Even worse it sounds a bit like Bazil

Agreed. My point is anything tied to an exponential factor will eat anything not defined against the same. I am no expert here but I'd think legislation which sets non population based caps or doesn't compensate for inflation will be a problem.

That cost curve looks exponential.

Which of the properties of dark matter are you wanting to try and represent? Similarly with dark energy what do you want to show people?

You question isn't stupid but the other person is stuck on the fact it's invisible so you can't see it. Now I think that isn't a problem because you can make an analogy which you can see.

Fukushima Daiichi was the cumulation of everything that could go wrong going wrong all at once. This however will be fine, no tsunami or earthquake, the power grid is still up.

The Amish aren't a huge market verses the whole planet and useful Stirling engines are difficult to build down to a price. The peltier ones are so cheap they are almost certainly more plentiful.

But you can float real well

Gravity is caused by mass so by definition yes. Also acceleration is governed by a=f/m acceleration equals force divided by mass. So it's relevant again there. Is there some other angle you mean here?

Why on earth would they? They are important public figures they'll still live comfortable lives. The upper crust have the capital to ride out this war unscathed.

Yes it would be inaccurate to say this powers photochemistry. As I pointed out.

Solar wind and presumably "star wind" conventionally refers to charged particles being lost from the corona of the star and traveling through space. This has nothing to do with photochemistry which involves light itself.

"concrete evidence" was the term used. However as they note photochemistry is just that. Light and chemicals. We should expect to see it anywhere we can see.

If by star winds you mean light

I think if ITER works it will be a similar watershed moment for a lot of people. The implications would be significant.

But I don't think there can be any technological achievement which resonants with millennia of human wonderings quite like the moon landing did. That was something you could explain to a Roman and they'd understand the significance of.

If I could postulate anything without feasibility being important I'd say a step change in human life spans. Something like "immortality" say another healthy hundred years arriving all at once.

My understanding is that if the drug can pass the blood brain barrier it will continue to do so.

Your kidneys and liver don't store things up until they break down like that.

It will not be sequestered

Absolutely just thought it might have been worth the labor to avoid a 100 trip.

But the distance to Boston is unimaginably big as well, there was no Panama canal either. Both this and sailing for Antarctica seem like terrible ideas. What's really odd is they didn't use domestic sources of ice/snow or sail to New Zealand and source it from there. There are or were many glaciers less than a mile from the west coast of NZ.