Are there any nanotechnological approaches to controlled nuclear fusion?

Or, for that matter, are there any microtechnological approaches to controlled nuclear fusion? The reason I ask, is that I am most unimpressed with the Tokamak nuclear fusion reactors. Looks like the idea is a Manhattan Project that never ends. It's always just "ten years away". So, huge amounts of money are invested endlessly in totally useless megaprojects. Seems to me that very small fusion reactors would be much safer and much cheaper. Are there any efforts in this direction, at all?

In general, nuclear plasma is dangerous

Now, this isn't really very difficult here. If you have gaseous medium heated to 150 million degrees Kelvin, Celsius or whatever, it's very volatile, by definition. It has a great deal of kinetic energy, and will spread it around very quickly. It's not just the amount of energy here, it's the form it's in. In contrast, for example, Mount Everest contains an enormous amound of gravitational potential energy, but, in general, that's not too much of a problem, the energy is contained within a stable structure. Unless you get caught in a landslide or an avalanche. So, again, by definition, Tokamak fusion reactors are dangerous. If the electromagnetic containment breaks down, that superheated nuclear plasma will dissipate in an explosive fashion. And, the more efficient the reactor, the more energy the plasma will contain, and the the more dangerous the explosion will be. Basically, a Tokamak fusion reactor is simply an electromagnetically contained H-bomb. Any commerically viable fusion reactor will have to contain at least dozens, and perhaps hundreds of times more energy in the plasma than in the conducting coils energizing it. So, if the containment breaks down, we can expect the entire region to be vaporized, just like an H-bomb would do it. Not really that "safe" after all, eh? Now currently, these reactors really don't work at all. They'll have to be vastly more efficient to be commercially viable. And, admittedly, currently, with hundreds of cubic meters of superheated plasma at 2.6 atmospheres, they're dangerous as all Hell, but, still not nearly as apocalyptically dangerous as an H-bomb at its epicenter. However, since efficiency will have to be increased by orders of magnitude for any commerical applications, it's quite likely plasma density will have to be increased correspondingly. So, actually, if electromagnetic containment breaks down after these developments, it will have effects identical to those of an H-bomb. Goodbye hundreds of square miles. Just glaze. Have a nice day. If a nuclear fusion power plant were no more efficient or powerful than a conventional power plant, then we need only concern ourselves with the equivalent of a 0.1 kiloton Hydrogen Bomb. Not a very big Hydrogen Bomb, at all. So, it would only liquidate the power plant and the immediate area, if electromagnetic containment collapsed. However, I think the idea is that fusion power plants would be much, much more efficient and powerful than conventional power plants. Hence, much closer to actual, larger H-bombs in the devastating effects of a collapse of electromagnetic containment. In the tens, hundreds or thousands of kilotons.

What if Eisenhower uses tactical nuclear weapons at Dien Bien Phu, in 1954?

That's what the Pentagon advised him to do. The generals suggested he use three atomic bombs to completely exterminate the enemy forces at Dien Bien Phu. A nuclear attack would have "taught the Chinese a lesson", according to the generals. No doubt, it would have. It probably would have taught Nikita Krushchev and the Soviets a few lessons too. The question is, what exactly would they have been? Several years later, the generals were still saying going nuclear in Vietnam would have been a good idea. Eisenhower decided against this, of course, probably assisted in this decision by a clear veto from the British. It seems that no matter how nostalgic the British may be, they still don't really want to go back to Stonehenge. Not really. The fact is, to stage a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, in this age prior to ICBM's, it was necessary to have bases in Europe. Nuclear Bomber range was only about 2,000 miles. No bases in Europe, no possibility of a nuclear attack on European Russia. So, if it looked like the U.S. was getting a little trigger happy with nuclear weapons, Krushchev might have had little choice but to overrun Europe, simply to defend himself.

What would happen if a Tokamak fusion reactor exploded?

I can't seem to find any detailed information online on this particular topic, for some reason. Now, off hand, I would think the consequences of directly releasing plasma superheated to 150 million degrees C into the natural environment might not be entirely desirable. Am I mistaken, here? Apparently, the temperatures caused by an H-bomb are quite comparable to those of the superheated plasma in a Tokamak reactor. And H-bombs are plasma bombs, by the way. So, I was thinking, this "safe and clean" energy source might just possibly have a certain down side, if you see what I mean. So, exactly how much of a down side might it have? Accidents do happen, you know. Bear in mind, the total volume of superheated plasma in the ITER Tokamak chamber will be 840 cubic meters. So, even given pressures not much greater than normal earth atmospheric pressure at sea level, this volume of vapor at 150 million degrees C., given the total failure of electromagnetic containment, would simply vaporize all surrounding buildings, and everything in the environment. What would be the total area liquidated, exactly? It shouldn't be terribly difficult to calculate it, should it?

How effective is the scientific method?

Since roughly the mid-twentieth century, most people in society as a whole have perceived certain failures in the progress of science as a whole. Most conspicuously, I would cite three particular problems. For about seventy-five years now, the limitless clean power of controlled nuclear fusion has just been "ten or twenty years away". And, it still is, "ten or twenty years away". Now, apologists will counter that the only real problem is that fusion requires more power to produce than it generates. Yes indeed, that is a problem. And, it's far from clear when it will be solved. Since the nineteen-nineties, "climate science" has been making apocalyptic predictions of global catastrophe based on greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Many have claimed that cyclical variations in climate are a normal aspect of the environment. So far, the only apparent practical consequence is cynical shrewd opportunists like Elon Musk using "climate science" as a marketing platform to become fabulously wealthy. And, of course, the current COVID "pandemic" is making a great many people wonder very much whether government in general, and the entire health care industry in particular, really know at all which end is up. So, I was wondering, from a philosophical point of view, just how effective is the scientific method? And, is there any way of making science more effective, in general?

What if most people didn't believe space and time were related?

I believe, as result of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and its support by the Physics community, most people currently do. That's why virtually everyone thinks light speed is an absolute limit. I would suggest that the evidence supporting Relativity Theory is, actually, somewhat less than overwhelming. We have particle accelerator physics experiments in laboratories that could be artifactual results of the structure of the particle accelerators themselves. And we have some consistency between GPS calculations and Relativity, although GPS is actually done empirically. Some other astrophysical effects may have microeffects that can be seen as consistent with Relativity Theory. Of course, to take bit of a tangent, parapsychologists consistently find overwhelmingly statistically significant psychokinetic microeffects on automated coin tossing -- say, 50.001% heads vs. 49.999% tails, over a million trials, where experimental subjects were trying, psychokinetically, to achieve the result "heads". Does this convince you that we all have psychokinetic powers? It doesn't convince me. So, let's suppose that most people didn't believe that space and time were related. What would be the practical implications of such a change in people's beliefs? I think I can see one. Given our knowledge of earth-like planets in solar systems near our own, I believe -- given no faith in a light speed limit -- we would be making nuclear powered spacecraft a much greater priority, for purposes of interstellar travel. On the assumption that simple Newtonian mechanics would apply. We would simply reach the speed of light, and, then go faster. Perhaps, to five or ten times the speed of light. And go on to colonize these new Earths.

Are there any fantasy/sci-fi stories written since 1950 that assume Einstein's theory of Relativity is wrong?

What I mean here is that we could travel to the speed of light, and faster than the speed of light, with nothing much very exciting happening, at all. So, perhaps using a nuclear fusion pulse powered spacecraft, we would accelerate by simple Newtonian mechanics up to the speed of light, then, perhaps to five or ten times the speed of light, and reach some of the many earth-like planets we now know with near-certainty exist in accessible solar systems not too far from our own. Now I know the physicists will cry foul here. After all, we all know it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. After all, we have laboratory particle accelerator experiments consistent with relativity; possibly artifactual, but, we have them. We have GPS. It's done empirically, but, some aspects of it do seem consistent with Relativity theory. Still, this is fantasy fiction, you know. Surely, it would possible to consider the possibility that Einstein was wrong, in fantasy? And, the implications might be quite interesting from a sociological point of view. All kinds of human civilizations spread throughout the stars and communicating or trading with each other using nuclear powered spaceships. Now, I know we do have the speculated possibility of wormholes, warp drives or even black holes facilitating time travel, faster than light travel and travel to other universes in good old Relativity Theory. It's just, somehow, we don't seem to be making much real progress in those directions, despite the best efforts of the physicists. So, I was wondering if there are any fantasy/sci-fi stories that consider putting Einstein aside, for the moment, just for speculative purposes.

Is Relativity Theory the new "Flat Earth"?

People like structure. They like a sense of fixed limits. That's why "theory" is so attractive to people. The notion that we exist in an empirical universe in which we never can really know for sure what is going to happen next is very disturbing to most people. Is that why so many people find that idea that nothing can possibly travel faster than light so appealing? Of course, physicists can produce laboratory particle accelerator experiments consistent with Relativity, but, these could be artifactual. There are some microeffects in space, but, very small effects are notably untrustworthy. The fact is, Relativity is based on the very simple fact that the electromagnetic spectrum, as we understand it, doesn't include particle or wave forms that go faster than light. It assumes we already know everything there is to know about such waveforms. And, postulated abstractions about "space-time" don't really add any new information, or provide any additional evidence. Actually, this is quite a bit like the idea that the earth was flat. And, even now, you can find plenty of evidence for this, if you really want to! The real problem here, is that we now know that there are innumerable earth-like planets that would be quite accessible to nuclear powered spacecraft that probably could be developed. Assuming, of course, that we don't run into that big, bad, nasty light speed limit, that is! Because, everyone knows, you can't travel faster than light. You'd fall off the edge of the earth, right?

Does "Dark Matter" pose insurmontable problems, in epistemological terms, for Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is based on the notion that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, because light is the fastest wave/particle in the electromagnetic spectrum, as we have understood it. Dark Matter represents 90% of the matter in the universe, but doesn't interact with light, at all, ever. It seems to exist entirely outside of the electromagnetic spetrum, as we have understood it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtdLfdnpzs It seems to me, this is, at least from a philosophical point of view, a very straightforward and total disproof of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I mean we can simply throw the Theory of Relativity out the window! Naturally, physicists disagree. The claim evidence consistent with Relativity from laboratory particle accelerator experiments, and microeffects in space. I would argue that these are probably artifactual experimental effects. What would be a philosophical perspective on this issue?

Do mathematicians have any opinion on the mathermatical "fixes" attempting to reconcile "Dark Matter" with Einstein's theory of Relativity?

The concept of "Dark Matter" has been causing considerable inconvenience for physicists for some decades now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtdLfdnpzs In response, physicists have developed a number of mathematical "fixes" attempting to reconcile "Dark Matter", and some other inconveniences, with Einstein's Theory of Relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity I was wondering if mathematicians have any views on these particular questions? To me, in simple intuitive terms, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is based on the notion that Light defines the Universe as a whole, so, given we now know that 90% of the matter in the universe doesn't interact with light, at all, ever, then, essentially, the Theory of Relativity is wrong. Any thoughts?

What if Isaac Newton's Principia, and his theories, were delayed 150 years?

Newton's Principia, with his theory of Universal Gravity, his concepts of Potential and Kinetic Energy, his Laws of Motion, was first published in 1687. Of course, it would be impossible to even conceive of the modern world, without them, at this stage. Much of modern engineering and design requires them. Automobiles, trains, airplanes, rockets and satellites couldn't be built without them. Modern building design would also be impossible without them. Nevertheless, it is, I think, much less clear what exactly people in 1687 would have done with Newton's new laws and concepts, at the time. I suppose the most obvious application would have been to ordnance, and gunnery. But, even there, I'm not sure the chemical properties of gunpowder were understood with sufficient precision to really make them particularly applicable; that is, was the chemical energy contained in a given quantity of gunpowder understood sufficiently well and precisely that the concepts of energy could really be applied to it directly, at the time? When the first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica was published in 1773, they couldn't even conceive of how to visually, graphically represent the operation of the early steam engines -- called "fire-engines" -- being used to pump water out of coal mines. The concept of a mechanism moving so rapidly as the result of artifical motive force simply hadn't existed before this time, so the science of graphical representation had to catch up with it. So, supposing no one had been aware of Universal Gravity, Potential and Kinetic Energy, or the Laws of Motion, before 1837? What difference would it really have made? I rather suspect, not a great deal. Perhaps, having them available, resulted in people trying to think of applications for them, and, over the long term, this made such developments more likely. Or, perhaps not. This also has some relevance to Relativity Theory, which has been around for almost 120 years now. Again, practical applications of Relativity seem to be a bit thin on the ground. Many would point to GPS, but, this can be, and is done empirically. In fact, the main practical application of Relativity Theory seems to be a negative one. Since almost everyone believes it is impossible to travel faster than light these days, we are making no efforts to develop nuclear powered spacecraft to travel to any of the many earth-like planets in other solar systems we now know with near certainty do exist. So, does it, possibly, require centuries before major theoretical revolutions in Physics yield significant applications? Was this the case with Newton's theories, and is it the case with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, as well? So, might we expect some major, important practical developments from Relativity Theory, within another century, or two, perhaps?

Why doesn't Elon Musk develop nuclear power?

One can't help but notice that Elon Musk seems very interested in virtually every area of technological development, with the very noticable exception of nuclear power. This seems particularly puzzling, in light of his obvious interest in deep space travel. Surely, given the incredible edge of thousands of times the efficiency of nuclear fusion over conventional energy sources for conventional rockets, it would be of interest to Mr. Musk to attempt to develop this alternative and extremely important source of energy. And with his experience, training and resources, he might be uniquely situated to proceed on this very important task. Does he simply consider nuclear power "bad business"? Surely, there would be money to be made here. Is it too dangerous, or too expensive, perhaps? Danger or expense don't seem to have frightened Mr. Musk off from anything in the past. Is it possible he's afraid of alienating his environmentalist allies -- supporters of his largest enterprise, Tesla Corporation -- by proceeding with research and development of nuclear power? Surely, deep space applications of nuclear power wouldn't antagonize Mr. Musk's environmentist friends. How much environmental damage could nuclear power do to the Moon, or the Asteroid Belt? So, why is Mr. Musk so religiously avoiding research and development on nuclear power, exactly? Any thoughts?

No theory is as good as data

The link below shows a U-tube video illustrating how Dark Matter makes Einstein's theory of Relativity obsolete. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtdLfdnpzs Now, really, Dark Matter made Relativity obsolete thirty years ago, when it was first discovered. After all, we have 90% of the universe's matter that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum at all, and Einstein's theory is based on the fundamental assumption that nothing can possibly go faster than light, because nothing does in the electromagnetic spectrum as we understand it. Einstein himself would be saying "OY VEH, I'm an idiot! They were right when they classified me as mentally retarded!". Can anyone imagine Sir Isaac Newton writing his Principia, if 90% of the matter in the universe didn't interact with Gravity!?? Nevertheless this hasn't stopped most physicists from sticking hard to Relativity. After all, academics wouldn't be academics if they had any imagination, integrity or common sense, would they now? Nor has it stopped the Nobel Prize committee from continuing to award Nobel Prizes for "proving" Relativity once more. Alfred Nobel really loved practical jokes you see. He invented Dynamite, and he founded the Nobel Prizes. Funny, eh? Basically, the Theory of Relativity is eloquent nonsense. The evidence supporting it is either artifactual, distorted or simply fabricated. It is a total scam, and Dark Matter proves it. The fact that most professional physicists still swear by it simply confirms that they are frauds. Or, simply fools. So, let's forget about the Theory of Relativity. No Theory is as good as data, you know. There is no reason whatsover, anymore to believe it's impossible for spacecraft to travel faster than light. We've never really tried to build nuclear powered spacecraft that can travel faster than light, so why not have a go now? All those earth-like planets are just waiting out there for us, with our nuclear powered faster than light spacecraft. Did Leif Ericson have a theory when he discoved America? No, he did not. He just followed the ocean till he got to Newfoundland. Did Christopher Columbus have a theory when he rediscovered America? Yes, he did. He thought the earth was half as big as it is, and that nothing lay between Europe and China. His theory was total crap, but, he got lucky anyway. No theory is as good as data, you see. Take our current NASA space program. Please! Take the Artemis Project. Please! Now the Artemis Project is intended to correct a grave injustice from the Apollo Program. This program, which thoroughly wasted 10% of the then current U.S. budget on an entirely worthless, pointless enterprise, had no female astronauts as part of the program. And women like to waste money too, you know! So, the Artemis project is intended to correct this ommission, by landing a woman on the Moon. Or, and possibly someone can look into this for me, is the purpose simply to get one of Elon Musk's ex-girlfriends out of his hair for a while? Surely, Elon Musk would like to do something useful for a change. Elon has two problems. Firstly, he's a total whore who will do anything for a buck. Secondly, he doesn't really have a lot of imagination. He doesn't invent better mousetraps, he repaints old mousetraps, and aggressively markets them as new mousetraps. He isn't a master of the science of the "possible". He's a master of the science of the "actual". So, why doesn't Elon Musk get into nuclear powered spacecraft, rather than sticking with conventional rocket design? He's got the money. Why not do something truly original? Who knows, there might even be a buck or two in building real "starships", that can really go to the stars.

What if Einstein had never developed the Theory of Relativity?

So, let's suppose, we have neither the Special Theory of Relativity -- positing the equivalence of matter and energy, E=(mc)**2 , and light as an absolute limit; nor, do we have the General Theory of Relativity, which uses the concepts of Special Relativity to develop a theory of Gravity in which space-time is curved by substantial masses of matter, by curving light. How does this change things? I suspect many people would tend to think this would mean we wouldn't have nuclear energy or atomic or hydrogen bombs. I doubt that, actually. Chemistry had already illustrated for centuries the energy contained in molecular bonds, and given the obvious strength of subatomic bonds, I suspect most scientists would have assumed enormous amounts of energy would be present in them, and that they could, potentially, represent an enormous source of energy. So, although Einstein may have popularized and facilitated the development of nuclear energy and bombs to some extent, I really don't think the Theory of Relativity is required, here. Many people believe that the Global Positioning System GPS, requires the Theory of Relativity. Not really. It just requires the Michelson-Morely experiment showing that light always travels at a fixed velocity. No need for matter-energy equivalence, or curvature of space-time. Einstein's Photoelectric Effect, which he received the Nobel Prize for, is certainly the basis for all laser technology. But, that doesn't have much, if anything to do with Relativity. Quantum Theory and Mechanics have been very important in developing solid state physics, transisters and the whole field of electronics -- computers, cell-phones etc. But, again, not much if anything to do with Relativity. Quantum Computing doesn't really have much to do with physics, at all. It's more of a mathematical construct. So, what has Relativity given us, exactly? Well, an enormous amount of research in theoretical physics and astrophysics, including some notable NASA space probes. And, we have the entire science fiction industry based on Relativity Theory -- the Star Trek franchise, Warp Drives, Wormholes, Time Travel etc. I believe even old H.P. Lovecraft wrote a science fiction story or two based on Relativity Theory, early in the twentieth century. And, of course, we have the absolute conviction that nothing can possibly travel faster than light. Anything else?

Israeli medical establishment infiltrated by ISIS terrorists

Government sources have revealed an insidious and diabolical plot by ISIS terrorists to destroy the nation of Israel from within. Special agents of the MOSSAD, operating at extreme risk to themselves, have discovered ISIS terrorist cells operating under deep cover at the highest levels of the Israeli medical establishment. These terrorists have been living, undetected, in Israel, for years. They have been undetetected, because they were substituted for actual Israeli citizens by means of sophisticated plastic surgical modifications, and intensive training. Their task was to destroy the nation of Israel with germ warfare techniques. Obviously, their situation at the very heart, and at the highest levels of the medical hierarchy in Israel, put them in an ideal position to accomplish their terrorist objectives. The following transcript is from one of these high-ranking medical ISIS terrorists , "Dr. X", held at an undisclosed location, after being subjected to "enhanced interrogation" techniques: "OK...OK guys...I'll tell you anything...anything...just take those electrodes off from down there...please!...You see, we knew once COVID came along, this was our big chance. Obviously, this was just the viruses taking over from the bacteria what with the overuse of antibiotics. Best way to deal with it is just proper diet and exercise, maybe keep away from large crowds. Nothing else you can do, of course. We don't really know how to deal with viruses well at all. But, we figured, given how greedy Big Pharma is, we could work with those guys. And, you know, they loved the idea! We didn't even have to pretend we weren't ISIS! Those Pharmaceutical Companies have been terrorists for years, you know. So, we got together with them, and set up this idea of overvaccinating everyone in response to COVID, killing off all the normal COVID viruses, facilitating the development of dangerous mutations by eliminating all competition by basic evolutionary principles of survival of the fittest. Naturally, over time, this is just going to make the COVID virus worse and worse. Eventually, we could probably kill everybody. And, all the time, the Pharmaceutical companies are making more and more money. Boy oh boy did ISIS invest in Big Pharma! We were surprised you guys took so long to catch on. Of course, the politicians are idiots, and the general public are cloned, brain-dead sheep. And the scientists and doctors are mostly just whores for hire. Take that Dr. Fauci guy, in the U.S. Did he ever meet an ass he didn't passionately kiss? I don't think so!" When asked where these ISIS medical terrorists were being held, Israeli government spokesmen replied with a firm "No Comment". When asked what would be done with these ISIS medical terrorists, Israeli government spokesmen again replied with a firm "No Comment".