[removed]

If the atom is not initially polarized before it emits the photon, then the angular distribution of the emitted photon is isotropic in space.

If the atom is initially polarized, then there will be some non-uniform angular distribution based on the angular momentum change of the transition.

[removed]

[removed]

Doesn't play a big role over the size of a room. Random air currents and even diffusion are more important. If you release a heavy atom in the middle of a room it's slightly more likely to hit the ground first instead of the ceiling but the difference is just something like 0.1% or less.

[removed]

Viral RNA will have multiple genes that code for different things. I’m the case of coronaviruses, the RNA will have a gene that codes for a polymerase that makes copies of the whole rna genome and have genes that code for the proteins necessary to make a virus particle.

In the case of retroviruses, they don’t have a code to copy their own RNA that leaves the infecting virus particle but instead they convert their RNA genomes into DNA and integrate into the cellular DNA at which time they use the cell’s own machinery to make RNA.

Randomly like others? What about prevailing gravity force for such heavy particles?

Not a Paleontologist, but if you'd like an engineer's perspective:

So I'm thinking you're looking at the UMissouri paper regarding the strength of the skull. The stiffness they're referring to is irrelevant to your question.

One trouble our shot t rex has is, the skull is very skeletonized (hollow). The holes in it are huge and the skull is thin in many places.

Basically, in my opinion it's gonna come down where/ how it's shot even more than how big the gun is.

Of course, the thing is also huge, and all it needs to do is to not have a bullet enter the brain cavity with a lot of energy.

I entertained the notion of spending a couple hours doing some explicit dynamics simulations on this, but sleep's gonna hafta take priority :)

It's definitely an interesting question. My strong suspicion is that gynandromorphs probably have an intermediate level of sex hormones and even if the organs were properly developed this would tend to prevent fertility but it's not like I've checked.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Is there any functional difference between the misconception you speak of in your initial post and the reality you describe above in terms of the physical outcome?

For example, if “space was expanding” except for things that are close enough overpower it with gravity, how would that result be different from dark energy creating a repulsive force except for things that are close enough to overpower it with gravity?

Also, how can galaxies be “carried by their initial momentum” as you confirmed above AND all be moving away from one another at the same time. Maybe I’m misunderstanding something but that doesn’t really make sense. The only way all galaxies that are not locally bound to one another could be moving away from one another is if that space between them is somehow expanding, similar to the “dots on the surface of a balloon” metaphor that is often used. If we instead imagine an “initial momentum” scenario, it suggests a single point of origin in space, similar to an explosion. But in the case of an explosion, there is a center source, which the universe doesn’t appear to have. Also, the red-shifting caused by an explosion would not be so uniform, but have many items moving away at much faster speeds than others relative to the observer.

[removed]

Plants have defense mechanisms in some cases. But it's not always about defending against attack. Some plants deliberately give away their nutrients to other plants of other species to survive in an ecosystem.
Plants reject grafts when the unions don't heal. u/shiningPate provided a short explanation here about why plant grafts only work sometimes, but for different reasons than a human or animal allograft of tissues.

[removed]

The decay process leads the daughter isotope to be charged. This causes it to become affixed to dust in the air. This is also where the real hazard from radon comes from: the decay products becoming trapped in your lungs and irradiating them through several decay cycles.

[removed]

Yes and no. That totally depends. Chemical reactions are actually really unlikely to happen, as the right particle has to hit another appropriate particle under just the correct angle with the right energy (collision theory). Those prerequisites make chemical reactions pretty much a numbers game. It’s entirely possible for the lead atom to just bounce around for a really long time and work it’s way to the ground.

In the air, Pb most likely to react with oxygen, so like 20% of the entire air mixture. Now think about a single Pb atom as a grey ball (albeit a rather big and heavy one) in a big room with 10000 (most gases consist of surprisingly low amounts of molecules) other balls. Only 21%, so 2100, of them are reactive oxygen, which is evenly distributed and well mixed with other ones in the room. Now, the heavy big ball bounces around and hits mostly nitrogen, which doesn’t do anything. If it hits oxygen, it needs to fulfill all the above conditions to actually oxidise instead of just bouncing off of it.

Basically, looking at an individual atom, its pretty unlikely it’d react with anything. Looking at bulk atoms, as they practically never are singled out, reactions are way more likely to happen.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Would the individual lead atom very quickly oxidize or otherwise react with something else in the atmosphere?

[removed]