swansont

One issue is that really heavy nuclei don’t remain intact for very long. There might be some isotopes that are longer-lived at the next magic number (filled shell) of neutrons and/or protons. Pb-208 is doubly-magic, with 82 protons and 126 neutrons, and is the heaviest stable isotope. “Further predicted magic numbers are 114, 122, 124, and 164 for protons as well as 184, 196, 236, and 318 for neutrons.[1][4][5] However, more modern calculations predict 228 and 308 for neutrons, along with 184 and 196.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_(physics) So that’s where to look. We’ve seen 114 protons.

! Moderator Note Suggestions, Comments and Support is geared towards issues on this site. Our moderators are humans, (or bipedal primates, at least). Can’t really do anything about any of these issues.

Our model of atoms comes from quantum mechanics, and from the math it includes it makes testable predictions, which can be confirmed by experiment. You have provided no such framework.

! Moderator Note this isn’t a Dan Brown fanfic site Don’t reintroduce whatever this is.

It’s probably a dynamic IP address assigned by your service provider, so it can change.

! Moderator Note Since this is just soapboxing and likely spam, we’re locking it. If the OP has a topic for discussion, they are free to open up a new thread

Aren’t hurricanes driven by the ocean temperature, which is not going to be affected much in the short term by more clouds?

Yes, you could make it rotate. In fact, it’s hard to not have it rotate, which is why you might put gyroscopes on satellites. A version of these, reaction wheels, are used to re-orient some craft. Small satellites also get pushed around and rotate from radiation pressure, called the YORP effect

! Moderator Note Too bad you didn’t predict these phenomena before they were reported. You still haven’t presented any model that you can point to to say that you could have, despite ample opportunity. So we’re done here. Don’t bring this up again.

! Moderator Note Your thread on this was locked. Don’t bring it up elsewhere, and don’t hijack threads with your pet theory.

! Moderator Note The only context where we discuss AI content is as a check of its veracity. We don’t accept AI content being presented as something to be countered/rebutted. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133848-policy-on-aillm-use-on-sfn/

! Moderator Note Youtube link deleted. Posting to advertise a youtube channel is against our rules

Is Gemini an AI program?

You linked to a dotcom website for no apparent reason other than to have a link to it. The link was removed

! Moderator Note Upload removed; violation of rule 2.7 Owing to security concerns, documents must be in a format not as vulnerable to security issues (PDF yes, microsoft word or rich text format, no).

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it

One thing that’s closed is this thread.

Plagiarism is not permitted here. It’s generally discouraged everywhere. From where did you copy/paste? Only part of the statement is in unmatched type.

No, they are not. They tell you the strength and direction of the magnetic field. Not the magnetic force I don’t see where you asked a question

Yes, but it’s not like this is a new phenomenon. It’s been true for a very long time. They dig in when you show them - the backfire effect. They need an emotional path to change.

They aren’t? Are any particles real? The wave function collapse is non-invariant... one reason that comes right to mind is "it's" observer dependent. The very act of observation influences the system so different observers might get different results... so the collapse can vary based on the observer's reference frame. Particles are real in a frame of reference only if they are observer dependent. How could we ever know? Posted just now If a particle’s eave function collapses the particle is in a well-defined state. e.g. an atom in the ground state. That atom can abosorb a photon of a certain energy, while an atom in a different state can’t. Whether or not the atom absorbs a photon can’t be observer dependent. Either it does, or it doesn’t. A particle that’s observer independent? What does that mean? In what way would an electron be observer dependent? What does this have to do with wave function collapse?

How do you mean not invariant? That it’s not an invariant, because it’s not a quantity? (is anyone arguing otherwise?) Or that it’s frame dependent? Which would be incorrect, since an event has to happen in all frames. They aren’t? Are any particles real?

Are you going to provide links to the case studies or not?

Not in science. You don’t get to only include the results that agree with your conjecture while ignoring the ones that don’t

I think that it’s present for non-rigid bodies. Deformation from work results in heating Dynamic tidal effects from the moon come from the fact that it revolves around the earth. Not from the rotation of the moon.