1  2  |   Order by index

Jan 5, 2002, 9:35pm

AFantasy is donating a new object to any and all world owners...

The object is a construction workman, holding a sign, which you can put your
own create sign commands to. We are using it as a gesture of Striking
against Activeworlds corp for their new changes to pricing for tourists, and
citizens alike in our upcoming year. AFantasy is closed as a protest on
principal for this newest issue that Activeworlds Corp has thrown at all the
loyal and dedicated users and citizens of activeworlds. Download from the
website: http://www.everchangingattic.com/avs/index.htm

Thank you.
Sexy Eyes & Lightwave (AFantasy)

Jan 5, 2002, 9:40pm

LOL I like him :)

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jan 5, 2002, 10:04pm

Great idea, love it! :-D
[View Quote]

Jan 6, 2002, 10:44am

I did something like that too.
Take a look at the GZ of Ailleurs world.
A bit of fun in that sad period ;)

For those who might wonder what are those big yellow things, they are a
kind of birds from a fun french serie of the 60s called "Les Shadoks".
Those animals were stupid with a stupid philosophy like for example "To
make the less unhappy as possible, hit always on the same ones" but
sometimes it sounds so, so familiar !

;)

Jan 6, 2002, 4:07pm

:)

They sent this in german TV too, back in the time when
there was only one TV station, the TVs looked more round
than rectangular and the colors were not invented yet.

The Shadoks were not so very stupid, they could go from
one world to the next just using a bicycle. And I bet they
could travel between universes too - but it has been some
time, I don't remember it so exact.

[View Quote] --
"_
|
/\
\ /
__/ /_

Jan 6, 2002, 9:14pm

lol I loved that

they had a problem with their long legs too, when they laid eggs they fell on the floor and broke, so they had to lay metal eggs,
but then the baby couldn't open it from inside, and by the time he managed to open it he was old already :P

Fox Mc Cloud

"ananas" <vha at oct31.de> a écrit dans le message news: 3C389001.7CAE280 at oct31.de...
> :)
>
> They sent this in german TV too, back in the time when
> there was only one TV station, the TVs looked more round
> than rectangular and the colors were not invented yet.
>
> The Shadoks were not so very stupid, they could go from
> one world to the next just using a bicycle. And I bet they
> could travel between universes too - but it has been some
> time, I don't remember it so exact.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 6, 2002, 9:33pm

"And I bet they could travel between universes too..." I'll take this to
mean that the Shadoks were way smarter than AW Corp, that they did not
have to download a new bicycle to get to the other "universe".

<rant>
You know, AW has some stupid, imprecise, and misleading language: For
example calling the AW browser a "plug in" (into what? it is a stand
alone program). Or those new 3D "Home pages" (a micro-world really,
inaccessible from http). But the longest running gag (stupid joke) on
the part of AW is the naming of their server products.

A World Server serves up world content -- well named.

A Stand-alone World Server does the same, alone -- also well named.

A Galaxy Server is really a stand-alone world server that does not
require AW hosting -- a real galaxy will have millions and millions of
stars, many with worlds, so where the heck are all the other worlds,
this is a stupid name.

A Universe Server, at one time, when the AW universe was the only one in
existence, this name made perfect sense -- now, it is just a stupid
name. Since a "Uniserver" is really a server of servers, it could
rightly be called a Meta Server, or if you prefer a more colorful name,
Galaxy Server is a much better fit (but already taken).

Now a joke (to make a point):
This question was seen on a recent astro-physics exam:
Part 1: Define universe.
Part 2: Give two examples.

</rant>

ScottyDM

[View Quote] --
Send all SPAMS, FLAMES, and CONSPIRACY THEORIES to smiller6 at uswest.net
Send all other IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE to scottydm at uswest.net
___
/////\\ Digitally Enhanced Portrait of:
{|-0-0-|} Scott D. Miller,
| % | Silicon Mercenary
\===/ Freelance Chip Designer

always #5 FOO = ~FOO; // the sound of a beating heart

Jan 6, 2002, 9:50pm

[View Quote] Actually, I could... but no one would understand it. :)

Aine

Jan 6, 2002, 11:48pm

Uni = one. The only one possible. The only one that could possibly
exist.

The so-called "parallel universe" idea in science fiction is just
another aspect of the one universe that exists. Astral, Spiritual and
other planes of existence still exist within our one universe. Even
Buckaroo Banzai did not leave this universe when he was traveling across
the 8th dimension.

ScottyDM

[View Quote] --
Send all SPAMS, FLAMES, and CONSPIRACY THEORIES to smiller6 at uswest.net
Send all other IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE to scottydm at uswest.net
___
/////\\ Digitally Enhanced Portrait of:
{|-0-0-|} Scott D. Miller,
| % | Silicon Mercenary
\===/ Freelance Chip Designer

always #5 FOO = ~FOO; // the sound of a beating heart

Jan 7, 2002, 12:32am

"uni-" does not imply possibilities or impossibilities, the prefix means =
one, but this is by no means implying exclusivity (as in "only"). There =
could be infinite universes, each a separate singular entity. A =
universe is an enclosed system to be sure, but not necessarily the only =
enclosed system in existence. =20

Meet me in !Friends later. We can debate this if you like. :)

Aine


[View Quote]

Jan 8, 2002, 3:44pm

you don't necesarily need to re-download, either make a local copy and add
the host/port info to the aworld.ini, or change it around before logging
on... here's how it works (in aworld.ini):

[universe]
host=unihost.dom
port=##

one thing, if you do it on only one installation, change the name of your
contacts.txt before entering, the browser deletes entries that don't
exist...

KAH

[View Quote]

Jan 9, 2002, 4:44am

being a graduate of the Monty Python University of Astronomy, is it a
coincidence or an omen that there is now possibly a *new star* they are
calling the Brown Dwarf, which really isn't a star at all, but a mass of
gases?
[View Quote] Meet me in !Friends later. We can debate this if you like. :)

Aine


[View Quote]

Jan 9, 2002, 9:37am

If the universe is infinitely large, there there is only one and can be only
one. However, if it has dimensions, no matter how large - then there is
every possibility that there is another.

Human brains boggle at the thought of infinite size becuase we cannot
comprehend it - finite space is the only thing we can understand without
making assumptions or guesses. Our brains tell us, from experience, that
everything has its bounds, which raises too many uncomfortable questions if
that is the case with our universe - basically, what is it and where is it
situated in what environment.

The "fact" that the universe is infinitely large is, at the the of the day,
a hypothesis - a guess that makes it easier for our fragile minds to accept
its existence and not have to think about where we actually live on too
broad a scale. It could be that the universe isn't infinite in size, just
DAMNED BIG (to us al least).

An interesting alternative subject to the darned pricing structure ;o)

Grims.

[View Quote]

Jan 9, 2002, 10:18am

Well it is generally considered that the universe is of finite size, and constantly expanding.

Fox Mc Cloud

"grimble" <grimble2000 at btinternet.com> a écrit dans le message news: 3c3c2b91$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> If the universe is infinitely large, there there is only one and can be only
> one. However, if it has dimensions, no matter how large - then there is
> every possibility that there is another.
>
> Human brains boggle at the thought of infinite size becuase we cannot
> comprehend it - finite space is the only thing we can understand without
> making assumptions or guesses. Our brains tell us, from experience, that
> everything has its bounds, which raises too many uncomfortable questions if
> that is the case with our universe - basically, what is it and where is it
> situated in what environment.
>
> The "fact" that the universe is infinitely large is, at the the of the day,
> a hypothesis - a guess that makes it easier for our fragile minds to accept
> its existence and not have to think about where we actually live on too
> broad a scale. It could be that the universe isn't infinite in size, just
> DAMNED BIG (to us al least).
>
> An interesting alternative subject to the darned pricing structure ;o)
>
> Grims.

Jan 9, 2002, 10:28am

My understanding was that the general concensus was that the universe was
views as infinite and its CONTENTS were constantly expanding (until the
physics reverse the trend and we all get squished back to the singularity
from wence we came.

[View Quote]

Jan 9, 2002, 10:32am

Well, since the universe is "everything", I don't think we can consider what's outside of those "contents" are part of it, since
there is nothing there... But that empty space is probably infinite, yes...

Fox Mc Cloud

"grimble" <grimble2000 at btinternet.com> a écrit dans le message news: 3c3c3776$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> My understanding was that the general concensus was that the universe was
> views as infinite and its CONTENTS were constantly expanding (until the
> physics reverse the trend and we all get squished back to the singularity
> from wence we came.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 9, 2002, 11:12am

Afaik., the latest theory says, that the universe is still
increasing expansion speed. That could mean that expansion
is infinite too.

And there are hints that the universe itself is closed in
itself like the surface of a sphere. That would mean, that
there had to be a 4th room dimension. These hints come from
certain unique radio stars (quasars / pulsars or so) that
have a specific pulse frequency that no other star star can
have. These frequencies (or some of them) have been found
for some very strong sources in 2 directions at the same
time, like it would be for a twodimensional inhabitant on
a sphere.


[View Quote] --
"_
|
/\
\ /
__/ /_

Jan 9, 2002, 6:08pm

That's true, I watched that discovery channel episode. :)

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jan 9, 2002, 9:09pm

I seriously doubt that rumor, becuase in space if there is noting to accel
you, you maintain constant speed. However, gravity affects 2 or more objetcs
no matter the distance. So, assuming the universe is a sphere, or even if it
isn't, gravity will eventually slow down the speed of expansion and one day
will bring it back into a singularity for the cycle to begin again. I read
in a library book that according to the red-shift (Doppler effect), the
universe has started to slow down. Scientists compare it to galaxies which
are closer, and show more current light, than to galaxies farther away, and
have older light(longer way to go), and have determined that the red-shift
in the colser galaxies is lest than that of the galaxies farther away. In
conclusion, this means expansion is slowing down, and one day in the
distant....distant future will turn to blue shift. The greater the
blue-shift, the faster the object is moving towards us. So, this latest
theory of yours dosent really add up...

LilAlpha Phalpha


[View Quote]

Jan 9, 2002, 9:43pm

Uhhh.. Our universe wasn't theorized to be a singulairty at the beggining.
A singularity is a great concentration of gravity. Yes the universe is
theorized to be a sphereical entity, but it's expanding infinitely at faster
then light speeds. If it does slow down, it would already be "infinite."
The only way that gravity could effect our universe to the degree it would
slow down would be if some other universe-type thing were to act on it.. but
so far we can't support that there's things beyond our universe. :) So
you're saying with the red-shift, blue-shift stuff that just because
galaxies are coming closer to us means our universe is shrinking? Galaxies
can move as well, they're not stationary in space. Think of our universe as
a bowl.. if you put 2 marbles in it and fling them around it.. they move
around.. sometime they may collide, it's just the entropy of the system
they're in that determines it. Like a comet collides with a planetary body,
galaxies could collide with each other. That's my input, hope it seems
right? That's basically what that show said with Stephan Hawking (smartest
person in the world, IQ in the high 200's.. works in universe physics and
theories) on it.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jan 9, 2002, 10:33pm

Hmm, nothing in here I believe is true. The believe the Big Bang Theory,
that the universe started out as a single point, a singularity, at the
center of our universe it is exapnding still now, but the expansion is
slowing, and will eventually shrink. There is radiation at the center of the
universe left to support this theory Gravity has infinite distance, no
matter how minute... Check out this law of physics...A body continues in its
state of constant velocity unless it is acted upon by an external force. The
glalxies are in a constant state of motion out-wards, and the external force
is gravity. About your bowl theory, that is only possible if objects have an
orbit, and to have an orbit there would have to be an object in the middle
with great enough gravity to hold it in orbit, dont get me wrong tho, the
gravity would still have an effect on objects even if they were moving too
fast to enter orbit. So, the universe isnt like marbles in a bowl, its more
like blowing up a balloon, it's expanding in all directions. Also, as they
are expanding, we only see red-shift, that means all the galaxies are moving
away from eachother, getting farther apart... but the speed at witch they
are moving apart is slowing down, due to gravity, the the Doppler effect can
prove that.

LilAlpha Phalpha



[View Quote]

Jan 9, 2002, 10:51pm

> Hmm, nothing in here I believe is true. The believe the Big Bang Theory,
> that the universe started out as a single point, a singularity, at the
> center of our universe it is exapnding still now, but the expansion is
> slowing, and will eventually shrink.

That could be possible. It won't happen for a couple billion millenium
though

>There is radiation at the center of the universe left to support this
theory

Have you known anyone to center of the universe? You can't say there is
unless we've been there to measure it. It's theorized that there's some
left.

>Gravity has infinite distance, no matter how minute...

Really? Can you feel the gravity of my hands grasping your throat? :) It's
proportional to the mass of the object.

>Check out this law of physics...A body continues in its state of constant
velocity unless it is acted upon by an external force.

Yes but it's proportional to the mass of the object that's acting on it plus
the distance away, and sometimes the polarity of the objects, magnetic
fields are stronger then gravity.

>The glalxies are in a constant state of motion out-wards, and the external
force
is gravity.

If that were true, according to you they'd be moving towards each other..
not outward and away.

> About your bowl theory, that is only possible if objects have an orbit,
and to have an orbit there would have to be an object in the middle with
great enough gravity to hold it in orbit, dont get me wrong tho, the gravity
would still have an effect on objects even if they were moving too fast to
enter orbit.

No, objects can move without an orbit around something. That's how things
in space can move with nothing to propel against.

> So, the universe isnt like marbles in a bowl, its more like blowing up a
balloon,
it's expanding in all directions.

Yes but I was using the bowl as an example of an expanding universe. As the
universe expands, the matter inside it expands as well.

>Also, as they are expanding, we only see red-shift, that means all the
galaxies are moving away from eachother, getting farther apart... but the
speed at witch they are moving apart is slowing down, due to gravity, the
the Doppler effect can prove that.

No, it's slowing down because other things are acting upon them. Gravity
isn't the only force in our universe. There's magnetic fields, black holes,
white holes, worm holes, other singularities, etc. Although gravity is
extremely strong, it's all dependent on the mass of the object and the
distance between the objects. That's why black holes can suck in light,
they have an extremely dense mass-singularity. As galaxies get closer,
because they have so much mass, they act upon each other and get closer.
But this doesn't mean the universe is collapsing just yet.

--Bowen--

Jan 9, 2002, 11:11pm

>
> theory
>
> Have you known anyone to center of the universe? You can't say there is
> unless we've been there to measure it. It's theorized that there's some
> left.

No but we can dectect it with our powerful telescopes....
>
>
> Really? Can you feel the gravity of my hands grasping your throat? :)
It's
> proportional to the mass of the object.

Yes it is proportional to the mass of the object, you hands to exert a force
on me, but it is so minute that I can't feel it at all...
>
> velocity unless it is acted upon by an external force.
>
> Yes but it's proportional to the mass of the object that's acting on it
plus
> the distance away, and sometimes the polarity of the objects, magnetic
> fields are stronger then gravity.

Do you really think the black holes at the center of galaxies, if there are
black holes at the center, push us away from everything else?
>
external
> force
> is gravity.
>
> If that were true, according to you they'd be moving towards each other..
> not outward and away.

GRRRRR. OVER TIME the force exerted by gravity is causing the slow-down of
the expansion, the change from red-shift to blueshift... Kinda like when you
up in the air and running in AW, it takes you a little time to slow down and
stop then go backward, maybe a second in AW, but trillions of years in the
universe...
>
> and to have an orbit there would have to be an object in the middle with
> great enough gravity to hold it in orbit, dont get me wrong tho, the
gravity
> would still have an effect on objects even if they were moving too fast to
> enter orbit.
>
> No, objects can move without an orbit around something. That's how things
> in space can move with nothing to propel against.

Read what i read again and you will see thats not what i meant.... OBJECTS
IN ORBIT HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE OF THIER ORBIT TO HOLD THEM IN
ORBIT...
>
> balloon,
> it's expanding in all directions.
>
> Yes but I was using the bowl as an example of an expanding universe. As
the
> universe expands, the matter inside it expands as well.

well the marbles in the bowl in no way can represent the expanding of the
universe becuase the galaxies arent going around in a circle or even a
spiral, so there would be no random movement like you show in the bowl, the
galaxies are moving in a straight line... outwards, untill gravity pulls
them back in.
>
> galaxies are moving away from eachother, getting farther apart... but the
> speed at witch they are moving apart is slowing down, due to gravity, the
> the Doppler effect can prove that.
>
> No, it's slowing down because other things are acting upon them. Gravity
> isn't the only force in our universe. There's magnetic fields, black
holes,
> white holes, worm holes, other singularities, etc. Although gravity is
> extremely strong, it's all dependent on the mass of the object and the
> distance between the objects. That's why black holes can suck in light,
> they have an extremely dense mass-singularity. As galaxies get closer,
> because they have so much mass, they act upon each other and get closer.
> But this doesn't mean the universe is collapsing just yet.

Did i say the universe was collapsing yet? magnetic fields have a finite
reach... any internal force cant excert a force externally, kinda like
trying to lift a chair without touching the ground while your standing on
it... gravity is an external force, it is infinite in distance so, the
galaxy at the otherside of this universe is also exerting a force on me, tho
it is probably even more minute than your hands.
>
> --Bowen--
>
>
>

Jan 9, 2002, 11:32pm

LoL calm down with the shouting.

> No but we can dectect it with our powerful telescopes....

No telescope is that powerful, not even hubble, nor our radio telescope
arrays.

> It's
>
> Yes it is proportional to the mass of the object, you hands to exert a
force
> on me, but it is so minute that I can't feel it at all...

So then if I were to hold it there for a long time I could crush your neck.
Since it's constant.

constant
> plus
>
> Do you really think the black holes at the center of galaxies, if there
are
> black holes at the center, push us away from everything else?

There's more then black holes at the center, there's proto-suns, and there's
white holes as well. Proto-suns emit energy at such a high rate it pushes
mass away. So do white holes.

> external
other..


> GRRRRR. OVER TIME the force exerted by gravity is causing the slow-down of
> the expansion, the change from red-shift to blueshift... Kinda like when
you
> up in the air and running in AW, it takes you a little time to slow down
and
> stop then go backward, maybe a second in AW, but trillions of years in the
> universe...

Gravity? No, that's acceleration.

orbit,
> gravity
to
things
>
> Read what i read again and you will see thats not what i meant.... OBJECTS
> IN ORBIT HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE OF THIER ORBIT TO HOLD THEM
IN
> ORBIT...

I never said the marbles were orbitting originally ;). I just implied they
were moving in space. Perhaps they're commets and they've flow by numerous
solar systems. In the middle of their orbit? No they can be anywhere to
propel them in some direction.. if the mass is greater then that of the
object, but not too strong, then it'll orbit. There's solar systems with 2
suns.. how do you think they orbit? Complete circular path? More like a
figure 8 ;)

a
> the
>
> well the marbles in the bowl in no way can represent the expanding of the
> universe becuase the galaxies arent going around in a circle or even a
> spiral, so there would be no random movement like you show in the bowl,
the
> galaxies are moving in a straight line... outwards, untill gravity pulls
> them back in.

LoL yes galaxies do rotate. Our solar system is rotating around a galaxy
that theoretically has a small proto-sun in the middle. I never said what
the marbles represented though. Galaxies can move in more then spirals..
the move on all 3 of spaces' axes.

the
the
Gravity
> holes,
>
> Did i say the universe was collapsing yet? magnetic fields have a finite
> reach... any internal force cant excert a force externally, kinda like
> trying to lift a chair without touching the ground while your standing on
> it... gravity is an external force, it is infinite in distance so, the
> galaxy at the otherside of this universe is also exerting a force on me,
tho
> it is probably even more minute than your hands.

You said they were moving closer together which implied they were
collapsing. Magnetic fields have as finite a reach as gravity does, it's
based on the charge of the object, like gravity is based on mass. An
internal force can exert external forces.. it's called an explosion :).
Lifting the chair is possible while you're standing on it, but you can't
keep it up. That has to do with the Earth's gravity rather then the gravity
of the two objects. Gravity is both internal and external. I'm exerting
it, and you're exerting it, yours acts on me, mine acts on you. :) LoL
does this have anything to do with free objects anymore? :)

--Bowen--

Jan 10, 2002, 12:53am

Yeesh! I think you both need to:

a) Read some quantum physics books

b) Move this to general.discussion

And I thought *I* was a geek :P

[View Quote] > LoL calm down with the shouting.
>
>
>
> No telescope is that powerful, not even hubble, nor our radio telescope
> arrays.
>
>
> force
>
>
> So then if I were to hold it there for a long time I could crush your neck.
> Since it's constant.
>
>
> constant
>
> are
>
>
> There's more then black holes at the center, there's proto-suns, and there's
> white holes as well. Proto-suns emit energy at such a high rate it pushes
> mass away. So do white holes.
>
>
> other..
>
>
>
> you
>
> and
>
>
> Gravity? No, that's acceleration.
>
>
> orbit,
>
> to
>
> things
>
> IN
>
>
> I never said the marbles were orbitting originally ;). I just implied they
> were moving in space. Perhaps they're commets and they've flow by numerous
> solar systems. In the middle of their orbit? No they can be anywhere to
> propel them in some direction.. if the mass is greater then that of the
> object, but not too strong, then it'll orbit. There's solar systems with 2
> suns.. how do you think they orbit? Complete circular path? More like a
> figure 8 ;)
>
>
> a
>
> the
>
>
> LoL yes galaxies do rotate. Our solar system is rotating around a galaxy
> that theoretically has a small proto-sun in the middle. I never said what
> the marbles represented though. Galaxies can move in more then spirals..
> the move on all 3 of spaces' axes.
>
>
> the
>
> the
>
> Gravity
>
> tho
>
>
> You said they were moving closer together which implied they were
> collapsing. Magnetic fields have as finite a reach as gravity does, it's
> based on the charge of the object, like gravity is based on mass. An
> internal force can exert external forces.. it's called an explosion :).
> Lifting the chair is possible while you're standing on it, but you can't
> keep it up. That has to do with the Earth's gravity rather then the gravity
> of the two objects. Gravity is both internal and external. I'm exerting
> it, and you're exerting it, yours acts on me, mine acts on you. :) LoL
> does this have anything to do with free objects anymore? :)


--
Goober King
But being a geek would require they knew what they were talking about...
rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu

Jan 10, 2002, 1:07am

> Yeesh! I think you both need to:
>
> a) Read some quantum physics books
>
> b) Move this to general.discussion
>
> And I thought *I* was a geek :P

Nah I take that category. :) It's all just "theories" and none of it as
actually true so there's no point in reading more theories to prove that our
theories are just theories. LoL catch that? Since it's all theories,
there's no point in arguing anymore because both I and lilalpha are more
then likely wrong.

--Bowen--

Jan 10, 2002, 1:24am

>
> LoL calm down with the shouting.
>
>
> No telescope is that powerful, not even hubble, nor our radio telescope
> arrays.

Did you look that up, or are you just assuming?
>
> force
>
> So then if I were to hold it there for a long time I could crush your
neck.
> Since it's constant.

No, read what i said again....
>
> constant
it
> are
>
> There's more then black holes at the center, there's proto-suns, and
there's
> white holes as well. Proto-suns emit energy at such a high rate it pushes
> mass away. So do white holes.

They arn't powerful enought to push the stars out of orbit, what makes you
think they could move galaxies?
>
> other..
>
>
of
> you
> and
the
>
> Gravity? No, that's acceleration.

Alright, how about this? you throw a ball straight up, it comes back
down....
>
> orbit,
with
fast
> to
> things
OBJECTS
THEM
> IN
>
> I never said the marbles were orbitting originally ;). I just implied
they
> were moving in space. Perhaps they're commets and they've flow by
numerous
> solar systems. In the middle of their orbit? No they can be anywhere to
> propel them in some direction.. if the mass is greater then that of the
> object, but not too strong, then it'll orbit. There's solar systems with
2
> suns.. how do you think they orbit? Complete circular path? More like a
> figure 8 ;)
>

since when were we talking about comet's and binary systems?

up
> a
As
the
> the
>
> LoL yes galaxies do rotate. Our solar system is rotating around a galaxy
> that theoretically has a small proto-sun in the middle. I never said what
> the marbles represented though. Galaxies can move in more then spirals..
> the move on all 3 of spaces' axes.

Duh i know galaxies rotate. When i said spirals, i meant thier course
trajectory, as in where a galaxy as a whole is going...
Marbles in a bowl are a bad example...
>
the
> the
> the
> Gravity
is
light,
closer,
closer.
on
> tho
>
> You said they were moving closer together which implied they were
> collapsing. Magnetic fields have as finite a reach as gravity does, it's
> based on the charge of the object, like gravity is based on mass. An
> internal force can exert external forces.. it's called an explosion :).
> Lifting the chair is possible while you're standing on it, but you can't
> keep it up. That has to do with the Earth's gravity rather then the
gravity
> of the two objects. Gravity is both internal and external. I'm exerting
> it, and you're exerting it, yours acts on me, mine acts on you. :) LoL
> does this have anything to do with free objects anymore? :)

Yeah, but our mass is also exerting force on the galaxies on the otherside
of the universe...
>
> --Bowen--
>
>
>

Jan 10, 2002, 10:38am

>
> Did you look that up, or are you just assuming?

Yes, our radio telescope arrays are the most powerful telescopes, they can
see about a 10,000 light years distance away from earth. If I'm assuming
you are too. It's all theories from below this point.


:)
> neck.
> No, read what i said again....

If you exert a constant amount of pressure on something (ie, water drops on
the same spot of your head for 20 years). Eventually that water will put a
hole in your head.

> it
magnetic
there
> there's
pushes

> They arn't powerful enought to push the stars out of orbit, what makes you
> think they could move galaxies?

They're as powerful as black holes which suck mass and light in. Proto-suns
can get more powerful. You don't know that a star hasn't been pushed out of
orbit. If it pushes the star it's probably pushing everything else with it.

slow-down
> of
when
down
> the

> Alright, how about this? you throw a ball straight up, it comes back
> down....

That's a vertical plane. You're moving on AW with a horizontal plane.

> with
> fast
> OBJECTS
> THEM
> they
> numerous
to
with
> 2
a
>
> since when were we talking about comet's and binary systems?

Where'd you get this from?

blowing
> up
> As
> the
bowl,
pulls
galaxy
what
spirals..
>
> Duh i know galaxies rotate. When i said spirals, i meant thier course
> trajectory, as in where a galaxy as a whole is going...
> Marbles in a bowl are a bad example...

I would like to hear a better example.

> the
but
gravity,
black
> is
the
> light,
> closer,
> closer.
finite
> on
me,
it's
> gravity
exerting
>
> Yeah, but our mass is also exerting force on the galaxies on the otherside
> of the universe...

Yes but they're also exerting it on us. So it's both internal and external.

--Bowen--

Jan 10, 2002, 12:16pm

Gah! What part of "Move it to general discussion" don't you get?!

[View Quote] >
> Yes, our radio telescope arrays are the most powerful telescopes, they can
> see about a 10,000 light years distance away from earth. If I'm assuming
> you are too. It's all theories from below this point.
>
<snip>


--
Goober King
There's a reason this newsgroup is called "community"...
rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu

Jan 10, 2002, 3:27pm

/:| u know what goob, where changing ur name from "goober kind" to the sir
complain-alot! ( got that name from boy meets world :) )

SWE
hey, im only 15 :)
www.emptyco.com


[View Quote]

1  2  |   Order by index