Or it's so damn simple that just talking about it would let others replicate it.

Ask it explain anything and cite sources. All of the sources are hallucinated: The BBC exists, but the cites article doesn't.

Imagine a normal graph with an X and Y axis. X is rate of movement through space and Y is rate of movement through time. The Vector (length of the arrow) of your movement through X-Y (space-time) has a constant length. So if you move at a greater rate through space, you must move at a lower rate through time to keep the arrow at the same length (Pythagoras).

At the speed of light the arrow is perfectly horizontal, with no movement through time and at a velocity of 0 you are maximally moving through time.

It would depend on what he means by "faster". Their times runs slower relative to ours, so our time appears to move slightly faster relative to theirs. So, technically they are moving through time slower than we are.

You can't look at world reserves of uranium. You have to look at world reserves of U235 which makes up about 0.76% of all Uranium. You also can't take the total amount, but have to take the commercially viable amount and the amount of energy Uranium contains cannot be converted 1-to-1 to electrical energy.

​

>The world's present measured resources of uranium (6.1 Mt) in the cost category less than three times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals.

Source: World Nuclear Association an organization promoting nuclear energy.

From our current perspective, when comparing to our previous industrial development, 90 is pretty good. But nowhere near enough in the long term and we'd have to fall back to renewable again unless we use breeder reactors which would improve the sustainabiliy of nuclear or figure out fusion.

So, while nuclear does have some advantages from present knowledge, we may as well skip the 90-year nuclear phase and go for renewables straight away.

Does the US not have really easy wire transfers as we do in the EU? I can literally transfer money from an account at any bank to any other bank within the EU from my phone. I only need the recipient's account number. Hell, for 2€ (BS fee) I can do an instant transfer which credits the recipient's account immediately.

But why even use checks in the first place? Seems like a weird thing to hold onto.

Technically magnetic fields are also radiation and both scanners / detectors use electromagnetic radiation, albeit of different frequencies.