JohnStu

send it to my message folder thanks

The word nothing implies there is someone there to think of the word nothing. This makes the word nothing not the real nothing since a person is there, if you know what I mean.

The experts do not really believe in the Big Bang Theory but it's the best answer so far to explain all the obeserved phonomenons. That is one of the reason why some of the scientists that worked on Big Bang Theory also worked on String Theory

Scientific American Popular Science

the idea of ether is a bit arificial. Positive, negative are human ideas.

Fission works not because it is fission, but because it uses enriched radioactive elements for fission. Fusion on the other hand uses stable atoms.

you change the distance value, that's it

very nice that is something I also been working on. I explain the 1/d^2 ratio using conservation of momentum of elastic collisions. But I also think that is not really explaining since the momentum of elastic collisions was kind've derived from F=Gm1m2/d^2 formula and the kinetic energy potential energy idea

Yes, very likely if you do not use the Big Bang model. Big Bang model suggests that every matter came from a single tiny point, this makes weird substances impossible to occur without some kind've extra dimension explaination.

Good thoughts there; crispy and clear. If in order for nothing to be defined, one must use something, then nothing is also something; a form of something. In further detail, nothing is void of something. In order to truly define it, meaning to not use something to define it, I do not think it is possible.

yes it is possible. Much of the info about antimatter and dark matter is speculations

the cup is a cup, but some call it a tool, others may call it a creation so this argument about 13.7billion years ago or it was there forever is really a battle of preference than actual reasoning My personal stance on this is the universe is infinite, even if Big Bang did happen. I could simply include the period before the Big Bang as part of the infinite age of the universe and viola

Sand dust particles? Sands are created from stones washed by water if you didn't know. Since moon did not have much water for long durations the sands did not form.

Hmm, then I would be Spongebob

it is gibberish written for the show, no way the time sign makes sense with the diagram. I knew it within 5 seconds of looking at the photo

there are many ways to explain it, I put the forces into these two: - the fast-enough spinning causes the center of its mass to remain very close to the center - the constant change of ground surface does not give enough time for it to tip to one side

Yups, and they are doing so.

Asking what is matter is like asking the definition of a randomly chosen word. The definition of the chosen word can only be explained by a definition that will require a different defintion to define if asked. So really, we don't know nor we will never know? Knowing is a stupid thing anyways in the eye of the universe. ha!

I've seen that video at least 7 times and I've read his book. Yes, I think he is on the right path. If we zoom in a cake, we see weird looking landscapes. Then we zoom in more, we "see" organic molecules. Then we zoom in more, oh, look an electron. Then we zoom in more, we might "see" nucleus of an electron?

I had written a paper mentioning these questions. No one has been able to know.

The universe is rediculous. It continues to shock me. First it was the speed of light, then knowing Einstein's relativity. The more I dig into astronomy and fundamental physics, the more I feel like I am just carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and others.

nothing spectacular. The high energy enough collisions in the lab do create fascinating stuff though. Daily, protons hit other protons in interstellar space

You mean matter dissapearing, because mass could "dissapear and reappear" as energy.

The universe cannot be an open nor a closed system. One can create a closed or an open system within the universe.

Define time travel. Do u mean others around thou go back in time or just urself go back in time or youself plus the surrounding go back in time?