What problem are you trying to solve...?

Two spinning spheres attached to eachother with a "tether" will definitely be able to function in a "centrifugal" manner as long as you keep the tether taut and both balls spinning around the centre - at the right speed, you'll also have the 1G gravity we like, at a very specific distance away from the centre of gravity - much more further away, and much less as you get closer to the middle.

This isn't ideal for travelling to destinations, though, as nobody can dock with you and you have to somehow get "rid" of all the momentum before you get to your destination anyway, you cannot safely orbit a planet while also spinning around yourself.

If you were to launch a shuttle from one of your spheres, you'd immediately have a major shift in your centre of gravity, since the balance of masses changed - this can jerk your tether and cause damage to the spheres.

You're forgetting that your body changes those dry sugars into fat by adding water, so if you were dehydrated, you wouldn't put on the fat either - Though you could die from dehydration, so don't do that either. Your body is basically always 55-60% water, so if you're very heavy, you're storing a lot of water as well.

Life support is already significantly more expensive than a lot of the automated mining equipment we already have, working underground.

Maintenance is a concern, but lots of places are researching human-like robots, which would ideally be capable of performing most simple maintenance items (tightening a hydraulic hose, replacing a worn pin in a joint) - major maintenance would most probably not occur, machines would be a little over designed, run-to-distruction in a year or two and then just replaced....

There's also little sense in making the thing that brings back the goods, also bring back the mining machines, as this additional weight is definitely not the same value as the goods.

Funny that you bring up populations... Less than a quarter of the world's population would "suffer" under your supposed situation of greedy power companies... Both the largest and the second largest countries by population are nuclear powers, and both have massive stakes in fusion research as well.

Maybe, just maybe, you guys can look beyond how "big" your problem is, actually go out and vote for something worth believing in, and change the rules in favour of the people in stead of the corporation...

Not everyone lives in capitalist america... In some places, power providers are not-for-profit or state-owned, meaning any real savings in production costs automatically get passed on to users.

Doctors can keep people alive in comas for decades, we've got plenty of proof for that.

If your goal is to be "alive", then sure, it can be done using supplements and your body fat reserves - we've also seen a few cases of this.

The amount of permanent damage you do to your organs and brain, however, is unknown. How the extreme starvation feelings will rewire your brain is unknown. How your body will react when you start eating again is largely unknown.

Unknown is scary for doctors, they avoid anything and everything that isn't in their handbooks - for good reason! People sue people on a whim.

Starvation is triggered by hormones, which are released because your stomach is telling your brain it's empty and ready for more. This starts 4-8 hours after your last meal, always. If you interrupt these hormones, like some diet pills did, then you get "magic" weight loss without feeling bad.

But now you're damaging the brain, telling it to ignore basic survival signals - and the brain doesn't run on glucose, so it cannot get fuel from body fat - it needs your liver to create ketones from fatty acids, and when you consume fatty acids, you're adding calories again, which will allow you to survive indefinitely.

Your body weight is mostly water.

You drink a liter of water, you gain 1 kilogram of weight.

You urinate 1 liter, you lost 1 kilogram.

When you're starving, your body functions slow down significantly, meaning you start to retain the water that you drink, so you don't lose weight like that..

But you still need to drink water and urinate, else your blood becomes toxic!

Yes, except this has been debunked thoroughly and you should stop spreading misinformation.

In a "mentally healthy" human, the desire to eat goes away almost immediately after you start eating, and it doesn't come back for another 4-8 hours, so it's really difficult to consume more than you'd need without purposefully choosing to eat more. This is why I list it as a "mental health concern", specifically avoiding the word "issue".

I'm trying to distance the thought train away from the "practicality of just eating less", because it doesn't work that way anyway.

Poor food literacy and understanding of health usually relates to an unstructured upbringing or trouble at home, also raising a mental health concern.

There are also significant cultural considerations. In my country, for example, male obesity is highly regarded as a sign of success and abundance, and these men prefer "curvy" women - our per capita obesity is worse than USA, even though we don't have access to high fructose corn syrup at all, and we have a massive government imposed sugar tax, so almost nothing has sugar in it anymore!

You need to realise that being overweight/obese is almost certainly closer related to mental health concerns than just purely consumption vs usage.

Eating is a coping mechanism, helps you deal with stress! Whether that stress is brought on by being overweight is irrelevant.

So when you try to lose weight without first addressing the mental health aspect, the entire exercise is fruitless.

So now, because you rob the brain of important endorphins released during eating, you're placing yourself under additional stress, which leads to further mental issues, which makes it even harder to be honest with yourself!

We don't understand all the ins and outs of mental health yet. We don't even know what depression really is yet! But we do see it manifest with eating disorders, one of which is excessive fasting like you're proposing here.

Safe exposure to noise levels is measured in doses over duration. "Softer" noise over a long duration can be just as damaging as louder noise over a shorter duration.

Active noise cancellation can reduce this compounding effect over longer durations, but as you've stated already, there's little benefit to funding the medical trials needed for certification, when your competitors will undercut you on price and release products more often than you ever could.

Yeah, no... That's definitely wrong. Active noise cancellation (ANC) reduces the sound energy which makes it to your eardrum.

To claim that it works medically, though, takes years of medical trials under rigorous standard. Very few companies have the desire, drive or funding to commit to such an endeavor, and it won't help their bottom line either, because now other companies can use this research to support their own claims about protecting your hearing.

But obviously you do need help with it, because it's been bothering you enough to come back and continue talking nonsense.

My argument was not whether the hazard is present or not, just that your statement doesn't hold water logically. But you seem to have missed that, again.

You cannot reason that "lack of proof" is "proof to the contrary".

Let me help you quickly with this postulation.

I postulate that the sign stating your engine must be off during refueling exists. I also postulate that because this sign exists, an incident with refuelling was prevented. Prove I'm wrong?

Except that your entire position depends on using Google to not find some obscure hand-written news article about a 93 year old ford that caught fire at a refuelling station.

Your assumption is that all incidents are listed on the Internet and easily searchable using common terms - which is absolutely false in any event. Not every town has a news reporter that documents every occurance in a public facing repository.

Like I said, can't prove a negative that way..

The sign predates automatic stopping refueling nozzles, by many years.

Cars were significantly more dangerous in the early years, with very few regulations helping guide designers around safe refuelling practices.

That's a falacy, though. You can't prove a negative like that.

Even if only 1 fire/explosion/loss of life occured due to possibly running the engine while refuelling, that sign could have helped.

There's no downside to the refueling station for posting that sign.

Why wouldn't you just repair the damaged ones? It's much quicker.

What a disingenuous troll... No, copper doesn't disappear because of solar flares, we've got millions of years of proof for that.

And diesel generators somehow don't exist, which are semi-portable and can be taken to factories that don't already have them?

There only has to be 1 ship full of fuel out on the ocean to be able to restart an oil processing plant.

Winding copper is something that can be done by hand, and with a little bit of mechanical assistance (factory running on a diesel generator), you'd be able to rewind a grid scale transformer in a few weeks.

That's assuming the solar flare somehow damaged the transformer inside, which is highly unlikely in the first place - seeing that they're fused on both the primary and secondary sides.

But please, continue spreading misinformation! The world certainly needs more hate and distrust.