Bufofrog

Is there a point to this? You ask a question, a member takes the time to answer it and then you say essentially, "Yeah, what ever". Very odd behavior it seems to me. Maybe we aren't answering the question you think you are asking. Your questions are not very clear, for instance: First this is clearly this is not a star system like ours. The other problem is that your isosceles right triangle will only exist for a moment in time since the objects will be orbiting a common center of gravity. Where is the observer located? By "down" do you mean the barycenter? No, it is not possible to answer without defining down, specifying the observers location and specifying the size of the 'gravity wells'. Of course this pyramid arrangement would also only occur for a moment in time.

I believe the orbital plane is a hold over from the accretion disc that formed the planets. I think that if an object with a stars mass came close enough to the solar system it could disrupt the orbits of the planets but not realign the orbital plane. There also is no indication of a blackhole near us.

Do you mean like we were in a binary star system?

This is not remotely close to theoretical physics. It seems your hypothesis is that no matter how silly the stuff is that you make up you can still have a website about it that some fool will go to it. Not this fool though...

I of course did not say that atoms came from nothing, so your question is not germane.

Let me be the first to ask, how far have you gotten? You will receive help here, not just the answers.

It's OK.

That is a misrepresentation of the situation, which I assume you realize.

The longest lunar eclipse in centuries, seems, well really boring. A long solar eclipse seems really cool, but a lunar eclipse, not so much.

I agree with Exchemist. Try this experiment, contact your doctor, get back on the anti-psychotic and see if the symptoms stop. That seems like an easy thing to check out. I hope you feel better.

I appreciate your concern, but like I said we will just put on a brave face and muddle through as best we can.

I suppose we will just have muddle through the rest of our lives relying on mainstream physics.

Yep, gibberish is pretty simple.

That was the point, tin foil was around for a long time and then when the world switched to aluminum foil the name 'tin foil' for some reason has still hung on. I call aluminum foil tin foil all the time. I didn't really intend to hijack this thread and will now shut up about this fascinating subject I brought up...

That's a trick question, you can't easily find tin foil. That is a funny thing, most kids calls aluminum foil, 'tin foil', hell, I'm not even sure they had tin foil when I was a kid!

What do you mean the speed of light remains the same? Do you mean the speed of light as measured from the moving frame is still c? if so how is that possible without time dilation and length contraction?

Well that is going to make any meaningful discussion quite difficult.

I think he is looking for a tad more detail.

The current accepted theory of the BB is that the early universe was much to hot for atoms or even massive particles. What evidence or support do you have for there to have been atoms in the early universe?

In other words our youth is being destroyed and you don't even care!!

Oops, I meant to reply to anton2, but I think he was a flyby anyway.

Yeah, I have no idea what you are trying yo say in this thread...

You frighten easily.

There really aren't any 'verified' NDEs. That is to say there is no verified occurrence of someone's consciousness leaving their body. That would be rather big news...

"Do you believe in God?" All of them?