MigL

The Big Bang has no spatial 'origin', because it happened everywhere. The Big Bang does have a temporal origin, however, and this implies that the further away we look, the farther back in time we see. Since we all acknowledge that the universe is expanding, it follows that looking back at earlier periods we see regions of higher density, compared to nearby regions. In fact, if we look back at a distance shortly after the beginning of the Big Bang, we see a region where temperature/density was high enough to dissociate atoms. But this density did not red shift light as it comes towards us. It is red shifted by an expansion of about 1040 times, such that we see that temperature ( the CMB ) as 2.7o instead of 3500o. IOW, the Big Bang model already explains it.

So, because of D Trump, populism, or the will of the people which we used to call democracy, has been redefined to this

I have no use for labels myself , and only used the term because some people self-label themselves as 'liberals' or 'progressives'. And note I did say "hope you're not offended ...", but sure enough, some of you seem to be. My post wasn't meant to be about labels, but how words change to reflect an agenda. Populism used to mean the will of all people, or what we commonly call democracy, and that kept authoritarianism , the will of an elite few, or despotism, in check. Now populism, the will of all people has bad name also, leaving me thoroughly confused as what agenda the people who re-purpose these terms actually want. You can go with the M-W dictionary definition , but we all know what they actually mean; everyone has a say regarding their governance, or, just the few who are/consider themselves better than ' the basket of deplorables'. Or, after the re-purposing of the 'isms', they now mean mob rule, or dictatorship.

I hope you guys don't take it as an insult when I call you 'liberals', but why is it 'liberals' seem to have a penchant for re-defining words to suit an agenda ? Authoritarianism has a specific meaning; imposing your will and wants on others. Capitalism used to mean the attempt to better oneself, usually through the gain of resources. Now, since D Trump has made authoritarianism the new 'boogey-man catchword for everything bad' people are starting to sweep everything they personally dislike under its ever growing rug. My earlier post was not meant as a joke, Dim. Any society has to have an element of capitalism, but it needs to be tempered with elements of socialism. The hard part is deciding how much of each to incorporate into our society, as too much of either one will be bad. When you take it for its original meaning 'populism' is the exact opposite of authoritarianism, as it means all the people's choice, not the imposed will and wants of the elite few. Now the wealthy, or capitalists, want to impose their will and wants over the rest of the people so they must be authoritarian. Somehow, even if they want to start new businesses, with their resources, which will provide jobs for the unemployed, is now seen as a bad thing because it will also result in gains for the capitalist, and so must be authoritarianism ? But when people demand more civil rights, better social benefits, more social money spent in their neighborhoods, etc. that is NOT imposing your will and wants on others because we recognize it as a good thing, and so is not authoritarianism ?

Tell that to the shrinking 'middle class'. For some 'authoritarianism' is becoming somewhat like 'racism'; if you can't find it, you're obviously not looking hard enough. Ah, the 'elitism' that led to 'populism' ( as originally defined ).

The 'scatter brained' approach to learning Physics ?

No. Gravity 'creates' weight, not mass. Mass is an intrinsic property of the system; equivalent to its 'internal' energy. This is not the only energy a system can possess; there are also 'external' sources, such as momentum and stresses/strains, which, all taken together, modify space-time to produce the geodesic paths we attribute to gravity.

Oh, now you've really lost him with your sterile neutrino analysis, Mordred. Maybe now he'll ask if electrons are actually bound neutrinos ...

I personally don't think it's a good idea to replace J Biden this late in the game; it smacks of desperation, the electorate will realize this, and Republicans will use the discord in the Democratic party to their advantage. If anyone has an argument against this, I'm willing to change my mind. Some other arguments however, just don't make sense. INow presents polls showing D Trump polling higher than J Biden, indicating that Biden will likely lose the election, yet he's content to pray to God for a miracle Biden win, rather than make any change. My opinion in this matter doesn't count for much ( although I'll suffer the consequences of a Trump win also ) but the Democratic party has to decide; if polls are right, do nothing is a sure loss, so you've got to do something, if polls are wrong, then they are wrong about K Harris and some of the other mentioned possible candidates not being able to take on Trump.

Some seeds, like avocado, don't like any covering or contact at all. They germinate by suspending above moisture, and once germinated, can be transferred to soil.

I think you lost Graybear, Mordred. I like to use the KISS principle until he follows up with another question.

No practical application, maybe. But it does provide a 'bound' on what can be done. If you can't do it mathematically, you can't do it physically either. ( although the opposite is not always true; some things you can do mathematically cannot be done physically )

chemicals, like acidic vinegar or Sulfur might adversely affect the germination. Are you putting the seeds on a moist towel inside a clear plastic bag, and letting bright sunlight take care of the mold/fungus issue ?

No, fundamental particles like neutrinos electrons, and quarks have no internal structure and are accurately defined as points with 'diffuse edges', for all intents and purposes. No structure means they cannot be subdivided into smaller parts. Released particles are not necessarily constituent particles of the incident composite particles that take part in a reaction. Quite often they are a result of the energy of the reaction and the need to balance it, and momentum, before and after said reaction. However these sort of questions are now off topic in this thread. Start another if you wish more details, or have further questions. All this stuff is covered in any introductory Physics textbook; or even Wiki.

I think we can all agree that J Biden is well past his 'best before' date, and not the best Presidential material. But that isn't the question. The question is should he be replaced ? And that involves many other important questions. Does he want to be replaced ? Replaced by whom ? Will the media and MAGA spin it as an act of desperation from a losing party ? Etc. My personal choice would have been K Harris, IF, they had given her some exposure ( like Biden got under Obama ) during the last couple of years. Instead she was kept hidden and on low key assignments, so that she would not challenge Biden ?? She is certainly sharp, and would have had some of the incumbent/name recognition advantage Biden has. But the Democrats didn't, so it'a all academic. either way, America, and the world, are in for a frantic 4 months, and the very real possibility of another sh*t-show Presidency ( or worse yet, dictatorship ).

Just about every country has the know-how to make features down to about 30-40 nm. The prohibitive part is the cost of building such foundries, and the amount of defective chips you are willing to put up with. Over the last 50 years, growing pure Silicon crystals, from which the die discs are cut, has become an art. And the cost of setting up a foundry and clean lithography facilities has become astronomical. IIRC, AMD built their own foundry in the early 2000s in Germany, to compete with Intel. They quickly found it uneconomical, spun it off as Global Foundries, and went back to using TSMC, along with nVidia and Apple. And while IBM maintains its own research facilities, I don't think they fabricate any more either. Once you get down below 30-40 nm, things become a little more complicated. Proprietary techniques are utilized, which sometimes blur the line between feature sizes, or make for an 'apple to orange' comparison. For example 3D features, and mixed feature size, made Intel 14 and 10 nm chips comparable to TSMC 10 and 7 nm chips. But since the 'general impression' is that power consumption and number of transistors are related to feature size, being able to claim smaller features is a big marketing advantage. TSMC is already advertising what they call 5 nm chips and probably sampling 2 nm chips. Keep in mind that the electron's wavelength is in the pm range, so once features get below the nm range, you may have electrons tunneling between 'features', making such chips worthless.

While you would think you can fire protons at a target ion, say a Tritium nucleus, with enough K energy to get the two to fuse into a Helium nucleus, that process really doesn't happen because center of momentum frame considerations lead to a zero momentum Helium nucleus that is in an excited state, and the strong nuclear force breaks it down again. So it isn't just the minimum energy that determines whether the two will fuse, but also the type of reaction. Expanding on the above example, if you fire a Deuterium nucleus at a Tritium nucleus, then, in the center of momentum frame , you have two products, a neutron and a non-excited Helium nucleus, plus a release of energy. And you have a viable fusion reaction.

Moore's law is a scaling effect. As semiconductor feature size decreases, we can cram more transistors onto a die and increase processing power. As Physicists, Swansont and I know that at a certain scale you cannot entrain enough electrons/holes to have a viable signal; that is a fact of Physics, and we are quickly approaching that scale limit. ( typical multi-level flash memory used in modern SSDs are only trapping a few electrons per cell; enough diffusion events and you've lost data ) Meanwhile we know fusion works. I personally knew Ray ( now deceased ), a British national who was stationed on Christmas Island, in the South Pacific, when the Brits detonated their first thermonuclear bomb as part of operation Grapple in the late 50s. You can probably find others who were there to corroborate the story; just in case you believe the sun in the sky is just a 'torch'. We can achieve the required temperatures; many labs have done so in the last couple of years. And we can contain it. What we can't do, yet, is all three at the same time, and for an extended period of time. So far, only fractions of a second; but that is an engineering problem, not a Physical problem like the limit to Moore's law.

A little too ambitious Sensei. A Dyson sphere, or even a ringworld, requires the use of the whole planet ( and maybe more ); where would you live in the meanwhile ? And this is going in the opposite direction; a Dyson sphere requires many many orders of magnitude greater expense

You are welcome to ask as many questions as you wish. It is the continuing assertion of WAGs that keeps you playing in the 'sandbox'. Learn something and join the adult discussion.

That's the beauty of sh*t. You just toss it in and hope it works. Much like some posts in this thread.

Actually, it is. You can grow potatoes on Mars with human sh*t.

If TFG stands forThat Fuc*ing Goof, what does TPG stand for ? I think D Trump would take the Humpty Dumpty approach; and 'all the king's horses and all the king's men' wouldn't be able to fix it again. He's learned that 'approach' from his buddies/idols V Putin and KJU.

Not unless you can provide other materials which ARE impossible. I wonder if you realize that ALL renewable sources of, as well as fossil, fuels are the direct result of an enormous fusion reactor 93 Miillion miles away. And we only receive a miniscule amount of that energy; almost all of it is radiated into space. Imagine what could be done, and how much human suffering could be eliminated with distributed fusion reactors providing cheap and abundant power to all the world. This is not percentage increases in power supply; it is orders of magnitude.

And lack of energy resources doesn't cause human suffering ???