I don't think having access to the source code to VS 2015 is going to allow anyone to compile VS for any non-Windows platform. Not unless you have a few million man-hours available for porting and redesign (since much of the functionality present in VS wouldn't even make sense outside of Windows)

> Because they predict things up to the level of accuracy that we can currently measure, within the very limited energy and size domains we have access to. That's all there is to it.

Fixed that for you.

When you can predict particle behavior inside a black hole with planck-length precision, or you can model gravity at the galactic scale without relying on unobserved "dark matter", I might be as confident as you that our current understanding is rock solid.

> Modern physics is never incorrect.

And you, sir, have just turned science into religion.

The whole reason science is superior to religion is that it openly admits that it may be incorrect, and allows for itself to be corrected. It is, as you correctly outline, an iterative process that approaches truth over time. But part of that process is accepting that any truth may be overturned by new evidence. And while Einstein didn't "disprove" Newton, he did show flaws in the theory which meant that it was, in a very small way, wrong. And that's fine. Claiming it was "extended" and not "wrong" is playing semantics and makes you sound like a religious apologist.

The more comfortable we are with being wrong, and the process of refinement, the better scientists we are. The more we claim that some aspect of science is "never incorrect", the more dogmatic we are and the science suffers.

The predictions of modern physics are phenomenally accurate in many domains. But we haven't run tests in nearly enough domains to claim perfection yet. And we've no need to be defensive about it. Science is the only way to the next truth, and that's good enough for me.

The EM drive creates a momentum by pushing virtual particles one way and "moving itself" the other way.

It works exactly as a classical rocket engine.

Your idea is bollocks.

You should have listened in school.

Rocket drives don't push against anything.

Sorry, your post is complete nonsense.

EM dive "theory" is a "forward theory".

Some guy thought: "it should work like that", and now experiments are confirming: "it seems to work like that.

There is no The classic physics mechanism simply shouldn't work.

Actually the drive works exactly according classic physics ... as state before (in other posts): I have no clue why the /. crowd disagrees.

However I'm looking forward for a formula showing that the EM drive can't work.

The crowd here is skeptical because they either don't care to read the relevant (an usually linked) papers or simply lack the physic knowledge to understand them.

So the first thing they always shout is: newtons law and thermodynamics.

Sorry, you plus 5 insightful in less than 10 minutes simply show that 99% of the people here, emphasize moderators have no clue at all about the simplest laws of physics!

How retarded is that?

Most SUNs I work on are SPARC, actually all SUNs I have worked with during the last 15 years where SPARCs.

Did they run Linux? Debian? No! Obviously they ran Sun Solaris. And still do. But I guess there are plenty of shops that abuse big iron to run plenty of virtual machines.

The Debian stance might make sense (for them). Their explanation does not, though.

I second that.
The /. crowd in our days calls everything new a scam ... pretty retarded!

Coal in France is not "base load" power.

It is load following and peak power.

Would be completely idiotic to power down a nuke to produce base load with coal.

The natural gas is probably not split between baseload and peak. Sorry, are you an complete idiot?

France produces over 70% of its power with nukes. And due to its night working reprocessing plants and other night stuff (like heating up household heat reservoirs) it has an extremely high base load of over 60%.

However: all the nukes are far above "base load".

No one is using coal, gas or anything else for "base load" in that situation.

France should convert their hydro from a base load to a peaking source aka as pumped storage. The power stored would come from a combination of both renewables and nuclear.
If Hydro is listed in a report, it is usually "base load" for a reason. Pumped storage is not listed in "energy production by source". The energy needed/used to pump it up is listed instead.

If France had any need for more pumped storage, I assume the "engineers who have a clue" had already initiated such programs :D

BTW: most energy France is importing form Germany is used to refill their pumped storages.

You do not know how grid works. We know it already from your previous idiocy from relevant threads.

As I work for grid and power companies, and have the relevant laws and procedures usually on my desk, I disagree ;D

Renewables that are at risk of losing 100% of their capacity have to have 100% spinning reserve.
Such renewables don't exist.

That is the reality. If you don't, you risk cascade failure across the entire grid.
No it is not, that is an idiotic assumption by idiots like you ;D sorry for being so blunt.

Biggest cut-off issues with wind power are related to too strong winds rather than too weak ones, as that causes near-instant cut-off rather than slow decay of feed in.
Sure ... and when did that happen in the last 30 years? Care to give a reference?

How should it be possible that wind power goes from "normal" to cut off speed in such a short time (and without forcast) that it is impossible to adjust?

Sorry, read a book about the topic and stop pestering me :D Would be appreciated.

I guess you have not even a vague idea how high the wind speed is beyond wind mills are locked down. (But I have a vague idea that there exist in your country no road where you can drive that fast legaly).

Does not matter how you count the 96%.

The ignorant idiot is you ... I give you some links:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/N...

Quote: Enrichment
The vast majority of all nuclear power reactors require 'enriched' uranium fuel in which the proportion of the uranium-235 isotope has been raised from the natural level of 0.7% to about 3.5% to 5%.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So? Idiot? You figured it?

It does not matter if you talk about U-235 (which might be 96% burned) or if I talk about U-MOX together, as the number: 96% is conincidentally the same.

If you had any clue about the topic you knew that and had saved your post.

Thanx for your attention.

That is since 2012, it changed slightly. Nevertheless if you understand the picture, Germany is a net exporter. And was that for decades towards France as well.