They did a quantum tunneling experiment where the denser matter that it was passing through, it passed through faster than light in a vacuum would cover the same distance.
I told them this put my work at a sigma 2, and if they wanted a sigma 3-4 I could give them certain angles involving QE that could stabilize fusion. And a 216 digit number for my matrices.
But I won't give them anything until I get laid, I said. Still the only peeps likely to knock on my door 🚪 are coppers, male coppers
Pork choppers
Originally posted by rudesterThis I'll answer.
Maybe cold fusion but cold fusion can not be done because the nuclei both protons and neutrons repel each other
Stable Fusion is as simple as turning a ray into a beam. Since lasers can ignite fusion you just need to take the energy released from a fusion reaction and focus it into a beam, and that beam should be enough to sustain it. If turning the blast into a beam was free, which it is, according to my theory.
Energy is lost due to the inverse square law, so it wouldn't be enough as a burst of energy to reignite the reaction, but it would be enough as a beam, theoretically.
Originally posted by Adhd14There isn't a scientific precedent for my geometric definition of dynamical frame-drag rates in gravitons...
You're too young to comprehend, don't get me started
that the recent quantum tunnelling experiment supports to the point of it having a sigma 2 of being real (because it's not instant like QE and does involve high mass/densities).
This would be like Einstein's thought experiment on the clock's hands on a train near lightspeed during the time when the speed of light had just recently been calculated, there was no precedent for relativity he couldn't have a casual conversation about it even among peers.
Originally posted by Adhd14
This I'll answer.Stable Fusion is as simple as turning a ray into a beam. Since lasers can ignite fusion you just need to take the energy released from a fusion reaction and focus it into a beam, and that beam should be enough to sustain it. If turning the blast into a beam was free, which it is, according to my theory.
Energy is lost due to the inverse square law, so it wouldn't be enough as a burst of energy to reignite the reaction, but it would be enough as a beam, theoretically.
You watched the Manhattan Project a little to much there old boy!