1. A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking — A book in which Hawking attempts to explain a range of subjects in cosmology to the non-specialist reader.
I'm in a natural science highschool program and I want to work with biology and history someway in the future. But tbh math is really stressing me out at the moment and it makes me feel like I shouldn't be here, I'm incredibly sorry for venting this but I'm struggling with expressing how shit I generally feel, even with the school counselor. Thank u beforehand, ur blog is amazingβ€οΈ
I’ve struggled with math too and what helped me was Kahn Academy and Numberphile
Aye real shit bruh I understand why people hundreds of years ago always claimed theyβve seen demons or have folk tales about mythological creatures because if I seen some shit like this
Before biology/science came along Iβd be like βyeah mane thatβs a gotdamn demonβ
If it’s 4x the size and 10x the mass (like the article says) of earth isn’t it a possibility that there’s still geothermal energy being put out? I know Mars grew cold a long time ago and it’s only marginally smaller in comparison, so theoretically there could be life that uses geothermal vents for energy, possibly underwater. People have speculated similarly about one of the moons of Jupiter (but in that case the energy was coming from tidal friction from Jupiter)
Look I’ve been up for 29 hours so my math is probably off but if something is 4x the diameter and 10x the mass of earth, it would be just way too dense to be made of anything other than, like, solid metal.
So I went and looked at the academic paper and they never even mention it being 4x the size of earth. The caltech news article that I pulled up (remember these researchers are from caltech) never mention a 4x size number either. I have no idea where The Guardian got that number, but I found the Washington Post mentions it too, but it’s never mentioned anywhere in any scientific news sources, so I’m disregarding it entirely.
The only thing mentioning the possible dimensions in the academic paper is that it’s between 1 and 10 times the mass of Earth.
Because the only thing we have is mass, there’s no way to determine density or that it’s a rocky planet like people seem to default it to.
Logically, it would probably be a gas giant similar to both Uranus and Neptune. Uranus is 15 earth masses and Neptune is 17 earth masses. It would probably have a very similar composition with a miles thick atmosphere, then underneath that, miles and miles of ice, and below that, a tiny rocky core.
So from that, and because the rocky core is actually quite small, (most likely smaller than that of Earth) it probably isn’t geothermally active anymore.
The language of the article seemed to imply it was a rocky planet, at least that’s how it seemed to me, and at the time of reading it I had also been up for more than a day and now I’ve realized we have no bloody clue what it’s made of because we’re not even sure it exists. I believe the assumption comes from general patterns in exoplanets that we’ve found in the past several years, and there are rocky bodies many times the mass of the earth, in fact we’ve found many more of those than we have planets with similar masses to the Earth. The question was mentioned in the article that if they’re so common why doesn’t our solar system have any, the answer to that question was well maybe this one is.
It is a possibility that it has 10x the mass and the basic same layering as Earth. Although from what I’ve learned of Earth’s formation we do have an unusually large iron core, in comparison to say Mars, due to the collision that formed our moon. It is a strong possibility that it’s another gas giant but ya know. Ice aliens.
”in fact we’ve found many more of those than we have planets with similar masses to the Earth.”
That’s because Kepler, the telescope that’s finding all these exoplanets, is doing so by looking at light curves from distant stars. Only large planets cause noticeable light dips, while Earth-sized planets go unnoticed. And if you’ll look at this graph of exoplanets, you’ll find that of the exoplanets found, most are larger than jupiter, and gaseous.
Sorry about the quality, it’s from a textbook. Red dots are exoplanets, green dots are our planets, the green band at the bottom is terrestrial planets. Most exoplanets fall in the ‘hot jupiter’ and jovian ranges, with very few being terrestrial at all, let alone super earths.
The question they should be asking is “Why don’t we have more gas giants?”
And to be honest, the Guardian is sensationalist and they use the ‘rocky planet = aliens’ trope that people believe in to get more hype for their article. Most science based news sources believe the planet to be a gaseous ice ball.
If it’s 4x the size and 10x the mass (like the article says) of earth isn’t it a possibility that there’s still geothermal energy being put out? I know Mars grew cold a long time ago and it’s only marginally smaller in comparison, so theoretically there could be life that uses geothermal vents for energy, possibly underwater. People have speculated similarly about one of the moons of Jupiter (but in that case the energy was coming from tidal friction from Jupiter)
Look I’ve been up for 29 hours so my math is probably off but if something is 4x the diameter and 10x the mass of earth, it would be just way too dense to be made of anything other than, like, solid metal.
So I went and looked at the academic paper and they never even mention it being 4x the size of earth. The caltech news article that I pulled up (remember these researchers are from caltech) never mention a 4x size number either. I have no idea where The Guardian got that number, but I found the Washington Post mentions it too, but it’s never mentioned anywhere in any scientific news sources, so I’m disregarding it entirely.
The only thing mentioning the possible dimensions in the academic paper is that it’s between 1 and 10 times the mass of Earth.
Because the only thing we have is mass, there’s no way to determine density or that it’s a rocky planet like people seem to default it to.
Logically, it would probably be a gas giant similar to both Uranus and Neptune. Uranus is 15 earth masses and Neptune is 17 earth masses. It would probably have a very similar composition with a miles thick atmosphere, then underneath that, miles and miles of ice, and below that, a tiny rocky core.
So from that, and because the rocky core is actually quite small, (most likely smaller than that of Earth) it probably isn’t geothermally active anymore.
I NEED THE SCIENCE BEHIND KINGSMAN TECHNOLOGY OKAY
how they modified their Tokarevs T-30s to have an extra shotgun cartridge release, what chemical reaction they’ve concocted for their hand grenades, hOW DID THEY EFFORTLESSLY PROGRAM A POISON PEN THAT ACTIVATES AT A TOUCH?? HOW MANY EXPERIMENTS DID THEY GO THROUGH TO GET THE RIGHT MEASURE OF ACTIVATION???
WHAT TYPE OF NEUROTOXIN DO THEY USE ON THE BLADES IN THE OXFORDS, COULD THEY REAPPLY THAT INTO ANYTHING ELSE, SUCH AS A RAINMAKER???
HOW DID THEY PROGRAMMING THE RAINMAKERS, DURABLE MICROTECHONOLOGY TO EFFORTLESSLY WEAVED INTO BULLET RESISTANT WEAVING
AND WHAT TYPE OF BALLISTICS RESISTANT WEAVE DO THEY USE FOR BOTH THE RAINMAKER AND THEIR SUITS, IS IT THE SAME WEAVE THATS USED FOR THE USUAL VESTS OR IS IT SPECIALLY MADE IN KINGSMAN LABS ONLY FOR KINGSMAN SUITS AND DO THEY USE A DIFFERENT WEAVE FOR THE a RAINMAKERS
AT WHAT CALIBRE BULLETS ARE THE SUITS COMPROMISED. WE SAW IN THE MOVIE THAT THE RAINMAKER WAS VULNERABLE TO A CERTAIN CALIBRE OF BULLET
WHAT ABOUT WOMANS CLOTHING, WERE NOT SURE WHETHER ROXY WAS THE FIRST WOMAN IN KINGSMAN AS AN AGENT THOUGH I FIND IT HIGHLY UNBELIEVABLE, BUT TBH THE KINGSMAN IS ALL ABOUT TRADITION SO I WOULDNT BE SURPRISED
WILL THEY CREATE BULLET RESISTANT DRESSES FOR LANCELOT?? WEAPONS MADE SPECIFICALLY FOR HER, HIGH HEELS WITH THE NEUROTOXIN BLADE, WEAPONS THAT CAN BE EASILY CONCEALED AS COSMETICS?????
So I can answer some of these questions because I’m a physics nerd.
First of all, the handgun with an addon shotgun shell is, for the most part, impossible, at least with that design. The shell would create so much force that it’d likely blow out the back of where the shell was sitting, and cause injury to the shooter. Plus, with where the trigger for the shotgun shell is, you’d need some pretty interesting mechanics to get it to fire, and there’s simply not enough room between the trigger and the back of the shotgun barrel (See how the trigger works in second picture).
The hand grenade looks to be pretty similar (damage wise) to a normal grenade. But it’s also a lighter, as in the lighter needs fuel to burn. As in the fuel contributing to the fiery explosion-ness that doesn’t exist in a normal grenade.
The only thing I can think of as far as a poison being poisonous on command, would be something having to do with nanotechnology. The button on the pen signalling for tiny little nanobots to release a chemical, such as cyanide maybe? Or possibly the robots itself doing the attacking, like ripping at the esophagus and stomach lining, (not likely as King’s death happened pretty quickly).
As for the fast acting neurotoxin in the shoe blade? Possibly a type of botulinum (aka botox). It’s one of the most poisonous substances known to man. It’s median lethal dose (LD50) is 1.3-2.1 ng/kg (really fucking poisonous).
As for their suits? MIT has recently created a razor thin material (just 20 nanometers!) that can stop bullets (Read about it here). You can layer the material and theoretically it be able to withstand pretty heavy artillery. With an organization like Kingsman having tons of resources at their hands, it wouldn't be surprising that they beat them to the punch. They’d probably give Roxy a suit instead of a dress, unless absolutely needed otherwise, as a dress often leaves the arms and legs exposed. One could make bulletproof pantyhose and long armed gloves out of the bulletproof material, though.
For the umbrellas, I’d say they can withstand anything under a 50 cal bullet. .9, .22, and .45 are all common, but a .50 bullet is more rare.
I hope this answered some of your questions because I most definitely have been put on some sort of watchlist after googling this stuff.
He is still teaching science without politics tho, problem is that the far right has declared all science as a political statement
What we are seeing is the idea of “science” and “knowledge” been put as political statements cause the rock bed of conservatives depends on people being ignorant and in order to achieve that they have to make it seem like all science is by nature “political”
It’s the South Park effect, were ignorance is labeled as the “true center” while knowledge and education are labeled “SJW propaganda”
fayeconsumerofcoochiefayeconsumerofcoochie
I hate how one of our biggest political problems is a concept called the fucking south park effect.
