grayson

Yes, but read the alchemist formula. Idk why they downvoted it. Maybe because it is called the "ALCHEMIST" formula. But I don't have any idea in my right mind You know what. I have no reason to fight. If you want to call my things nonsense or downvote my comments. I might as well avoid this all together

Well, when you build a nuclear reactor you make an atom absorb a neutron. This can make decay chains happen. The equation goes toward zero, and whenever it goes past zero, something significant in the atom changes. Such as, (Deap breath) FISSION or certain decay chains. unfortunately the Q in the equation doesn't have a number for neutrons Somebody is ruining my reputation! I am sorry, but Iam leaving this forum until I either find out who "downvote bot" is or "downvote bot" stops downvoting everything

Okay, Here is a number theory concept i thought about Lets say you have two imaginary colors, and you have to calculate the number of mixtures between those (The reason it is imaginary is because to many mixtures makes it brown) You have two colors. So how many mixtures do they have possibly? Well one! So what about three? Well three! But when you get to four, that is when it gets hard. So if it keeps going on forever, what numbers do you get?

I wouldn't want to build a nuclear reactor in my backyard when logic tells me not to. So no, I cant prove it

Shoot a bunch of gluons at an atom to see when a decay chain happens Guys, there is no logical way to prove it. We would have to do something impossible. Another easier thing i guess is to build a nuclear reactor but that is highy unneccessary!

Yup. But I want to plug in a new concept. It is called the "quantum effectiveness scale" It says each particles effectiveness with c on a scale of one to 100. I am working on it right now Here is what chatgpt said. We can fix these later: Photon (γ): 5 Photons carry electromagnetic interactions and can cause electron transitions, but their effects at these scales might be relatively weaker. W and Z Bosons (W+, W-, Z0): 80 W and Z bosons are associated with weak interactions, including processes like beta decay, which can lead to nuclear transitions and decay. Gluons (g): 95 Gluons mediate the strong nuclear force, and at very short distances, within the confinement radius of hadrons, they are extremely influential. Higgs Boson (H⁰): 1 The Higgs boson primarily interacts with massive particles to give them mass. Its direct effects on atomic or nuclear decay at this scale are minimal. Quarks: 85 Quarks are constituents of hadrons and contribute to the strong force. Their interactions could influence nuclear and subnuclear processes. Leptons (Electron, Muon, Tau): 10 Leptons experience weak interactions, but their effects might be weaker at such small distances compared to other particles. Neutrinos: 20 Neutrinos are involved in weak interactions and can induce nuclear reactions, but their weak interactions might reduce their effects at this scale. The new equation is: A=±(O*C(Q)) Q is the quantum effectiveness scale

I took the first 23 numbers of the fibonacci sequence and turned them into a lcm. Here it is: 1.43734E23

This is completely different than the Rumpelstiltskin theory! It started as that but it evolved into this. I would like to make a clear point that it has evolved. Here is the equation: A=±(O*C) A is the spectrum, or the value, which can be positive or negative ± is whether the equation is positive or negative. C is the Campbell Change Variable. It is determined by the number of particles (an atom counts as one) in 100 picometers from the isotope/atom. It also adds an invisible t at the end O is the original A value. See, with the invisible t the C, the equation repeats itself over and over again. The O is the A from the last cycle. Now that you know the basics, lets explain the more complex stuff. When you put the equation into action, you see that isotopes like to be in the middle of stable (+) and unstable (-) But it still changes no matter what It also determines that the number of particles affects the atoms stability. I haven't tested this yet, but I believe when A reaches zero something such as a decay chain happens. With this theory, We can understand much more.

Okay, if you read the whole topic you would know that I have developed this theory and it is different now! It doesn't matter anymore! stay in the present!

okay, back on topic, the eqution is A=±O*C. You know what everything else means. C is the number of particles, including atoms within an angstrom with respect to time.

You are the one that made this not family friendly. Please keep those comments out of any of my topics

Oh yah! Also, I have found how to measure change. The way you measure it is the number of particles (an atom counts as a particle) within one angstrom (100 picometers) over time. Yes i know. Have you ever been to 6th grade biology clas?

Oh yah! Also, I have found how to measure change. The way you measure it is the number of particles (an atom counts as a particle) within one angstrom (100 picometers) over time.

So that means A=O*±C

so that means that I = O*C ± no, I=O*C + and than I=O/C -

Here is what chatgpt said: Silver sulfide is not very soluble in water, so it will likely remain as a solid in the mixture. The salt in the saline solution won't directly react with the silver sulfide. Instead, the silver sulfide will stay as solid particles suspended in the liquid saline solution. Over time, some of the silver sulfide might slowly dissolve to a limited extent due to the presence of water and the ionization of water molecules, but this would be a very slow process. The interaction between silver sulfide and a saline solution wouldn't lead to a chemical reaction in the sense of forming new compounds. It's more of a physical mixture where the silver sulfide particles are dispersed in the liquid. If you were to filter the mixture, you could separate the solid silver sulfide from the liquid saline solution.

But can we try to make a mathematical equation for it. Something like e=mc2 or the Schrödinger equation? Also, guys this is getting out of hand! If you want to post in this topic, try to stay peaceful

Oh, I must've missed it. That is a pretty good theory. Are you saying atoms/isotopes/ions/thingamawhatsits that have the magic numbers try to stay stable? Yes, but is hydrogen 1 an isotope?

Your theory? and I am trying to. This dude said that atoms are isotopes.

With what?

After google searching Define isotope: each of two or more forms of the same element that contain equal numbers of protons but different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei, and hence differ in relative atomic mass but not in chemical properties; in particular, a radioactive form of an element: I guess you could call everything an isotope, just as you could call everything an atom.

as an "autodidactic" (I had to look up that word) I should

Yes, That is what an isotope is.

Guys, This equation can't be limited to a certain number. But It can be "Proven". Anyone who doesn't understand this theory, The atomic adaptation theory or "Rumpelstiltskin" theory says that atom do anything they can to stay "alive" and they adapt to their environment or where they are. Some proofs are the second law of thermodynamics (The atom doesn't want to get to hot and turn into a plasma). Or beta decay (Atoms would rather not be isotopes)

Instead of (3/1)x it is (3/2)x2 sometimes even the greatest mathematicians make mistakes. And that is okay But always use the metric system unless you are talking to your American family or you are in school (I am american)