Astronomy & Space - February 2007

For a circular orbit, the centifugal force perfectly balances the gravitational force.
How stable are these orbits ?

You would think that if the orbit got a little bigger the orbiting body would fly off and if the orbit was a a little smaller, the orbitiing body would spiral into the body it was orbiting.

but neiother of these things happen.

2007-02-17 14:35:49 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Could Jupiter become a sun like it did in the Movie 2010?
What would have to happen for it to transform into a sun how would that effect the solar system?

2007-02-17 14:32:14 · 10 answers · asked by Ophiuchus 3

Experts say that the universe is being expanded and accelerated by "dark energy", but we think that everything in the universe is at a constant free fall. Whenever someone is in space, they are really free falling around the earth, but its gravity holds them close. So why isn't this the case with galaxy's, etc. Any opinions?

2007-02-17 14:27:50 · 7 answers · asked by kcflds 2

2007-02-17 14:25:24 · 7 answers · asked by Gwenda H 1

H3

2007-02-17 14:23:19 · 7 answers · asked by Hobiecatman 1

In the movie Space Cowboys, Clint Eastwood and what's-his-name (did two-face in Batman) get in a machine that spins them around. They looked like they were getting blasted with strong winds inside the "room" they were in.

OK, is something PUSHING against them, or PULLING on them, while they are spinning around? And what exactly is pushing or pulling? I cannot see anything, but SOMETHING is really squashing them down.

2007-02-17 14:00:12 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-17 13:15:14 · 4 answers · asked by feoribeiro 1

by the way what is our nearest solar system?
which constellation is it in?
how big is its sun??

2007-02-17 13:01:27 · 18 answers · asked by ? 1

do aliens exist?....my friend gere said they did what do you think?

2007-02-17 12:46:58 · 47 answers · asked by Anonymous

well earthlings i got to retire to my sleep pod my bodily fungtions are deminishing i need to re fuel myself with life force in my chamber of res. until next time earthlings goodnight may you have nice pod dreams? OUT.

2007-02-17 12:44:40 · 3 answers · asked by meandean 5

2007-02-17 12:40:57 · 2 answers · asked by goring 6

2007-02-17 12:39:51 · 11 answers · asked by jpeed21 1

2007-02-17 12:29:47 · 8 answers · asked by sunnyjay 3

The common explanation to GRB's is we are seeing the quasars of the first black holes that gave rise to the first stars... Thus seems to be based on the idea they are "too big" to be anything but tightly concontrated beems.

Could these not be neiboring "big bangs"? It seems to me these explosions must be common in an infinite universe, why assume our "local" matter is all there is? Also, why didn't this bang happen 5 seconds earlier, or a trillion google plex years earlier for that matter?

Isn't it more likely that a certain amount of matter drifts about and acreats until a point of critical mass causes such an explosion?

The attitude that "everything is local" seems to me just another example of people instintively avoiding the concept of "infinite" because we can't truely get our heads around it.

2007-02-17 12:23:47 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-17 12:12:03 · 6 answers · asked by goring 6

2007-02-17 12:00:55 · 3 answers · asked by goring 6

2007-02-17 11:45:39 · 6 answers · asked by goring 6

2007-02-17 11:06:13 · 6 answers · asked by goring 6

and what will they look like?

2007-02-17 10:54:28 · 14 answers · asked by Neill 3

OK,
Our world as we see it now...exists thanks to the the Big bang, but could you ask yourself what was before the big bang? Offcourse the obvious answer is before that there was another worls just like ours also created by another bing bang...in simple words the universe has no beginning.
Some people must get used to it :)

2007-02-17 10:53:59 · 11 answers · asked by Ti Amo 1

2007-02-17 10:53:41 · 7 answers · asked by andrew v 1

2007-02-17 10:43:47 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

would one expensive eyepiece for a telescope or a set of cheaper eyepieces of varying sizes be better or more use to me.

2007-02-17 10:19:20 · 6 answers · asked by super_man 3

2007-02-17 10:13:27 · 4 answers · asked by sharebear717 1

2007-02-17 10:04:51 · 2 answers · asked by craigrt3 1

2007-02-17 09:52:23 · 6 answers · asked by steve h 2

2007-02-17 09:51:40 · 4 answers · asked by Connie H 1

2007-02-17 09:18:11 · 5 answers · asked by koshbomb o 1

In all the nasa photographs i have seen (apart from the hubble telescope) there are never any stars visable,yet i have manged to take pictures of stars with a small lens digital camera,ok the pictures where very very faint.
in space there is no light pollution so why no picturesof any stars?
and i am not trying to prove anything or disprove anything about moon landings or any other conspiracies .
I just wondered why there are no pictures of stars including shuttle video footage (apart from the hubble telescope pictures)?

2007-02-17 09:14:17 · 14 answers · asked by spamalot 1

Do you think that scientists focus should be on finding new solutions to problems that affect the general public and not just majority of the public?

2007-02-17 09:11:22 · 5 answers · asked by autos 1