EVE Search - What would real life wormholes look like?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

What would real life wormholes look like?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Caiman Graystock Caldari Comrades in Construction	Posted - 2009.03.09 21:18:00 - [91] They really are gorgeous! Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking... Boo hoo. Cry some more.
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.03.09 21:19:00 - [92] Originally by: DaxSnake the link in OP isnt a credible source. Read it… Quote: ok you go ahead and believe gif drawings over Einstein who discovered Relativity, which brought up the theory of womrholes in the first place. …then understand what it's showing and what your (unreferenced, dumbed-down) youtube video is showing. Then read up on relativity. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in =v=… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Primnproper	Posted - 2009.03.09 23:49:00 - [93] Originally by: DaxSnake ok you go ahead and believe gif drawings over Einstein who discovered Relativity, which brought up the theory of womrholes in the first place. Because i think Einsteins representation would be the right one. after all, its his theory. Yes but that representation is a diagram of gravitational potential against 2 space dimensions whereas the 'gif drawings' as you put it are a representation of what a wormhole would look like in 3 dimensional space where we cannot see the gravitation potential but only its effect. ... Originally by: Graveyard Tan I call bull**** and troll. If you are deaf, how are you even able to read this or type replies?
cpt Mark	Posted - 2009.03.09 23:55:00 - [94] Just one flaw with all of this.. WORMHOLES DO NOT and CANNOT exist. there I said it... ......... BTW, would be nice if you can add blackholes to the game, and space nebulas... A blackhole, would suck in any ship that warps past/ nearby, or if beyond the event horizon, it will bend the course of your ship in warp to make it fly in a random direction! nebulas can do things, such as disable your shields for working, block out your overview, targeting, give a 10 minute timer till lifesupport shuts down! niceeeeeeee
iudex Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2009.03.09 23:56:00 - [95] Originally by: Levizzenvivious You seem to have absolutely no concept of what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. It does not mean "guess". It is the highest state of truth one can achieve within the system of scientific methodology. Nor do you have a clear grasp of what the big bang theory says. Like Tippia said before me, it only describes what happened 10 to the -11th of a second after the singularity appeared. It makes no statements whatsoever concerning what existed before; this remains pure metaphysics. I obviously referred not only to the theory of the development after the "Big Bang" but criticised that people call the guess what was before the origin as science, as a precisely calculated truth, just because someone made some maths on it and tried to give an answer. But since you like to be precise on the terms, watch the underline part of your statement. According to that the BB "theory" is the highest state of truth, even higher than solid proven facts or empirical findings: you can't be serious with that. Originally by: Levizzenvivious We do not "have to realize that there are things we cannot understand"; to do so would be the surrender of reason and the spirit of science. It's not against the spirit of science to aspire after more detailed knowledge before giving an explanation of something that can't be explained with currently existing knowledge. It is against the spirit of science though, to pretend to be able to answer a complex question with fictional theories that are based on inaccurate knowledge. Today the science on physics and astronomy of 200 years ago looks banal and childish, wait another 200 years and they will teach 4th graders how banal our was, and after another 200 years and we maybe will be able to give an answer that comes close to the truth. Originally by: Levizzenvivious Your simile with bacteria trying to cope with the idea of human society is nothing but a false analogy, because it assumes that it is possible to achieve a complete understanding of the subject, something you claim impossible. You didn't understand the analogy. Because it is impossible to achieve a complete understanding of the subject for us, we shouldn't try to pretend as if we can describe the truth with our (so far) simple version of the universe. We either have enough facts, nor does it make sense in terms of our known physics law and logic (again this is referred to the origin of the universe / pre big bang). The only secure thing that we know about this issue is that we don't know enough. Trying to give a "scientific" explanation under this circumstances has nothing to do with science. I'd prefer the scientist who tells me that he can't answer a question yet over the one who sells me a most likely wrong answer as the truth. Quote: You also failed to respond to my request to provide evidence for telekinesis. There were claims that it was scientifically proven phenomenon(PEAR reasearch on micro-telekinesis, or "scientific" experiments described in the book "Psycho-Kinesis: Moving Matter with the Mind" by Adrian v. Clark for example). Of course the results were questioned by other scientists, and the fact, that there were laboratory experiments with a significant deviation from a random result prove either that telekinesis exists or that this "scientific experiments" were inaccurate. I mentioned the "scientific evidence" as comparison with the pseudo-science of wormholes: not everything that claims to be science actually is science. Faction Standings: Serpentis +7.81 // Angel Cartel +7.60 // Minmatar Republic -8.68 // Gallente Federation -9.88
tradealt4tw	Posted - 2009.03.11 17:05:00 - [96] Originally by: Primnproper Originally by: rygore seeing as eve is set a billion years into the future, wormholes would definately be possible. im sure even several species of farmyard animals would have come to grips with navigating them by this time. o/ I thought it was only 10 thousand years or so not a billion years. I mean a billion years is approx. 1/14 of the age of the universe, 1/5 the age of the solar system or almost twice as long as complex multicelluar life has existed on Earth. Modern Humans have only existed for at most 500,000 years or 1/2 a million years, so a billion years would be 2000 times as long as humans have existed so far. By the time we reach that point I think we probably won't even be recoginisable as human or even jove, a human from a billion years from now could be twice as far beyond us as we are beyond a single celled bacteria (ignoring the rate of change of the rate of evolution). quoting thinly veiled X-Men paraphrase.
Celestal	Posted - 2009.03.11 17:14:00 - [97] I want to know how worms get into space in the first place ?
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.03.11 19:42:00 - [98] Originally by: Celestal I want to know how worms get into space in the first place ? You launch an exploding sheep at the ledge they're sitting on. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in =v=… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey	Posted - 2009.03.11 20:26:00 - [99] Edited by: Eventy One on 11/03/2009 20:34:11 That is .. assuming real wormholes exist. I should remind the op, worm holes and singularities in nature are a theory, not a law. There are some credible scientists who say the creation or development of wormholes, singularities and black holes are impossible. The idea is this: A necessary precondition for the formation of a wormhole, or at least the singularity at the centre of the worm hole - is the compression of the mass (which has gravitational influence) below that of the event horizon. But the compression of mass below that of the event horizon was previously not well understood, except for the critical mass required to collapse into a singularity. Scientists have recently won the Nobel Prize for being able to create stuff called Bose-Einstein Condensate in the lab, and discovered its properties. Here's a hick-up. There is evidence that when sufficient gravitationally massive bodies implode upon themselves, the physical matter becomes Bose-Einstein Condensate - as they implode. (Energy is dissipated as Hawking radiation, the mass is compressed, Bose-Einstein Condensate forms. Hawking radiation and compression of matter are also necessary preconditions for the formation of Bose-Einstein Condensate) One unexpected & unusual property of Bose-Einstein Condensate is that it cannot be compressed below the event horizon, because some mysterious force of repulsion appears once it is compressed beyond a certain point (actually the point of the event-horizon). Therefore the necessary preconditions for the formation of singularities, wormholes and black-holes IS IMPOSSIBLE. (Don't shoot the messenger - I'm merely conveying the current debate - not taking sides) Many people will & have violently rejected this idea, that black-holes, singularities, and worm-holes, are impossible. Wormholes, Black-holes and singularities are very popular, and people are willing to believe in them no matter what the experimental evidence suggests. Apparently many people also rejected the idea that the earth was round. But remember that we have NOT observed these things through direct observation but indirectly. Although they are suggested by current theory, the witness behaviour could be explained in other ways. This is a debate that is waging in cosmology right now. An alternative theory is suggesting, instead of black-holes, worm-holes, or singularities - which all require nature to allow the existence of infinities, what instead forms is a 'graviton star' which doesn't tear the fabric of space-time. Instead of a singularity, what forms is one massive star made up of Bose-Einstein Condensate - equal to the event horizon - still bound by the necessary critical mass. Although light can disappear onto the surface - the fabric of space/time is safe - even if this thing otherwise looks / acts and feels like what we thought a black hole looked like. The images you provide here are nice, but still make certain assumptions about is and isn't possible in nature.
DaxSnake	Posted - 2009.03.11 20:33:00 - [100] Edited by: DaxSnake on 11/03/2009 20:38:04 black holes are 100% real. weve taken many pictures infact in the exact center of our own milky way is a super massive black hole and every single other galaxy we can view has a super massive black hole at the exact center which is bringing scientists now to believe that super massive black holes have something to do with the creation of galaxies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey	Posted - 2009.03.11 20:36:00 - [101] Originally by: DaxSnake black holes are 100% real. weve taken many pictures infact in the exact center of our own milky way is a super massive black hole and every single other galaxy we can view has a super massive black hole at the exact center which is bringing scientists now to believe that super massive black holes have something to do with the creation of galaxies My point exactly! As I said before don't shoot me for pointing out the debate. DaxSnake, how are your photographs able to distinguish between a 'Black-hole' and a 'Graviton star'?
DaxSnake	Posted - 2009.03.11 20:41:00 - [102] Edited by: DaxSnake on 11/03/2009 20:46:40 Edited by: DaxSnake on 11/03/2009 20:42:35 Originally by: Eventy One Originally by: DaxSnake black holes are 100% real. weve taken many pictures infact in the exact center of our own milky way is a super massive black hole and every single other galaxy we can view has a super massive black hole at the exact center which is bringing scientists now to believe that super massive black holes have something to do with the creation of galaxies My point exactly! As I said before don't shoot me for pointing out the debate. DaxSnake, how are your photographs able to distinguish between a 'Black-hole' and a 'Graviton star'? The hubble telescope has monitored these black holes and stars orbiting close to the singularity have dissapeared into it we know its black holes and not stars because black holes are known to have 2 states. Feeding states And Sleeping states When a black hole is actively feeding it glows white hot sucking in anything and everything. Other black holes have been found that are dormant. A black nothingness sitting in a cluster of stars.
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey	Posted - 2009.03.11 20:46:00 - [103] Edited by: Eventy One on 11/03/2009 20:47:29 Originally by: DaxSnake The hubble telescope has monitored these black holes and stars orbiting close to the singularity have dissapeared into it Yes the hubble telescope has monitored these graviton stars and stars orbiting close to the graviton star that has absorbed them. No one's proved it's a black hole .. and if the necessary preconditions for the formation of a black-hole are impossible, as is being suggested - than they are most certainly not black-holes (to take a side in the debate). Simply asserting it to be one without evidence, is not science. Graviton stars act and feel the same, except they don't contain singularities. Is it a black-hole simply because you assume it is?
DaxSnake	Posted - 2009.03.11 20:47:00 - [104] i edited my above post with a better reply, of Feeding and Dormant black holes.
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey	Posted - 2009.03.11 20:49:00 - [105] Edited by: Eventy One on 11/03/2009 20:50:51 Edited by: Eventy One on 11/03/2009 20:49:11 Originally by: DaxSnake i edited my above post with a better reply, of Feeding and Dormant black holes. Yet ..... ... still provide no evidence that suggests the photograph you provide is a black-hole rather than a graviton star. When a graviton star is actively feeding it glows white hot sucking in anything and everything. It still cannot be compressed below the event-horizon. It still does not contain a singularity.
DaxSnake	Posted - 2009.03.11 20:51:00 - [106] Edited by: DaxSnake on 11/03/2009 20:51:13 Originally by: Eventy One Edited by: Eventy One on 11/03/2009 20:49:11 Originally by: DaxSnake i edited my above post with a better reply, of Feeding and Dormant black holes. Yet ..... ... still provide no evidence that suggests the photograph you provide is a black-hole rather than a graviton star. When a graviton star is actively feeding it glows white hot sucking in anything and everything. i searched for a photo of a dormant black hole that is factual proof. but cant find one on google and im too lazy to click NEXT NEXT NEXT just to find one. too many kids school project pictures flooding google rather than real hubble telescope pictures. if you look up dormant black holes youll find yourself some pictures. Black holes do exist with picture proof.
DaxSnake	Posted - 2009.03.11 20:54:00 - [107] The phrases "active" and "dormant" in this context refer to the amount of material falling into the holes. As matter streams into a black hole, friction and viscosity produce large amounts of heat, which we see as radio and X-Ray emission. As the heated infalling plasma interacts with the magnetic fields, some of it is slingshotted around the hole at high velocity in "jets" directed away from the poles of the black hole. These are the characteristics of quasars and active galactic nuclei. The more matter that falls in, the more emission we see and the stronger the jets. So if a large amount of matter happens to be falling in at any particular time, we say the black hole is "active." If little to no matter happens to be falling in, we call it "dormant."
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey	Posted - 2009.03.11 20:56:00 - [108] Edited by: Eventy One on 11/03/2009 20:57:42 Originally by: DaxSnake i searched for a photo of a dormant black hole that is factual proof. but cant find one on google and im too lazy to click NEXT NEXT NEXT just to find one. too many kids school project pictures flooding google rather than real hubble telescope pictures. if you look up dormant black holes youll find yourself some pictures. Black holes do exist with picture proof. I'm glad you have faith that black-holes exist. Most scientists don't take science on faith though. Your picture, to some, as likely contains a graviton star. To those who say it does, do so on the evidence that suggests Bose-Einstein cannot be compressed to form a singularity. There is a rational reason, then, to reject faith in black-holes. If you dogmatically assert your photograph contains a black-hole, you have to provide evidence that it contains a singularity. You can't continue simply saying "see a black-hole" because it isn't if it lacks all of the properties of a black-hole - IT ISN'T ONE. If a graviton star, exists, and looks similiar to a black-hole, and behaves as we've seen these things behave (eating other massive bodies, giving off Hawking radiation), but don't suffer from the theoretical problems of black-holes, than the thing you're mis-labelling 'black-hole' IS in fact, 'graviton star'.
DaxSnake	Posted - 2009.03.11 21:01:00 - [109] Edited by: DaxSnake on 11/03/2009 21:04:57 Originally by: Eventy One Edited by: Eventy One on 11/03/2009 20:57:42 Originally by: DaxSnake i searched for a photo of a dormant black hole that is factual proof. but cant find one on google and im too lazy to click NEXT NEXT NEXT just to find one. too many kids school project pictures flooding google rather than real hubble telescope pictures. if you look up dormant black holes youll find yourself some pictures. Black holes do exist with picture proof. I'm glad you have faith that black-holes exist. Most scientists don't take science on faith though. Your picture, to some, as likely contains a graviton star. To those who say it does, do so on the evidence that suggests Bose-Einstein cannot be compressed to form a singularity. There is a rational reason, then, to reject faith in black-holes. If you dogmatically assert your photograph contains a black-hole, you have to provide evidence that it contains a singularity. You can't continue simply saying "see a black-hole" because it isn't if it lacks all of the properties of a black-hole - IT ISN'T ONE. If a graviton star, exists, and looks similiar to a black-hole, and behaves as we've seen these things behave (eating other massive bodies, giving off Hawking radiation), but don't suffer from the theoretical problems of black-holes, than the thing you're mis-labelling 'black-hole' IS in fact, 'graviton star'. Supermassive black hole "Scientists believe that most galaxies have a supermassive black hole at the center. The mass of each of those objects is thought to be between 1 million and 1 billion solar masses. Astronomers suspect that supermassive black holes formed several billion years ago from gas that accumulated in the centers of the galaxies. There is strong evidence that a supermassive black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way. Astronomers believe this black hole is a radio-wave source known as Sagittarius A* (SgrA). The clearest indication that SgrA is a supermassive black hole is the rapid movement of stars around it. The fastest of these stars appears to orbit SgrA* every 15.2 years at speeds that reach about 3,100 miles (5,000 kilometers) per second. The star's motion has led astronomers to conclude that an object several million times as massive as the sun must lie inside the star's orbit. The only known object that could be that massive and fit inside the star's orbit is a black hole." Contributor: Jeffrey E. McClintock, Ph.D., Senior Astrophysicist, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. Nothing in the universe can accumulate to what that super massive black hole is source: http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/blackhole_worldbook.html
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey	Posted - 2009.03.11 21:08:00 - [110] Originally by: DaxSnake Nothing in the universe can accumulate to what that super massive black hole is There is no theoretical limit to the current size of a graviton star. At the end of the day however, there will be many like you who are threatened by the suggestion to abandon the theory of Black-Holes. So you'll simply have to figure out a way to explain the existence of Bose-Einstein condensate, and its repulsive properties .. and deal with the idea that the formulation of singularities is impossible. I suggestion however, that dogmatically continuing to make assertions, with no recourse to evidence is, likely not the way to make your case.
DaxSnake	Posted - 2009.03.11 21:10:00 - [111] Edited by: DaxSnake on 11/03/2009 21:16:47 Edited by: DaxSnake on 11/03/2009 21:16:19 Edited by: DaxSnake on 11/03/2009 21:14:59 Originally by: Eventy One Originally by: DaxSnake Nothing in the universe can accumulate to what that super massive black hole is There is no theoretical limit to the current size of a graviton star. At the end of the day however, there will be many like you who are threatened by the suggestion to abandon the theory of Black-Holes. So you'll simply have to figure out a way to explain the existence of Bose-Einstein condensate, and its repulsive properties .. and deal with the idea that the formulation of singularities is impossible. I suggestion however, that dogmatically continuing to make assertions, with no recourse to evidence is, likely not the way to make your case. k so your like, a nobody on an internet spaceship game message board. And what i just posted is from a NASA Ph.D. Astrophysicist Yeah you know way more than him.. No You haven't even linked one source your getting your information from. So show me a credible source from an astrophysicist saying what your saying because i doubt you can do so, and it better not be something from wikipedia
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey	Posted - 2009.03.11 21:36:00 - [112] Edited by: Eventy One on 11/03/2009 21:42:18 Originally by: DaxSnake Edited by: DaxSnake on 11/03/2009 21:16:47 Edited by: DaxSnake on 11/03/2009 21:16:19 Edited by: DaxSnake on 11/03/2009 21:14:59 Originally by: Eventy One Originally by: DaxSnake Nothing in the universe can accumulate to what that super massive black hole is There is no theoretical limit to the current size of a graviton star. At the end of the day however, there will be many like you who are threatened by the suggestion to abandon the theory of Black-Holes. So you'll simply have to figure out a way to explain the existence of Bose-Einstein condensate, and its repulsive properties .. and deal with the idea that the formulation of singularities is impossible. I suggestion however, that dogmatically continuing to make assertions, with no recourse to evidence is, likely not the way to make your case. k so your like, a nobody on an internet spaceship game message board. And what i just posted is from a NASA Ph.D. Astrophysicist Yeah you know way more than him.. No You haven't even linked one source your getting your information from. So show me a credible source from an astrophysicist saying what your saying because i doubt you can do so, and it better not be something from wikipedia I'm an internet nobody? How do you know? Who exactly do you think I am? NO matter. The appeal to authority fallacy says, just because you cite a Ph.D. Astrophysicist from NASA, and I am an internet nobody - does not make your argument correct. You have to deal with what is being said, not who is doing the saying - whether your like that or not. You show a photograph, and assert that what you show is a black-hole. I question that it is. I suggest what you are showing is a graviton star. I assert the formation of a singularity is made impossible by the existence of previously unknown properties of Bose-Einstein condensate. You ignore that wee, small point. I assert as a gravitational body condenses upon itself, it becomes a star made of Bose-Einstein condensate because this has happened in a lab. You ignore that wee, small point and again assert the existence of an object that seems to require the impossible .. again without proof. You ignore what is being said and commit a logical fallacy. I point out the fallacy. I assert this is again, an example of the faith of science. There were those who rejected a round earth, and helio-centric solar system too. There were also those that rejected relativity. I'm sure this debate will long continue ...
Wulf Tarkin	Posted - 2009.03.11 21:55:00 - [113] Originally by: iudex The only wormholes i know are that caused by a worm in a apple, or special wood-worms in furniture. The wormholes in space are imaginations of crazy scientists, same as the "big bang". If someone wants to tell me there's a wormhole somewhere out there in space, i'd answer in the old Eve fashion way: proof or STFU. Quite. And the universe was created by an old man with a long white beard, with a penchant for human misery...
DaxSnake	Posted - 2009.03.11 22:01:00 - [114] Edited by: DaxSnake on 11/03/2009 22:04:52 Edited by: DaxSnake on 11/03/2009 22:03:54 Yeah you fail. Wikipedia vs Nasa.gov I actually said it better not be wikipedia and thats all you can come up with? Wikipedia You ARE NOT smarter than an Astrophysicist stop trying to sound all smart You did not dedicate your life to the study of astronomy and get a Ph.D. You are a random nobody playing a videogame. stop acting like your a supergenious who knows everything cuz he read it on wikipedia. You have no credible source for graviton stars. You have attempted to give no credible source because you cant find one and that is probably because wikipedia has no entries for your so called "graviton star". LMFAO
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey	Posted - 2009.03.11 22:04:00 - [115] Originally by: DaxSnake Yeah you fail. Wikipedia vs Nasa.gov I actually said it better not be wikipedia and thats all you can come up with? Wikipedia You ARE NOT smarter than an Astrophysicist stop trying to sound all smart because you did not dedicate your life to the study of astronomy like professionals do. You are a random nobody playing a videogame. stop acting like your a supergenious who knows everything cuz he read it on wikipedia. Again, how do you know who I am? Another common fallacy is called Ad Hominem - link for your benefit, not mine. I thought perhaps this debate would continue.
DaxSnake	Posted - 2009.03.11 22:07:00 - [116] Jesus man stop it. Now your bordering on shenanigans. You STILL haven't given a credible link for "GRAVITON STARS" now your just linking to random crap on wikipedia except the one thing your trying to prove.
DaxSnake	Posted - 2009.03.11 22:12:00 - [117] although i find it hilarious that your acting as if we're unaware if you actually may be an astrophysicist. haha YOUR NOT
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey	Posted - 2009.03.11 22:16:00 - [118] Originally by: DaxSnake Jesus man stop it. Now your bordering on shenanigans. You STILL haven't given a credible link for "GRAVITON STARS" now your just linking to random crap on wikipedia except the one thing your trying to prove. Oh, so peer reviewed theories only count if they come with an internet link? At this point, I don't believe you are actually seeking to make genuine progress understanding gravitationally massive bodies that collapse upon themselves. I don't believe I can be any more reasonable with you - given your penchants for logical fallacies. I believe, what are you are hoping to do, is find some desperate way of salvaging a theory you happen to believe as fact - because Black Holes are just too cool - not to exist. (Damn the evidence, right? They have to exist!) Although your posts encouraged me to adopt a position opposite the one you happen to have faith in, (for the sake of argument) I did so only because I know how dogmatically people refuse to accept 'evidence' that refutes their favourite theories, and you came across so dogmatically, I couldn't refuse. In any event, continued attacks on my character isn't going to resolve the debate further, so I rest my case.
DaxSnake	Posted - 2009.03.11 22:20:00 - [119] Originally by: Eventy One Originally by: DaxSnake Jesus man stop it. Now your bordering on shenanigans. You STILL haven't given a credible link for "GRAVITON STARS" now your just linking to random crap on wikipedia except the one thing your trying to prove. Oh, so peer reviewed theories only count if they come with an internet link? At this point, I don't believe you are actually seeking to make genuine progress understanding gravitationally massive bodies that collapse upon themselves. I don't believe I can be any more reasonable with you - given your penchants for logical fallacies. I believe, what are you are hoping to do, is find some desperate way of salvaging a theory you happen to believe as fact - because Black Holes are just too cool - not to exist. (Damn the evidence, right? They have to exist!) Although your posts encouraged me to adopt a position opposite the one you happen to have faith in, (for the sake of argument) I did so only because I know how dogmatically people refuse to accept 'evidence' that refutes their favourite theories, and you came across so dogmatically, I couldn't refuse. In any event, continued attacks on my character isn't going to resolve the debate further, so I rest my case. You continue to talk Yet still NO proof to your "Graviton Stars" i presented proof with a picture and a link to NASA.gov you have Nothing. and nowadays EVERYTHING is on the internet Yet 0! ZERO! results from NASA, Wikipedia or ANY web searches can find anything on what your claiming. your just blowing crap out of your ass to seem smart on a messageboard. just... shut up
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey	Posted - 2009.03.11 22:30:00 - [120] Edited by: Eventy One on 11/03/2009 22:31:06 Ok .. I'll be more direct: Your local university librarian will be more helpful to you than Google. This is a current debate in astrophysics/cosmology. PS - I'm sorry I've bruised your ego.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.