jvanhalderen

bad temper today???

So let's assume that crop cricles are produced by extra-terrestrial intelligence ----::>>> Why do they only appear in crop fields?? Why not in normal gras fields, snow or anything else. I think it's because it attracs the most attention in crop. You can MAKE perfectly good circles and it looks damn interesting. As for ET's... Why would they bother? I think it's all a bunch of nonsense. :lame:

So what your saying is that by cooling a matter to 0 K, you will create an infinite density?

Nicely put

I got a SEGA MEGADRIVE!!! 16 Mbit!!!! 32 f/s Woohooo!!! :lame:

My point exactly fafalone

Sulfer is one main ingredients of fireworks. It gives you those nice green or blue flames. I think this is total nonsense. The quantity that is used in fireworks is non comparable with what they use in the industries. The damage made by fireworks is futile. See fireworks as a nice thing that make people feel happy and together on special occasions. It's like the ale in a bar. (>> Also sounds like crap <<) :bs:

That again aman. Sometimes the most intelligent thing is NOT the logical thing. Take the understanding of people for instance. Further more I do agree with you.

That's a pretty broad question. I agree with aman, read more about it, think about it and when you created your own fascinating theory or hypothese..Post it. Because that's when it gets interesting!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/older_earth_020828.html Earth Deemed Older, Calling Moon Formation Theory into Question. A pair of new studies has helped pin down how long it took Earth to form, breaking down the final barrier of disagreement over the precise timing but creating a problem for the leading theory of the Moon's formation. Earth reached mature size 30 million years after the Sun's birth, the two independent results show. This is in line with the leading theoretical model and most other indicators. However, this is about 70 million years quicker than what was expected by Moon formation theorists. These researchers' computer models have the satellite being carved from a nearly mature Earth by a large impact about 100 million years after the origin of the solar system. Earth is thought to have formed within a large, fairly flat and rotating disk of gas and dust that circled the nascent Sun. Dust coalesced to form rocks, which banged into each other. Some stuck and grew into asteroids and larger objects called proto-planets, a few of which survived to become planets. Nearly all scientists agree on this scenario for building the four inner planets. Yet the method considered to be best suited to determine how long the process took -- it looks at ratios of radioactive hafnium and tungsten in ancient materials -- has in the past resulted in an answer of 60 million years. The two new studies determined that previous tests were in error. The results will be published in the Aug. 29 issue of the journal Nature. One team was led by led by Qingzhu Yin at Harvard University, the other by Thorsten Kleine at the University of Muenster in Germany. "Earth is older than previously thought," Kleine told SPACE.com. "Our data indicate that these collisions caused almost complete melting of Earth resulting in a scenario called magma ocean, in which the Earth was covered by a layer of magma." Both groups reanalyzed the ratios of hafnium and tungsten in meteorites thought to be about as old as the solar system itself. They studied meteorites thought to have come from the asteroid Vesta, along with rock from Earth. Both studies concluded that Earth formed in the first 30 million years of the solar system's existence. Mars, because it is smaller, took about 13 million years to develop, they say. Vesta, meanwhile, seems to have formed within 4 million years, compared to previous estimates of 16 million years. Kleine said the work suggests that the time it takes a planet's core to develop is correlated to the planet's ultimate size. That might seem intuitive, but it hadn't been shown before. That doesn't mean, however, that planet formation is simple. "The situation for the Earth and Mars is complicated because their growth involves absorbing bodies similar to Vesta and then reprocessing the cores within them," says Alastair Cameron of Harvard University and the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory at the University of Arizona. Cameron was not involved in the studies, but he wrote an analysis of them for Nature. Cameron said the new dates might call into question the leading theory of the Moon's formation. That theory holds that about 100 million years after the Sun's birth, the Earth was about 90 percent of its full size and was hit by a single Mars-sized object. The impact kicked up material that went into orbit around the planet and gathered together to become the Moon. More computer simulations of Moon formation might now be required, given the newly suggested time frames, Cameron says. He ought to know. He was on one of two research teams back in the mid-1970s that developed the original idea of the Moon being formed by an impact.

By the way .. I am 22

Sup all, My name is Jean-Louis van Halderen, I live in 's-Hertogenbosch, Holland. I work in amsterdam for PriceWaterhouseCoopers. I'm the lead developer for Db-System (Notes, Oracle, etc) in my team. My hobbies are Films, computers, astronomy, science and AD&D. I love those things. And I hate the stupidity of people (talking mass here). That's me! :lame:

I agree, we need to know about the behaviour and the origin of the universe before we actually start with interstellair travel. For example: If we would know what the exact impact on a object or living being would be in the centre of a wormhole, we might be able to use these cosmics appearances to our advantage. No need to design a ship with an infinite power sourse, hybernating pods or devices which folds space/time. Knowledge is power!

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp It's a link to a fair article which explains the current theories of the creation/behaviour of the universe. It's worth reading it!

People are very good in interpretting things afterwards. Take Nostradamous for example. Its very easy to twist the words he used to make it fit into history. Like the "Hitle" (I think), a river. Easy modification to create Hitler. But that doesnt mean it was right. The same thing goed for the bible .."The HOLY book". People want to believe in it because they don't know anything else or don't want to know/think. But hey who knows.... maybe I'll turn Cinderella into my goddess someday and live my life as a cleaner because.. thats how its written. Finding codes in books, I think, is total nonsense.

Do you know the author by any chanche?

http://www.mkaku.org/tt.html This article shows several perspectives on time travel. Very nice and worth reading!

What about LINDOWS?

If heard of this before but never actually completly understood it, would you mind explaining this to me?

First off al, I do not think it is possible to "TRAVEL" back or forwards in time. I do think it could be possible to watch back into time. As each object reflects light and light is continuous.. "Simply" travel faster than the speed of light in the same direction to collect "history". Quite logical because the same thing is happening when we look at for example: galaxy M87. This galaxy is 65 miliion lightyears away. If we observe today we will get a reflection of how it was 65 million yrs ago. But lets assume it is possible to actually go back in time. How could you be sure that at that point in time, time is contineus. For all you know you are stuck in that fraction of time. And without time there can not be movement, without movement there is no energy. What will remain??? Nothing if you ask me. Time travel: I still think its impossible