Bufofrog

That is not correct. The physical properties an element are due to the number and configuration of the electrons, properties are not due to the number of neutrons.

So what is your point? It can't be this, "The Singularity is at the heart of every unit. That is why I say there is only one Truth", since that makes no sense,

Incorrect.

Still doesn't seem like physics to me. If there was infinite "positive energy" at the beginning of time then no matter how big the universe gets there will still be infinite "positive energy".

What's that supposed to mean? I don't recall where in the bible Jesus discussed physics.

If there are 2 observers in different reference frames they will measure the lengths as being different, so yes the same ruler (for instance) will have 2 different lengths, one for one reference frame and another for the other reference frame. I think that has been said multiple time in this thread. Are you going to just keep asking the same question?

Bringing up UFOs to bolster your ideas doesn't seem like a winning strategy.

It does answer that question, but I guess you didn't understand.

The simple reason you did not see the link is because I'm an idiot. Here is the link.

This a 10 minute video that will explain why light moves more slowly through a transparent material and upon exiting the material returns to c. If 10 minutes is too long, just watch the last 4 minutes.

There is no force needed. If I put a hot object in cold water, the heat will be transferred to the cold water without a force. The rapidly vibrating molecules of the object 'bump' into the slowly vibrating molecules of the water. This causes the slowly vibrating atoms to vibrate more rapidly and of course the hot molecules vibration will slow. This is how the energy is transferred and it will continue until there is no delta T between the hot object and the water.

I think what he is doing is because in the Torah the writing is in consonants only, so when he uses the English word God he only uses the consonants. Why he is doing that is beyond me.

I suppose you could use a gas generator. That would be a good Christmas present for someone with an electric car.

Reference 1 of the OP can't be found.

I haven't taken time to read much of what he wrote. He didn't take the time to discuss what he was doing, instead he just sited sources without explanation for his equations. If he can't take the time to explain what he is doing I am not going to take the time to go through his sources to see why he is doing. [shrug]

His calculations look within the rather large error bars for the estimates of the number of blackholes in a galaxy. Essentially you estimate the number of large stars (that collapse into blackholes) over the life of the galaxy and estimate the life of such stars and then you have the number of black holes in the galaxy. There are a lot of errors in the estimates as you can well imagine hence the large variation in the number of black holes estimated.

"Will my fly wheel battery/generator break the law of energy conservation?" No.

Thanks, that makes sense. Maybe the CO2 and heavier gases like H2SO4 are what is left of the atmosphere.

It is? I thought it was basically a big science fiction subject. I have heard the importance of a magnetic field to keep an atmosphere, but then I think of Venus which has an absurdly dense atmosphere and almost no magnetic field. So how important can it be. If this last part is considered a hijack please disregard, that was not my intention.

Don't worry, the point of the forum to learn. There is almost no chance anyone on any forum will come up with anything new, so don't sweat that!

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.