General Science / Re: Atom?« on: 19/03/2023 00:58:56 »
No. Radioactive decay breaks atoms apart naturally.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
However, now we do understand that the Universe was already infinite before the Big Bang.
Therefore, the time was ticking long before the Big Bang moment.
So, please are you sure that we can bypass the law of physics while the time was already there?
Don't you agree that our mission is to explain the entire space/universe and not just the part/section that we observe/see which is called observable universe?
I would like to remind you that there was a time when people on earth thought that our planet is flat and if you cross the horizon, you might fall into the open space.
Hence, what we see is not good enough - not for today and not for the past.
Hence, as the real space is infinite then why can't we assume that the real universe is also infinite.
Therefore, why do we insist on 13.8BY as some magic number?
Why do we refuse to accept the simple understanding that infinite space & Universe could exist if the time is also infinite or at least much bigger than this friction of moment (comparing to the infinity)
If the space is infinite then how the space could expand to the infinity in only 13.8BY?
Hence, the CMBR black body radiation in our universe PROVES that it is infinite in its size!
In addition to gravity, the shell theorem can also be used to describe the electric field generated by a static spherically symmetric charge density, or similarly for any other phenomenon that follows an inverse square law.
"Wien's displacement law states that the black-body radiation curve for different temperatures will peak at different wavelengths that are inversely proportional to the temperature."
Why should we assume that?
Because the supermassive black star (black hole) in the center of the galaxy occupies a distinguished place and can be said to be the main object in the galaxy
Main particle from the galactical model will correspond to a supermassive black star (black hole, see paragraph 10) at the center of the galaxy. Perhaps quarks are made of such particles.
But what if the 'worm' was 1 nanometer in width and the synaptic gap was also 1 nanometer?
A strong argument in favor of the galactic model, followed by the cosmic and supercosmic model, is the Bohr-style model of the atom based on the planetary system.
Among other things, Comte's theory of science implies the assumption that physics can draw models from astronomy. If a planetary system has proven to be a useful model, so should a galaxy. It was just a matter of what the galactic model might look like.
Do you have any evidence at all to support your model?
There would be evidence, you just have to look for them, although the empirical test of these three models, as I said, seems to be beyond the reach of current technical abilities
So, how do you resolve the idea that, in my perspective it must form pairs but in other frames, it doesn't?
For a start, I think it would undergo pair creation even if there was nothing in its way
As we shouldn't go there, would you kindly explain the meaning of "these molecules were actually born within the winds themselves"?