zapatos

I would think so. In addition outer planets are probably more vulnerable than inner planets as the star will have less gravitational influence on the outer planets. Planetary systems early in their life are probably also more likely to eject planets when orbits are not yet stable. And planets with eccentric orbit compared to their brethren may also be more vulnerable.

Stars are not the only objects in a planetary system exerting gravitational force on other planets. A near miss by a gas giant like Jupiter might eject a smaller planet.

Yeah, we kind of covered that in depth.

What properties of bacteria evolved into religion?

Is that right? I would think that given enough time a recapture (or collision) is inevitable. Just found this... https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2012-12

While certain members of the government have always been religious, the US government itself has never been a 'religious government'.

You are a funny guy. I laugh at all your posts.

Generally speaking the situations are varied and determined by the country you wish to travel to. They can require that you apply for a visa for any reason they wish.

Depends. In the US, laws apply to all. Marriage laws therefore apply equally. Doesn't matter if a minority or even a majority object, the laws apply. Even if 99% of the population objected to gay marriage, the Constitution would not allow you to make gay marriage illegal. I told you this on the very first page of this thread. So to answer your question directly, when the opinions of people are at odds with the Constitution, then no, those people do not deserve any consideration.

I appreciate the feedback from everyone. I'll be more discerning of what I post in the future.

If you are going to tell us how things really are, please get the story straight. Phi said "disgruntled non-participant", not "disgruntled asshole". And no one suggested that only disgruntled assholes might disagree with any of us. It was suggested a person must be disgruntled to take offense at an obvious attempt at humor, whether they found it funny or not. Any more "objective" observations for us? Maybe you should look in the mirror before calling others biased. Sorry Lord, but this is my objective observation.

Not sure why you got neg rep for that post. Seems people no longer have a sense of humor.

Because they left the orbit of the star with enough force to achieve escape velocity. There is no reason a rogue planet cannot at some time be captured by the gravity of another star.

http://laughingsquid.com/a-3d-animation-that-compares-the-scale-of-the-smallest-known-particles-to-the-universe-itself/

Well, the Ossetian separatists asked for help. It's not as if they spoke for everyone in that area. They were not elected. The Americans choosing to enter into conflicts has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Russian intervention in Georgia is justified. You cannot justify their actions by saying "well, the Americans did it too!". Their actions, as well as American actions, stand on their own. What you are doing is the equivalent of saying I cannot criticize one person for murder because someone else committed murder too. It is also unfair to label everything as propaganda just because they are called 'evil' for certain of their actions. If they do something that is evil, it is not propaganda to call them evil for that action. Let's not start being Russia apologists just for the sake of it. Frankly I'm tired of hearing the fake news about how wonderful they are, especially from some of our elected leaders in the US.

That's sort of like Cliven Bundy inviting foreign troops into Nevada to help fight the Feds.

I am talking about ordinary people too. When your fellow citizens are are dying in Georgia in a war your country started, it is not hard to imagine that your country might start a war elsewhere (such as Ukraine). They do? Wow. Good to know. Why are you telling me that? Are you suggesting that New York may attack Los Angeles? Yes, they are connected. They are both previous Soviet states, they both talked of joining NATO, Putin threatened to annex both, Putin started war with both. Don't be asinine.

Of course.

I don't think that is true. Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and they are still there.

I cannot imagine a scenario that would allow Trump to send troops to Mexico.

I'm pretty sure there was life long before there was religion. Life with religion on this planet is the exception, not the norm.

We decide what those basic rights are. In the United States they are outlined in the Constitution. No. What exactly did I say that led you to believe I was suggesting some in society have greater rights than others? I have never been hypnotized. Which basic rights in the US do you believe are being suppressed?

What is the basis for this belief of yours?

1. Man should take part in war under certain circumstances, such as preserving basic human rights. 2. Depends on what you mean by "peril", whether or not the government is ruling by law, and what steps the majority have taken prior to considering war.