How do you define gravitational potential energy such that a massless particle has any?
Regardless, both this comment and the parent comment are ignoring the importance of reference frame. Relativity is not at all my specialty, but it's unclear to me how you should talk about a single photon in relativistic gravitational fields, since it's impossible to make any measurements on the photon without affecting it's energy.
Until there is a convincing and well controlled demonstration of paladium/deuterium LENR, or a plausible theoretical mechanism proposed, don't expect people to take it seriously.
A self consistent theory is never "wrong". It can, however, be used incorrectly by applying it to a system that does not follow the axioms. Our universe follows Newton's axioms within experimental error at moderate size and energy scales. At much smaller or larger scales, the axioms no longer describe our universe and as a result the theory no longer applies.
My take is that the theory for most high temperature superconductors is incomplete, which makes it difficult to find even higher temperature superconductors (because we don't know what to look for). In contrast, the superconductivity present in this sample is well understood and thus these results might suggest where to look next.
Yeah, there's clearly some issue with that figure. Figure 2b seems to support the claim, though. This draft needs some serious editing. I would never submit something at this rough of a state.
Mod patent as insightful! I've never heard it put that way, but there's likely some truth there. However, I don't know how many errors occur during copying vs during normal cell life.
Also, we now know that there's a third form of evolution involving DNA sharing (I forget the technical term). Humans have a lot of junk DNA from retro viruses, for example, that could be reactivated by a few mutations (usually to the detriment of the human).
Obviously, this is not my area of expertise, but it's fascinating.
If you could accelerate an interstellar ship enough the intercept one of these exiting stars, you could orbit it and use it's radiation to sustain the colony. Eventually, the colony could reach another galaxy.
Of course, this assumes building and accelerating an interstellar ship to c/3 is feasible, which is still a bit of a stretch, though not impossible.
Just skimmed the associated paper. This isn't my area of expertise, but the data is not all that convincing to me. Most of the samples were near the break-even point (neither selfish nor altruistic). It passes a p-test, but the sample set is pretty small, and systematic errors could easily sway the result.
Sheltering people from radical ideas is not the solution, for the same reason that sheltering children doesn't work in the long run. Instead, educate them. Give them the tools of rational and critical thinking, and then let them choose for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up.
Also, perhaps further development of the theory could hint at methods of unification of QM with GR.
How do you define gravitational potential energy such that a massless particle has any?
Regardless, both this comment and the parent comment are ignoring the importance of reference frame. Relativity is not at all my specialty, but it's unclear to me how you should talk about a single photon in relativistic gravitational fields, since it's impossible to make any measurements on the photon without affecting it's energy.
Who cares if you can distill clean drinking water from human excrement? What matters is, is it economical?
Because the lookup table would have to have ~ 10^46 entries.
Free electron screening is well understood. It doesn't make LENR feasible.
Until there is a convincing and well controlled demonstration of paladium/deuterium LENR, or a plausible theoretical mechanism proposed, don't expect people to take it seriously.
Your objections are easily explained away as a false flag operation initiated by an individual or group.
A self consistent theory is never "wrong". It can, however, be used incorrectly by applying it to a system that does not follow the axioms. Our universe follows Newton's axioms within experimental error at moderate size and energy scales. At much smaller or larger scales, the axioms no longer describe our universe and as a result the theory no longer applies.
Sealing the cockpit is necessary. Random bomb sniffing dogs is a great idea. Pretty much all of the rest is extraneous.
Already done. I forget who the original company to do it was, but that's likely where they got the idea.
My take is that the theory for most high temperature superconductors is incomplete, which makes it difficult to find even higher temperature superconductors (because we don't know what to look for). In contrast, the superconductivity present in this sample is well understood and thus these results might suggest where to look next.
Yeah, there's clearly some issue with that figure. Figure 2b seems to support the claim, though. This draft needs some serious editing. I would never submit something at this rough of a state.
Inquisition. Witch Hunt. McCarthyism. War on Drugs. War on Terror. Anyone else notice a pattern?
Yeah, they should have just used 128 bit integers.
Mod patent as insightful! I've never heard it put that way, but there's likely some truth there. However, I don't know how many errors occur during copying vs during normal cell life.
Also, we now know that there's a third form of evolution involving DNA sharing (I forget the technical term). Humans have a lot of junk DNA from retro viruses, for example, that could be reactivated by a few mutations (usually to the detriment of the human).
Obviously, this is not my area of expertise, but it's fascinating.
If you could accelerate an interstellar ship enough the intercept one of these exiting stars, you could orbit it and use it's radiation to sustain the colony. Eventually, the colony could reach another galaxy.
Of course, this assumes building and accelerating an interstellar ship to c/3 is feasible, which is still a bit of a stretch, though not impossible.
Flesh eating robots?
Drone regulations won't prevent this from happening. I'm not sure how it's relevant.
My understanding is that Mars is not tectonically active, so there might be a lot of 4.4 billion year old rocks just below the surface.
Hydrogen can be produced from the electrolysis of water using any electric power source including wind, solar, and nuclear.
Cognitive dissonance. The mind is not internally consistent.
Just skimmed the associated paper. This isn't my area of expertise, but the data is not all that convincing to me. Most of the samples were near the break-even point (neither selfish nor altruistic). It passes a p-test, but the sample set is pretty small, and systematic errors could easily sway the result.
Agreed. It is interesting for those of us who invest in the stock market, though.
Not necessarily as hard as you think. Rinsing is still necessary, though. The biggest problem is that it's still really expensive.
Unless the question is "How do you feed all the humans in a capitalistic economy, when all of the labor is performed by robots?"
Okay, I guess you could answer "more robots" to that, too, but that would be ignoring the question of who is going to pay for the robots.
Sheltering people from radical ideas is not the solution, for the same reason that sheltering children doesn't work in the long run. Instead, educate them. Give them the tools of rational and critical thinking, and then let them choose for themselves.