1

New Theories / Re: Re: If Tunguska was "2,000 times stronger" than the a-bombs, how did Earth survive?

« on: 26/07/2021 21:14:04 »

There are no penguins at the middle of Antarctica.

Nobody said there were.

But you did say that your IQ was 173, and I ask you to finish the following equation, since you are brighter than Steven Hawking and Einstein

So please elaborate

You forgot to define any of your terms.

However, why did you come to the conclusion that I would be able (or willing) to solve that mess?

The terms are you finish the equation and demonstrate your 173 IQ.

So is everything that you do not understand a mess?

2

New Theories / Re: Re: If Tunguska was "2,000 times stronger" than the a-bombs, how did Earth survive?

« on: 26/07/2021 20:42:36 »

There are no penguins at the middle of Antarctica.

Nobody said there were.

But you did say that your IQ was 173, and I ask you to finish the following equation, since you are brighter than Steven Hawking and Einstein

So please elaborate

3

New Theories / Re: New discussion: How do we know the Universe is expanding, and expanding into nothing?

« on: 26/07/2021 19:59:47 »

Radiation escapes a black hole or so the new theory says.

I think you're pretending to be stupid and you are just trolling.

Radiation does escape a black hole, this is common knowledge in the USA.  Perhaps you ought to get out more?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/11/03/ask-ethan-how-do-black-holes-actually-evaporate/?sh=6fcd8d2e24a1

Hawking radiation
Main article: Hawking radiation

The Penrose diagram of a black hole which forms, and then completely evaporates away. Time shown on vertical axis from bottom to top; space shown on horizontal axis from left (radius zero) to right (growing radius).
In 1973–75, Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein showed that black holes should slowly radiate away energy, which poses a problem. From the no-hair theorem, one would expect the Hawking radiation to be completely independent of the material entering the black hole. Nevertheless, if the material entering the black hole were a pure quantum state, the transformation of that state into the mixed state of Hawking radiation would destroy information about the original quantum state, information being defined as the difference between coarse grained (thermal) entropy and fine grained (quantum, von Neumann) entropy. This violates the law of conservation of information which corresponds to Liouville's theorem in classical physics and thus presents a physical paradox (see e.g. [8]).

Hawking remained convinced that the equations of black-hole thermodynamics, together with the no-hair theorem, led to the conclusion that quantum information may be destroyed. This annoyed many physicists, notably John Preskill, who in 1997 bet Hawking and Kip Thorne that information was not lost in black holes. The implications that Hawking had opened led to a "battle" where Leonard Susskind and Gerard 't Hooft publicly 'declared war' on Hawking's solution, with Susskind publishing a popular book, The Black Hole War, about the debate in 2008. (The book carefully notes that the 'war' was purely a scientific one, and that at a personal level, the participants remained friends.[9]) The solution to the problem that concluded the battle is the holographic principle, which was first proposed by 't Hooft but was given a precise string theory interpretation by Susskind. With this, "Susskind quashes Hawking in quarrel over quantum quandary".[10]

4

New Theories / Re: Re: If Tunguska was "2,000 times stronger" than the a-bombs, how did Earth survive?

« on: 26/07/2021 19:36:12 »

It is believed that the entire nuclear arsenal on the earth could destroy almost all human life many times over but that is the calculation taking into account direct hits on populated sites around the earth. But if all the nuclear weapons were detonated let's say in the middle of the south pole only penguins and other creatures would be bothered. The sound my travel quite some distance many thousands of kilometres and radiation would be a very big problem may be killing people some years down the track but the planet would barely feel it.

There are no penguins at the middle of Antarctica.  That said what exactly is the middle of the south pole

5

New Theories / Re: Re: If Tunguska was "2,000 times stronger" than the a-bombs, how did Earth survive?

« on: 26/07/2021 12:54:45 »

So what is your IQ?

Last time it was measured, 173.
What's yours?

There are two ways in which you might reduce the mass of a BH.
You might try to  take stuff out of it, which is impossible, or you can add a negative mass to it- which is possible and is the basis for Hawking radiation.

Perhaps you should have paid more attention in 3rd grade.

So your IQ is 173, great I have been looking for you.  Can you please finish the equation below?

You are being timed

6

New Theories / Re: Re: If Tunguska was "2,000 times stronger" than the a-bombs, how did Earth survive?

« on: 26/07/2021 12:47:56 »

So what is your IQ?

Last time it was measured, 173.
What's yours?

There are two ways in which you might reduce the mass of a BH.
You might try to  take stuff out of it, which is impossible, or you can add a negative mass to it- which is possible and is the basis for Hawking radiation.

Perhaps you should have paid more attention in 3rd grade.

LOL an IQ of 173 and you have nothing better to do with your time than play with a kids science site.  So what is your stock portfolio worth with an IQ over Einstein's you should be worth about 500 billion dollars and own a hundred car garage in your home on the French Riviera. 

Now since you have boasted an IQ of 713 which is higher than both Hawking and Einstein I am expecting a solution to the cosmological constant and proof of dark matter in the next ten minutes.

See in every group there is a super fool that knows that in spite of the drool on their shirt that they are the brightest person in the room.  Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

7

New Theories / Re: Re: If Tunguska was "2,000 times stronger" than the a-bombs, how did Earth survive?

« on: 26/07/2021 12:33:29 »

Hey bored can you please explain how radiation escapes from outside a black hole?

I have a candle. It is outside a black hole.
Light escapes from it.
What part do you want me to explain?

Do you not understand the difference between inside and outside?
It seems that is the case, because you also got muddled about it here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82746.msg648790#msg648790

Actually in order for the black hole to evaporate the contents of the black hole are released from the inside of the black hole, or the contents could not be released.  I presume that you understand the information paradox?

There is a logical section to IQ test for a reason.  So what is your IQ? 

Hawking died like he lived, a fool

8

New Theories / Re: Re: If Tunguska was "2,000 times stronger" than the a-bombs, how did Earth survive?

« on: 26/07/2021 12:14:47 »

Even if the Tunguska event was 200x, let alone 2,000x more powerful than the bombs my country dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, how did it not wipe out life on Earth, and how come only a few people noticed the event actually happen? I know it was in the desolate Siberian wilderness, populated by some farmers and Tsarists political prisoners, but still...

The Tunguska explosion is estimated to be 33 times the blast at Hiroshima or 500 kilotons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event#:~:text=The%20exploding%20meteoroid%20was%20determined,release%20of%20approximately%20500%20kilotons.

It's also estimated as up to 30 MTons
"The 30 Mt (130 PJ) estimated upper limit blast power of the Tunguska event could power the same average home for more than 3,100,000 years."
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent

But the detail doesn't matter.
Most of Hiroshima survived the blast.
Almost all the damage was confined to sticky out bits that people had put there.
The flat bits were generally  fine.

That wiki page lists plenty of earthquakes etc that were much bigger than a thousand times the upper bound to the estimated energy from Tunguska.
A notable example is an hour's worth of sunshine: 104000 megatons.

Hey bored can you please explain how radiation escapes from outside a black hole?  Because actually Hawking proved that he was an imbecile when he wrote that nothing can escape a black hole, and people like you are still arguing to defend the physical falsehood.  Did you study black holes in third grade?

9

Geek Speak / Re: In simple terms, for idiots, what are bitcoins?

« on: 26/07/2021 01:59:57 »

I'll let him explain in his own words.

Elon Musk is far more psycho than Howard Hughes ever was.  Remember Musk was in favor of bitcoin until he woke up and said huh I really bought that, then he called himself a fool for buying it and sold it. 

Tesla is the only company with a valuation of 4,000.00 per share all the way down to 69.00 a share.  Tesla is scared sh1t of Ford and Toyota and GM are coming.  Bye Tesla

10

New Theories / Re: New discussion: How do we know the Universe is expanding, and expanding into nothing?

« on: 25/07/2021 23:57:28 »

The people who accepted Steven Hawking's physics that said that nothing could escape from a black hole are now considered suckers who wasted their money on at least one of Hawking's comic books

Why?
What escapes from a BH?
Have you failed to understand that Hawking radiation escapes from just outside one?

Radiation escapes a black hole or so the new theory says. 

LOL how does radiation escape from outside a black hole? 

Really the radiation escapes the black hole and this creates the information paradox.  So much radiation escapes in fact that the black hole will eventually evaporate, if you believe everything on TV at least

11

New Theories / Re: New discussion: How do we know the Universe is expanding, and expanding into nothing?

« on: 25/07/2021 23:29:43 »

This is idiocy

You said it.

So did you believe the physics that claimed that nothing could escape a black hole?

Yea you did because it was said.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaa

12

New Theories / Re: New discussion: How do we know the Universe is expanding, and expanding into nothing?

« on: 25/07/2021 22:19:47 »

There are two ways Europe. Either you accept the physics we know and have or you don't. No middle, you can't accept some of it because it all hangs together. So if you want to change it you will have to look at a lot more than how we define a Big Bang. Here's one nice explanation.


"Current cosmological theorists suppose that the universe is exactly identical, no matter where it is viewed from, so long as it is viewed at the same time. At the time of the big bang, the distances between any two given points seems to shrink to zero (or some nonzero value that we supposedly will derive from quantum mechanics). The conclusion is that the Big Bang happened everywhere, all at once.

This is also how you get out of the 'was the big bang a black hole?'-type questions: even though you had large concentrations of matter at times close to the big bang, they were spread out over all space, which is different than just having a clump of matter with finite extent (the second thing would collapse to a black hole). "  By Jerry Schirmer

And isotropy and homogeneity is central to the astronomical definitions we use today.

The people who accepted Steven Hawking's physics that said that nothing could escape from a black hole are now considered suckers who wasted their money on at least one of Hawking's comic books

Then there was Einstein who was ordered by Hubble to look thru Hubble's telescope and see the expanding universe that Einstein said was static.

Everyone who accepted the status quo was a fool.  Hubble did not accept and he forced the hairball to change all of his work which is now a dead end because there is not enough mass to make the universe expand.

You accept what the guy ahead of you said, because he said, not because you know.  This is idiocy
 

13

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Discussion split from: Do atoms exist in multiple places at once, 2 places or 1?

« on: 25/07/2021 19:48:07 »

https://www.thoughtco.com/how-many-atoms-are-in-human-body-603872

Atomic Composition of a Lean 70-kg Man
Element   # of Atoms
hydrogen   4.22 x 10 27
oxygen   1.61 x 10 27
carbon   8.03 x 10 26
nitrogen   3.9 x 10 25
calcium   1.6 x 10 25
phosphorus   9.6 x 10 24
sulfur   2.6 x 10 24
sodium   2.5 x 10 24
potassium   2.2 x 10 24
chlorine   1.6 x 10 24
magnesium   4.7 x 10 23
silicon   3.9 x 10 23
fluorine   8.3 x 10 22
iron   4.5 x 10 22
zinc   2.1 x 10 22
rubidium   2.2 x 10 21
strontium   2.2 x 10 21
bromine   2 x 10 21
aluminum   1 x 10 21
copper   7 x 10 20
lead   3 x 10 20
cadmium   3 x 10 20
boron   2 x 10 20
manganese   1 x 10 20
nickel   1 x 10 20
lithium   1 x 10 20
barium   8 x 10 19
iodine   5 x 10 19
tin   4 x 10 19
gold   2 x 10 19
zirconium   2 x 10 19
cobalt   2 x 10 19
cesium   7 x 10 18
mercury   6 x 10 18
arsenic   6 x 10 18
chromium   6 x 10 18
molybdenum   3 x 10 18
selenium   3 x 10 18
beryllium   3 x 10 18
vanadium   8 x 10 17
uranium   2 x 10 17
radium   8 x 10 10

Again iron is the 14th most common element in the human body and elemental iron ATOMS must be consumed every day. I said that the average adult has 3 to 4 grams of iron in their body in various places and in various forms and I am correct.

https://www.thoughtco.com/how-many-atoms-are-in-human-body-603872

Atomic Composition of a Lean 70-kg Man
Element   # of Atoms
hydrogen   4.22 x 10 27
oxygen   1.61 x 10 27
carbon   8.03 x 10 26
nitrogen   3.9 x 10 25
calcium   1.6 x 10 25
phosphorus   9.6 x 10 24
sulfur   2.6 x 10 24
sodium   2.5 x 10 24
potassium   2.2 x 10 24
chlorine   1.6 x 10 24
magnesium   4.7 x 10 23
silicon   3.9 x 10 23
fluorine   8.3 x 10 22
iron   4.5 x 10 22
zinc   2.1 x 10 22
rubidium   2.2 x 10 21
strontium   2.2 x 10 21
bromine   2 x 10 21
aluminum   1 x 10 21
copper   7 x 10 20
lead   3 x 10 20
cadmium   3 x 10 20
boron   2 x 10 20
manganese   1 x 10 20
nickel   1 x 10 20
lithium   1 x 10 20
barium   8 x 10 19
iodine   5 x 10 19
tin   4 x 10 19
gold   2 x 10 19
zirconium   2 x 10 19
cobalt   2 x 10 19
cesium   7 x 10 18
mercury   6 x 10 18
arsenic   6 x 10 18
chromium   6 x 10 18
molybdenum   3 x 10 18
selenium   3 x 10 18
beryllium   3 x 10 18
vanadium   8 x 10 17
uranium   2 x 10 17
radium   8 x 10 10

Again iron is the 14th most common element in the human body and elemental iron ATOMS must be consumed every day. I said that the average adult has 3 to 4 grams of iron in their body in various places and in various forms and I am correct.

PS It was in the movie, Diana ask Charles to make tea and he told her that he did not know how, rhymes with dumb

Can't make that up

14

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Discussion split from: Do atoms exist in multiple places at once, 2 places or 1?

« on: 25/07/2021 19:34:33 »

Did you know that Prince Charles is too dumb to make tea?

You were too dumb to answer the question.

What do you think the difference is between an atom and an ion?

https://www.thoughtco.com/how-many-atoms-are-in-human-body-603872

Atomic Composition of a Lean 70-kg Man
Element   # of Atoms
hydrogen   4.22 x 10 27
oxygen   1.61 x 10 27
carbon   8.03 x 10 26
nitrogen   3.9 x 10 25
calcium   1.6 x 10 25
phosphorus   9.6 x 10 24
sulfur   2.6 x 10 24
sodium   2.5 x 10 24
potassium   2.2 x 10 24
chlorine   1.6 x 10 24
magnesium   4.7 x 10 23
silicon   3.9 x 10 23
fluorine   8.3 x 10 22
iron   4.5 x 10 22
zinc   2.1 x 10 22
rubidium   2.2 x 10 21
strontium   2.2 x 10 21
bromine   2 x 10 21
aluminum   1 x 10 21
copper   7 x 10 20
lead   3 x 10 20
cadmium   3 x 10 20
boron   2 x 10 20
manganese   1 x 10 20
nickel   1 x 10 20
lithium   1 x 10 20
barium   8 x 10 19
iodine   5 x 10 19
tin   4 x 10 19
gold   2 x 10 19
zirconium   2 x 10 19
cobalt   2 x 10 19
cesium   7 x 10 18
mercury   6 x 10 18
arsenic   6 x 10 18
chromium   6 x 10 18
molybdenum   3 x 10 18
selenium   3 x 10 18
beryllium   3 x 10 18
vanadium   8 x 10 17
uranium   2 x 10 17
radium   8 x 10 10

Again iron is the 14th most common element in the human body and elemental iron ATOMS must be consumed every day. I said that the average adult has 3 to 4 grams of iron in their body in various places and in various forms and I am correct. 

15

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Discussion split from: Do atoms exist in multiple places at once, 2 places or 1?

« on: 25/07/2021 19:23:44 »

What do you think the difference is between an atom and an ion?

https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/hemoglobin-and-functions-of-iron

Iron is an essential element for blood production. About 70 percent of your body's iron is found in the red blood cells of your blood called hemoglobin and in muscle cells called myoglobin. Hemoglobin is essential for transferring oxygen in your blood from the lungs to the tissues. Myoglobin, in muscle cells, accepts, stores, transports and releases oxygen.

About 6 percent of body iron is a component of certain proteins, essential for respiration and energy metabolism, and as a component of enzymes involved in the synthesis of collagen and some neurotransmitters. Iron also is needed for proper immune function.

About 25 percent of the iron in the body is stored as ferritin, found in cells and circulates in the blood. The average adult male has about 1,000 mg of stored iron (enough for about three years), whereas women on average have only about 300 mg (enough for about six months). When iron intake is chronically low, stores can become depleted, decreasing hemoglobin levels.

When iron stores are exhausted, the condition is called iron depletion. Further decreases may be called iron-deficient erythropoiesis and still further decreases produce iron deficiency anemia.

Blood loss is the most common cause of iron deficiency. In men and postmenopausal women, iron deficiency is almost always the result of gastrointestinal blood loss. In menstruating women, genitourinary blood loss often accounts for increased iron requirements. Oral contraceptives tend to decrease menstrual blood loss, whereas intrauterine devices tend to increase menstrual bleeding. Other causes of genitourinary bleeding and respiratory tract bleeding also increase iron requirements.

For blood donors, each donation results in the loss of 200 to 250 mg of iron. During periods of growth in infancy, childhood and adolescence, iron requirements may outstrip the supply of iron from diet and stores. Iron loss from tissue growth during pregnancy and from bleeding during delivery and post partum averages 740 mg. Breastfeeding increases iron requirements by about 0.5 to 1 mg a day.

Iron Requirements
Your "iron level" is checked before each blood donation to determine if it is safe for you to give blood. Iron is not made in the body and must be absorbed from what you eat. The adult minimum daily requirement of iron is 1.8 mg. Only about 10 to 30 percent of the iron you consume is absorbed and used by the body.

The daily requirement of iron can be achieved by taking iron supplements. Ferrous sulfate 325 mg, taken orally once a day, and by eating foods high in iron. Foods high in vitamin C also are recommended because vitamin C helps your body absorb iron. Cooking in iron pots can add up to 80 percent more iron to your foods. Consult with your primary care provider before taking iron supplements.

Did you know that Prince Charles is too dumb to make tea? and that his kid Harry is living in the USA because MI6 murdered his mother?

Really

16

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Discussion split from: Do atoms exist in multiple places at once, 2 places or 1?

« on: 25/07/2021 19:01:24 »

You forgot to answer the question.

Which is it?
Are you pretending to be stupid (and a troll), or are you really stupid and don't understand that...

To you a troll is anyone who knows more than you and or who challenges your ignorance.  So again you need to consume iron atoms every day in order to be healthy.  The truth does not make me troll, it does however show you for what you are.

So you enjoying that tiny little island you got there?

Yawn

17

New Theories / Re: New discussion: How do we know the Universe is expanding, and expanding into nothing?

« on: 25/07/2021 18:45:22 »

It's a tricky one Europe, I know, with a 'a'

But you shouldn't think of the universe as inside something. The universe is 'everything existing'. And using 'dimensions' you can turn it into some sort of membrane we exist on. But it is seriously weird to both consider a 'hot start' without a specific location for it time wise. But it/that belongs in some way to the way we expect it classically. You increase a compression and it gets hot, f.ex pumping a bicycle deck. In this case a question of the 'energy' existing in that 'spot' we imagine a Big Bang to have started from. And there we seem to use dimensions to describe this compression. It's seems more of a question of how to define those dimensions to me than a question of our classical models.

we don't have anything else than this universe, and we define it 'dimensionally', or as I think ES express it, as a 'manifold' equivalent to a Euclidean universe. It can be infinite several ways, it can also be described as open or closed depending on its 'shape. But there is still nothing 'outside' it in where it exist.


spelling
&syntax

Better add, no 'outside' that we can prove. And if you think of relativity it's about SpaceTime in where mass define the shape of our 'space'  https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/

It's also observer dependent. meaning that mass. relative motion, acceleration all have a influence on how you will describe the 'space' you exist in, and all of them connected to the idea of a 'energy' added, the 'coin of exchange' as JP used to call it, with one difference. In a relative motion you can't prove that 'potential energy' existing, in a acceleration you can, and there it becomes a equivalence to you experiencing a 'gravity'.

Or as John Archibald Wheeler expressed it

“Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.”

Every word you can write about the universe adds up to nothing but speculation as nothing is known.  You could say that we are here and that would be fact not speculation, but the moment you try to describe where here is you need to speculate

18

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Discussion split from: Do atoms exist in multiple places at once, 2 places or 1?

« on: 25/07/2021 14:46:03 »

Thanks for the link. It's certainly an American education; it says
"Rare earth magnets are incredibly powerful. Do not swallow."

What you now need to do is understand two things
Metallic iron is made from a lattice of iron ions in a sea of electrons- which is why (like other metals) it conducts electricity.

You also need to recognise that the human body has a surface.
Unless you penetrate that surface you may be "on" the body, but not in it.

Imagine an ant with suitable diving gear setting out - perhaps one night- from your mouth.
He makes his way through your gut- perhaps watching an iron filing on his way. And he emerges at the other end.
He never crossed the gut wall and so he was never in your body- he was on the surface of your body.

That's the path that the iron filings in breakfast cereals take.
En route, some of the iron reacts with the acid in the stomach.
In doing so, it is dissolved as hydrated ions.


So what you are saying is that something not made of iron atoms is near the body.

I could say that's the result of an American education, but really it's either trolling or this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Which is it?
Are you pretending to be stupid (and a troll), or are you really stupid and don't understand that...

It remains the case that there are practically no iron atoms in the body.

Again Son, an adult human male needs 8.7mg of iron atoms in their diet daily, so you will need less.

The iron that is added to breakfast cereal is just like the iron that goes into metal screws and nails, and is strongly attracted by a magnet. Grinding and crushing the cereal into a liquid mixture frees the added iron particles from the cereal matrix, allowing them to move towards to the magnet.

So if you do not get iron atoms daily in your diet you will become severely anemic as the human body can not manufacture iron from tea.

The more you disagree with your American master the sillier you will look.

But please continue as this is quite amusing

19

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Discussion split from: Do atoms exist in multiple places at once, 2 places or 1?

« on: 25/07/2021 14:14:49 »

You just told me how many iron ions there are in the body.
Now tell me how many atoms there are.
Here's a hint.

It remains the case that there are practically no iron atoms in the body.

I am sorry for you that you are so not smart but then you are British chemist meaning that tea is your specialty

Again there is literally iron as in nails in corn flakes and it can be extracted, your belief that there are no iron atoms in the human body is just silly, if you have none then you are extremely anemic.  On the bright side you are getting quite an American education as we go along here.

How to extract Ferrous iron (made of iron atoms from corn flakes)

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/how-to-extract-iron-from-cereal/

20

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Discussion split from: Do atoms exist in multiple places at once, 2 places or 1?

« on: 25/07/2021 13:12:28 »

Iron is an essential element for blood production. About 70 percent of your body's iron is found in the red blood cells of your blood called hemoglobin and in muscle cells called myoglobin. Hemoglobin is essential for transferring oxygen in your blood from the lungs to the tissues.

It remains the case that there are practically no iron atoms in the body.

Completely wrong again genius

Males of average height have about 4 grams of iron in their body, females about 3.5 grams; children will usually have 3 grams or less. These 3-4 grams are distributed throughout the body in hemoglobin, tissues, muscles, bone marrow, blood proteins, enzymes, ferritin, hemosiderin, and transport in plasma.

You might want to find another Britt to play with so you have a chance to at least look intelligent

There are approximately 1 × 10˛˛ atoms of iron in 1 gram x 4 grams