mexicancartel @ mexicancartel @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

6

Comments

1,423

Joined

2 yr. ago

Use right hand thumb rule. There is no right, there is no left, there is no clockwise or anticlockwise. All of them depend on the way you looks. Rught hand thumb rule fixes it for humans

I'm indian and learns right hand screw rule in high school physics

Downloads it? Yes. Save as a file? No, atleast not permanently

Sleep

How is ut proot based? Afaik it runs binaries built for termux and not any linux binaries. Isn't it directly executing the files?

Termux isn't just proot, but you can install proot inside termux

It entered from the back

Yeah that's how "normal people" thinks here

That's standard deviation

Arch user

We are just stardust obeying physics laws

Time's up. Where is it

But polaris Aa is the only visible star with naked eye. So that can be called formation of star?

Thants.

Möööbius sheet

Twist: she is a corpse

/remindme 12h

I guess the issue here is that my argument is there are similarities and your argument is that one shouldn’t point out similarities unless there are enough of them…?

I'd say, kind of... Yeah jackfruits are like apples but yellow(edit:the part you eat). And also big. And also tastes different. Also have spikes. But they are still like apples.

Sure you can imagine it like that, and one more note, the components of the units are very different on stellar system, unlike indifferentiable subatomic particles. This means you can't have any named atom since all of them are different. It also emmits energy from star. Still yes you could imagine it like an atom, and fit the crieterias you mentioned(which I think must include a bit more which would disqualify stellar systems from being atom, but that's your classification).

For another system which may fit your atomic desciption, we could also try scaling up the normal atom! That is, make electrically charged macroscopic bodies as nucleus and electrons. This I think in principle will work much better than gravitational atom. We can have repulsion as well as attraction which would be enough to balance out for stability. We would still get a planetary model(Rutherford model) of such an atom.

Also unfortunately, there aren't many forces in physics, so i'm afraid i can't find more analogous systems. Anyway thank you for the curious exploration<3

I wasnt saying it was not possible for gravitational captured system, but bringing your two atoms together and they bond is not possible(because it keeps falling into each other). It's the (outward)momentum that keeps such a system stable. It would not have form a stable system when you keep it near without any velocity to spin around each other, it will not form a stable system--another dissimiliarity from atoms.

Its hard to make a stable system with magnets so i said perfectly setting velocities. As you mentioned, a straight line spinning was what I imagined when writing. But i'm asking if you set it and made it work, would you count that also as some kind of atomic model?

If you are just saying there are some similiarities with atoms, sure! But then many things has some similiarity to atomic model. Your examples sure could be regarded as such atomic bonds philosophically. I couldn't imagine stealing proxima centauri as bonding, since its already so far away from "nucleus". Or in your analogy it could be atom held by van der Walls force being removed... man... I gave you another point

And I don't know If there would be a magnetic bonding scenario but I think it might be possible with complicated calculations and perfect initial conditions. Also what about some ferromagnetic metal moving around a magnet?

What I am trying to point out is that any-force system could be then regarded like capable of being like an atomic model with chemical-like properties.