ThreadBoard ArchivesSite FeaturesActiveworlds SupportHistoric Archives |
FREE OBJECT FOR WORLD OWNERS (Community)
FREE OBJECT FOR WORLD OWNERS // Communitysexy eyesJan 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) katerineJan 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 ! ;) ananasJan 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] -- "_ | /\ \ / __/ /_ foxmccloudJan 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] scottydmJan 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 scottydmJan 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 aineJan 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] kahJan 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] lady judeJan 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] grimbleJan 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] foxmccloudJan 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. grimbleJan 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] foxmccloudJan 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] ananasJan 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] -- "_ | /\ \ / __/ /_ bowenJan 9, 2002, 6:08pm
lilalpha phalphaJan 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] bowenJan 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] lilalpha phalphaJan 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] bowenJan 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-- lilalpha phalphaJan 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-- > > > bowenJan 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-- goober kingJan 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 bowenJan 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-- lilalpha phalphaJan 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-- > > > bowenJan 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-- goober kingJan 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 sweJan 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] |