1
General Science / Re: Atom?
« on: 19/03/2023 00:58:56 »
No. Radioactive decay breaks atoms apart naturally.
Show Posts
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.
2
New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« on: 11/03/2023 18:55:47 »
I'm not the only moderator. If Halc thinks that you are getting too off topic, then you should respect his decree. If you want to ask about the energy source of the Big Bang, you can make a new thread about it. Just don't let it devolve into a discussion about your Theory D.
3
New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« on: 09/03/2023 17:32:28 »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.
The current assumption is that time started at the Big Bang, which would make these two assertions incorrect.
So, please are you sure that we can bypass the law of physics while the time was already there?
There is no need to bypass the laws of physics. The energy was always there since the beginning of time.
4
New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« on: 08/03/2023 17:37:54 »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?
We have no choice. We can't explain what we can't observe.
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.
The laws of physics weren't preventing people from accessing those unseen parts of the Earth. It was just a lack of know-how and trying. It's a rather different story for the observable universe (unless faster-than-light travel proves to be possible some day).
Hence, as the real space is infinite then why can't we assume that the real universe is also infinite.
The Big Bang theory generally does assume that.
Therefore, why do we insist on 13.8BY as some magic number?
Because that's how long ago the Big Bang happened.
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)
I already explained that the Big Bang theory already assumes an infinite Universe and it does so without any need for infinite time because it was already infinite in size at the very first moment of time.
5
New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« on: 07/03/2023 21:20:09 »If the space is infinite then how the space could expand to the infinity in only 13.8BY?
It didn't. The assumption of the Big Bang is that the Universe started off at infinite size at the Big Bang, but in an incredibly hot, dense state everywhere. Then, as it expanded, it cooled off until we have what we see today. The size of the observable universe is finite in part because light has only been able to travel for 13.8 billion years and in part because objects beyond a certain distance are recessing away from us too fast to ever be seen.
The idea that all matter in existence was once crammed into a single point of zero size is a something of a pop-sci myth. It's true that you can trace all the matter in our observable universe back to a tiny space, but that doesn't include all the matter that would be outside our observable universe. The word "singularity" is more of a reference to the fact that the Universe approaches infinite density and temperature as you go back through time and approach the moment of the Big Bang.
6
Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Are Dogs Evolved to Hate Cats (and Vice Versa)?
« on: 05/03/2023 22:49:08 »
I would say not. Dogs could certainly see cats as potential prey. Likewise, a cat would see a dog or wolf as a potential predator (under the right circumstances). However, that isn't hatred and not all dog/cat interactions are like this.
Dogs and cats can be raised together and end up getting along quite well. I've seen it with my own eyes.
Dogs and cats can be raised together and end up getting along quite well. I've seen it with my own eyes.
7
New Theories / Re: What is the real readshift in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
« on: 05/03/2023 17:44:30 »Hence, the CMBR black body radiation in our universe PROVES that it is infinite in its size!
Not really. If there was a spherical wall of finite size around the Universe that was in thermal equilibrium with the CMBR, then the CMBR would still be uniform in all directions because the wall would emit radiation as fast as it absorbs it. It wouldn't matter if we were closer to one side of this sphere than another side due to shell theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
Shell theorem states that the gravitational field inside of a hollow sphere is uniform and thus no net gravitational force is exerted on a body inside of such a hollow sphere. This is because gravity follows the inverse square law. Radiation intensity also follows the inverse square law. From the article:
Quote
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.
Since shell theorem applies to electromagnetic radiation emitted from inside of a hollow sphere just as much as gravity does, that means the received radiation intensity of the CMBR would be the same everywhere inside of the sphere.
8
New Theories / Re: What is the real readshift in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
« on: 28/02/2023 17:03:36 »"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."
That's exactly what Bored Chemist said.
9
New Theories / Re: Structure of electrons, quarks and gluons; preon, preons
« on: 28/02/2023 16:28:47 »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
That doesn't sound like a good reason to assume that such logic also applies to particles.
10
New Theories / Re: Structure of electrons, quarks and gluons; preon, preons
« on: 26/02/2023 14:16:09 »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.
Why should we assume that?
11
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Distribution of Earth's mass?
« on: 25/02/2023 01:31:45 »
I would have intuitively thought that there would be more mass along the equator than at the poles, but the actual mass distribution seems to be more random than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#/media/File:Gravity_anomalies_on_Earth.jpg
12
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is it possible for a planet to be highly-highly abundant in magnesium?
« on: 24/02/2023 23:34:48 »
Magnesium is already the 8th most abundant element on Earth: https://web.archive.org/web/20110927064201/http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/Fundamentals/ElementalAbundanceTableP.pdf
In order for your question to be answered more exactly, you'd need to specify what kind of quantities you are talking about.
In order for your question to be answered more exactly, you'd need to specify what kind of quantities you are talking about.
13
New Theories / Re: Is there a biological explanation for depression, as opposed to chemical?
« on: 24/02/2023 23:31:21 »But what if the 'worm' was 1 nanometer in width and the synaptic gap was also 1 nanometer?
Even the smallest known viruses aren't that small (which bottom out at around 20 nanometers across): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7150055/
The synaptic gap is also larger than that, at about between 20 to 50 nanometers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/synaptic-cleft#:~:text=The%20width%20of%20the%20synaptic,nm%20at%20the%20neuromuscular%20junction.
The smallest known worm is Greeffiella, which has a size measured in micrometers, not nanometers: https://alexaanswers.amazon.com/question/6OYtJDqXSYohwGGCPb8QH0
So your idea of worms blocking a synaptic gap is implausible.
14
New Theories / Re: Structure of electrons, quarks and gluons; preon, preons
« on: 24/02/2023 23:07:20 »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.
It's not a strong argument. The planetary model of the atom was incorrect. Electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the way that planets orbit the Sun.
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.
That doesn't imply that electrons are made up of quadrillions of smaller particles.
15
New Theories / Re: Structure of electrons, quarks and gluons; preon, preons
« on: 23/02/2023 12:49:14 »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
If there is currently no evidence, then why should we believe that it is correct?
16
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How would matter interact with Planck energy photons?
« on: 18/02/2023 01:54:39 »So, how do you resolve the idea that, in my perspective it must form pairs but in other frames, it doesn't?
By saying that it doesn't form pairs unless it collides with other particles. In that case, you get pairs in all frames. At least, interaction with other particles is stated as a requirement in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum, as an electron–positron pair produced in free space cannot satisfy conservation of both energy and momentum."
17
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How would matter interact with Planck energy photons?
« on: 17/02/2023 21:46:01 »For a start, I think it would undergo pair creation even if there was nothing in its way
I'm not sure about that, since, in some reference frames, the kinetic energy of the photon would be below that needed for pair creation. I think interaction with another particle would be necessary in that frame since the other particle would be the one carrying immense kinetic energy instead.
18
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How would matter interact with Planck energy photons?
« on: 17/02/2023 17:30:38 »
Something we often hear is that gamma rays can easily penetrate even thick blocks of matter. I assume this is related to their high energy, but also know that absorption of photons is not quite that straightforward (some materials can absorb higher energy ultraviolet light while allowing weaker visible light to get through more easily: some glass, for example).
Now let's consider a black hole in its dying moments as it releases its last burst of Hawking radiation. At this point, the hole has a diameter almost as small as the Planck length and the resulting gamma rays have energies near the Planck energy. Is it safe to assume, because those photons are so many, many orders of magnitude stronger than the gamma rays we normally experience, that they would pass unhindered through any kind of material shielding we could put in place? Would any amount of significant energy be transferred to the material causing it to heat up? The very small size of those photons also makes it seem like the vast majority of them would zip between the electrons and nuclei without hitting anything.
I've also read that gamma rays with an energy higher than the rest mass of two electrons can also transform into an electron-positron pair when interacting with charged particles. Since a Planck energy photon would have an energy much, much higher than any known particle mass, that seems like it should be able to change into any kind of particle. Would that increase the odds of interacting with the blocking material?
Now let's consider a black hole in its dying moments as it releases its last burst of Hawking radiation. At this point, the hole has a diameter almost as small as the Planck length and the resulting gamma rays have energies near the Planck energy. Is it safe to assume, because those photons are so many, many orders of magnitude stronger than the gamma rays we normally experience, that they would pass unhindered through any kind of material shielding we could put in place? Would any amount of significant energy be transferred to the material causing it to heat up? The very small size of those photons also makes it seem like the vast majority of them would zip between the electrons and nuclei without hitting anything.
I've also read that gamma rays with an energy higher than the rest mass of two electrons can also transform into an electron-positron pair when interacting with charged particles. Since a Planck energy photon would have an energy much, much higher than any known particle mass, that seems like it should be able to change into any kind of particle. Would that increase the odds of interacting with the blocking material?
19
New Theories / Re: Structure of electrons, quarks and gluons; preon, preons
« on: 17/02/2023 16:38:11 »
Do you have any evidence at all to support your model?
20
New Theories / Re: What is the real readshift in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
« on: 13/02/2023 06:50:10 »As we shouldn't go there, would you kindly explain the meaning of "these molecules were actually born within the winds themselves"?
I will not, as it is not relevant to the redshift values of the CMBR (which is what this thread is about). I'm not allowing you to use this as a way to shoehorn in your already debunked ideas about black holes.