/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12067283
No, you are wrong and stupid. Section 6.3 in the paper is called "The Archimedes Property of Real Numbers" and I prove it is preserved in neighborhood of infinity. The Archimedes property appears in Euclid's elements. It's an important property in real analysis because it has been the standard of what real numbers are for thousands of years. All of the modern restatements of the property, such as the one you cite, implicitly assume that all number are real numbers are in the neighborhood of the origin. If you cite anything other than Euclid to say what the Archimedes property is, then I'll call you a charlatan, a pseud, and a liar. Your proof fails because the thing you claim is the Archimedes property is not it.

>>12067316
Trust me, as soon as I can get Mr. 46's thieving finger away from the nuclear button and I can get my own finger into its rightful place, then I will make the biggest intervention of all time. The sun will not set before I shake the Earth.

>>12067388
Which Tooker are you talking about? It's quite likely that there is a Tooker or two here: >>12067139

First of all, I'm an idiot and English isn't my native language, so please keep your answer(s) as simple as you can. Okay, moving on to the actual question: Can/could we fuse iron and how much energy does it take?

From what I understand is that when a massive star starts producing iron, it takes too much energy to fuse it and thus the pressure keeping the mass of the star from collapsing on itself vanishes. The resulting supernova can fuse heavy atoms into even heavier ones, all the way up to uranium and beyond.

Supernovas, however, are probably the most violently energetic things our known Universe has to offer. We're pretty good at fusing lighter elements together, but how much energy does it take to do the same to iron in comparison?

Pic: Hardtack Poplar, thermonuclear detonation, 9.3 MT.

>>9864279
I don't agree and I never did.

>>9765362
>eliminate bot posts
EMP weapons