ZetaX

Have you ever been somewhere with serious winters¿ Traction does not magically get tenfold by using winter tires, ice is still ice. Only getting rid of the ice will do that.

The infinities you mentioned are equal: they are both countably infinite. In general, you say that two things (sets, actually) X, Y are of the same size if there is a bijective map from X to Y, i.e. a map that has an inverse g. Thus you want that g(f(x))=x for all x in X and that f(g(y))=y for all y in Y. If you let X = {1,2,3,4,...} and Y={1,3,5,7,...}, then f(x) = 2x-1 and g(y) = (y+1)/2 are functions that satisfy that. Thus X and Y are of the same size (the formal term is "cardinality"). But not all infinities are the same: there are more (in a certain sense similiar to the above) subsets of {1,2,3,4,...} than there are elements in that sets, especially they are not of the same size. This is one of the consequences of Cantor's diagonal method.

@Elthy That's the outer hull, there are several more, and I am unsure how much that 50cm would already absorb as planes are not very heavy (yet fast). And while it might be possible that some radiation is released that way, a catastrophy would need more than that, like failure of shut-down (by the core being directly hit or some error), overheating (similiar than the former), some way to distribute the radioactive stuff into the atmosphere (e.g. by an explosion). One should probably do a test... But even in the worst case the range would not cover half of germany.

@Elthy a) Your general nuclear power plant is safe against most air planes. A nuclear disaster is unlikely to contaminate such a huge area.

Our sample size is already much too big if we just look at this galaxy. And it is significantly less likely that a sufficiently advanced civilisation already existed a (or some) billion years ago, i.e. at the time the light from that galaxy would have originated.

Can both sides finally stop to use an ad-hominem every second post¿ Just to clarify: you are doing an ad-hominem fallacy if you are not giving arguments for your cause, but instead discredit the other side's sources. Just the two latest examples: - "Green terrorists do not provide any facts": so what¿ Facts against your side where given in this thread, yet you choose to claim that some group which is irrelevant for this discussion does not give any facts (and you did not even provide evidence for that claim). This is probably also a strawmen argument and a non-sequitur as well. Good job :-Þ - "this information is spread by pro nuclear forces": this is almost a tautology, as obviously a pro-nuclear argument is mostly used by pro-nuclear people. And as the above, the truthfullness or wrongness of "coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear" does not depend on that. In general: it is completely irrelevant if your assumption that the claim was made by evil people is right. Being right or wrong needs to be decided using objective facts, i.e. by science. So you have to restrict to that.

2) is just ad-hominem, 3) is lacking any evidence so far, so add some (solar cells have some chemicals involved, but wind or solar heating should be pretty clean).

No, studies show it will accumulate at 7.

You are right on the base price being rather high if one factors in the massive hidden founding by the governments, especially storage costs. But the insurance costs are not that relevant actually. While the costs of a single incident are tremendous, they are dampened by the plants generally not being built very close to larger cities. If you factor in that other energy sources have similiar hidden costs, e.g. climate change or pollution, then it is not that frightening anymore. What actually constitutes a problem is that it is somewhat close to impossible to have an insurance for, as is a low risk, very high damage thing. No insurance company can probably stem that.

How has the government been "hacked" by a party that was not at power for the last nor this legislative period¿ Your post is just ideological nonsense. For example, as already linked, the total energy production has not changed, i.e. no more energy from france than before.

The power plant at the sahara does not suffice. It will simply not generate any energy at night. You would need such things to be distributed all over the earth. And you need to transport that energy, which causes lots of losses.

I did not use the english text, and I never claimed it isn't rising. I actually am from germany, and I already read a lot into this topic a week ago, so I didn't even bother to read the article (again). To say that your claims are to simplistic is an argument: you need to give way more details until one can consider this to work. I am reminded of your stance on pyramids being built by some precursors, so I will repeat myself mostly: it is not my job to disprove your claims, but you have to give evidence to begin with. I don't see how you would run an energy grid with current technology and without anything that works independently from the weather/time/whatever. Yes, it is theoretically possible, but the costs for that are exorbitant as you would need absurd amounts of water reservoirs to store energy, or/and a lot more than the average need of energy in terms of solar/wind power plants. If some better technology comes along, then it might work; at the current state, 100% is just a dream.

That picture is one of the most stupid scare pictures out there. Find out the actual disage in relation to average.

Some ~25% are not everything, and there are the limits I mentioned. A power network is not as simple as seen in Sim City, where you just build enough power plants of whatever type you prefer.

Wind and water are too limited, and the latter is even an environmental problem sometimes. Solar cells are expensive and cause chemical polution, and obviously only work at day. It's not that simple.

It is a fact that almost nobody ever died due to a nuclear incident. Except Chernobyl, all such events were almost harmless, and the former was deadly because of the reaction on it (delayed evacuation, sending workers into the plant, etc.), so it should to a significant part be attributed to the sovjet's political structure.

I know you were not speaking to me there, but I also responded on your post. Regardless of your argument from authority, I gave some points where you are wrong, so why don't you answer on those¿

You might want to back your claims that Greenpeace is a terrorist organisation. Or more accurately, you might get rid of that stupid overusage of "terrorist": as the name says, a terrorist wants to create terror to achieve some kind of goal. At best, and that's more what PETA does, you could use something like "guerilla fighters", yet Greenpeace generally does not even do sich things. Also, your claims on the majority of waste being reusable is wrong. Most of the waste is not even the former fuel but stuff that got in contact with it or otherwisely got irradiated. It may be debatable what of that one really should consider dangerous, but some parts are, and extracting the non-dengerous parts is costly. The burnt fuel's radiation is also not short term, e.g. caesium and iodine isotopes that have a half-life in the decades occur.

The former only applies if everyone would use the same coin (and then would give a statictically significant result on that in the long run), while in praxis we can probabaly assume that different coins from all over the world will get rid of this effect. Furthermore, I am not sure if your conclusion that it lands more often on that side are correct.

They are still coins, i.e. two-sided, and I presume that everyone maps whatever the two sides show to the two outcomes from the poll. The actual probabilities of each single coin are irrelevant.

If you assume that people are honest with their entries, then the different conditions don't matter.

Offtopic, but: they are not. There are actually more kinds of infinity (aka cardinal numbers) than any given infinity.

Do you believe that there are atoms of cobalt at the earth's core¿ Because if I replace any occurence of alien life forms by cobalt and universe by earth, everything you say applies exactly the same way.

Thats NOT how it works. You have to supply hard evidence to your theory. Unless then, nobody is reuqired to look at it, even less disprove it. Learn what science is about before making such completely unscientific statements. The standard one has lots of evidence, tons of papers backing it. Yours has nothing more than word of mouth and stuff that is easily explained by randomness.

It didn't qualify, but that post now does :-Þ