are asserting that all aspects of evolution are random, and you should never cite a creationist as a credible source of information about evolution.

Yes, but there are only a few grams of fuel in it at any given time, limiting the thermal energy, and it cools as it expands. https://www.iter.org/sci/FusionFuels

Who paid for the development? Who were the customers? edit: It wasn’t the US doing this. from 1920 to 1935, the US produced no more than 35 tanks (p. 75) https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2006/R1860.pdf

And to my point above, nobody was going to develop the tank on their own.

Devices ≠ technology IOW, we didn’t need those airplanes anymore, but we still used planes Competition might drive some progress, but business has to deem the research worthwhile. There needs to be a profit involved. They are happy to use research done by the government - basically free to them - after the fact. Or have the government pay them (direct or subsidy, partially or fully funded) to do it.

No, there isn’t. As I described above, anyone who might be branded a traitor is leaking information, not whistle-blowing.

We have a thread for introductions

They only obey these statistics if they are identical, so yes, they are exactly the same

! Moderator Note Split from https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124059-correction-hijack-sharia-in-the-us/ Owing to multi-part posts, this split may be omitting some discussion

"Getting ahead in life" seems to be an artificial distinction. Did you mean inert, rather than innate? The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that entropy will increase, so it's not going to help in this distinction. There might be some traction in the rate at which entropy increases for something of equal mass, in general (i.e. there will be exceptions) e.g. living matter tends to consume food and excrete waste, and in doing so there are chemical reactions. To any extent that inanimate matter does this (or an analogue of this), it probably tends to do so more slowly. That might be something to look into.

Not quite https://www.wired.com/2017/02/life-death-spring-disorder/ You can locally decrease entropy if you increase it somewhere else. Overall it increases, and work has to be done to decrease it. This is not a controversial issue. Evolution is natural. A salt crystal forming from a solution decreases the entropy of the salt. Last I checked, salt is not alive. Similarly, forming ice decreases entropy of the water. If you take H2 and O2 and add a spark, you will get mostly H20. You will not get a random assortment of H and O atoms strung together. The outcomes of chemistry are not random. You are using a watered-down description of entropy and trying to apply it well outside of its scope.

Infinite monkey theorem. (I should have said if you have an infinite number...) It's another related gambit to what I said earlier. Infinity is big, but we'll use a million, and a million is pretty big, right? Well, no. A million is small in this context. It's a bait-and-switch, going from the infinite monkey theorem (the wikipedia link addresses n going to infinity) to the million monkey theorem as if they were basically interchangeable.

But you have an infinite number of them, so it actually takes almost no time at all. The issue here is someone is trying to baffle/intimidate their audience with large numbers, while also ignoring the incredibly large numbers involved in chemistry. Avogadro's number, for example, is 6.02 x 10^23. That's just one gram of hydrogen atoms. 100 grams of something of atomic number 100. The mass of the earth, meanwhile, is 6 x 10^24 kg 283 trillion trillion is 2.83 x 10^20. In the scheme of things it's a small number. *Nobody with decent understanding.

You mean where you stated: "There is plenty of evidence of Democrats claiming the world will end in 12 (10 now?) years. Is the "whole of the Democrat Party" anti-science also?" So you claimed "plenty of democrats" (plural, and implying at least several). I see one. And, as we've seen there is a scientific basis for the claim. You also raised the question of whether the democratic party is anti-science based on this, with the inference being no. But the main differences here are whether statements are based on science or not, and whether the person represents a larger group than themselves. But Trump leads the republican party, whose platform for 2020 was basically "Whatever Trump says" (no actual policy list and a resolution to support Trump's agenda) so it's perfectly reasonable to take the position that has been espoused here, because the republicans themselves have taken it. We call that cherry-picking. Include the part that supports your position, and omit the part that doesn't. I didn't claim otherwise. The issue is whether you focus on the hyperbole or the science. If there's no science, though, all that's left is the hyperbole. It's also the case that this may be much more obvious to someone living in the US and paying attention than to folks on the outside, where some of the lower-level nonsense gets filtered as noise.

So you object to a sample size of one, and then provide a sample size of…one. As if AOC is representative of the democratic party. And you omitted the part where it said With her 12-year timeline, it’s possible that Ocasio-Cortez is referencing a major global report from last October by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nation’s scientific authority on climate change. The year 2030 came up prominently in that report, marking the first year that the planet is likely to warm by 1.5 degrees Celsius “…warming of 1.5°C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems,” according to Hans-Otto Pörtner, a Co-Chair of the IPCC. So AOC’s remark is based on science, i.e. factual, even as it is hyperbolic, as the world will not literally be ending. (but there’s a minor industry of manufactured outrage over such oratorical or literary devices)

It’s a misstatement. Strictly speaking, vapor is gas. But what’s being described has condensed somewhat into small droplets of liquid, much like water vapor condenses and forms a cloud. You can’t see it in its gaseous form. At the right temperature and pressure, both will exist.

Let’s have it. The least you can do is provide the evidence of this, given your complaint about others not doing this.

But it’s a different kind of system (they mention propellant) so it’s not applicable to the navy’s effort, which was a railgun The requirements for shipboard systems are usually very different than for land-based systems Then report on the relevant system. And provide a link https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40875/the-navys-railgun-looks-like-its-finally-facing-the-axe-in-new-budget-request