joigus

I have to agree with Markus again. I take "subatomic particles" to loosely mean "elementary particles", ie. more elementary than atoms. It's true that protons are in no way elementary, because they have multipolar distributions of charge, but still. The question of what is elementary can be pretty slippery, especially when QCD is involved. But let me go back to the OP's words. They are: Quite a different matter it would be if they had asked, eg, "Can we see an elementary particle in any way?" Then I would no doubt adhere to @MigL and @John Cuthber's posture on how to address this question.

The only grudge and anger I see here is --at least-- one user giving negative rep points to everybody who disagrees with them. I've spent my rep points quota of today just trying to compensate for that. Not that they were not deserved. The arguments were in order and well worth my quota exhaustion. The OP, on the contrary, still hasn't answered with anything that's not whining to anybody's arguments against their "theory". I'm still waiting for those arguments. Quoting Einstein or Shopenhauer is not good enough.

You make absolutely no sense. You've been told. Don't just engage in gainsay. Argue back. 1) Viruses cannot be placed at the origin because they have no mechanism for protein synthesis. 2) Coal is not present in the cosmos in any abundance. Only stellar moot --see below--, and carbon in rocks, mostly as carbonates. You might as well posit that humans are at the origin and nobody could tell the difference as to the internal consistency of your "theory". A primitive form of carbon may be something like this: https://aasnova.org/2019/04/24/hubble-confirms-interstellar-buckyballs/ A less primitive form of carbon is in carbonates in the rocks.

Excellent answers. I particularly like Markus' one, as I feel it goes to the crux of the matter. Particles have no colour, nor are they matte or shiny, so they don't "look like" anything. The attribute of "looking like" something is ultimately explained in terms of particles, so trying to tell what they look like is as hopeless as trying to figure out whether they're smiling or not. Electrons don't smile. Surprising? May be. But electrons don't look like anything that looks like something.

Money is debt. Debt is not conserved; it blows up. This debt, in turn, can be re-sold. Besides, money "created" anywhere affects you by dwindling the purchasing value of your money --as Swansont said. On top of that, there's always less money in circulation than there is debt, so the whole system is a runaway process, and needs issuing more credit. The driving force is expectations of future profit.

Beautiful. No need to explain. I just saw the number of views of this thread and I almost can't believe it.

I completely went on a tangent there. Thank you.

I think it's particularly unfortunate that some scientific issues --especially when matters are not completely settled yet, and more dispassionate investigation/discussion is needed-- spill over into general societal contexts. More so when certain models/hypotheses, etc. hit on economic interests. The bigger the economic interests, the worse it is for the unbiased character of the discussion. We've seen many examples of this. The issue of climate change is a good example. The food industry provides another. And more recently, the COVID crisis.

I thought of saying "you have a helpful connection between the two equations." I don't know what got into me.

"Same" problem as first lake, but with time-depending input. Now take a look at the terms I've highlighted in Studiot's answer. You have a constraint.

In the current cosmological model, stars do not create space. It's vacuum energy that does this job. Stars accrete from clouds of previously existing matter.

I learn so much with you guys.

From a not-totally-selfish POV, thanks for appreciating the humour in my comment, @HallsofIvy

Apparently not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereotopology

I hate to be the party pooper here, but, Cones have infinite curvature at the tip, did you know that? That would be a problem, I surmise. You seem to have heard or read about Coleman-DeLucia vacuum decay, but that's nothing to do with cones. In general you need smooth energy diagrams to be able to make any sensible prediction. Which brings me to my next questions: What predictions does you model make? What retrodictions does your double big-bang achieve that are not already fit within the current standard cosmological model? Try to be the hardest critic of your theory. Does it work? Does it make sense? Does it add anything significant? Is it natural and simple? Read @MigL's very nice summary --although I hate his spelling of "Euclidean"-- and ask yourself: Do I understand these concepts? Why are they important? Are there already observations supporting DeSitter universe? Etc.

(My emphasis.) You are like what sometimes people ignore? What does that mean? Can you keep attention to what you're saying from one line to the next, please?

And how would that go? I usually think what I think. I do not sort out what I'm going to think in advance.

Is she any closer to proving RH? Maybe rogue is the way to go... You know... Just to keep on topic by the skin of our teeth.

In the UK, not necessarily.

I shudder to think what a nutter would do with a powerful theorem.

My struggle with grammar...

(My emphasis) Your audience? I'd rather you used, according to the Forum's rules.

I just want to add one thing. Sometimes imperfect proofs have the seeds of a really watertight proof in them, once necessary auxiliary investigations are made. As to the RH, there is a general feeling of pessimism, though:

Criticism by Luboš Motl that you may find interesting. He's highly suspicious that there may be flaws in the proof, although he certainly praises Kubalalika for their creativity: https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/10/some-fun-with-proof-of-riemann.html If I have understood correctly, for some auxiliary hypothesis to work, the RH itself must be true, so it's kind of a begging-the-question type of objection. We will have to wait and see some serious peer review by mathematicians.

Can you please point to the contradiction? As I can't see it.