swansont

It's fusion, which nobody has yet made work. One (or in this case literally you) really can't say he has "developed" this technology. It's the generic "you" and my objection was that people are suggesting that conclusion. Your personal view is irrelevant, as my original comment predated your contribution to the thread. But "the question remains open" is too forgiving. If you see hoofprints, you do not say the question is open as to whether zebras (or aliens) made the prints, if you are in North America. The question is not open unless you actually have some evidence that leads you in that direction. You go with the best science available, which is horses. Based on what definition of viable? viable: capable of working successfully, feasible How can you say something is capable of working successfully if it's never been shown to work successfully? (feasible is even worse; possible to do easily or conveniently - nothing easy or convenient about it)

It would depend on the cost of living, wouldn’t it? It’s more expensive to live in Denmark; you might conclude that wages would be necessarily be higher there for similar jobs https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Denmark/United-States/Cost-of-living

But you only mentioned farming. Why wouldn’t these business be located in or nearby the coastal town where the fishing is taking place? What does this have to do with big-city rent?

No, in fact, I don’t. You need to mean what you say, and not put the burden of parsing it to people reading. What you claimed to be true is not true in Sweden, and therefore not true in Scandinavia. So you presented a falsehood, which makes it difficult to understand what you mean.

Was supply and demand not considered? How many farming jobs are involved here?

How much would it cost to build and maintain?

You’re ignoring the context of the post, which was paraphrasing what the article was saying. And I conclusively stated the article is saying that nobody was asserting they were aliens And if you admit you don’t know, you can’t conclude they are aliens. And yet that wasn’t accepted as being true earlier in the thread. If you pursue it here, however, you don’t get a pass on scientific rigor.

To what end? What changes if we determine an outcome like natural outbreak or accidental release from a lab studying the virus?

Show that this will make a difference in some calculation. How would this difference in actual vs apparent angular position cast doubt on distances and sizes?

"Using Newton's Laws" and "using Newton's laws correctly" are two different claims. There is no "alternative mass" and "alternative acceleration" This is just an excuse to do the analysis incorrectly.

The report did not claim they were aliens. They aren't aliens until someone conclusively proves they are. Compelling is in the eye of the beholder. Nobody has claimed that this is the case. A straw man, so to speak. An interesting correlation, but probably not for the reason you are implying. Instead of seeing e.g. ghosts when they saw a shimmering light, people started seeing flying saucers, because that's a name they could put to the unexplained sightings. A patent does not mean that such a device has been built, or guarantees that it works in the way envisioned.

Not actually what you said, and why I asked for clarification. 2 for 1 is not tit-for-tat, and you'd already established that it's an eye for an eye. No escalation.

This is more you're adding to the discussion. You said an eye for an eye was justice. And then said tit-for-tat had to be two eyes for one. I don't know where that came from. There's a whole bunch of subtext you seem to be skipping over.

Go ahead and apply entropy to this, then. Work through the physics (not just with a hand-wave incantation with a magic wand)

Because they take energy from the BH. Energy is conserved in the process, which is why the BH evaporates. You keep saying that as if it were a valid scientific principle. There are no inefficiencies in the creation and destruction of virtual particles (or real ones, for that matter), and stating something to the contrary does not make it true.

When will WHAT happen? The title of this thread is "Will America EVER achieve immortality?" which really doesn't make sense because America is either a continent or a country, and immortality really applies to neither one. The context of your post implies you are asking if humanity will ever achieve immortality; it's really short-sighted to think only one country would work on or achieve this. Appeal to conspiracy doesn't advance your argument This is a science site and you insist on discussing science fiction, and seemingly have no interest in learning or discussing actual science. That might be a contributing factor.

A. The FFs aren't constrained by what anyone else meant by the phrase, only what they meant by the phrase and B. What the FFs meant by the phrase is not the final metric, as the right has been shaped by court decisions; the phrase is vague and also the context for it is shaped by society as it changes. Does freedom of speech as defined ca 1791 include this conversation, seeing as electronic communication of any type wasn't yet invented? There's a whole host of kinds of speech that have come into existence, or at least been acknowledged as speech, since that time. For instance, I wonder what the FFs would think about "money is speech" (also, "the left" is not a monolithic group and you would do well to actually show who holds the views you are so cavalierly assigning here) Pretty weak tea

Do the particles involved in Hawking radiation live for a long time? You keep talking about energy waste without establishing that this is a thing. That would require a violation of energy conservation. Basing your idea on a perpetual motion mechanism is not a winning strategy.

! Moderator Note This is a violation of rule 2.12. Conspiracy is not an argument in good faith.

! Moderator Note None of these are questions. What is it you want to discuss?

! Moderator Note No. That's not how this works.

Anything having to with QED or QCD qualifies by that criterion.

Yes, actually. Nothing about gravity is present in the equations*; you are excluding electromagnetic modes in the calculation, which I did once upon a time, and I’m guessing you have not. *this being a quantum mechanical effect, and gravity being classical, and also much, much weaker The longer virtual particles survive the lower their energy. Hawking radiation is not the Casimir effect.

Yes, and there’s a way to calculate the effects (which is not just flinging crap at the wall to see if anything sticks) It’s also electromagnetic, not gravitational, so you wouldn’t have the right boundary condition to make a Casimir-type interaction. Inefficiency is one thing, but conservation of properties is quite another; they involve symmetries and you have to show the symmetry being broken

They’re also virtual. Energy levels (as in atoms or nuclei) come about from bound states with, as I said, an attractive potential. Show the energy level derivation for dark energy. How do they come about? The interaction period varies with the energy involved, such that the uncertainty principle is maintained. What waste product? The particles annihilate.