You have a track record of misunderstanding definitions. You're not worth my time dude. Had you demonstrated any ability to recognize and move forward from the multitude of mistakes you've committed already I'd continue, but that isn't the case so my breath would be wasted educating someone so clearly deficient in many crucial respects as to be considered beyond hope.

Good luck to you in your menial existence.

"But applied physics are pretty damn well locked in and unlikely to change regardless of what happens at the theoretical physics level."

these are the kind of views i'd expect from a religious zealot; science is about doubt and constant refinement

the understanding that we constantly need to question, especially since science is observation based there is the chance that we can interpret things incorrectly

i'm not talking here about any individual laws but i'm saying that we should always have some degree of doubt on these things and think of ways to improve on them, especially because of problems like these

lmao

now say it with me, waste is a part of the essential nature of technology... glad i could educate you 

here i'll post this again just in case it hasn't sunk in yet

these are the kind of views i'd expect from a religious zealot; science is about doubt and constant refinement

i mean you can disagree with me on that, but that's my opinion and yes i do know what you are talking about, i think the problem is actually the opposite

you mentioned ohms law, i remember using ohms law to calculate resistance in classes, for example... but again that's besides the point

yeah... because we used it to construct circuits... that's how its used practically... in circuit design and analysis... i'm pretty sure i understand ohm's law better than you do

"But while we are on that, can you give me a plausible scenario where we would need to rewrite Ohms law?"

are you capable of comprehending this sentence?

" science is about doubt and constant refinement"

read that again and tell me what that means

The best example of what most would consider 'extremist' nations ruled by religion would be many of the Middle Eastern nations. While you will most definitely find many who dislike the ruling religious elite, you will also find a major % of the populace who like the system and fault the rest of the world for not being more like their nation and/or their variant of religious practice. However, you have zero evidence to show how this is a "threat to mankind". It is a threat to their citizens definitely. It is potentially a threat to some localized regional war. However, there is absolutely zero threat to humanity.

I don't have "faith" in science. Science doesn't work on faith. It works on testable and repeatable observation and tests to define facts. It is a fact that life has evolved over millions of years. It is a fact that large dense objects have gravitational forces. However, Science is not perfect and humans make mistakes. It is the possibility of the risk from the mistake that creates a larger potential threat to humanity than any small fraction of religions zealots.

I'm not sure if you asked these questions for some rhetorical reason or if you really don't know what the possible benefits are, but I chose to answer.

"Why would the nanomachines benefit your immune system?"
- Well, if our immune system was already perfect, I wouldn't get sick, cancer, allergies, etc. Not to mention faster healing from wounds or broken bones. The possibilities that nano machines could do for our amazing yet continuously evolving biological bodies is immense.

"Why would you let a car to drive by itself, how it is better than you driving the car yourself?"
- Self driving vehicles are already demonstrating that they are safer as they remove the human element. Will these systems still have failure and cause accidents? Of course. However, the rate at which accidents happen and the number of people that are hurt or die while driving will plummet as self-driving technology becomes the standard.