bored_teen

wait, what? so, if i were in space, viewing all of those galaxies, and i turned around, i'd see the same thing? it's like the ultimate fourth wall! gravity's effective range is infinite? wouldn't that only be true if there was only one central source of gravity and absolutely nothing else in space?

thanks!

i'm taking this to mean that i was right about the arctic not being cool enough to put out the fire. so, what's the temperature where a fire stops burning due to a minute temperature drop?

thanks. from all the pictures of the solar system it seemed that there isn't really anything above the orbital disk. i guess the pictures didn't show enough is all. there is gravity, but only if you are within the gravitational pull of an object. space itself doesn't have gravity. thanks. that, conjoined with insane_alien's post pretty much cleared it all up. but now i have a different question. if you reoriented the space telescope (or turned it around and moved it to the other side of the milky way) what would you see? i'm assuming pretty much the same kind of stuff. but all the pictures i've seen of the milky way show the same "side". what's on the other "side"? would it just be more unidentified galaxies and whatnot?

now i'm kind of hung up. i can start a fire just as easily at the north pole as i could at the equator. is it just that the arctic air isn't cold enough to cool the fire enough to put it out?

wait, so the inner core is cooler than the outer core?

ok. the part that i don't understand is where the heat comes from. you need three things to produce the reaction causing fire, those being fuel, oxygen, and heat. let's take the case of rubbing 2 sticks together and producing a flame. the stick is the fuel, the oxygen comes from the air, and the heat needed comes from the friction from rubbing the sticks together. to continue burning, the fire needs heat, oxygen and fuel. the fuel and oxygen are coming from the same place they were to start with, but, seeing as you've started a fire, you stop rubbing the sticks together, removing the friction that provided the heat to begin the reaction causing the flame. where does the heat now come from? or, am i completely wrong in thinking the fire needs heat to continue?

so, in essence, what would be time travel in my frame of reference would only be time dilation in yours? doesn't that mean that true time travel (transporting yourself into the past) is impossible?

that's pretty cool. so, for all intents and purposes, it can go through stuff? do you have a link with all the different known states of matter i could check out?

i understand that they're on a disk. my question is, what the heck is above that disk? space is 3D, but it doesn't have an "up" or "down" due to the lack of gravity. for the sake of argument (and clarification), let's assume it does. using this pic for our frame of reference, if we zoomed out to see more of space, what would be above this galaxy?

cool. seeing as the original question has been answered, i don't think anyone will mind this thread being derailed, especially by the OP. my new question is: what's a superfluid? why is it "super"? is it another state of matter, along with solid, liquid, gas, and plasma?

if both positive and negative matter exist in our universe, what would an antiverse/negaverse be composed of?

i'm under the impression that, while a lit fire needs heat, that heat comes from the chemical reaction (basially it produces the heat it needs). if you instantaneously froze the fuel source, the oxygen, and the chemical reaction (fire), would the fire keep producing its own heat, or would the temperature change snuff it out?

i understand that fire is a reaction. in essence, could you freeze the fuel source, as well as the oxygen surrounding it, causing the reaction to continue in the frozen state?

it says on or near. either way, they don't move like in that second picture. my question is what is "above" or "below" these orbital planes? the milky way spreads out more or less horizontally, so what is "above" it?

what i'm getting from that is that faster-than-light will be seen as moving back in time. how so? if it is viewed as going back in time, does that mean you would pop up (let's say) yesterday? why is that? just because you're going ridiculously fast doesn't mean that you should be able to return to before you started. unless light defines/governs time...

if my premise is false, then the link you posted makes no sense. what i'm getting from that link is that planets orbit on the same orbital plane. that's what the first picture is telling me. you're telling me they're not on the same orbital plane, but your link says they do. am i misunderstanding?

i see. interesting. but then why is the outer core still liquid? is the point at which the core becomes solid also the point at which the pressure is great enough to solidify?

why would it matter? it seems people think that you can go back in time by exceeding the speed of light. why? wouldn't you just arrive at your location faster than the light would? as far as my logic goes, the only difference is that it'd be dark when you stopped. and if going faster than light does enable us to go back in time, shouldn't we also de-age? if we age going slower than lightspeed, shouldn't we stop aging at lightspeed, and de-age if we exceed lightspeed?

space is 3D (so i'm told), but models of the planets all seem to be revolving around the sun (more or less) on the same horizontal plane. what's "above" or "below"?

i've always been taught that the Earth's core has 2 parts: an outer and inner. the outer is supposed to be liquid, but the inner is solid. the way i've learned it is that the inner core is so hot, it is a solid instead of a liquid. but my understanding of thermodynamics contradicts this. how can a liquid become solid by heating? if this is so, would zero Kelvin be liquid instead of solid? or something even colder than zero Kelvin?

hehe i'm back. i got it. thanks everybody!

i've always thought it would be impossible to freeze fire. but the question stuck in my mind this morning, and i've been thinking about it all day. could you do it? fire needs heat, fuel, and oxygen to continue to burn. let's assume you have a fuel source that is small, but burns for a very long time. the fire will keep burning as long as it has air because it produces its own heat. could you freeze a fire in oxygen?

omg THANK YOU! how did you find that? did you just know what you were looking for?

what gene causes porphyria? google isn't helping, and i need to know what chromosome causes the disease. there's different kinds of porphyria, and more than one are genetic, so there may be more than one chromosome. thx in advance.