1  ...  91  92  93  94  95  96  ...  101  |   Order by default

Mar 22, 2004, 3:25am

[View Quote] > LOL I'll throw a rock at him and he'll claim I threw a planet at him.
> hahahahahahahhaaha

After some thinking, I think orbit should be the determining factor of
an object in space. Also the number of objects in proximity and their
orbits as well should play an important part in the classification of
spatial bodies.

Meteors would be free floating bodies (there are meteor belts though..
hence the proximity of other objects)... then there's planets and their
moons.. then asteroids.. then stars.

Mar 22, 2004, 3:07pm

[View Quote] I'm sure there are free floating planets.

Mar 23, 2004, 1:23am

[View Quote] > Nope...

And you know this... how?

Mar 23, 2004, 6:34pm

[View Quote] > Maybe you haven't got to the astronomy part in your school? Other than that
> I look up stuff about astronomy often heh.
>
> Encyclopedia Article fromEncarta
>
>
> Planet
>
> Planet, any major celestial body that orbits a star and does not emit
> visible light of its own but instead shines by reflected light. Smaller
> bodies that also orbit a star and are not satellites of a planet are called
> asteroids or planetoids. In the solar system, there are nine planets:
> Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.
> Planets that orbit stars other than the Sun are collectively called
> extrasolar planets. Some extrasolar planets are nearly large enough to
> become stars themselves. Such borderline planets are called brown dwarfs.:

What makes you think I want to accept Microsoft's definition of a
planet? Maybe I have my own defintions. Technically all planetary
bodies are in orbit around at least 1 solar object. Hence why
everything in the universe is affected by gravity. It may not be an
elliptical orbit, or a round orbit.. but it's an orbit nonetheless.

These are just technicalities... as it seems even Encart is not able to
fully hit every theory and basis that one can think up. Why would a
large planet be classified as a star? They aren't an energy emission
area (on the power output side.. in comparison to the normal ratio of a
star like sol), they may give off large amounts of their own energy
though, namely because of their size. What are the limits, why should
those limits be what they are, what makes your definition of a planet
better than mine? Because you studied astronomy? No, that's not good
enough -- I'm sorry. But that's science for ya.

Mar 23, 2004, 6:52pm

[View Quote] When we're talking science, nearly almost always means always to people.

There are also a large group of scientists who study quantum physics,
does that make normal physics more important, or more true, over quantum?

You tell me.

Mar 24, 2004, 1:15am

[View Quote] It was an example... you know, using a comparitive anology on a similar
subject. Astronomy, follows nearly the same principles. Maybe the
large object is just a collection of small objects? (atoms or
molecules.. or maybe even subatomic particles)... what about
classifications based on types of emission (energy, gas, negative.. etc).

It seems you're trying to answer the question with only half an answer..
something a lot of us do, myself included.

Mar 24, 2004, 1:35am

[View Quote] > Everything is a collection of smaller objects... and I see your point, but
> we're not talking about a group of asteroids sitting together being a
> planet. We're talking about a "major celestial body" (i.e. not made of more
> than one) that "orbits a star" and is not a sattelite of another planet.
> Scientists don't classify us (humans) by the subatomic particles that make
> us up do they... Atoms might be classified by subatomic particles, but
> that's just how they are classified, we're talking things that are
> reflecting light that are not stars -- I don't see any asteroids reflecting
> visible light of their own. Don't you think the asteroid belt would be
> rather bright?

Did you mean reflecting light or emitting light? If they didn't
reflect, they wouldn't even be visible. Nothing says asteroids can't
emit their own light (I'm sure they do).. but what's the limit to the
amount of light they can emit before it's classified as a star?

Mar 24, 2004, 5:41pm

[View Quote] The correct word is emit. If you're considering the star as a whole,
which you are since you are unable to consider any other classification
of it. Reflection requires another source of emission...

e·mit ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-mt)
tr.v. e·mit·ted, e·mit·ting, e·mits

1. To give or send out (matter or energy): isotopes that emit
radioactive particles; a stove emitting heat.

re·flect Pronunciation Key (r-flkt)
v. re·flect·ed, re·flect·ing, re·flects
v. tr.
1. To throw or bend back (light, for example) from a surface. See
Synonyms at echo.

v. intr.
1. To be bent or thrown back: Her voice reflected off the canyon walls.
2. To give something back, as light or sound: a shiny surface that
reflects well.

Now if you could explain how the star is reflecting... which you just
said self luminous:

lu·mi·nous Pronunciation Key (lm-ns)
adj.
1. Emitting light, especially emitting self-generated light.


Just explain it for me, that's all. Plus, I'm sure not all stars use
nuclear fusion as a means of energy production. Maybe other forms of
nuclear reactions though... unless you can _prove_ every star in the sky
uses it.

Mar 25, 2004, 1:28am

[View Quote] Well yeah.

Mar 18, 2004, 8:32pm

[View Quote] I did.

> just because I was saying I had a great day and my days are getting
> better because I how I think, and my faith. I am now persecuted as
> Christ was when he was passing good word and faith to those who would

Good, maybe someone will tie you up to a cross. If you had a good day,
great, but don't spread your religion with it.

> follow. feels like one thing. Many who are of no faith ot belief are not
> monogamous, many who do not follow some kind of faith, are not caring.

There's a difference between believing and following. Are you the lemming?

> Would step on anyone who made them unhappy because they personally took
> a blessing to anyone who accepted it and thought it was directly slated
> for them. I never started a discussion on the aspects of God or any

It doesn't need to be directed, but it can still be offensive. I could
spit at you, it may have not be intentional but you'll still think I did
it to offend you.

> Gods, nor did I try to manipulate the belief and faith of anyone. Just
> handing a good feeling to those who are of a like mind and soul. It will
> be forgiven and it will be said that just a belssing is outlawed and not
> welcome in life. So to those who feel thta passing a blessing to another
> is bad, Tkae a Pill, forget who you are and put a nametag on. Then you
> will have a lot of friends like you, they all forget who they are and
> wear a name tag too. Bless you anyway.

If they are of like mind, they would not need your "handing" since they
would already share your thoughts. Using that as a defense is like
saying "I'm just letting you know I have candy, and wish to tell others
who also have candy how much I like the candy. But everyone else is
stupid and is void of candy liking because they do not have the same
candy as me."

Andras is his real name. Not his handle.

Mar 18, 2004, 11:56pm

[View Quote] Yes, it is, I seriously hope Rick deletes your account.

> I only believe and have hope and faith. Just because I mention a Higher

Hey, listen you christian imbecile, no one cares about your fucking
religion except maybe Carl. Take it, and stuff it up your non-existant
hole.

> being, or Dieaty it is offensive, and I am not supposed to get offended
> at someone who mentions Allah or Buddah, and not be offended?? Well I

I would tell them all the same thing, in fact I have. I would tell them
to blow my ass if they keep trying... but I guess you'd like that way
too much.

> guess being a Good Soul and Having Faith and Hope is wrong.

No, but I don't care about your "good soul" or "faith and hope." What
you have for your god and beleifs needs to stay between you and he.
That's is a good soul. A good soul doesn't try to impose their system
of beliefs on others, nor do they even bother because they'd know that
_everyone_ believes something different. They'd not even try (no,
trying to get a system of disexposure isn't wrong as it's more to
protect people (the right thing to do) over telling people their beliefs
are wrong and bad (the wrong thing to do).)

So take your good soul, and keep it between you and your god. I do not
want it anymore. You don't have one either in my opinion... Sometimes
it takes bad words to make someone think... dunderhead. Although you'll
find a way to turn this back on me instead of actually thinking. Anyways.

[View Quote]

Mar 19, 2004, 5:11am

[View Quote] Nice is "I am having a great day, I wish you all to have a great day!"
Offensive is "I am having a great day, may god bless everyone's day!"

I don't believe in Jahova, or God, or Allah, or Buddha.. why should it
be blessing my day? One is nice, the other is offensive towards my
system of beliefs.

There's also a huge difference between stuff that's got antiquity value
over things that don't. Changing the pledge or the constitution is
stupid, because it has to do with historical reasons.. but things like
"god bless your happy days!" is very offensive to non-judeochristian people.

Mar 21, 2004, 10:00pm

[View Quote] No, we're just of a different skillset then others that have gotten
them. The ones that recieved them are of the higher calibur in fields
such as programming and modeling.

Mar 22, 2004, 3:24am

[View Quote] Do you use TrueSpace, 3DSMax, or Milkshape?

Mar 23, 2004, 1:21am

[View Quote] > TrueSpace 3, cos I'm poor.

Okay, only the leetest of leet use notepad.. so that's why you didn't
get it. Or maybe it's your version that's the determining factor.

Mar 23, 2004, 6:29pm

[View Quote] That was my point. Only the 1337357 of the 1337 got the email.
Probably based on his version or the fact that he doesn't use notepad.

Mar 22, 2004, 3:26am

[View Quote] > I still say he's a noob, M a t t he is ;)

Christopher Stevens too, if he even exists.

Mar 22, 2004, 4:30am

[View Quote] Maybe we've mistaken... he must be a 1337 h4x0r. There's no other term
to describe the imorality and/or stupidity. Anyways... he'll get a life
someday and have to support it with a job (and there'll go his free time).

Apr 8, 2004, 5:40pm

[View Quote] What about things in the SDK that are not enabled? Like botgrams --
why's it such a bad thing. Bots don't have to acknowledge botgrams if
someone sends them... most won't even be able to parse botgrams they're
not looking for. Sure, people could spam bots, but they're more useful
than they are harmful.

Apr 9, 2004, 2:12am

[View Quote] > Well, whichever way they decide, they should really enable it in the
> beta period so that bots can be tested using that function. I had to
> move to DLP to test this for xelagot :(

It would be a great addition to the universe to have it.

Apr 2, 2004, 1:59am

[View Quote] Money can buy you an honest win if you pay the opponent to forfit.
That's still honest -- it can buy the best training in the world which
might in turn buy some skill if you don't have any to begin with.

Apr 3, 2004, 3:15am

[View Quote] So... the Kelvin/Celsius scale is confusing? Kelvin is based on
Celsius; and it's based around a theoretical "freezing" point. :P

Blame the Romans for pounds.

Aren't all units of measurement pretty pointless anyway? There's no
real definitive scale... people claim one is easier because it uses
10's, but maybe I can add 2's faster... so why not use something based
around 2's instead of 10's :P

Apr 3, 2004, 5:31pm

[View Quote] So you can tell the difference between 10 degrees and 13 degrees
celsius? That's a huge jump in farenheit (almost 10 degrees).

Apr 3, 2004, 6:02pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] I did it in my head, it's actually a 5 degree jump (still a lot). 25 to
30 in celsius is a 10 degree jump for 5.

The only usefulness I see from celsius is measuring water temperature at
STP. Other than that, it gets just as wacky as farenheit -- except
you're using a base10 system. Not that it really helps when you have
13.592 degrees celsius to change it to 1/451 atmospheres. The number
one reason I hated chemistry, the STP conversions to make sure you're
measuring the right amount of molecules and whatnot.. it was a while ago.

Apr 3, 2004, 6:05pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] I was using Celsius as the point of reference btw, not Farenheit (which
is why I Didn't understand your first one). Your second statement helps
prove my point. A 3 degree change to go from COOOOOLD to nice and
reasonable doesn't help much with air temperature. There should be a
larger gradient. As for boiling and freezing points of water.. as I
said, it's all good for that.

> I did it in my head, it's actually a 5 degree jump (still a lot). 25 to
> 30 in celsius is a 10 degree jump for 5.
>
> The only usefulness I see from celsius is measuring water temperature at
> STP. Other than that, it gets just as wacky as farenheit -- except
> you're using a base10 system. Not that it really helps when you have
> 13.592 degrees celsius to change it to 1/451 atmospheres. The number
> one reason I hated chemistry, the STP conversions to make sure you're
> measuring the right amount of molecules and whatnot.. it was a while ago.

Apr 3, 2004, 9:11pm

[View Quote] That's why I used the conjunction "and." Maybe "between 10 and 13
degrees celsius" would've been better.

Apr 4, 2004, 8:43am

[View Quote] Yeah it just depresses me when it gets darker out everytime I have to
set the clock forward.

Apr 4, 2004, 11:14am

[View Quote] Your circadium rhythm will be out of sync. Thus when you "used" to
light being at 6:00am and that moves to 7:00am... it makes a world of
difference.

Apr 4, 2004, 9:38pm

[View Quote] An hour is all it takes to chnage it from light to pitch black with DST
and such. At least where I live.

Apr 6, 2004, 6:40pm

[View Quote] > You misunderstood that joke - K does not stand for Kilo
> in this case :-)

It went right over my head too..

1  ...  91  92  93  94  95  96  ...  101  |   Order by default