Dear Mr. J. Rawson ('Clerk/ Secretary'):
An eleven page list of contemporary work (as remarkably conveyed by yourself in the preceding post), emphasizing Rovelli, Smolin, Theiman, Bojowald - then Cahill... and then, as you say, you will give me the selections of others. As indeed you have...
Your sincere generosity is truly and constructively humbling. Please pardon my belated response to it; as you may have noted (here and there on and off the WWW net)Molly Keyboard MacColley (the most formidable counteroffensive weapon in the world), has been diverted via a commission (by popular if unsavory demand) to drain a swamp full of foul mouthed, man, woman and child eating gators; simultanously preoccupied with administering a resulting industry of belt, wallet, shoe and purse manufacturers and distributors. A sort of 'back end of the rabid gator slaying cycle'...
Having said that, please consider this change of topic, sir. Yourself - or who knows what other reader(s) may provide an answer I have yet to learn.
Most readers of posts like this have a basic if not intricate understanding of the destructive process of fission and it's accompanying hazards (the unstorable radioactive toxins accumulating at the 'back end of the cycle', in a 'normally' operating nuclear power plant, for example).
Likewise, most persons surfing through a forum such as this (discounting the afore mentioned, foul mouthed, bipedal gators) are more or less familiar with the potential solution to the problems of (destructive) fission generated power, in the potential solution of (constructive) fusion generated power.
The drawback of fusion being that it produces temperatures too high to be contained and controlled...
Please bear with me here...
About five years ago it was international, mainstream featured news, that an insular paint called 'Starlite' had been successfully formulated and tested, and that one coat of it, for example, applied to any flammable material - say a common wooden grocery box, or a two by four - prevented a blowtorch, applied for hours, inches away from that wooden test object - with only one coat of Starlite paint between the forced air torch and the wood, from even so much as scorching, let alone creating ignition temperature, upon the test object.
The public announcement, description demonstration and ensuing controversy emerged about five years ago; went on for about a year, whereas - to my knowledge - the entire issue, with its controversy, more or less faded (flamed) out, as it were...
It has occurred to myself and others that such an insular material may have revolutionized many industries, including all the contingencies of causing all formerly flammable structures, habitats, warehouses, etc, to be minimally threatened by impending fire hazards, for example (putting a lot of insurance - and lumber and construction - companies out of (multi-billion dollar, environment polluting and destroying, posterity threatening business?)...
Perhaps most importantly, allowing - say, several feet or yards of thickness in the form of Starlite paint material, to serve as a containment vessel for Deuterium (H3O? 'Heavy Water'), perhaps allowing the previously unachieved and reputedly unachievable containment of fusion reactors - with the unprecedented (formerly 'unachievable') advantage of producing no unstorable toxic radioactive substances, as fission based nuclear power plants continue to produce, today.
If any reader of this described problem with it's accompanying, proposed solution (which seems to have mysteriously disappeared) knows more about it, please enter it in this forum discussion.
Sincerely thanking 'Secretary/Clerk' J. Rawson, I am gratefully, Kent Benjamin Robertson.
For all of the acknowledged, new and updated revolutionary material accumulating in theoretical physics and related subjects, I have yet to see Einstein's Special (Light and uniform velocity - 1906) and General (Gravity and non-uniform velocities - 1916) Relativities displaced or removed from the contemporary foundations of theoretical physics.
That this work will be, and for that matter may already have been 'improved upon' (which is the endlessly evolving destiny of perhaps all processes), is probably inevitable.
Yet, for all the regularly appearing articles and journal essays on 'disproving' or otherwise faulting Einstein's work: until further notice, is it not still an improvement on Newton's (still generally applicable and valid) Classical Mechanics... And if and when Einstein's work is superimposed, will it not continue to remain standing on the shoulders of a sequential procession of giants...?
PPS: Mr. Rawlins...
May I post your eleven page list of advised research studies, at other locations on the net?