Astronomy & Space - December 2006

2006-12-06 00:16:51 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-12-06 00:11:39 · 2 answers · asked by Mad Cow 2

We know that in the Universe there is an opposite to everything. Antimatter, a positron. EVERYTHING has its opposite.

My question is, can it be possible to have a "Whitehole", that is an infintesimal point which repels everything with the force. What does this mean? And if it does exist, is it opposite to a blackhole? Do we enter a blackhole and come out of a white hole, is this simply a wormhole?

I know that we can't 'know' this answer, just a bit of theoretical physics. What do you think?

2006-12-06 00:10:01 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-12-06 00:05:01 · 9 answers · asked by star 3

My son and I were talking about energy solutions. He brought up the subject of disposal into space. We allowed the exclusion of the cost variable.

He suggested that we need to get the material on a one way ticket so that it doesn't get hung up in any orbits and using the nuclear waste as it's own fuel source for the one way ride.

I was thinking that a black hole destination would solve space junk and nuclear pollution issues.

Aside from cost, is this a viable nuclear waste disposal solution?

2006-12-05 23:59:30 · 7 answers · asked by Just Chillin' 2

I'll be there for 2-weeks from 23/12/06
south-west (sunny side). May-be we
could meet up. Are there any pubs.

2006-12-05 23:54:37 · 20 answers · asked by Gregor P 1

hang on!
if your answer is (as we learnt in school) there are more straight rays near equator and tengestional rays of sun as you go away from it. As we know, suppose we take sun as big as size of a football then earth is less than a size of a small ball-bearing ball. so, if this is true then equal no. of rays from some part of sun should fall straight everywhere over earth. so how that is possible that equator gets more straight run rays then anywhere else? and if that is not a reason then what is!!!!!
NB: this is a real question, no funny answers please.

2006-12-05 23:54:32 · 7 answers · asked by catchmitesh 1

2006-12-05 23:46:51 · 3 answers · asked by pa t 1

2006-12-05 23:35:21 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

Don't you it should have been a miracle that it was able to even sustain it self for a lifetime? Isn’t it a greater miracle that it even reproduced itself? Was this achieved after millions of attempts - the sustenance? Did it take billions of attempts to achieve reproduction? Why is reproduction so difficult in fully developed humans in some nations today?

2006-12-05 23:09:48 · 4 answers · asked by St Lusakan 3

2006-12-05 19:52:53 · 19 answers · asked by Uva 2

2006-12-05 19:27:15 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-12-05 18:42:59 · 19 answers · asked by mintoo 1

2006-12-05 18:32:31 · 17 answers · asked by maame ama 2

Do u think its the best choice for NASA to make human beings finally able to set foot and live on the Moon and eventually Mars??

2006-12-05 18:11:03 · 11 answers · asked by Hamdi93 2

according to energy conservation law when we fall from infinity to a object we attain a final velocity=escape velocity so in a black hole we would attain c?????

2006-12-05 17:45:21 · 7 answers · asked by Heart Break Kid 2

2006-12-05 17:17:38 · 4 answers · asked by fockerfockerfocker1234 1

I believe it is a good thing:
Sure we have the "we should go to mars" people. The question is do they realize that is it the earths gravity that is the expense, inwhich, man must leave. By building a moon base and creating a landing station. could it not be possible to save money and expense in the BIG picture.

Saying if the so called Mars manned space flight left from the moon and not earth. Granted we would have to build it on the moon or on earth...The wise thing to do would be to build it on Earth launch it into high orbit and sling shot to the moon base. Instead of building it piece by piece say at the ISS. then going to the moon.

We could then...Save fuel cost...time and money...by going from the moon to mars..Beside the fact that given the correct trajectory we would be alot closer in miles.

2006-12-05 17:17:27 · 11 answers · asked by devilduck74 3

2006-12-05 17:06:41 · 2 answers · asked by fockerfockerfocker1234 1

2006-12-05 17:04:21 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

journey

2006-12-05 16:50:57 · 9 answers · asked by fockerfockerfocker1234 1

2006-12-05 16:48:15 · 19 answers · asked by ☻Cool Beans☺ 2

2006-12-05 16:42:04 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

Options:
A=a good theory because it made predictions that could be tested.
B=ruled out because of the existence of Cepheid variable stars.
C=instrumental in predicting the existence of quasars.
D=a bad theory because it was wrong.
E=a good theory because it required a cosmological constant.

2006-12-05 16:35:41 · 6 answers · asked by dfport7 1

1. The universe will expand forever.
2. The universe will stop expanding in an infinite amount of time.
3. The universe is in a steady-state.
4. The universe will someday stop expanding and start to collapse.

Which one?

2006-12-05 16:29:24 · 2 answers · asked by dfport7 1

2006-12-05 16:26:44 · 6 answers · asked by Matilda C 1

be creative!

2006-12-05 16:13:03 · 7 answers · asked by wanda gag 1

2006-12-05 16:02:55 · 7 answers · asked by Becca 6

2006-12-05 15:56:01 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Just darkness? or what?

2006-12-05 15:44:43 · 13 answers · asked by breadcrumbs 1