Re: Before Big Bang What?

[Samiya Illias]

Space: Before and Beyond
Abstract 
The Quran hints on the existence of something prior to the creation of the 
heavens and earth.  



Full Text 

وَمَا خَلَقْنَا السَّمَاءَ وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا لَاعِبِينَ

لَوْ أَرَدْنَا أَن نَّتَّخِذَ لَهْوًا لَّاتَّخَذْنَاهُ مِن لَّدُنَّا إِن كُنَّا 
فَاعِلِينَ

Not for (idle) sport did We create the heavens and the earth and all that is 
between! 
If it had been Our wish to take (just) a pastime, We should surely have taken 
it from the things nearest to Us, if We would do (such a thing)! 
[Al-Quran 21:16-17, Translation: Yusuf Ali]


According to these ayaat, there is something, some place other than the heavens 
and the earth, which has existed since before it. It is outside what we call 
Space. In fact, regarding space, it states: 

وَالسَّمَاءَ بَنَيْنَاهَا بِأَيْدٍ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ

And the heaven We constructed it with strength, and indeed, We (are) surely 
(its) Expanders. 
[Al-Quran 51:47]


Surah ad-Dukhan (The Smoke) again states that these heavens and earth are not 
without purpose:

وَمَا خَلَقْنَا السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا لَاعِبِينَ

مَا خَلَقْنَاهُمَا إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ

We created not the heavens, the earth, and all between them, merely in (idle) 
sport: 
We created them not except for just ends: but most of them do not understand. 
[Al-Quran 44:38-39, Translation: Yusuf Ali]


The Quran mentions the HOW of the creation of the heavens and earth, but it 
focuses on the WHY. While it is fascinating to wonder about the HOW, it is 
important to focus on the purpose and consequent final outcome: 

الَّذِينَ يَذْكُرُونَ اللَّهَ قِيَامًا وَقُعُودًا وَعَلَىٰ جُنُوبِهِمْ 
وَيَتَفَكَّرُونَ فِي خَلْقِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ رَبَّنَا مَا خَلَقْتَ 
هَٰذَا بَاطِلًا سُبْحَانَكَ فَقِنَا عَذَابَ النَّارِ

رَبَّنَا إِنَّكَ مَن تُدْخِلِ النَّارَ فَقَدْ أَخْزَيْتَهُ وَمَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ 
مِنْ أَنصَارٍ

Those who remember Allah standing, and sitting and on their sides and they 
reflect on (the) creation (of) the heavens and the earth, "Our Lord, not You 
have created this (in) vain. Glory be to You, so save us (from the) punishment 
(of) the Fire. 
Our Lord, indeed [You] whom You admit (to) the Fire then surely You (have) 
disgraced him, and not for the wrongdoers (are) any helpers. 
[Al-Quran 3:191-193, Translation: Yusuf Ali]



For more on purpose, please read Teleology: A purpose-built Universe? 


Science 
Scientist do not know if there was something before the 'Big Bang', the most 
popular theory about the origin of our Universe. Wikipedia states:  
Pre–Big Bang physics (PBBP) are physics which can be speculated to have existed 
prior to the Big Bang. PBBP may have been radically different from the current 
laws of physics.
Although theoretical speculation on possible PBBP has only begun, research into 
the field could hold incredible implications for the makeup of the universe, 
and numerous possibilities beyond the limit of the current laws of physics in 
possible existence prior to the Big Bang.
https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2019/01/space-before-and-beyond.html 


> On 01-Jul-2022, at 2:29 AM, Lawrence Crowell 
>  wrote:
> 
> I do not want to get into this terribly much, not because of lack of 
> interest (this is connected to what I work on) but more because a sense of 
> futility. There is one difficulty with all of this; inflation stretched space 
> into a homogenous space that bears little data concerning what came before 
> inflation. Any fluctuation associated with the state of the cosmos prior to 
> inflation has been stretched to scales that may bear imprints on the CMB or 
> they may even be larger. If this cosmos in the inflationary or 
> pre-inflationary stage interacted with other vacuum bubbles or there were 
> other quantum gravitational physics it might have an imprint on the CMB. The 
> structure of anisotropies of the CMB temperature or amplitude does contain 
> some statistical kurtoses that may indicate something beyond a white noise or 
> Gaussian spectrum. 
> 
> LC
> 
>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 1:23:58 PM UTC-5 medinuclear wrote:
>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/what-scientists-think-the-universe-was-like-before-the-big-bang/
>> 
>> [Sean Carroll & Jennifer Chen]
>> 
>> “But is it possible that something could have existed before the Big Bang? 
>> After all, something couldn't have come from nothing, right? It turns out 
>> the answer is a bit complicated.For example, theoretical physicist 
>> (astronomer?) Sean Carroll at the California Institute of Technology and his 
>> colleague Jennifer Chen have created their own theory for what may have 
>> occurred before our universe. Their paper on the subject, published in 2004, 
>> suggested that our universe could have been created as a result of a piece 
>> of space-time splitting from a parent universe (via Cornell University)”.
>> 
>> [Philip Benjamin]
>> 
>>Science is about 

Re: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Donny is the progressive obsession in which the fantasy is and was, another 
Adolf. He never was ever close to that and now just looks like (to me) like a 
complainer (yeah really!) who couldn't punch back too hard on his political 
enemies. This ain't and never was old Adolf.
Wildest Emmy Moments - YouTube
No death camps, no nazism* (The BBC cracked the 'fine people on both sides edit 
that NBC did), no klansman at your door, just a guy who reduced unemployment 
enough, pre Covid, to start drawing a thin line of voters from the Blacks & 
Latinos exiting Right, and did mean Tweets.  You won't be running against the 
lad in 2024, so I suggest you gin up your material for Desantis. I suspect that 
by the time Joey gets done with us, a majority of voters will be saying, 
"Hitler=Trump, Desantis=Trump??!! "Yeah ok, now will he get us jobs?" 
Recession-ville, dream babies!

*Did you really think he was going to kill his daughter & grandkids for being 
Jews?!! By 1935 Nuremberg Laws they'd be judged as mischlinge, and not 
necessarily subject to the camps and theft anyways. 
For the electoral college we are as Cap'n Ahab whose harpoon lines have the 
captain entangled to the body of Moby Dick and in our case I do mean, dick. 
Thus, we the people are so ensnared, long before we were born. Actually, if we 
get QC and AI driving things, our situation could be more like Orson Welles 
finale' in Graham Greene's The 3rd Man.
The Third Man..The.Cuckoo Clock - YouTube
Or, as Bette Davis said in All About Even, "Strap yourselves in folks, we're 
going to be in for a bumpy ride.  Just remember, Bad Don is not the Captain. 
Joey is, maybe?

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Jun 30, 2022 10:28 am
Subject: Re: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 9:48 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


> I am still a sort of Keynesian. 

You could've fooled me.  
> But the progressive left screws things up. Basically, it breaks down to 
> people who are socialist totalitarians(commies)  being contributed to by 
> super rich doyens who fund the party and candidates, in an exchange of cash 
> for influence. 

That sounds like a very good description of Donald Trump. And yes, woke 
progressives can be annoying but there is little danger of them staging a coup 
d'état or building concentration camps and stuffing people into ovens, but 
right wing dictators do both. Donald Trump's deepest desire is to become a 
right wing dictator, and on January 6, 2021 he came very close to achieving his 
dream. How on earth can any rational human being even talk about giving this 
semiliterate unstable catchup throwing steering wheel grabbing traitor the 
power to destroy the human race for another 4 years?!

 > Crime is 2nd only to inflation as a national concern

I know and that is totally irrational. Crime is a trivial problem compared with 
the possibility of nuclear war, the certain existence of non-nuclear war, 
pollution that kills millions of people each year, the Covid epidemic that has 
killed over 1 million Americans, the societal disruption that has been caused 
by technological advancement that will only increase, and the wealth gap that 
is not just growing but accelerating between 99.9% of human beings on the 
planet who are just rich and the dozen or so that are Super Ultra Mega Rich. 
Donald Trump is not Super Ultra Mega Rich although he likes to pretend he is, 
and if he wins the 2024 election (really wins I mean, regardless of the outcome 
he is certain to claim he won) then he certainly will become that rich and he 
will stay in power until the day he dies.  And the day after that Donald Junior 
will be coronated as King Donald II.
 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
bcl

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3UqWe4XtPVxGcFeuRPGak0bDgBrvsV0ot18P1%2BT0mgPw%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2064469415.107727.1656637618647%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Quantum Computing

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

That's the thing JC, its not always rationality, or compelled rationality that 
rules us. Energy policy is performed outside of logic, or even greed, but 
ideology. Will an era of energy shortages compel the Greens to yield to reason 
(assuming its as safe as postulated and affordable?) and the leadership going 
along? I am thinking not. Also, if we were smarter would we have not already 
poured money into R for MSR reactors decades ago. No, I am not referring to 
the Canadian produced CANDU reactors that ran using Th232-U233 and used heavy 
water as a moderator. 


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
Cc: meekerbr...@gmail.com 
Sent: Thu, Jun 30, 2022 8:21 am
Subject: Re: Quantum Computing

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 10:09 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:



 > do Thorium 232-->U233 as a fuel cycle and would it be safe enough

Yes. All Uranium breeders produce massive amounts of Plutonium which is a bad 
thing if you're worried about people making bombs. Thorium reactors produce an 
insignificant amount of Plutonium, they do produce Uranium-233 and 
theoretically you could make a bomb out of that, but it would be contaminated 
with Uranium-232 which would take a billion dollar isotope separation plant to 
decontaminate. Uranium-232 is a powerful gamma ray emitter which would make it 
suicidal to work with unless extraordinary precautions were taken, and even 
then the unexploded bomb would be so radioactive it would give away its 
location if you tried to hide it, and the gamma rays would destroy its 
electronic firing circuits, and degrade its chemical explosives. But as long as 
the U-232 and U-233 remain inside the LFTR they are safe because it will 
quickly burn them up, in fact that's what powers the reactor. 
As far as I know a U-233 bomb was attempted only twice, in 1955 the USA set off 
a Plutonium/U233 composite bomb, it was expected to produce 33 kilotons but 
only managed 22; the only pure U-233 bomb I know of was set off in 1998 by 
India, but it was a fizzle, a complete flop, it produced a minuscule explosion 
of only equivalent to 200 tons of TNT due to pre-detonation. For these reasons 
even after nearly 80 years no nation currently has U233 bombs in their arsenal 
because if you want to kill people on a mass scale Uranium-235 and 
Plutonium-239 are far more practical than Uranium-233.
A Thorium reactor only produces about 1% as much radioactive waste as a 
conventional reactor, and the stuff it does make is not as nasty, after about 5 
years 87% of it would be safe and the remaining 13% in 300 years; a 
conventional reactor would take 100,000 years.  The fundamental reason for this 
is because the starting material of a LFTR is Thorium 232, lower down on the 
periodic table than Uranium 238 so much less nasty transuranium stuff is 
produced.  A LFTR  reactor has an inherent safety feature, the fuel is in 
liquid form (Thorium dissolved in un-corrosive molten Fluoride salts) so if for 
whatever reason things get too hot the liquid expands and so the fuel gets less 
dense and the reaction slows down. There is yet another fail safe device. At 
the bottom of the reactor is something called a "freeze plug", fans blow on it 
to freeze it solid, if things get too hot the plug melts and the liquid drains 
out (by gravity, mechanical pumps are not needed) into a neutron absorbing 
holding tank and the reaction stops; also, if all electronic controls die due 
to a loss of electrical power the fans will stop the plug will melt and the 
reaction will stop, so it's walk away safe. 
Although the liquid Fluoride salt is very hot it is not under pressure so that 
makes the plumbing of the thing much easier, and even if you did get a leak it 
would not be the utter disaster it would be in a conventional reactor; that's 
also why the containment building in common light water reactors need to be so 
much larger than the reactor itself and why the walls of it needs to be so 
thick. With Thorium nothing is under pressure and there is no danger of a 
disastrous phase change, like ultra hot pressurized water turning into steam, 
so the super expensive containment building can be made much more compact. And 
because LFTR reactors work at much higher temperatures than conventional 
reactors you have much higher thermodynamic efficiency; in fact they are so hot 
the waste heat could be used to desalinate sea water or generate hydrogen fuel 
from water.
 
> so the public wouldn't object (protest, riots, etc)?

Of course environmentalists will protest! Environmentalists are not serious 
people so they will protest  ANY large scale energy project. Natural gas kills 
fewer people than oil because of pollution and oil kills fewer people than 
coal, but that distinction makes no difference to environmentalists, they are 
equal opportunity protesters. Environmentalists never saw an energy source that 
was actually built that they didn't hate, although they might 

Re: FW: Ahistorical 'Woke Culture' Is Moses Vs The Pharaoh Or As Augustin Vs WAMP_the-Ingrate

[Lawrence Crowell]

All of this is nonsense. You don't think models take these things into 
account? Hansen wrote his paper in 1981 and I did read it later. The paper 
uses the Stephan-Boltzmann equation or theory and the thermal properties of 
CO_2, and computed a rough estimate for how CO_2 would trap heat and warm 
Earth. CO_2 has a large cross-section with IR; it absorbs and re-emits it. 
This is why it traps heat. Hansen's model was very accurate for the entire 
Earth, the warming of the Earth on average has proceeded exactly as Hansen 
predicted. The more complex models are meant to refine this to predict more 
regional and local climate and weather changes.

LC

On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 1:11:23 PM UTC-5 medinuclear wrote:

>  *everyth...@googlegroups.com; general...@googlegroups.com  *
>
> [*Philip Benjamin*]  *Definitions of WAMP, ‘Awakening’ etc. are given at 
> the bottom.*
>
> Chemical equation of combustion of the petroleum hydrocarbons is 
> generally: CnH 2n+2 +(1 +3n) [O]  → n CO2 +(n + 1) H 2O, where ‘n’ ranges 
> from 6 to 10. For the simplest methane (n=1) it is CH4+ [4 O]  -> CO2+ 2 H
> 2O+ energy..  For each C atom 4 O atoms (i.e. 2 O2 molecules) are removed 
> from the atmosphere, potentially causing an oxygen depletion which will be 
> disastrous, but never occurred. The carbon cycle takes care of that 
> contingency. There  are over 6000 byproducts of oil and gas industries, *very 
> essential *for civilized life, from pharmaceuticals to fertilizers, none 
> of which is available from wind and solar energy productions.  
>
> Pagan WAMP GIGO computer models will not and cannot give a 
> threshold danger level of CO2. The greenhouse effect is for a closed 
> system, unlike the open earth’s atmosphere which is subject to all kinds of 
> external causes (ultraviolet, cosmic rays, solar flares, sunspots etc.). 
> Both CO2 gas and H2O vapor absorb infrared rays, but the H2O is eventually 
> condensed into liquid water (causing no catastrophic rise in sea levels, 
> from any meteorology department which is the only division accredited for 
> climate or weather science).  
>
>   The greenhouse effect traps heat (infrared rays from sun’s light) 
> close to the “goldilocks” Earth's surface by “greenhouse gases and vapors”, 
> which include CO2, CH4,  NO & NO2, and H2O vapor. These respond physically 
> or chemically to changes in temperatures--  a "feedback" effect. Science 
> has determined that without the beneficial CO2, earth's  surface would be 
> ~33°C (59°F) cooler (
> https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/).  
>
>  
>
>*Beware of WAMP Pseudoscience: *
>
> *https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange* 
>  
> *https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions* 
>  
>
>
> *https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#global-co2-emissions-from-fossil-fuels-global-co2-emissions-from-fossil-fuels*
>  
> 
>  
>
> *https://www.firesafecouncil.org/how-much-carbon-dioxide-does-a-forest-fire-produce/
>  
> *
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/
>  
> 
> ?
>
>   .  An estimated 1,050 wildfires worldwide produced global CO2 
> emissions of 76 billion tons in 2021. There are at least 5000 years of 
> recorded history, i.e 76 billions X 5,000 = 380 trillion tons of CO2. Add 
> to it ~ 3.2 trillion tons for the same period from volcanic eruptions (see 
> below), thus totaling 383.2 trillions of CO2 
>
> [Volcanisms (excluding numerous Submarine volcanoes) are estimated to 
> emit about 645 million tons of CO2 per year.  Ethan Siegel a science 
> contributor of Forbes omits the total for say at least 5000 years of 
> volcanisms, totaling 3,225,000 million or 3.2 trillion tons of CO2].The 
> global Marxist-socialist pagan climatology pundits with UC do not and 
> cannot determine how much CO2 will be needed to make the ‘goldilocks’ 
> greenhouse effect dangerous. 
>
>   https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange 
> https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions 
>
>
> https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#global-co2-emissions-from-fossil-fuels-global-co2-emissions-from-fossil-fuels
>  
>
> Greenhouse gas emissions from global road travel: is about 33 
> billion tons, reports the *World Bank* as annual emission from burning 
> fossil fuels, a little less than 1% of present atmospheric CO2. This 
> multiplied by about 150 years (50 years past & 100 years future of 
> climatology pseudoscience) of fossil fuel use equals a meager ~ 5.1 
> trillion tons of CO2, compared to 380 trillion tons of 

Re: Before Big Bang What?

[Lawrence Crowell]

I do not want to get into this terribly much, not because of lack of 
interest (this is connected to what I work on) but more because a sense of 
futility. There is one difficulty with all of this; inflation stretched 
space into a homogenous space that bears little data concerning what came 
before inflation. Any fluctuation associated with the state of the cosmos 
prior to inflation has been stretched to scales that may bear imprints on 
the CMB or they may even be larger. If this cosmos in the inflationary or 
pre-inflationary stage interacted with other vacuum bubbles or there were 
other quantum gravitational physics it might have an imprint on the CMB. 
The structure of anisotropies of the CMB temperature or amplitude does 
contain some statistical kurtoses that may indicate something beyond a 
white noise or Gaussian spectrum. 

LC

On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 1:23:58 PM UTC-5 medinuclear wrote:

>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/what-scientists-think-the-universe-was-like-before-the-big-bang/
>  
>
> [*Sean Carroll & Jennifer Chen*]
>
> “But is it possible that something could have existed before the Big Bang? 
> After all, something couldn't have come from nothing, right? It turns out 
> the answer is a bit complicated.For example, theoretical physicist (
> *astronomer?*) Sean Carroll at the California Institute of Technology and 
> his colleague Jennifer Chen have created their own theory for what may have 
> occurred before our universe. Their paper on the subject, published in 
> 2004, suggested that our universe could have been created as a result of a 
> piece of space-time splitting from a *parent universe* (via Cornell 
> University)”.
>
> [*Philip Benjamin*]
>
>Science is about observation, experimentation, logical analysis and 
> rational inferences. What is the observation here? Only the universe as is! 
> Nothing else. Does any sentence above obey the basic laws of logic, such as 
> Law of Noncontradiction, Causality, Infinite Regress, Aseity etc.? Why 
> can’t scientists be logical, rational and *humble enough* to at least 
> admit that human mind is finite and science is incomplete, imprecise and 
> indefinite. Nobody even knows what precisely even Big Bang is! Where did 
> all that energy come from? Now to add to this irrationality, where did the 
> *parent 
> universe* come from? 
>
> *Philip Benjamin*
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/66946837-2807-4f75-89ea-11a1cd4d5c38n%40googlegroups.com.

RE: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College

[Philip Benjamin]

[Philip Benjamin]
" ... in American history ... " ? In what American history? The history 
that is deliberately NOT taught by WAMP-the-Ingrate? Under the pretext of 
"church-state-separation"? American history began with and for most part of 
known records remained as PURITAN HISTORY (which is essentially Church 
History). The change came with the dominance of Marxist, socialist, fascist 
pagan tyranny of the WAMP-the-Ingrate, primarily in the 60's and onwards 
accentuated by the recent collapse of the Marxism in the Soviets and subsequent 
infiltration by hardcore Marxists into the Western acade-media.
  The Non-sovereign Federation of the Sovereign States is NOT an atheistic, 
humanistic,  libertarian or Marxist-socialist or fascist or pagan IDEA!! It is 
a contribution from and to a "generation" of >98.8% Protestants, <1% Roman 
Catholics and < 0.2% Jews, whom the Koran will identify as the "people of the 
Book". In the 1700's the one and only largely accepted AUTHORITY for human  
affairs in the American Colonies was that Book. The Constitution and the 
general ethos it represented was a product of the historical and historic "Two 
Great Awakenings" First led by the prodigious Jonathan Edwards the founder of 
Princeton U and the Second by the President of Yale U,  for which the pagan 
Marxist Stalin had to "unconsciously" coin the term "American Exceptionalism" 
and which Nordic pagan Hitler "In 1940, Thought America Was Just "Beauty 
Queens, Millionaires, Stupid Records And Hollywood" 
(https://www.businessinsider.com/in-1940-hitler-thought-america-was-just-beauty-queens-millionaires-stupid-records-and-hollywood-2012-5).
Definition: WAMP = Western Acade-Media Pagan (ism), a parody of WASP.
Philip Benjamin PhD MSc MA
Nonconformist to Marxist socialist fascist pagan globalism.

 From: everything-list@googlegroups.com  
On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 4:25 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College

Apparently.  Neither of my libertarian friends ever supported Trump.  One is an 
anarcho-libertarian lawyer who's big on all personal freedom including drugs, 
abortion, prostitution, anti-war,...  The other, the Republican, is in favor of 
open borders (but not citizenship) eliminating all regulation of doctors and 
medical treatment and considers taxes only justified for foreign defense.  He 
was a political activist who helped get California to adopt a non-partisan 
citizens committee for redistricting.  I did some mathematical analysis 
supporting him.

Brent
On 6/29/2022 11:55 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 2:46 PM Brent Meeker mailto:meekerbr...@gmail.com>  > wrote:

> Really?  I know a couple of libertarians, including a guy who used to be 
> chairman of the Republican Libertarian Caucus, they're 100% for abortion as 
> an individual right.

Sadly that has not been my experience, I know many who called them selves 
"libertarians" that are Trump supporters despite the fact that Trump is the 
most anti-libertarian president in American history, don't ask me why. But 
maybe you just hang around a better class of libertarians than I do.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SJ0PR14MB52649B121C22A2CFA60807B1A8BA9%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.

Re: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 9:48 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> I am still a sort of Keynesian. *
>

You could've fooled me.


> *> But the progressive left screws things up. Basically, it breaks down to
> people who are socialist totalitarians(commies)  being contributed to by
> super rich doyens who fund the party and candidates, in an exchange of cash
> for influence. *
>

That sounds like a very good description of Donald Trump. And yes, woke
progressives can be annoying but there is little danger of them staging a
coup d'état or building concentration camps and stuffing people into ovens,
but right wing dictators do both. Donald Trump's deepest desire is to
become a right wing dictator, and on January 6, 2021 he came very close to
achieving his dream. How on earth can any rational human being even talk
about giving this semiliterate unstable catchup throwing steering wheel
grabbing traitor the power to destroy the human race for another 4 years?!

 > *Crime is 2nd only to inflation as a national concern*


I know and that is totally irrational. Crime is a trivial problem compared
with the possibility of nuclear war, the certain existence of non-nuclear
war, pollution that kills millions of people each year, the Covid epidemic
that has killed over 1 million Americans, the societal disruption that has
been caused by technological advancement that will only increase, and the
wealth gap that is not just growing but accelerating between 99.9% of human
beings on the planet who are just rich and the dozen or so that are Super
Ultra Mega Rich. Donald Trump is not Super Ultra Mega Rich although he
likes to pretend he is, and if he wins the 2024 election (really wins I
mean, regardless of the outcome he is certain to claim he won) then he
certainly will become that rich and he will stay in power until the day he
dies.  And the day after that Donald Junior will be coronated as King Donald
II.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

bcl

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3UqWe4XtPVxGcFeuRPGak0bDgBrvsV0ot18P1%2BT0mgPw%40mail.gmail.com.

An example of environmentalist non-seriousness

[John Clark]

This quote is from today's issue of the New York Times, it's about a
company called BlueWave that has found a way to use the same land for both
farming and solar cell electrical production, and environmentalists oppose
the idea of course:

"*chapters of the Audubon nonprofit environmental organization have been
vocal about the technology’s potential effect on wildlife. Michelle Manion,
the vice president of policy and advocacy for Mass Audubon (which is not
affiliated with the National Audubon Society), said that while her
organization supported renewable energy, including solar within farming
operations, “we want to maximize the placement of ground-mounted solar on
some of our lands that are the least ecologically sensitive first.” And
there are general concerns that even with dual-use solar panels, arable
land may be lost, though BlueWave says that the land can be reverted to
pure agriculture uses once the solar leases — typically 20 to 30 years —
expire*."

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


961

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0uhAEghZS1RT0KpoKNvFCLaohAkyht6Br2bkrLwWpWag%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum Computing

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 10:09 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


> *do Thorium 232-->U233 as a fuel cycle and would it be safe enough*
>

Yes. All Uranium breeders produce massive amounts of Plutonium which is a
bad thing if you're worried about people making bombs. Thorium reactors
produce an insignificant amount of Plutonium, they do produce Uranium-233
and theoretically you could make a bomb out of that, but it would be
contaminated with Uranium-232 which would take a billion dollar isotope
separation plant to decontaminate. Uranium-232 is a powerful gamma ray
emitter which would make it suicidal to work with unless extraordinary
precautions were taken, and even then the unexploded bomb would be so
radioactive it would give away its location if you tried to hide it, and
the gamma rays would destroy its electronic firing circuits, and degrade
its chemical explosives. But as long as the U-232 and U-233 remain inside
the LFTR they are safe because it will quickly burn them up, in fact that's
what powers the reactor.

As far as I know a U-233 bomb was attempted only twice, in 1955 the USA set
off a Plutonium/U233 composite bomb, it was expected to produce 33 kilotons
but only managed 22; the only pure U-233 bomb I know of was set off in 1998
by India, but it was a fizzle, a complete flop, it produced a minuscule
explosion of only equivalent to 200 tons of TNT due to pre-detonation. For
these reasons even after nearly 80 years no nation currently has U233 bombs
in their arsenal because if you want to kill people on a mass scale
Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239 are far more practical than Uranium-233.

A Thorium reactor only produces about 1% as much radioactive waste as a
conventional reactor, and the stuff it does make is not as nasty, after
about 5 years 87% of it would be safe and the remaining 13% in 300 years; a
conventional reactor would take 100,000 years.  The fundamental reason for
this is because the starting material of a LFTR is Thorium 232, lower down
on the periodic table than Uranium 238 so much less nasty transuranium
stuff is produced.  A LFTR  reactor has an inherent safety feature, the
fuel is in liquid form (Thorium dissolved in un-corrosive molten Fluoride
salts) so if for whatever reason things get too hot the liquid expands and
so the fuel gets less dense and the reaction slows down. There is yet
another fail safe device. At the bottom of the reactor is something called
a "freeze plug", fans blow on it to freeze it solid, if things get too hot
the plug melts and the liquid drains out (by gravity, mechanical pumps are
not needed) into a neutron absorbing holding tank and the reaction stops;
also, if all electronic controls die due to a loss of electrical power the
fans will stop the plug will melt and the reaction will stop, so it's walk
away safe.

Although the liquid Fluoride salt is very hot it is not under pressure so
that makes the plumbing of the thing much easier, and even if you did get a
leak it would not be the utter disaster it would be in a conventional
reactor; that's also why the containment building in common light water
reactors need to be so much larger than the reactor itself and why the
walls of it needs to be so thick. With Thorium nothing is under pressure
and there is no danger of a disastrous phase change, like ultra hot
pressurized water turning into steam, so the super expensive containment
building can be made much more compact. And because LFTR reactors work at
much higher temperatures than conventional reactors you have much higher
thermodynamic efficiency; in fact they are so hot the waste heat could be
used to desalinate sea water or generate hydrogen fuel from water.


> > *so the public wouldn't object (protest, riots, etc)?*
>

Of course environmentalists will protest! Environmentalists are not serious
people so they will protest *ANY* large scale energy project. Natural gas
kills fewer people than oil because of pollution and oil kills fewer people
than coal, but that distinction makes no difference to environmentalists,
they are equal opportunity protesters. Environmentalists never saw an
energy source that was actually built that they didn't hate, although they
might like some provided they stay strictly on the drawing board. Solar
cells in the desert harm super rare desert species, wind power turbines are
ugly and disrupt natural wind patterns and kill little birdies, geothermal
causes earthquakes, and nuclear power is the power that must not be named,
this despite the fact nuclear has by far the best safety record of any
energy source. Environmentalists will not be satisfied unless something is
100% safe, 99.9% simply will not do, and it must have precisely zero
impact on the environment. And that's just not realistic.

Never before in the history of life on this planet has 8 billion large
animals of the same species existed, in order to keep that many individuals
alive (much less happy) some disruption