iNow

Lol... You're quite right. My comments seem to imply that solar is not itself based on fusion.

Lucaspa laid it out pretty well here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=426539#post426539 The rest of that thread is illuminating, too.

Was that the point where you asked if time had essense, or somewhere else? Maybe where you said that space has no subsance? Perhaps when you said "duration on the other hand is based on the energy applied to either system or just by one system to move together or apart."?

We are too animals. What would EVER make you think otherwise? Well, leaving aside for the moment that we kill more animals as a species than any other animal on the planet, can you please name one example in the animal kingdom BESIDES humans where rape happens? Humans are not separate from nature, so again, I'm not sure of your point. I don't know what you mean by instinct, but I agree that we should always be looking for better solutions. Regardless, there are times when hitting is not abuse. It's simple really. A calm assertive leader who leverages their physical dominance to take charge is not the same as an incompetent parent who takes out their frustrations on the child.

They can produce anything they want. If TV were nothing but a reflection of present day scientific accuracy, then we clearly wouldn't have shows like Ghost Hunters. Also, there's a very good chance that the data they share WAS current when they made the program. That's another challenge with TV. Despite our perception of motion in television, it really is a stamp in time from when it was produced.

While I understand your point, I disagree. I think this is the BEST place to do it. This is the place where different ideas can go to prove themselves. It's not supposed to be a trash pile (though, admittedly, that's often what it becomes). This section is supposed to be a place where things are discussed, new ideas explored and those same ideas are supported in the face of challenges. Once they've successfully passed through the gauntlet which is peer review they can move into more accepted areas of dialog having proven their worth. Again, I know what you mean (and saw your smilie), but I think that just because a thread lands in the pseudoscience & speculations forum does not exempt it from the need to support the assertions being made within it. That's really nothing more than my opinion, so it'd probably be best to get back on topic. Btw, Edtharan - Nice response.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. You cannot just make an assertion, then when questioned on that assertion support it by saying, "that's just what I think" and expect to be taken seriously.

I think it helps to shed light via context-set example on just how false the claim truly is that drilling now will have any impact on the pocket books of the populace. Drilling - Won't help in the present. Issue - Why does McCain keep repeating that it will in practically every speech? Humor - McCain will likley be dead by the time any benefit is seen from offshore drilling. That last one may not have been funny, but it is certainly true.

I think he missed the part where he said "I can prove it too." I think what he meant to say is that he could attempt to cast the shadow of uncertainty on what is presently accepted in the mainstream by asking only peripherally relevant questions of those who challenge the assertions he's put forth in the OP. However, that hardly qualifies as proof.

Doesn't make the point with which I disagreed any more accurate now, does it?

I really don't care what you want. Stop trolling.

This point has already been debunked in this very thread. Simply repeating it doesn't make it valid.

So, when you exclude countries and states which are being successful with solar in the present, you do realize that this means you are cherry picking your data to support your point, and clearly ignoring examples which prove your point false, right? On top of that, nobody is here arguing that solar is the only answer, so I'm not quite sure what you're on about this time. It is clearly a large part of the puzzle, and it is clearly viable, at least to me and the huge swaths of investors pouring billions of their own dollars into it.

McCain almost has to go with Romney to have a snowball's chance in a religious warm place. The funny thing is that the McCain campaign has struck against the Biden pick showing quotes from the primaries where Biden spoke against Obama. If McCain chooses Romney, we could have roughly 48 hours of recorded slams which Romney and McCain made against each other... You also have talking heads like Rush Limbaugh slaying any "too liberal" choices and how McCain will effectively "kill the Republican party." Sorry Rush. It's tough to kill what's already committed suicide.

Looking back, I need to rethink my position a little bit. The argument I made against fusion is similar to the argument I attacked when it was being made against solar by others. I need to wrap my head around why I find solar more acceptable at this point than fusion so I can better articulate my true position to others. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact the solar and wind were being compared against coal, so stand out as the preferred alternative much more robustly.

The challenge seems to be the cost benefit of this, and the odds of the gamble. While the payoff on development of fusion technology is tremendous, and while we should be doing that in parallel with implementation of wind, solar, etc... we should not IMO be doing so with equivalent scope, spending, or effort... not yet anyway. We have a real problem to fix, one which should have been fixed a decade ago. If we wait too much longer for the development work on other technologies, the problem will only get worse and we don't even have a guarantee that our efforts will pay off if we chose to follow that other avenue of research with the same "oompff." We need to implement immediate fixes and solutions, which gets back to the "solar and wind are proven" answer. We know they work. We know how they work. We understand the limitations and we are experienced with making them better. I'm not saying that work should cease on technologies like fusion, I'm saying that this is more of a "Jetsons Flying Car" solution and that we shouldn't invest too heavily into it until we actually see some cars start flying.

When you say "us," are you referring to the people who live on coastlines and will have their cities flooded, or to the people who live in various inland regions and are experiencing severe drought, or to the farmers who can no longer cultivate crops which have been successful for decades, or to the fisheries that cannot catch enough fish due to their dying en masse from ocean acidification, or to the increase in spread of disease from bugs now able to occupy new niches due to the warming (niches previously too cold for their sucessful reproduction), or perhaps to the people dying of cancers and other defects from the toxin ridden air we all breath? Just curious who this "us" is to whom you refer in your post above.

Since you asked so very nicely, I'm going to go ahead and say no to both.

Viva la revolution! (pssst... I hope they weren't listening when I typed that). How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without? ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. ~ James Madison

Keeping positive wasn't helping Obama. He was pure positive, and when McCain went negative, McCain picked up huge points. Obama stayed positive, and he kept losing ground. McCain kept negative, and kept gaining ground. You don't need to have a PhD in hyperbolic topology to understand the math on this. The moment Obama struck back in kind his numbers started shooting back upward. Now, I'm not saying I support the approach, nor that I think negative ads are good, but I am saying that you gotta do what you gotta do to get elected, otherwise, all of the hope and good will and intentions in the universe won't mean diddly squat. Also, what's trivial about McCain being disconnected from the daily struggles of the populace and having an absent understanding of the economy?

The company I work for is a business with a series of specializations. We manufacture what our customers need, and we have also stepped into a major new market based on demand. That's neither here nor there, though. We as a culture need to look past just economics. My point is that it will matter little how much money we have if we can't feed or hydrate ourselves, or if we continue in our irresponsible actions. What good is having a dollar if there is no where left to spend it? Further, a change of the magnitude which is required will actually open more markets than it closes, so it's important to keep some perspective and look past the fact that some things we desperately need are going to be more expensive today (that should not stop us from moving where we know we need to go).

Same tone, but you're right... they all look the same to me.

Oh, that's right. The name I was trying to remember was Eric 5.

Right on. Thanks for the clarification guys.

Why are people still discussing this issue only in terms of money and economics? There is FAR more at stake here other than just the bottom line.