pzkpfw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomalhaut Formalhaut is a star. Formalhaut b was thought to be a planet orbiting that star. Now they think it perhaps was the remains of a collision between two large bodies orbiting Formalhaut.

Now, who says it's headed towards Earth? (And IF they say that, at what speed?) Edit: of course you can hopefully see that particular quote is just rubbish.

You always bring up doom. There are things in your OP that are clearly based on you imagining bad things. If you quoted the part of the article that makes you think these bad things are going to happen, we could help you see they are not. Just one example: you wrote "what effects would we see as it gets closer to earth?" What makes you think it's getting closer to Earth? (Beyond basic orbital movement)

1,344 + 20 = 1,364 1,344 - 20 = 1,324 So it's expected to be between 1,324 and 1,364 light years away. That's more than one thousand. Lots more than 20. And, who says we're passing through it?

Provide a quote that confirms that. (Edit: I'm guessing you've mis-read "... at a distance of 1,344 ± 20 light years" in your rush to find doom.)

The quote YOU provided has a link to wikipedia. Follow that link. Read. (Wikipedia is pretty reliable considering it's editable by anyone. Truthernews is a pile of garbage.)

I think that web site is believed by ten year olds.

How about a link and a quote? Stop being so lazy in your search for doom. edit: I did find this - https://astronomy.com/news/2019/10/planet-nine-may-be-a-black-hole-the-size-of-a-baseball And no, there is no doom here; unless you start assuming things that you wish to be true.

See:

It sounded like Species might have been inspired by this, but a quick skim-read didn't pop up any mention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_(film)

Speaking of "condescension". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfKdNxIOcQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuQK6t2Esng

Try starting with a simpler case. Just two masses, in line, with string. You're pulling on one mass. Think about the forces on each other. Hand pulling to the left ---- (A) ---- (B) Which directions are the forces: From hand to (A) (and (B)), from (A) (and (B)) to hand? From (A) to (B), and (B) to (A)?

That's not at all what you first described. And still doesn't make sense. You are not using "opposite" correctly.

I think you're misapplying "opposite". The opposite and equal force in Newtonian physics is about the reaction on whatever's applying a force. That is, how is force F1 applied? e.g. if it's an electromagnet pulling on A (say it's a metal ball), then there will be a force opposite to F1 on that electromagnet. F2 is nothing to do with that. In the end, this is why your magic machine won't do what you think it does. In a self-contained machine (i.e. not throwing away mass like a rocket does), the forces must cancel out. (Looking at your diagram, anyway, ignoring how F1 is applied, object A would be pulling on C via the connection. F1 is probably off-centre of mass, so there'd be a torque to the overall A-C system (it'll try to rotate) - so there won't be an F3 parallel to F1. The A-C system acts on B via another connecting rod, so that force would be in the direction (more or less) of B to C, not F2. Of course there's another rotation, and that connection isn't fixed; so it all gets complicated.)

I don't think it'll ever have meaning. I just thought it was weird they were posting code via (unedited) screenshots.

Ref: https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?174262-Stephen-Hawking-last-work

Why are you not just pasting the code?

You might be learning!

Even if it were expanding 30% quicker in some areas, why would that be a concern in our lifetimes? Why is that always a conclusion you jump to?

The big bang is not about the origin of the Universe.

Yep. The wiki page provides a few of the different estimates as at different times. And note those are not hard limits; it's about levels of certainty. Probabilities.

Almost. It's not correct to characterise this as have gone from a range to a single value. It's still a range, just a smaller range. Go read the wikipedia page on age of the universe. It's in the first couple of paragraphs.

In general: More/better measurements can improve certainty, reducing error bars. That's not the same as updating a formula.

I'm sure you've had error bars explained to you before, but that seems to be what you're missing. Simplified: Say someone guesses your age as 15 plus or minus 2 years. That means they think your age is from 13 to 17 years old. (15 -2 to 15 + 2). That does NOT mean they think you are either 13 or 17 years old. The error gives a RANGE not two options. Later they might be more accurate for some reason and figure you are 15 plus or minus 1 year. So they are more accurate, with 14 to 16 years old. It's still a range. Your article says "could be as young as 9.7 billion years or as old as 19.5 billion years". That's a RANGE not two options. The current known age is within that range.

So what do you think you've designed? If your machine were built and put out in space somewhere, do you think it would move off in some direction, self contained and expelling no mass?