Solar fusion isn’t a thing that exists as a technology (If anything, you’re referring to the nuclear fusion in the core of a sun).
Nuclear fusion is a technology that does exists, but it’s only just barely able to break even in highly experimental test setups. It does not reverse entropy.
You just simply can’t reverse entropy, not matter what technology you use. It would violate the second law of thermodynamics. You can decrease entropy by moving a place with less entropy to a location with more entropy, but somewhere entropy would still increase more than you decreased it in the other place. Everything lost to heat is permanently lost.
You don’t respect when people do that. Taking their answer as less real than your own internal already decided ones while having a lesser understanding of it.
It’s a common logical fallacy and it puts pressure on others to try to find things that you don’t know what you are talking about about specifically and being actual science to you that you won’t understand this making them unable to convey to you that you are wrong.
Even just on carbon capture alone we will be unable to do any sort of simple or quick fix.
You demand others disprove you rather than prove yourself right. And it’s easy to do because you are operating on a prayer and belief system when your opponents are forced to operate with facts and data.
Same tactics conservatives use cause everyone uses it to shelter their brain. Don’t think yourself smart for doing it.
Well, first of all, with our currrent understanding of physics, reversing entropy isn’t even theoretically possible. Second, solar fusion has been happening for billions of years. It’s how the sun works.
Yes, but advanced physics systems like string theory have been building up logic systems for a long time.
These logic systems can solve problems statistically.
The main problem with current solar fusion systems in labs is that a greater proportion of energy is lost than gained. And yes, scientists can gain energy using tiny amounts of matter.
Many problems can statistically be resolved, that’s not the problem. The problem is that it needs to be solved realistically. We can’t magically grab a giant ice cube out of nowhere like in Futurama, even if that would statistically solve climate change.
As long as you actually support getting funding to these people and actually support implementing when their solutions are proven to work. Starting with the solutions we already know currently work. If you’re not a scientist, it might feel the same as just praying for something good to happen. Just understand the people in white aren’t going to come out and say “we solved it all”. Have realistic expectations.
You made those odds up based on your own systems. Your belief systems are probably mostly based on Newton’s Laws, which are a highly advanced subset of science that can sometimes be wrong.
Actually I think he’s just high. I was talking to this same user yesterday and he wasn’t anything like this. I was actually thinking to myself he was one of the most intelligent and levelheaded Lemmings I’d talked to. Give him a couple hours.
What isn’t how what works? Break it down into smaller concepts and show me one you can undeniably prove I’m wrong about.
I’m talking about things clever people are attempting right now in labs and might do eventually.
There will be new technologies yes, but none of them will perform miracles like you seem to think they will.
I think they will, but you’re free to disagree.
Look up a bit about Nikola Tesla as well.
You don’t respect when people do that. Taking their answer as less real than your own internal already decided ones while having a lesser understanding of it.
It’s a common logical fallacy and it puts pressure on others to try to find things that you don’t know what you are talking about about specifically and being actual science to you that you won’t understand this making them unable to convey to you that you are wrong.
Even just on carbon capture alone we will be unable to do any sort of simple or quick fix.
You demand others disprove you rather than prove yourself right. And it’s easy to do because you are operating on a prayer and belief system when your opponents are forced to operate with facts and data.
Same tactics conservatives use cause everyone uses it to shelter their brain. Don’t think yourself smart for doing it.
I think you should explain any logical fallacy or inconsistency you think someone has in their mind in greater detail, without judging them for it.
Don’t make it my job to fix you. It’s exhausting. And you aren’t paying me.
Well, first of all, with our currrent understanding of physics, reversing entropy isn’t even theoretically possible. Second, solar fusion has been happening for billions of years. It’s how the sun works.
Yes, but advanced physics systems like string theory have been building up logic systems for a long time.
These logic systems can solve problems statistically.
The main problem with current solar fusion systems in labs is that a greater proportion of energy is lost than gained. And yes, scientists can gain energy using tiny amounts of matter.
E=mc^2
Turning mass into energy still doesn’t reverse entropy.
Many problems can statistically be resolved, that’s not the problem. The problem is that it needs to be solved realistically. We can’t magically grab a giant ice cube out of nowhere like in Futurama, even if that would statistically solve climate change.
Yes, but we can try to wait for a world like futurama. That’s what I’m doing right now.
As long as you actually support getting funding to these people and actually support implementing when their solutions are proven to work. Starting with the solutions we already know currently work. If you’re not a scientist, it might feel the same as just praying for something good to happen. Just understand the people in white aren’t going to come out and say “we solved it all”. Have realistic expectations.
I am a scientist who understands statistical probability distributions. I am also an optimist.
I think the future could be a utopian society where everyone cooperates without worrying so much, like in some sci-fi TV shows.
Many other people have also believed this in the past.
I rate your odds of being 99.5% AI, 0.04% a kid, 0.01% a misguided person, 1*10-∞% a scientist.
You made those odds up based on your own systems. Your belief systems are probably mostly based on Newton’s Laws, which are a highly advanced subset of science that can sometimes be wrong.
Actually I think he’s just high. I was talking to this same user yesterday and he wasn’t anything like this. I was actually thinking to myself he was one of the most intelligent and levelheaded Lemmings I’d talked to. Give him a couple hours.