/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3491975

Imaginary number? Where? I didn't know that infinity, 0 or the root of positive one were considered imaginary.

>>3491962

I accidentally posted the topic like this, and I was too lazy to delete it.

>>3491954

>Natin horrida

>>3491932
>>3491906


In all seriousness, I mostly called it a triangle using quotations marks. My point isn't that this is a triangle. My point is that the math somehow came out right, and that zero shouldn't be considered a number that can have operations performed on it

Captcha related- natin horrida.

>>3491926

Really? That is interesting. What models are these?

>>3491895

k

>>3491906

No, that last angle is "imaginary". I'm sure it's possible to bullshit an entire branch of mathematics using that word, amirite? Well yes, yes I am.

So while I eagerly await the great nuclear debates, I'd like to impose upon you all... the monstrosity.

I created this in grade 11 after trying to figure out why the fuck the unit circle existed. So, I experimented with values of sin, cos, and tan to see if the unit circle was meaningfully representing them.

I was trying to apply the basics of trigonometry to triangles with, and I use these words loosely, "right angles" that did not equal 90 degrees. At one point I had a "triangle" that was really a 1 dimensional line. Bafflingly enough, some of the trig functions worked.

I don't quite remember how I ran into this bad boy, but when I realized that I had divided by zero, I almost did a little dance. After seeing how series and algebra wrecked the fuck out of zero and infinity, I've come to the conclusion that zero is NOT A FUCKING NUMBER.

>>3491762

Nvm, i just found out that there are things actively preventing 1/0 to be infinity. Postan proof...

Now, this is going to require some troll maths, but bare with me.

Any number divided by zero is infinity, and I can prove it.

but I think the proof will be an asset to my future career, so I'm not going to reveal it yet.

>>3486905

As opposed to just leaving them there? Those LWR's would've needed decommissioning regardless of whether or not thorium is involved, so the cost is a given. I hope you aren't suggesting that we keep those LWR for a few more decades. Cutting corners to save money is what killed Fukushima. What kind of safety measure can be flooded? The fact that it could even happen in theory should never have been acceptable, especially in a coastal area prone to earthquakes!

The government has spent more, on less worthy, with less public opposition regarding finances.

>>3486881

Besides, Fukushima was a LWR, and it was downed by weather phenomena. Thorium or not, the LWR has some inherent safety problems that the public, and hopefully the academic community, will never be comfortable with.

>>3486811

Well, a lot of the LWR we have are nearing the end of their commissioned life anyway, or so I've heard. Regardless, those things were built to supply a nuclear arsenal, not provide energy. I'm not suggesting we should decommission LWR before its economically appropriate for that particular plant. But in the case of building new plants, yes. The LWR should be regarded as a second RBMK. The design is simply not appropriate for the places we'd like to be headed. All the investment towards LWR passed the Cold War was a tremendous waste of time, effort and money, and someone is going to, or at least deserves to, have hell to pay for it when word gets around.

As you can probably tell by my writing, I'm feeling very sleepy. I must sleep now. I know it's frustrating for someone to present a point and not let you refute it, so I'll just take it in good faith that you had a reasonable and intriguing response for me. see you next week. or email me, whichever works.

>>3486713

The aim wasn't to downplay radioactive waste. The aim was to downplay radioactivity. The fact that fly ash is a mild radiation hazard is something that many people don't know. Whenever there's "this or that" nuclear incident, liek a steam explosion or something like that, everyone becomes deathly afraid of the radiation exposure, hence the purchase of gieger meters en masse during the Japanese earthquakes.

If people are made to realize that radiation is all around them, they'll be less afraid of it and more willing to listen to reason. It's also important to realize that this fact alone isn't a show-stopper, it's more of an attention grabber. That article I linked to on natural nuclear reactors.... now THAT'S a show stopper.

>>3486671

rukifellthcruez@gmail.com

>>3486621

I don't want to have to guess what you're trying to imply by saying this. I never made these statements nor cited that article, but you're presenting it to me and then refuting it as if it was something that I brought up. I think I have an idea of what you're trying to say, but for the sake of clarity, please state it, ans well as how its related to this discussion.

>>3486574

What does that imply? The statement is clarified to "if you stand on a pile of fly ash, you'll get more radiation than from well shielded radioactive waste." I'm suggesting the presentation of shocking but easy-to-explain facts to help sway people form the pre-conceived notions they have. but I'm not sure what you're implying by stating that article.It will possibly make them feel like "Shit, we actually have no idea what's going on here. Let's take a bit of a look here". Then you expose them to information just like the last. Simple, yet effective.

I'm not really sure what you were trying to imply by posting that. perhaps that it's possible to go overboard, or that the message will be skewed?

>Using several research studies as evidence, the story does make a convincing case that, as it says, “the fly ash emitted by a power plant . . . carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.”

That statement is still a heavy one. Also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

sorry, I was busy trolling people on chat roulette

chaptcha related- photonic curedit

>>3486362

I said mined uranium, not nuclear waste.

>>3486253

Well yes, given the present course of action. If no one, no special interest group, nor radical politician, nor entrepreneur comes up with a clever, manipulative political campaign, then that course may be the one the world takes.The question is no longer about how people interpret information, nor the technical aspects of the reactor, but whether its possible to abuse people's emotion to sell them on it within the decade. I believe it can be. Just throw some short, easy to remember statistics. Explain how coal ash is a bigger radiation hazard than mined uranium. That doesn't even require much of an explanation.

"Radioactive metals are all around us in small amounts. Coal ash has it concentrated in one spot, because the metals don't burn. It's easy to breath in."

>>3486209

You're an educated person though. Of course you accept global warming on its academic merit. Do you think everyone else does? I don't think the Fukushima incident embittered you towards nuclear power, because you have facts, or at least the midnset conducive to finding facts.

Just last night I was talking to a guy who honestly believed that astronomers were "making shit up to justify their jobs". I think you overestimate the intellectual standards of the average person.

>>3486091

Abusing people's fears was easy enough. Just show them something dramatic.

The same effect could probably be used in a different way. Present people with dramatic, read DRAMATIC, evidence for a claim. That's so many people bleieve in Global Warming.

>>3486083

Then how did those programs come to be funded in the first place? I don't think many people in the public sector would have liked to have their tax dollars directed towards a technology that they believe is unlikely to bear fruit.

it's more likely that a small group of people makes those decisions. And that group can be targeted for presentation.

>>3486080

That doesn't help us if organic fuel reserves run out before that happens. There's no reason to not research fusion after efficient fission has been utilized. Walk before you run.

>>3486016

>>Has it worked for evolution?

As Scientist has stated, thorium isn't challenging an ideology shared by hundreds of millions of people. It does not go against the desires of the people.

In fact, thorium is providing what the public wants- energy independence (no blood for oil etc). if anything, thorium can take advantage of the thing that halted evolution. And that thing, is the tendency for people to think what they want to believe.

If you talk about thorium like a zealot, then of ocurse everyone will be skeptical. But what you're asking for, or rather, what you're saying is a pre-requisite for public support, is self defeating. you suggest that thorium requires a commercial reactor to be accepted. but a commercial reactor will not happen until its accepted. I don't think this is necessary. Present people will actions, and a simplified sequence of events, and they'll accept it as plausible osunding. Then, they'll have a hope.