2001: A Space Odyssey????

I have some questions about Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. I really love the movie but some parts confuzzled me... First of all, what is the big black rectangle? I mean I know it's called the monolith, but what is its signifigance?? Second of all, how did it get on the moon, and what was that ringing sound? And finally, the biggie, what the heck is up with the last 20 minutes or so when the guy goes flying through space and all those colors and stuff pass him and then sees himself throughout his life in the big white place. And why is the monolith on his bed??? This movie baffles me...

2001: A Space Odyssey????coolest myspace

It is a warning. Midgets should NOT be trusted.

2001: A Space Odyssey????myspace comments myspace.com

It was meant to baffle you, and provoke thought. You should watch it a few more times and then ponder those answers you're asking.
This is from wiki...but for some reason I cant post a link...maybe this will help, or even confuse you more! Good luck!!

2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 science fiction film directed by Stanley Kubrick, written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke. The film deals with thematic elements of human evolution, technology, artificial intelligence, and extraterrestrial life, and is notable for its scientific realism, pioneering special effects, provocatively ambiguous and often surreal imagery, sound in place of traditional narrative techniques, and a very minimal use of dialogue.

Despite receiving mixed reviews upon release, 2001: A Space Odyssey is today recognized by critics and audiences as one of the greatest films ever made; the 2002 Sight %26amp; Sound poll of critics ranked it among the top ten films of all time.[1] It was nominated for four Academy Awards, and received one for visual effects. In 1991, it was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in their National Film Registry.

The title sequence begins with an image of the Earth rising over the Moon, while the Sun rises over the Earth.

Over images of an African desert, a caption reads "The Dawn of Man". A tribe of prehistoric ape-men is struggling to survive in the dry desert. One morning, a mysterious black rectangular monolith appears near their habitat and is examined by the nervous apes. Following this encounter, a lone ape-man (Daniel Richter) invents the first tool when he picks up a bone from a pile and discovers he can use it as a club to crush other bones. This ape-man, now standing partially upright, leads the tribe in defense of their waterhole against another tribe, using the new weapon to club an enemy ape to death. The victorious ape-man throws his weapon into the air, at which point the film jumps to the future, in a match cut that links the tumbling bone to an orbital satellite.

A Pan American spaceplane carrying only one passenger, Dr. Heywood R. Floyd (William Sylvester) docks with an Earth-orbital space station. From the station, Floyd makes a videophone call to his daughter on Earth (played by Vivian Kubrick). He then encounters an old friend, Elena, one of a group of Soviet scientists. When he says he is traveling to the American base in Clavius crater, one of the Soviets, Dr. Andrei Smyslov (Leonard Rossiter), asks why no one has been able to contact Clavius, mentioning that Clavius had even denied emergency landing permission to a Soviet shuttle, in violation of international agreements. Floyd feigns surprise, but when Smyslov presses him for further details, alluding to "very reliable intelligence reports" that a serious epidemic of unknown origin has broken out at Clavius, and expresses concern that the epidemic might spread to the Soviet base, Floyd replies that he is "not at liberty" to comment.

Floyd travels to Clavius Base on a lunar shuttle. At the Base, Floyd meets scientists and administrators and speaks about the importance of hiding the true reason for the base's suspicious quarantine. He states that the cover story of an epidemic and a base-wide communications black-out will remain in effect until their superiors on Earth decide otherwise. He reminds them of "the potential for cultural shock and social disorientation" that the discovery presents. Though ostensibly there to assess the situation and make a report, Floyd informs those present that new security oaths are required from all personnel.

During a later moonbus ride to the excavation, a discussion between Floyd and a base administrator reveals they have discovered an alien object, "deliberately buried" on the Moon four million years earlier. At the dig site, the scientists approach an identical monolith to that found by the man-apes; like them, Floyd strokes its smooth surface. The scientists gather around it for a group photo but are interrupted when a continuous high-pitched tone is picked up by their radio receivers, apparently triggered by the first rays of the sun to reach the monolith since its burial.

At this point, a caption reads "Jupiter Mission: Eighteen Months Later". On board the spaceship Discovery One, bound for Jupiter, are two mission pilots, astronauts Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood), and three scientists "sleeping" in cryogenic hibernation. Dave and Frank watch a BBC television program about themselves, in which the "sixth member" of the crew, the HAL 9000 supercomputer (voiced by Douglas Rain), is introduced and interviewed. The interview reveals that the supercomputer is the pinnacle in artificial intelligence, with an error-free performance record. HAL 9000 is designed to communicate and interact like a human, and even mimics (or reproduces) human emotions; in fact the astronauts have learned to treat it like another crewman, addressing it as "Hal".

During an informal conversation with Dave, HAL raises concerns about the unusual secrecy surrounding the mission, and repeats rumors about "something being dug up on the moon." When Dave suggests that HAL's quizzical conversation is actually part of his "crew psychology report," HAL abruptly reports an imminent equipment malfunction. He claims to have detected a defect in a component of the ship's communications system. Dave exits the Discovery in an EVA pod to retrieve and replace the faulty AE-35 unit, but upon detailed examination no fault can be found. Mission controllers back on Earth assert that HAL is "in error in predicting the fault", something unheard of for the 9000 series. HAL suggests another EVA mission to restore the part and wait for it to fail: this will determine the problem. Hiding their concern, Dave and Frank retreat to a pod to discuss, in secret, HAL's questionable reliability. They finally agree to "disconnect" him should the AE-35 not fail, as he predicted. Unbeknownst to them, however, HAL is reading their lips.

As Dave watches from inside Discovery, Frank exits in a pod to put back the original AE-35. While Frank is performing the EVA, HAL takes control of the empty pod, and accelerates it at Frank, severing his oxygen hose and sending his body tumbling in space. Dave hurriedly exits the ship in another pod to rescue Frank, forgetting to bring his space helmet. While Dave is outside, HAL kills the three hibernating scientists by deactivating their life support systems.

Upon returning to the ship with Frank's lifeless body, Dave is refused reentry into the ship by HAL. HAL reveals that he knows of Frank and Dave's plan to disconnect him, and asserts that the mission is "too important" to allow any human to jeopardize it. HAL terminates the conversation. After releasing Frank's body, Dave opens an air lock, and activates the pod's emergency hatch bolts. The explosive decompression propels him into the airlock, exposed to the vacuum of space without a helmet, but he manages to close and pressurize the airlock.

Safely inside the ship, Dave enters HAL's 'Logic Memory Center'. As HAL futilely attempts to negotiate with him, Dave proceeds to disconnect his higher brain functions. HAL pleads and protests his termination, slowly regresses to past memories, sings a song he learned during his initial programming, and finally falls silent. Suddenly, a pre-recorded video briefing by Dr. Floyd plays, explaining the true nature of the mission — to investigate the signal sent to Jupiter from the alien artifact on the Moon. Floyd discloses that the secret mission had been known only to HAL until the ship's arrival in Jupiter space.

A caption reads "Jupiter and beyond the Infinite". A third monolith is seen in orbit around Jupiter. As the planet and its moons and the monolith appear to align, Dave exits Discovery One in a pod to investigate. He appears to travel across vast distances of space and time through a "Star Gate," a tunnel of colorful light and imagery and sound. After passing over the landscape of an alien world, Bowman arrives in a futuristic room containing Louis XVI-style decor[2] which was modeled after The Dorchester hotel in London.[3] As he walks about the room, he repeatedly sees himself at later stages of aging, first in his spacesuit, then in an ornate dressing robe, sitting down to a well-appointed meal. The older Dave accidentally knocks his glass on the floor, smashing it and breaking the silence. Looking up from the broken glass, he sees himself lying on what appears to be his deathbed, at the foot of which appears a final monolith. Dave slowly reaches out to it and is transformed into a fetus-like being enclosed in a transparent orb of light — the "Star Child". The film suddenly returns to space near the Moon and Earth. Floating in space, the Star Child gazes at Earth.

Main article: Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey

Since its premiere, 2001: A Space Odyssey has been analyzed and interpreted by multitudes of people ranging from professional movie critics to amateur writers and science fiction fans. Kubrick encouraged people to explore their own interpretations of the film, and refused to offer an explanation of "what really happened" in the movie, preferring instead to let audiences embrace their own ideas and theories. In a 1968 interview with Playboy magazine, Kubrick stated:

“ You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point.[34] ”

The primary technical adv
Go to this website: www.kubrick2001.com

It explains everything, and also mentions that the film is open to your own interpretations as well.

Hard drive space issues?

It says on my C drive that I have 1.20GBs free space. I'm trying to download something that requires 945MB on my hard drive. So why does it say I don't have enough space? I also tried removing some programs, but it didn't seem to help at all.

It's a Sony Vaio by the way, if that helps.

Uhh I'm not really good at computers and such, so sorry if this isn't quite specific enough.

Please tell me what to do to fix this! :(

Hard drive space issues?div myspace

I suggest buying a larger hard drive for your computer . I have a 160 Gigabyte hard drive and have plenty of room. jIf a new hard drive is out of the question, you can compress the one you have. That will allow more room...Good luck.

Hard drive space issues?new myspace myspace.com

945Mb is nearly 1Gb. When you are downloading your C:\ Drive wherein the Operating System is installed needs double size as the file you download.

Your computer saves the file first on a Temporary internet files located in your C: drive and then save (Copy not Cut) it to another directory which you specified during download. This process is for safe transferring of files and thus does not require a delete action until you shutdown your computer. Explain further : Your computer saves the files twice and the other one will be deleted after shutdown. Uninstalling programs won't work since most programs need less disc space.

Buying an additional Hard drive is the perfect solution.

Space Dream?

Last night I dreamed that me and my friends were on this ride thing that actually takes you into space. It was a two seater and I was stuck in the middle. We all had space gear on and while we were in space I almost fell out of the ride. I held on and when we got back to Earth there was a swimming pool at the carnival and I went swimming but accidently drained all the water out? What does this mean?

Space Dream?good myspace

This may mean that your friend and you have a wild time at times, and are willing to explore things and be adventuresome. You may feel at times that thing get a little to wild and you almost get into trouble. You may feel like sometimes you mess up or do something by accident that can take away from the fun or the feeling that people are enjoying{the swimming pool incident in the dream}. Nobody is perfect and things can go wrong at times, try not to dwell too much on the things that go wrong. One does need to always be a little vigilant or careful in life, but things will go wrong at times. One can just learn from the past and move on. At least the dream shows a willingness to try new things, and explore new frontiers to a degree. Meditate/pray, exercise, and eat healthy, so that you will stay strong spiritually, and have positive adventures in your life.

Is space cold in the solar system?

They say space is cold. I've heard say that it is actually 0 degrees kelvin in the absence of a star. So we have the sun radiating heat, but they say space is cold. So two questions, if it is cold in space, even around the earth, then what causes the heat of the sun to materialise once inside the atmosphere? And if space is cold, how close could we get to the sun without feeling it's effect?

Is space cold in the solar system?layouts for myspace

look at it this way... if you hold your hand close to a lightbulb, do you feel the heat? if you hold your hand farther away... you feel less heat.

there is a thing called 'blackbody' temperature, its sorta like your hand in space feeling the temp of the Sun. (actually, your hand would be cooler, cause its not perfect black).

I don't remember the numbers, but at the distance of the Earth, the 'blackbody' temp is something like 30 degrees F or so...

Space is neither hot nor cold... you need a medium to show its average kinetic energy, but an object in space exposed to the Sun would acheive an interesting temperature, depending on how much light it reflects.

(yes, you would get warmer closer to the Sun)

Is space cold in the solar system?famous myspace myspace.comcheck the stefan-boltzmann equation to determine the temperature at any distance from the Sun... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... Report It


Space is not cold if you are closely exposed to the radiation of the sun. For example, it is +200 degrees if the moon is in sunlight, but -200 degrees if in the dark. The suns radiation gets converted to heat when ever in light.
Actually, the average temperature in space is about 3 Kelvin. Yes, it is very cold in the solar system if you're not on a planet with sufficient atmosphere to hold the temperature.

.
Depends on your distance from the sun, and whether you're on a planet that has an atmosphere.

The earth would be really cold if it didn't have an atmosphere, with a certain amount of greenhouse effect.
The Sun's heat is transmitted through space as Infrared RADIATION .. when this hits the earths atmosphere it warms up the gas molecules ..

NB. Space is not that cold .. background temp. is at least 3 Kelvin (Big bang) and most places will receive at least some star light (i.e. some IR radiation)
heat from the sun travels as energy, and is converted into heat energy when it interacts with the particles in our atmosphere. There are very little particles floating around in space, so little to carry the energy as heat energy, rather than light energy, so space is cold.
Yes!
Yes it is
Sun's Radiations cause the earth's surface %26amp; air in the atmosphere around to heat up. That is why we feel warm due to atmosphere and earth gaining the heat.

The green house gases (like CO2, Ozone etc) in the atmosphere do not allow this heat to escape, we feel warm within the atmosphere. (more the green house gases, more heat thereby increasing the temperature, the green house gases are causing Global Warming).

However, in space, there is no atmosphere, there is virtually nothing to hold the heat of radiations from the sun, that is why, it is very cold in the atmosphre.

If the earth doesnot have atmosphere then during day, we will experience much cold nights. Due to same reasons, at moon, the nights are very cold.

I have no confirm answer for your 2nd question.

Space swimming pool molecular gravity strength question?

Food for thought.

Let's say we have an olympic sized swimming pool volume of water in space and it's in a air filled room just like pools on earth. Only difference is no gravity in space so you will have a shape of some sort in space different than on earth but a large volume of water none the less.

Now let's enter the pool and get totally submerged just like on earth. We have a swim suit on but no air other than how long we can hold our breath so no space suit or scuba tanks. So now that we are in/under water could we just move our hands around and create an air pocket in the pool of water to breath in? our is this even possible to do? Sort of like an air bubble in jello.

Just wondering what you think.

I think there must be a real way to answer the question with physics and math but don't know how to prove it.

Thanks

Space swimming pool molecular gravity strength question?hidden myspace

Well ... you need to get the air from somewhere. So no.

Water in space will tend to form a sphere, the largest volume to smallest surface area, due to surface tension. This also implies that any bubbles that would exist inside the sphere of water would tend to move towards the surface of the water and "burst".

Heres a cool video on roughly this topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyTwLAW-Z...

Space swimming pool molecular gravity strength question?myspace generators myspace.com

You would have to make a "hole" to the outside of the water.I think the water would be too unstable and the hole would collapse before you got a breath of air. (to the other answerers...he said it was in an air filled room...but good point...it would have to be heated)
well ,, no air in space - so if you break up the water you still pooched -- and creating a pocket in the water will not do anything either cause you can not make air out of nothing,. but that's assuming you and the water didn't freeze into a huge ice cube in a few minuets anyhoo :)
Well, if the water and air are in an enclosure that has mass, then the water and air will be drawn to the enclosure. But, because the water has a greater mass than the air, it will have a greater attraction to the walls. Therefore, theoretically, the water would "part" around an air bubble in the center of the room. But, no, if you would move your hands around in the water, the water would become displaced, but there would be no air to fill the void, because there wouldn't be a void, just a pressure differential. I hope that answers your question.
Item 1.) In space a huge volume of water would fairly rapidly become a solid mass of ice because the temperature in space is 3 Degrees Kelvin...something like Minus 376 Degrees Fahrenheit if my math is correct. you failed to mention how far away from the nearest planet your huge pool of water was located, and at what speed you were flying, so I am unable to determine what kind of gravitational situation you might have. No mention was made of the spin characteristics of your space ship on which the pool of water was located...so I have the same problem again...

Water in space turns into ice crystals. Even gases turn to liquids and freeze into ice in space...So I don't think you will ever reach the ideal situation where you might take a "swim." And, worst of all, there is no AIR PRESSURE in space. So, any attempt to venture out there would result in your own body exploding due to the internal 14 PSI Pressure attempting to equalize with the Zero PSI pressure outside.

sorry..

Regards,

Zah
If the containment of the water is large enough, it will form into a spherical blob. You could dive into it and swim back to the surface, where your momentum would be greater than the surface tension and you would continue on out, bringing lots of droplets out with you. You would not be able to breathe or hold your breath underwater any better than if it was on earth.

If the container for the water was less than twice the volume of the water, it would eventually stick to the walls of the container if agitated enough. This has been demonstrated with water in a bottle. It formed around the sides with a big bubble in the middle. The bubble was difficult to dislodge even with significant agitation. But if you could keep the blob of water at the center, not allowing contact with the walls, it would stay in a blob.

BIG SPACE TEST HELP?please please please?

I have this huge space test tomorrow and I need you older guy's help! Ok, I put down the questions, you see if you know the answer, if you do put the number and your answer. Thanks a lot for helping me out! :)

1. What are comets?

2. Who discovered 3 laws of planetary motion?

3. What are astroids?

4. How does the moon effect the Earth?

5. Why is space travel important? (2 ways)

6. How has space travel changed?

7.Who was the first man in space?

8. Why is the space shuttle important?

9. How do astronauts train for traveling in space?

Ok guys, I hope you know some of these answers. And please just dont put down any old answer. i need to know and memorize these by tomorrow for the big test! I hope you know there are more but I have the answers! Get them space books out and get them fingers movin'! Go go go go go! Please help me or burn! LOL J/K ~*Alyssa*~

BIG SPACE TEST HELP?please please please?fake myspace

1. Stuff to clean the sink

2. Newton who is same guy that discovered fig Newtons

3. a narley video game in the early 80's not to be confused with Hemorrhoids.

4Be care full when you moon somebody as you can get arrested.

5a, gave old german scientists somthing better to do than launch missiles at England,b,Tang

6 Dont use catapults anymore..today we can beam people up

7 Monkey

8 Good to use up taxpayers money

9 Drive a long way in a car wearing big daipers

AND READ A BOOK ONCE IN A WHILE . Live will not give you answeres just because you ask.

BIG SPACE TEST HELP?please please please?myspace pics myspace.com

1. Comets are made of ice %26amp; rock, and when they get close to the sun, they emit particles that form a tail because of solar wind.

2. Johannes Kepler

3. Asteroids are the rocky material left over from the creation of the solar system. The asteroid belt is found between Mars %26amp; Jupiter, however, asteroids may be found anywhere.

4. Primarily, the moon exerts a tidal force on the Earth, raising %26amp; lowering oceans by as much as 30 feet in 6 hours.

5. Space travel is important because it teaches us so much. While we can conserve energy and fuel on Earth, a space station MUST be very effecient to survive. Space Travel will ultimately teach us how to stretch our materials here on Earth.

6. The first people in space were on relatively small rockets, boosting just one man for a very short time. Today, we've learned how to launch multiple people at once, along with very large payloads, with missions lasting, for some people, months.

7. Yuri Gagarin, a Russian Cosmonaut.

8. The space shuttle is America's most powerful manned launch vehicle, boosting up to 60 tons and 7 astronauts at once. It was designed to carry men %26amp; supplys into low earth orbit, for the construction of a space station.

9. In many ways; a LOT of study, a LOT of simulation - the "Vomit Comet" is a plane that flys parabolic arcs, allowing occupants to experience microgravity for 30-40 seconds. For training on materials, NASA has a huge pool that astronauts train in to get the 'feel' of floating. (even though gravity still acts on them.)
1.Big chunks of ice that orbits a sun and melt when to close and make a tail at that point.

2.Galileo and Isaac,he corrected them.

3.Chunks of rock in space left over from the creation of planets

4.By creating tides

5.To learn more about space and to set up bases to do scientific discovers

6.New rocket fuel, better rockets, new tech basically!

7.Buzz Aldrin

8.To fix the Space station, Hubble space telescope, fixing things collecting outer space material and in shuttle labs

9.G-force machine, training under water for fitness, and the weightlessness effect box (don't know it real name but it simulates the space weightlessness effect)

Hope that helps!
Sweety if we answer your questions you will never learn anything,then you will be like some of the people on here asking silly questions, that don't amuse anybody but themselves.

Space the final frontier?

Am i the only one concerned about space flights. What happens to our atmosphere everytime a space rocket or shuttle goes into space.

We are being told time and time again about global warming can anyone tell me just how much is caused by rockets leaving our earth, and shuttles coming back

Space the final frontier?guy myspace

The answer is that spacecraft contribute so small a fraction to global warming it isn't signifigant. Here's some figures to show you why:

Last year (2006) there were a total of 68 rockets launchend into space world wide. The Shuttle flights (three) are the largest vehicles used currently. They use about 3.6 million pounds of fuel each. However, MOST of that is not emitted as Co2. Rocket fuels generally are among the cleanest fuels used.

But--for the sake of arguement, lets assume all of that was CO2 and that all the rockets were as large as the shuttle. That woudl add up to less than 250, 000 tons of CO2. But--the US burns enough fossil fuel each year to releas about 7 BILLION tons of CO2 into the atmosphere--28,000 times as much.

As forre-entries, while they generate heat, they don't release any CO2 into the atmosphere. and the problem isn't heat released--its that the CO2 is trapping that heat. But the heat released on reentry is far less than what the sun delivers to every square mile of the Earth's surface every year--in other words, not enough to matter--and far, far, less than evey a few hundred cars generate.

And--despite what many people seem to think, for that tiny amount of heat/CO2--we get enormous benefits. Weather satellites, Communications satellites, GPS technology, satellite TV and radio. Ohtther benefits less well known--much of our land-use and agricultural planning (and hence economic production) depends on satellites. And that's not even counting the technologiclal gains space travel provides (past examples include modern computer systems technology, fuel cells, solar energy, medical diagnostic technology, and composite materials like those used inthe new Boing 787.

Take that last. Aircraft generate hundreds of times the CO2 of the space launches. Those new materiels in the 787 cut that fuel use by 20%. That means that that one gain from space travel will soon cut the worldwide CO2 emissions by many times the amount generated by rockets going into space.

And--bear this in mind. We CAN'T bring CO2 emissions to zero--nor do we need to. We do need to cut them drastically--by at least 60%--perhaps more--in the next 50 years. But things like the space program--that have a high payoff ad that give us new technology that "pays for" the CO2 released--are exactly the places we need to invest more heavily in. The processes that continue to emit CO2 need to be just that sort of thing. Wher we need to look for reductions are the "waste" areas--inefficient cars and other devices, switching to alternatives when its feasible, etc. Keep what CO2 emissions we do allw for things where its really needed.

Space the final frontier?plain myspace myspace.com

It makes small holes about 3 times a year. But what are the other 6 billion people doing for the whole of the year, every year? Save the planet, don't have kids.
Shuttles glide back, using no fuel.

More stuff is expelled into the atmosphere by volcanoes each year than all the shuttles and cars combined, I wouldn't worry about it if I were you.
Overall, not much. I would say about as much as any other international flight. It just the fuel is used in the first minutes instead of over 14 hours.

The landing is done by gliding, so no fuel is used. Thats why the shuttle has those big wings. Wings are not needed in space, they are needed for the gliding landing.
you want to worry about something.....worry about the aliens sucking our atmosphere away. yeah thats the big worry.
It's such a small thing, cars, coal burning power stations, and proper aeroplane's. Them are the dangers!
In the big picture a rocket taking off is a grain of sand on a beach and makes very little differents, the return flight is zero other commercial and none necessary military flight are another matter, you must realise that less than 10% of the planets population are doing anything about global warming, because they are what are classed as developing countries.
I have thought about this and I am of the same mind as you.

If an aeroplane is so bad for the environment then a rocket has to be a whole lot worse. Consider the power it takes to get one up and you cant begin to calculate the difference!

I think its bound to have a marked effect and I would be interested to know how many of them actually go up each year.
Take a look at what a current commercial airliner puts out and multiply that by over 20,000 flights per day. It's a scarry number. Aviation and the environment are on a collision course. The number of airline flights worldwide is growing and expected to skyrocket over the coming decades. Aircraft emissions pollute the air and threaten by 2050 to become one of the largest contributors to global warming, British scientists have concluded. Much remains unknown about climate change and the role aviation plays, though climate scientists express particular concern about jet emissions in the upper atmosphere, where the warming effect from some pollutants is amplified. Now, aviation is believed to be less a factor in the Earth's warming than power plants or vehicular traffic. But its emissions are considerable. On a New York-to-Denver flight, a commercial jet would generate 840 to 1,660 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger. That's about what an SUV generates in a month. With the projected explosion in worldwide travel, air pollution from aviation is a growing concern among scientists, and it's drawing increased scrutiny from governments, particularly in Europe.
Shuttle flights are government funded activities performed by scientists. One of the goals is to install and maintain satellites that prove global warming. Therefore, any damage caused is acceptable. Same concept as Al Gore flying a private jet to Live Earth.
what a waste of money, i read some where in a religious book that when earthly polutions contaminate the heavens and the stench reaches the nostrills of god, that will be when he comes down to sort the mess, space is full of junk from earth, we cant keep anything clean.
I would like a rocket a day sent to the Sun to dispose of all the enriched uranium waste, since that is the only place we could despose of the worst global pollutant, in 2050 it will not be Co2. thats the problem but radio activity polluting our water supply
The answer from Crabby Blindguy (above) puts it nicely into perspective. The impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions from space flight really is just a very tiny proportion of the total amount.

I know some people share a concern that the rockets and shuttles are knocking holes in the atmosphere. But this isn't something that people need worry about. A rocket flying into space pushes air out of the way as it travels just as we do when driving a car or walking down the street. As soon as the rocket moves on air rushes back in to fill the void and in this respect it's not causing any damage.
Space rockets use a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen as fuel so the only waste their engines produce is water

How much space does world of warcraft take up?

i play world of warcraft on my desktop and im thinking about getting a laptop. i want to put world of warcraft on it but im not sure how much space it took up. i looked at the box and when i went into a laptop store i was told u needed much more space than the box says, can someone please tell me how much space it takes.

How much space does world of warcraft take up?deleted myspace

Around 4 gigs of space

How much space does world of warcraft take up?myspace names myspace.com

it takes upward of 4-5 gig, then this will constantl increase as new patches come out, but it will only increase slowly
my WoW folder takes up 9.75 gigs and thats with burning crusade and a good number of mods
it depends on the stuff you put in it like patches and mods. it generally ranges from 3.5 - 5 gigs
Around 4-5 gigs
I just recently bought WoW with the Burning Crusade expansion and my World of Warcraft folder takes up 8.68gb of space.
i am using desktop and it only takes up what the box says whoever told u that there fluked up

Space Program...What happened to it anyway??

I was thinking about this the other day. When I was younger, the space program was going great, sending people in space on a consistent basis. And here we are some 45 plus years later, and we can't even get a shuttle to stay up? How could we walk on the moon in 1969, and yet all these years later, the program has regressed! It just seems odd that we have not advanced further in the space program?? What are your thoughts people in their 40's plus??

Space Program...What happened to it anyway??layouts for music myspace

Budget has a lot to do with it.. naturally you can't do this major things without the money... but I don't think that's the full answer.

Firstly, the space program was really a part of the cold war. Because the USSR got satellites and men into space before the US, there was a great drive of national feeling to beat them at getting a man on the moon. You'll notice after that was achieved, things started to go down hill rapidly.

Secondly, I think there's a much greater mood of selfishness in today's society, which has displaced the desire to do great things together (ie. as a society). There has been many decades of relative peace and prosperity (in the western world) and, in my opinion, this has made people "dumb, fat and lazy". Society now is content to focus on self-enjoyment things - largely driven by the corporate push to buy more "stuff".

Finally, I think that there's a level of risk aversion which goes along with being prosperious. After the second world war, with all it's death and huge risky endevours, the risks involved in sending men into space were just accepted as normal. Nowadays we baulk at risky endevours and don't seem to be prepared to take chances, either with our lives or with our wealth.

Space Program...What happened to it anyway??view myspace myspace.com

We are now in national debt, Wherner vonBrauhn is dead (sorry for sp), and Bush feels like it would make 'The people of these great states to hate me. And we cant have that!'

Although, I am nowhere near 40.... =)
The space program has stagnated because of a stingy Congress, and an apathetic American public.
2 words

Budget -----cuts
We have become risk adverse. Everything we do, whether at work or play, and everything our society does is designed to minimize the risk of litigation. Our judicial system is eating the national organism like a ramphant cancer, and everything and everyone is either hiding or fleeing. Put another way, our dreams and our can do attitude are but a distant memory. If there is ever a return to the space program it will come from another place; from somewhere beyond the reach of our predatory legal system.
I am 40plus. I agree that when we were young we imagined lunar bases and manned Mars missions by the year 2000. It has been a huge disappointment.

There was controversy over budget spending even during the Apollo missions. But America understood the goals of reaching the Moon before 1970 and it was accomplished.

Following that, NASA couldn't come up with any clear mission objectives and the American public lost interest. The budget cuts soon followed due to recession in the 1970's. As I understand it, the Reagan administration favored unmanned probes to the more expensive manned missions and it set the tone for the next 20 years.

The shuttle design was flawed from the start. It was not the best design in the 1980's. It was the cheapest. I can remember reading science magazines in the late 70's which stated that the new shuttles would be taking off at a rate of one per month. Setbacks and failures moved that to 3 or 4 per year.

Wars and the defense budget have sucked the American taxpayer dry. The few dollars that are left can be budgeted towards other programs including the space program.

Considering the money that NASA has had to work with, probes have given us much valuable information about our Solar System.

It is thanks to the aging space shuttles that we can refocus on manned missions. The shuttles will soon be replaced with more technologically advanced and more efficient models. A new space race to landing a man on Mars has renewed interest from the public. This all hopefully will reflect in more dollars to the program.

Thankfully, Bush Jr has taken a leadership role in a goal of constructing permanent moonbases. Unfortunately, he is also a warmonger.

It would probably help if more people were informed of the multitude of benefits we have received as a result of the space program. Also, it might help if NASA presented more goals to the American public to stir more interest and support. It is congress and the White House which determine funding amounts. This can only increase if the public demands it.

Until then, it is good to stay in touch with what the unmanned probes are accomplishing. Much of the information they gather is truly amazing.
Yup, I miss the glory days too. I would suggest that two reasons contribute to the decline. One is the decline in enthusiasm of the taxpayers for what was, after all, an expensive endeavor after the success of the Moon landing.

The other reason would be the Space Shuttle itself. You'll recall that the whole point was to come up with a re-usable "space truck" that was to make it very cheap to get materials and people into orbit. It turned out to be much more expensive to maintain and operate than they had ever dreamed. And when the Challenger blew up on take-off it became clear that it never would live up to the hope of economic space travel. I suspect that the International Space Station is largely there to simply give the space shuttle something to do. I suppose, at that point in time, they didn't want to just give up on it.
If you measure progress by how far we have sent a human being from earth, then we have gone backwards. But sending men to the moon and having them return safely was as much a political exercise as a scientific one. It was to show up the Soviets and build up pride in the American public. Not that it didn't advance science, but that was probably a fringe benefit to politicians. Once we got there, public interest waned, and funding dried up.

Since then, the Soviet space stations have done much to explore the biological effects of long stays in 0g on the human body. The shuttle, while it may not be the perfect launch vehicle, has looked at how we do perform a wide range of tasks in space, such as repair and performing scientific experiments in 0g. All of this is paving the way for the space stations of the future, which is IMHO is a more worthwhile endeavor than racing to the moon.

But perhaps the most exciting advance (for me at least) is that privately-funded craft have reached space, and it probably won't be long before ordinary folk (well okay, rich ordinary folk ) will be able to escape the atmosphere and look down at Earth. So I'd say we have come a long way.
When vehicles leave the Earth's magnetic field they are subject to radiation micrometeorites and extremes of temperature. The first astronauts to venture away from the van allen belt failed to report the flashes in their eyes until they returned to Earth. When particles travelling at high speed encounter the Earth's magnetic field, light is produced, it is one of the reasons why life has flourished here.
well back in the days of the apollo missions man was exploring the moon, Then after we went there so many times there was no reason to go back because for one thing its very costly and the american people and congress did not want to spend any more money on it, Then enter all the different whitehouse administrations and peoples in congress and the bickering about going back to space it had put everything on hold and in disarray, i was around in the apollo era and I too thought we would be on Mars by now, But finally america has came to their senses and realized that hey, it may be in our best interest to locate a place that we can retreat to once earth has been used up, So now president Bush has gave the greenlight to nasa to go to mars and eventually beyond, if one thinks about it , it only makes sense to do so, Its about time the american government along with the ESA has opened their eyes
yes one could call it a shame... but..

why do we have a space-program ?

to get to know science output from it.

This can be achieved by sending unmanned probes what is done multiple times a year.

sooo why do we need a shuttle ? why do we need people anywhere else than onboard the ISS ?

the science outcome is more and more worse, cause we already know lots of things. So along with that where you get money from in times the average citizen in the US wanted to see Sadam Hussein bleed in iraq.

and why ?

General opinion today .. better to have fuel for the car than people on the moon.

But the situation may change if Helium3 is needed for nuclear fusion, which can be found on the moon in larger ammounts. wait another 20 years and see us flying again.

Space shuttle thrusting in space?

Since there is no atmosphere in space, how does a space shuttle direct itself after it has left the moon ssurface?? THe thrusters wont have anytihng to push against, how do they work?

Space shuttle thrusting in space?myspace ip

One of the basic principles of physics (Newton's Third Law) is that for every action (force) there is an opposite and equal reaction (force). The principle of a rocket motor may be understood by considering the example of a closed container filled with a compressed gas. Within this container the gas exerts equal pressure on every point of its walls. If a hole is punched in the bottom of the container, however, the gas at the bottom escapes and the pressure against the top of the container is no longer equalized. The internal gas pressure then pushes the container upwards in reaction to the jet of air escaping downwards. The amount of thrust developed by a rocket motor depends mainly on two factors, the velocity with which the burning gases leave the combustion chamber, and the mass of the burning gases.

This website for answer confirmation and more info --%26gt; http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_7...

God is spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G

PBrax@netscape.com

Space shuttle thrusting in space?myspace co myspace.com

Actually there is atmosphere just very little.
the shuttle doesnt go to the moon. it orbits the earth . has something to do with the earth's gravitational pull or something.
There is a differential in pressure within the motors themselves. Just like a balloon you blow up there is high pressure inside the balloon pushing outwards in every direction on the surfaces of the balloon. The opening of the balloon (a rocket motor nozzle) has no pressure, therefore the forward pressure is not canceled and moves the balloon (rocket) in that direction.
yes
The expanding gases exiting the thruster push on the inside of the thruster with the same force as they exit with, the gases take the path of least resistance, that being the nozzle. Thrusters don't push against an "atmosphere," they simply expel their waste gases from the combustion process.
Study Physics and the Name Newton shines like a star because he found "Laws" of physics and Newtons Third Law would tell you that "Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction" which would let you know why the thrusters work in space. Refer to another more comprehensive answer alread posted by someone for a better answer than this one which forces the reader to think for himself.

Ha HA

Regards and all the best
The space shuttle never goes to the moon.

Nothing like the space shuttle has ever been to the moon.

Would be kinda neet to compare the two vihicles.

Kinda neet to imagin what a moon ready space shuttle would look like it would have to be allot different if it was gona go to the moon AND come back.

Well supposedly the next time we goto the moon is 2018.

Lockheed Martin has a proposal for a moon vehicle its like a limazine compared to 1969.

http://space.com/news/050914_nasa_cev_up...

I doubt it will look like what is ilistrated but still neet idea.
An interesting aspect about rockets designed for use in space: they tend to be more efficient than they could ever be in the atmosphere. An important function of a rocket nozzle is to expand the exhaust gases and obtain additional thrust from this expansion. A measure of this ability is its expansion ratio, the ratio of the areas at the exit plane (the end of the nozzle bell) and at the throat (point of minimum area). In space, the optimum expansion ratio is "as much as you can get", so the expansion ratio actually used is a tradeoff involving the desire for the maximum vs. the weight and size penalty. In the atmosphere the optimum expansion ratio is smaller; once the exit-plane pressure falls below atmospheric pressure, the exhaust is overexpanded and there is a negative thrust penalty due to the resulting suction.

Help with removing the background white space in my drawing so I can attach it to my web page as a I

I want the image I draw to look as though it hovers without the framed white space. I used Windows Paint program to edit it into a GIF format. When I uploaded it using TinyPic - Share to obtain a HTML code (to use on MySpace.com) it still had the framed white space I don't want. I'm missing a step or two on how to remove the white space. I have tried cropping but, it's not a photo. I tried using CoffeeCup HTML Editor and still got background white space.

How do I remove the "white space"?

What Editor program will do the job of removing the white space and leave me with just the image.

Please give the Web address or product!

I just want my drawing to appear on my web page looking like a banner or icon with-out any background framed white space attached with it.

I will also need to be able to take the finished image and up load it into TinyPic.com to create an HTML code to place it in my MySpace web page. Recently I went and bought Adobe "Photoshops Elements 6" have not fond it yet .

Help with removing the background white space in my drawing so I can attach it to my web page as a Icon.?deleted myspace

u need to save the gif for web and have white as a transparent bg....can be done w/ PNG as well.

I use Photoshop, not elements, so i don't know if there is a SAVE FOR WEB feature, but if so...it would be Control+ALT+SHIFT+S (hold control, alt and shift down, then press S) OR go to file%26gt;save for web

then save as GIF and put it at 256 colors...then there is a drop down...drop to transparency....and click on the WHITE swatch...your white bg will now be transparent.

Space fabric true or false?

einstein hypothesised that earth follows the contor of the space fabric round the sun. yet all planets have diff orbits ranging fro circular to highly elliptical so there is something funny going on. besides the artificial satellites will have to follow an orbit dtermined by these countours in the space fabric, and this is certainly not true. so the space seems according to einstein a heck of a crazy mixed up place

Space fabric true or false?myspace pages

What you're talking about is a 3-D representation of what mass does to space time in 4-D. It makes it easier for most people to understand what's going on with the distortions in space-time that we percieve as gravity. It doesn't actually exist as a fabric.

Go find one of those old-fashioned coin-collectors in the mall. Usually they are made of yellow plastic, and have a chute for sending a coin rolling around the inside of a giant funnel. By donating a few coins to the charity that put the collector there, you can see that different coins can indeed go through the same 'gravity well' along different paths. In the same way, different planets and satellites can have different kinds of paths through the same gravity well. It all depends on their initial position and velocity.

Yes, Einstein's gravity is indeed very confusing. There's probably no more than a handful of people in the world who really understand all of it.

Space fabric true or false?live com myspace.com

true, a tear happens when a star implodes creating a black hole sucking in everything (like Paris Hilton) ha ha ha.
Space has more wrinkles than your underwear.
True just watch Star Trek ;)
if you find this answer you would probly be the smartes man on this planet
i suggest you read "the elegant universe" by brian greene. it attempts to mary relativity and quantum mechanics... in something called the string theory. hope that helps.
No, its not really:

In the solar system planets, asteroids, comets and space debris have elliptical orbits around the Sun.

Moons have an elliptic orbit around their planet.

Many artificial satellites have various elliptic orbits around the Earth.

Maybe you didnt realise this because in astrodynamics or celestial mechanics even a so called "circular orbit" is actaully an elliptic orbit with the eccentricity equal to 0.
Of course it's true. Unfortunately I don't have the background in astrophysics necessary to properly explain eliptical orbits and the like to you, but there are many good books and websites around that do.
true
Alot of answers, most of them containing a common theme of how no-one actually knows. It seems that something IS actually going on. I recently read about a multitude of ideas that describe the cause of the phenomenon, all of which seemed reasonable, and the fact of the matter is, the likelyhood that Einstein wrapped his head around many accurate explanations is very poor. We must face the reality that it may still be beyond our comprehension.
The earth does not follow a 'contour of space-time' around the sun.

You need to read up on general relativity a little more carefully and or closely. Assuming you aren't some 'science is the work of the devil' ideologue. In which case I invite you to make a fool of yourself by further expounding on scientific theories you clearly do not understand.

Gravitational fields warp space-time. Well, to be accurate, mass warps space-time, producing gravitational fields, which are just warped space-time.

Gravity waves have been postulated, but not, to my knowledge, detected. Outside of the influence of massive objects there aren't any fixed warpages in space-time.

Retail Space Lease Negotiations?

I am looking to lease a 1600 square foot retail space in a relatively new shopping center for a cellular phone store.

I am wondering how much of the initial lease offer I can expect to negotiate down - i.e. 10%, etc. Also, any general advice will be appreciated.

I know that there are various factors involved, so here are some specifics.

The monthly cost per square foot is $21. Add $3.07 per SF for "common area" services. The owner is willing to provide $10 per square foot for interior finishings. I will only need carpet, some paint and a single wall (8 x 20) built, so I won't use the $16,000 offered.

This space is to the left of an Office Max, which is in the middle of the building. The anchor is a Target, which is to the right of Office Max (100 yards). The four spaces to the right of Office Max (and closer to Target) are leased. The four spaces to the left are open for lease. Two of the four open spaces were previously leased, but the stores have vacated.

Thanks.

Retail Space Lease Negotiations?official myspace

it's going to come down to one thing, how much does the owner want you in the complex. plain and simple, in your favor is the four open stores, if they have been vacant for awhile the owner maybe in a more open mined to give you a reduction in the sq foot for the first year

not in your favor that he has anchor stores both target and office max, meaning has nice income coming in, plus another four stores filled,

just ask either they will say no or yes or offer another deal

How much space does The Sims 2 take up on your computer...?

How much space does The Sims 2 take up on your computer?

I have 2048 MB of system memory and 320 GB of hard drive space.

Plus 243 GB of HP space.

Is that enough space for The Sims 2?

***PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION IN GB FOR THE SPACE***

Thanks!

How much space does The Sims 2 take up on your computer...?backgrounds for myspace

My game program folders with all the expansion packs take about ten gig total and my downloads folder that is separate on My Documents take another ten gigs (includes fashions, custom cars, a few hacks and various houses I downloaded that are pretty cool). If you you also have all the stuff packs in addition to the game packs (expansion packs), having 20 to 30 gigs free will give a home to your game, all it's EPs and stuff packs and allow 15 gigs or so of optional custom downloads. That's just a tiny slice of your space. :)

The bigger question is if your machine has the ability to run all the expansion packs well. You can test individual packs here. The most recent EP is Free Time, and that one is most demanding on a machine.

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/ref...

How much space does The Sims 2 take up on your computer...?myspace games myspace.com

lol a lot! my sister has it on my comp and it slows it way down

Space/time and how body's "move" in it?

First a repsonse to my question about light and redshifting.

As for galaxies moving away from each other without space expanding, you just can't do that. Remember that everything is embedded IN space. An object, like a galaxy, can't move independantly of the space that contains it.

next the question that made me think of....

Why cant something move “through” the universe (space/time)? I was told nothing can move Independently throughoutt space/time, therefore space/time iteselfe must be expanding. But If that was true. Then I couldn’t throw a baseball to my dad without space/time expanding that distance every time it was tossed back and forth right?

Space/time and how body's "move" in it?unblock myspace

First I will address your difficulty with the answer someone gave to your earlier question.

Space is expanding between distant parts of the universe, and presumably very slowly on local scales too (~100 km/s per MPC, works out to about 100 nm/s over a distance of a meter. Hmmm, I wonder if one could devise an experiment to measure that. . . )

Locally, things like gravity (in the case of a galaxy) or electromagnetic forces (in the case of a less than planet sized solid) overcome that expansion. If everything in space was expanding uniformly, we would never notice that phenomenon, because the "rulers" we use to measure distance and size would be expanding too!

So, you can throw your baseball, and maybe space will expand between the two of you as it travels, however the friction between the two of you and the ground, and the chemical bonds and electrostatic forces in the strip of ground between you and your dad do not permit the two of you to be dragged apart by the expansion of space during the ball's travel time, just as those same forces prevent your body from expanding with the expansion of space.

The answerer was incorrect in their generalization. I will take a look at this earlier question you asked; in context the part of the answer might be OK, but it appears to be too general a statement the way you presented it.

Keep questioning answers; you have the makings of a good scientist, philosopher, lawyer or other combination creative and analytical endeavour.

Your more general question was about movement in "space-time." If you define movement by a change in space-time interval, then the difficulty is in staying still! In fact, you have to move through 3-D space at the speed of light to experience zero change in the space-time interval between two events; only light itself is frozen in space-time in those terms.

Wiki has a good section on space-time intervals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_...

Space/time and how body's "move" in it?backgrounds for myspace myspace.com

First consider that movement is a relative term. It relates the difference in separation of one thing to another. Objects with or without mass as well as time( the relation of the separation of 1 moment to another). Next when you think in terms of infinitency you can realize that time/space never began nor will it ever end. Also realize that the majority of space IS NOTHING. With these ideas in mind i find that "objects" can not move independently they need another "object" to be in relation to, also if space itself is nothing then a moving object can not move in relation to space.

Why would a space tourist pay $25 mil. just to go into space?Don`t you think they would pay to go to

If we really have been to the moon, why would a space tourist (like Charles Simonyi) pay $25 million to go to space?

Don`t you think that if it were possible, a man worth billions would pay more if he were able to go to the moon?

Imagine this:

"It will cost me another $20 million to go to the moon? No thanks, I`m fine just going into space."

I don`t think so. I`m sure a person worth billions would pay more to go further than the International Space Station. Don`t you?

Why would a space tourist pay $25 mil. just to go into space?Don`t you think they would pay to go to the moon?myspace live

Just goes to show that money doesn't make for happiness. Imagine a guy with so much money, so bored that he would pay $25 million to go into space, and I'm probably enjoying answering questions on Yahoo just as much as he does, flying off into space.

Why would a space tourist pay $25 mil. just to go into space?Don`t you think they would pay to go to the moon?coolest myspace myspace.com

Maybe. Can we pay them to stay out there?
Probably because space is much more interesting. The moon is just a big hunk of rock, not very exciting.
Well maybe thay want to got to the moon be4 thay die have you ever conserted that

Disk space in hibernation?

Ok so

when i go into the Power Options

under the "Hibernate Tab"

I see a check box to enable hibernation

i already know that part

but i usually leave it Unchecked, because stand by mode will

do the same thing like hibernation does!!

so why enable it?

but my question is that

the "disk space in hibernation"

______________________

Free disk space: 2999,997 MB

Disk space required to hibernate: 1,014 MB

______________________

is this a bad thing?

i dont understand what do those numbers mean

but i do know that i have a lot of space to Run hibernation!

and its required to have 1,014 MB of space

in order to use Hibernation

is this a bad thing?

Disk space in hibernation?pimp myspace

The basic difference between standby and hibernate is that while in standby mode, the computer is put in a low power consumption mode, in hibernate mode the computer is powered off, after saving your current status on the hard disk. Hence the disk space requirement, which is equal to your RAM size.

When do you use either mode?

When you are working %26amp; have to leave quickly for a short period and then resume, use standby.

When you want to shutdown your computer, but want to quickly resume all your applications (like office, browsers etc) the next time you power on, hibernate.

Hope I was able to bring the difference clearly.

Disk space in hibernation?stars myspace myspace.comThank You. Report It

"space" question for girls?

I asked this girl out about a month ago.. got "just friends" ive tried again in the pass few days, pressuring a little but not to much.. she said she needs space, when a girl says "i need space".. what does it mean? im guessing to consider the idea of us two together? im not all sure though, ladies.. please shed some light.. cos im nuts over this girl.. for now though i will respect what she said and give her space

"space" question for girls?search myspace

Usually "I need space" means "You're too available". It's that whole idea that girls like more aloof/hard to get guys -- the more scarce something is, the more you want it.

Even though you like her, it would be good to play hard to get a bit, and show her that you're worth making some effort for instead of pressuring her and seeming somewhat desperate. I bet once you're not asking her out/ paying as much attention to her, she'll start wondering why and may actually start showing interest.

"space" question for girls?good myspace myspace.com

that just means she needs time to think.

by asking her so many times, you're putting her on the stop.

just give her some time and let her figure it out for awhile.
She need space so give it to her.
usually she needs "space" means she doesn't want to go out with you... if she was thinking about it she would have said "i need time"... but "space" is refering to distance from you... don't worry about it though, there is no bond between you so you can always find another girl.
usually this means that shes not that interested. if she says that it means shes not interested in you right now. just give her some time and just try to get to know her. she will start to warm to you
Space to most girls is the nice way to let you go to tell you to back off might mean she likes you but likes somone else more may mean that she is confused on who she likes. Many possiblites
Baby, let me tell you.

Like people that like you.

Not the people that you like.

Because

What you want might make you cry.

What you need might pass you by.

And what you need Ironicly will turn out what you want it to be.

If you just let it. _Lauren Hill.
She needs for you to not be interested in her in any other way that "just friends". I had a "just friends" friend and he pressured me so much so I finally gave in and when he kissed me I actually told him it felt really weird like kissing a brother (which I don't even have a brother for all you perverts out there). But he got offended by that and he was deeply saddened that we could no longer be friends at all. We recently accidentally came in contact with each other again and he is still torn about it after at least 10 years. He informed me that he could not tell his current wife (who I have never met) that we spoke (haven't seen each other in person, only a couple of emails and a couple of phone convos) because the only woman she was actually jealous of was me. Because when he first met her all her did was mope around over the non-working of us. Needless to say he has informed me that he is unhappily married. So to keep your friendship please do not pressure this girl, if you remain friends you will be closer to her than if you keep pressuring her and you may end up meeting someone else and this girl can be your support through all aspects of your life.
May be she is mensturating and want some space around her for a few days. Wait for some 6 days, smell the air around and make sure its okay before you go anywhere near her.
The harsh truth of it is, most often we make excuses to those we care about when they want to move the relationship to another level and we, for whatever reason, don't. The nice part, though, is that if she's making an excuse, she cares about your feelings. She just may not see you in that way, and if you want to be her friend and a part of her life, you'll just have to accept that. You've made your feelings known and, if anything changes in the future, she'll let you know, I'm sure. But for now, just don't bring it up again, because it's probably making her uncomfortable. I know, believe me, what it's like to be in that situation. It isn't fun, but I got my best friend in the world out of it, so just ask yourself this: Is she worth losing because you can't have her the way you want her?

Space In Mind Is Time?

Space In Mind Is Time

in the knowing of understand

withstanding is understood instanding

person of place ,people of life ,

essences of earths place

time has been given.

in space of mind time

lies drowned out mind

knoew space for time,

memerys unknew old ways

learned new old ways

as in time you grow out of,

other ways,all ways

leads to understand

one can not hold two

but.three can fore

space in mind is time

Ffrank D Armstrong

Copyright ?2008 Ffrank D Armstrong

Space In Mind Is Time?icons for myspace

You know, I've always wondered about that very thing...

Thanks for clearing that up for me!

Peace,

Bobby

Space In Mind Is Time?hidden myspace myspace.com

yes awesome...

Space..wat does giving someone space really mean?

Ok i have gotten alot of responses to my other question that i need to give her space..does that mean stop with everything, the phone calls, the nights out, and even the sex...How can i be there for her and give her space at the same time..And how long is this supposed to last till some results are shown..

Space..wat does giving someone space really mean?adult myspace

Ever hear the phrase; "Absence makes the heart grow fonder"?..that means: being apart, with other interests makes you long to be together...miss each other...also it gives you new experiences and more to talk about when you are together...but how can you miss each other, long to be together and share new experiences if your always together?..Space means she wants to do some things on her own...be with her own friends and family...she was an individual long before she was your girlfriend. Let her have her space, and she will appreciate time with you more...if you don't you will be smothering her and your relationship.

Space..wat does giving someone space really mean?bad girls club myspace.com

not being with eachother alot
tell her u will always be there for her but dont call her as often if she wants to call she will call u she needs time alone dont go out if she wants to again she will and well ya sex obviously not
they are thinking about saddling up another horse from the stable.
meaning SHE will be the one who decides when you have given her enough space. =) good job for trying hard though
it means she needs to think its not you you should offer to talk to her about what she means in "space"
It means:"Leave me alone"
"give me space" means I'm not attracted to you... you're getting on my nerves. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I'm just being honest with you. Go out with someone else.
These are questions you probably need to be asking her.The fact that she wants space may mean she feels smothered or may want out the relationship altogether.the best advice that I can give you is to talk to her.Ask her how she feels and to what degree.Ask her if that means she dosen't want you to be there for her, or no dates, no sex, etc.good luck.
GIVE THEM ROOM, BACK OFF A LITTLE....THEY NEED AIR IT SEEMS....
your all up on his/her back and u need to go shopping or something other than wondering what their doing
If people are telling you to give the girl space, more likely than not you're being compulsive, and even obsessive with your communication with her. I don't know the details of what your relationship is, but when someone tells you they need space, it normally means, literally, quit smothering them. Don't call all the time, e-mail all the time, or just "stop by." Think of it this way. Communication, if sound, should be like a scale. Any time she calls, you can call her back. Any time you call, you have to WAIT until she calls you back, otherwise, you've just tipped the scale. This applies to every form of communication, both literal and digital.
depend on the person. some people when they say give me space they dont want to see u at all but r just trying to be nice about it. others mean that they need time away from u.
personaly when i hear i need space they are saying i want to see what else is out there! Do your own thing be unavailable!
It means that you are giving each other the space to go out with friends, and not be around each other as much as you are. It doesnt mean that you have to stop everything, just dont hang or talk to each other as much as you normally do.
they don't want you following every where that they go or they want to break up.
OK this just happend to me to, ive been in this relationship for 3 years off %26amp; on. last week he told me that he needed space that he was feeling smothered. So i decided to give him his space, and i left him. How is someone going to expect someone else to just sit back and wait untill they dont want their space anymore. A friend told me: Girl he isn't in jail your not going to wait for him, If and when he is ever ready then he can call me if its not to late.
Giving some one space, simply they want you to be a fool for them and allow them to do their thing, while you set by and wait, or if they don't care for you hold hearted they really don't care what you do. An other words you were just a booty call. Sometimes a person just wants or needs time alone to think out what they really want or where they want to go.

Naming the feature space in my museum?

It's for my final project, designing a fashion museum. On a certain storey, we have to create a feature space where visitors will gather and see the exhibits or shows or events. My feature space has a small exhibition space, a mezzanine floor where drinks are serve and this floor overlooks a fashion runway show. Beside these spaces, its a theme restaurant. Any suggestion on what to name the feature space?

Naming the feature space in my museum?pimp myspace

Robert Tonner's Hideaway. Put fashion dolls in glass cases all along the walls.

Naming the feature space in my museum?stars myspace myspace.com

After the theme of the show - Fashion through the Ages.

Eat and Drink your way through History

Authentic Historical Food.

Actually I don't think it is a great idea to have people eating and drinking above the Cat walk - especially if they have their 2 year old with them who likes to throw food around!
hot space
I would base it on the theme of the restaurant.

If you sell Italian food you could name your mezzanine after the Piazzas in Italy. Doesn't that name imply meeting place as well as adding an Italian aura.

Have a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year friend,

Michael %26lt;%26gt;%26lt;

Space is subject to gravity?

I just asked a question about the dimensions of 3-D space at the moment of the. Big Bang. Thank you -- all who answered. Does the expansion of space, along with the matter in space imply that space is actually subject to gravitational force? If it is, why don't black holes suck up 3-D space like a vacuum? Also, if space is "expanding" then it seems that it should be expanding equally at all points; as opposed to just adding more space at the edge of the universe; why have we not seen any evidence of this in any laboratory experiment?

Space is subject to gravity?hack myspace

Gravity affects the metrical properties of space (its "curvature"), but it doesn't pull on it as if it were a material thing. And, yes, the average expansion of space (that is, averaged over a scale of millions of light years) is assumed be the same thoughout the universe. The "local" expansion of space can prevented by higher concentrations of mass, such as you would have inside of a galaxy. (Which is really just a fancy way of saying that gravity is strong enough to hold relatively dense objects like galaxies togother, but not the universe as a whole).

How did we get space?

If no space or matter existed in the beginning, only God, or whatever caused it all, then wouldn't it be safe to say that this "whatever cause" took up all the space there was in existence?

If all this space was taken up, then in order to create anything new wouldn't space have to be created first?

How would you create space if it was already taken up by something?

So, in order to create space in an already filled up place, wouldn't you have to create a division in the existing substance?

Then wouldn't you have to divided that substance with enough distance that you could fit all the things you wanted to create?

After creating that big division to fit all that you wanted to create, wouldn't all the substance that previously took up all the space be scattered about this space as a result of this dividing process?

Would this scattered substance be the stuff we see all over the universe?

How did we get space?custom myspace

Space is emptiness. It has always been. It is no thing. Ain was considered existence before there was existence. 'God' (the great I Am) created matter by speaking the 'Word'. He created things to fill the space. Earth, the Heavens, the Sun, the Moon, the stars, etc.

Then there is the 'big bang' theory. And the universe still expanding. Scientists want to know the edges of the universe. So far? Zilch.

How did we get space?myspace ip myspace.com

And since space and time are intertwined, there is no "before".

All of these paradoxes have probably been considered since the beginning of human thought.
Well once apon a time there was a man... we call him god now. I suppose it could be his initials for what his name really meant G.O.D... that could be anything. Buttt, i suppose one day he just up and decided to make himself his own niffty little universe and BAM!!! here it is home sweet home. God is a truely an amazing person. I plan on meeting him some day. :-D
Space only exists because of humans and the mind. "Outside" the universe is just irrelevent void because it is defined by humans.
Mostly yes. Space isn't a thing separate from the 'what's in it'. Matter warps space so that when all the matter (or energy with the matter-energy conversion) is close, the 'space' is warped close also. And this carries one down to as small as we can guess about.

Now, if the matter expands, it takes space with it since it is shaping the space it is in. If you can get your head around this idea, that space and matter in space are linked and not really separate things, you have the essentials and your idea is sound, except for the even harder idea that space can be infinite in 3 dimensions, but finite in 4 or more.

Good luck, it's a brain cramper.
first the universe is mostly hydrogen, and a lot of carbon. second maybe you should read some of albert einsteins theories, he thinks our universe exists inside other universe's. my personal belief is that we are inside of something else and that i have a theory thta we could make another universe with common lab equipment, im only 20 but have big dreams for science. the unverse was created, theoretically, by hydrogen diffusion, i think, like and a-bomb going off, then galaxies were formed by large gatherings of gas (cluster) and inside each galaxy is solar systems which are similar but smaller, a solar system is formed by another hydrogen process, forget how, but its a large gas cloud and it is spinning and as it spins the gas in the middle spins faster than that outside so the middle becomes more and more dense until it is too packed and cannot fit more the nit explodes, the remaining gas that was spinning around the center slows and forms rings of some sort, then these rings can create the planets that revolve around the middle object which is now a star or sun if u will, if done properly in a giant vacuum filled space i hope to oneday create a similar small universe inside earth and who knows if it ever happend maybe life would result, would i then be god???
You have a lot of answers to your own questions and then more questions for your answers!! I give up!!

Seriously, NO ONE KNOWS the answer to this in any way, shape, or form, except the 'educated' speculation of the scientific community who are interested enough or getting paid enough to 'specualte'!! Your imagination wanders and you're entitled to do so - good for you - but it amounts to as much 'balderdash' as the scientists come up with, except they use BIG words to give credence to their ideas!!
i like your mind, don't give up thinking.

to answer your question, it'd depend on what side your belifes are on. if you are on the universe physics (everything is almost unexplained and the laws we have don't apply to the universe) or basic earth physics (gravity pulls down).

the laws of physics are very different out in the universe. let me start off with what you said: "If all this space was taken up(in one small point), then in order to create anything new wouldn't space have to be created first..." yes it'd have to take up space going by out laws of physics. like i said, our laws of physics are way diferent from the universes. things happen in space that is impossible for our physics to do. so in a way it's almost unexplainable.

if you beleive in god, which would make it easier to understand. then you don't really have to ask and just rely on faith.

then if albert einstin was alive, he'd probably leave you an answer that'd take about 30 minutes to read.

all in all i'd have to agree with you though. this universe, as masive as it is, would have to have taken up space.
We didnt get it! It inherited us!
According to the String Theory,after the phase transition, the strings were formed in a random network of self-avoiding curves/loops. Some of the strings were in closed loops and some were as infinite strings. The distribution of strings so happened that a constant number of loops entered the Horizon. If the infinite strings would simply straighten out, then the numbers of open strings across the horizon-sized volume would also increase with time and strings would soon come out to dominate the density. Velenkin .A [Physics Review D23, p852; 1981] showed that the geometry produced by the gravitational field near a length of straight string is that of Minkowski space with a three dimensional wedge taken out of each space like slice. The vertex of the wedge lies along the length of the string and the angle subtended by missing wedge lies in rest frame of the string and is equated as δπ Gμ The two exposed faces of the strings are thus identified. Thus the Space Time remained flat everywhere except along the Strings , where it was highly curved. If Gμ%26lt;%26lt;1, then the stress energy of the strings would produce only small (lenier) perturbations from the metric of rest of the universe. Because the matter in the Universe did not produce significant purturbation from the Minkowski metric Space ,on scale ,less then horizon, the Gravitational field at a point much closer to a length of a string would be essentially then the same as gravitational field at a similarly located point in Minkowski space. In the rest of frame of the strings, all particles were when passing , the strings were deflated by an angle 8πG μ with respect to all particles passing on other side of the strings. The magnitude of discontinuity in temperature(While passing of particles) across the string was δT/T= 8πGβ, where β=Transverse Velocity of the strings which was typically was close to Unity. This Jump of temperature persisted on angular distance away from the string, corresponding to the present angular size of the radius of curvature of the strings. The magnitude of temperature jump was then independent of the Red shift (Z) at which Light Rays reaching to us, passed by the strings. If we calculate the general properties of microwave sky anisotropy in string mode , then let us assume that microwave photons were last scattered at Red shift Z 1s. In a perfectly homogenious Universe ,the matter became mostly neutral and optically then at Z 1000. However in a Universe with strings, there will be large amplitude in homogeneity on small scale and the heat output from objects forming at or before Zγee may re -ionize the plasma. If the plasma were kept fully ionized then Z1s%26gt;10 and we have 1000%26gt;Z1s%26gt;10,the angle subtended by a horizon-sized volume space at Z1c is o1s-1/2%26lt;%26lt;1. One would do expect to see on a round patch of sky of strings per horizon volume at red shift Z, will project to one length of string of angular size o if z%26lt;z1s. These strings will be moving relativistic ally, as they were unable to straighten themselves out of these length scale.

In the modern Gauge theories of fundamental interaction of the Vacuum was far from being nothing. Rather it is now recognized as a dynamical object that was in different state. The current state of vacuum affects the properties such as masses and interaction of any particles put into it. Although the vacuum is thought to lie in it’s ground state ,that with the lowest state of energy, this state had not always been the same. Thus in the early universe when the particle component [ordinarily matter and radiation] was at a very high temperature, the vacuum adjusted it’s state in doing so modified the properties of particles so as to minimize the free energy of the entire system. [Vacuum plus particles. ] e i. the vacuum went into higher energy state in order to lower the energy of hot plasma by even greater amount. As the universe cooled to keep the entire system at the lowest possible energy at a given temperature , the vacuum had to change eventually, ending up in it’s present state which is nearby the true or zero temperature vacuum. It was possible in early universe that as the Universe expanded , the cooling happened too rapidly for the vacuum to find it’s true ground state and the vacuum was frozen into ground state with defects. Defects that probably could occur in a three dimensional space could be Zero dimensional (Monopoles), Two dimensional (Domain walls) or One dimensional (Strings). The Strings are macroscopic objects. In most cases of cosmological interest they have no ends and are either infinitely long or closed in a loop.

At GUT’s the Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic forces behaved as if, they had equal strength, much as line defects found in the crystal. They formed as a net work across the space%26amp; time. The GUT”s predicts that strings were formed at a temperature of about 1015 to ~1016 Gev. at a Cosmological time of about 10?35 Second. The Cosmic Strings were formed at the mass scale of GUTs Symmetry breaking (Mx-? 2x1015 Gev) was typified by a mass per unit length μG/c2?? ~ 2x10 6 in dimensionless unit.[ G= Gravitational Constant, C= speed of Light, which is corresponding to μ= ~ 2.6X10 21, Kgm-1~ 4x107 MOPC-1 where MO= Mass of Sun . Or in other words the strings were formed with a mass per unit length of about 1020 kg-1. They have a mass per unit length μ=ε/G [where ε= ~( %26lt;φ%26gt;/ mp)2 is the dimensionless amplitude of their Gravitational potential, mp is the Plank Mass and the Vaccum Expectation value of Higgs field is φ.] Because of their enormous tension ε/G , the net work of the Strings were formed in the phase transition. In this Theory the Strings contributed only a small fraction of mass of the Universe. The Galaxies were formed by Accreating of ordinary matter about the Strings. The Strings were stretched by subsequent expansion of the Universe on waves, on a given scale and began to oscillate then. The strings underwent Oscillation in which the Transverse intertia acted as weight and the restoring forces were provided by longitudinal tension of the strings. As a result of oscillation in such that the scale entered the particles horizon and whenever the strings crossed itself and exchanged particle partners and produced closed Oscillating loops of the Strings with long life(Peebles. P.G. Z- large scale Structure of the Universe.- Princeton University press 1981).

The Strings actually underwent Oscillation in which the Transverse inertia acted as weight and the resting force was provided longitudinal tension of the strings. The gravitational field of these strings loops caused accretion of matter around them. Brosche. P.J in the journal of Astrophysics stated that angular momentum of an astronomical object is proportional directly t square of mass and constant of proportionality is comparable to String Theories, which suggest that the Universe had evolved through hecrchial breaking of rotating or oscillating strings and the angular momentum with mass between various classes of different objects ranging from planets to super clusters (brosche.PZ.J-Astrophysics Vo 57; P143; 1963). This whow we got the Space

Professor Pranab Kumar Bhattachatrya,Mr Rupak Bhattacharya, Mr Ritwik Bhattacharya, Mrs Dahlia Mukherjee

www.unipathos.com

Copy Right of the answer Strictly reserved to Authors as per copy right rules of IPR. Do not use the answer

Taken from- "Did universe strated from Big Bang Gospel or Just Be" Published in www.unipathos.com

Professor Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya
There may not have been space and time at the beginning of the universe, but there was something you could call the "ether" - probably some n-th dimensional material that was disturbed by the big bang and turned into the matter, anti-matter and dark matter that exists in the universe today.

Space shuttle question?

How much fuel does the normal space shuttle take into space. I would imagine space being a vacuum meaning no resistance so does that show in lets say MPGs?

Space shuttle question?celebrities myspace

The space shuttle does not require fuel to remain in orbit. However, the RCS thrusters need fuel to orient the vehicle and the OMS engines use fuel for the burn that brings the shuttle out of its orbit. The total amount carried is 923 pounds of fuel and 1,464 pounds of oxidizer.

The shuttle also carries three hydrazine tanks to run the Auxilary Power Units, which are high-speed turbines that power hydraulic pumps. The hydraulic system is used to move the main engines during ascent and it powers the aerosurfaces and landing gear during re-entry. The three tanks carry about 325 pounds of fuel each for a total of 975 pounds. All together, the fuel load is about 1,900 pounds.

For comparison purposes, a car with a 20 gallon tank carries about 120 pounds of fuel, so 1,900 pounds of gasoline would be about 320 gallons, which is very close to the amount of fuel carried by an 18-wheeler.

Giz

P.S. The space station does require fuel to stay in orbit. All satellites do because their orbit decays due to atmospheric drag. The orbit needs to be reboosted a couple of times per year. In this case, it is possible to calculate an MPG but since you didn't ask, I didn't make the calculation.

Space shuttle question?small myspace myspace.com

Let's not say Miles Per Gallon. It's more like Tons Per Inch... the space shuttle burns an INCREDIBLY large amount of fuel to get into orbit. It has to burn practically nothing once achieving orbit (with the occasional course correction or orbit transfer) and then it fires it engines to slow down enough for re-entry...

The external tank alone burns about 1.1 million gallons of fuel in about 8 minutes during liftoff...

Definitely not a hybrid, green-conscious vehicle...
take into space? zero. its a glider once it reaches space. a little fuel is around for positioning, but not for the big engines in the back.
The Space Shuttle burns up a half a ton of fuel per second during the 510 second journey into orbit. it drains enough liquid propellant from it's external tank that is equivilant to draining an average sized swimming pool in 25 seconds.

meanwhile it burns 1 million pounds of Solid rocket propellant that is in each solid rocket booster (so 2 million pounds all together), in 2 minutes 5 seconds from launch.
My neighbor son's is a astronaut, probably is going out to space this year, he told me, the amount of fuel that the space shuttle just to jump out to space is 10,000 tons of fuel, if you can multiply, that will be 10,000 x 4=liters= 160, 000 gallons of fuel x liters = almost 400,000 liters of unleaded gas (am kidding on the last part!) so you answer should be 160,000 galons of fuel! just for the push to the out side space!...i don't know how much do that thing spends on the way back?
you could use miles per gallon but the equation would allways be open ended due to inertia and how long you coast. all thrust sytems use burn time given that they know the amonut of fuel being burnt in 1 second. while burning you will never go faser then the speed of your exhaust but yo can go equal to it.

What is the fabric of space like at the interface point of physical and quantum?

Given:

- the essential laws of physical space--eg. .a moving object travels in a straight line in the absence of external forces

- and that quantum space doesn't seem to follow the same rules

is anyone addressing this assumption: that at the quantum level, the fabric of physical space is porous. we observe the quantum as it interfaces with our physical. Can a particle move back and forth across the threshold? What's the interface like? If we're viewing a particle as it shows characteristics observed in quantum space- movement, etc could the bent shape of physical space not explain the objects movement as it travels in a straight line distance in quantum space? [eg. at the quantum level, if a partical enters/exits physical space, and our physical space is bent back on itself, then a particle moving across that threshold would appear to disappear from one spot and instantly reappear in another part of physical space. [Non-physics person, so please explain w/o formulas, if possible.]

What is the fabric of space like at the interface point of physical and quantum?flash myspace

There is no such thing as physical and quantum space. They are both the same thing, viewed at different magnification.

Newtonian physics were correct (and still are correct) for large objects moving at low speeds. Since our measuring capablities have increased we started noticing that more laws are needed to explain the behaviour of very small and very fast object, hence we we developed quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity.

Quantum mechanincs assumes that some physical quantaties are quantitized, that is they come in indevisable amounts. For example the potential energy of an electron in a hydrogen atom is quantitzed. So is its angualar momentum and a spin.

The electron's position (i.e. space) is still assumed to be a continuum, that is the electron's position is not quantitzed and it can occupy all positions in space.

It may well be that space is also quantitized, however we have not been able to achieve a technological breakthrough that will allow us to probe such small measure.

If you want a simple demonstration then look at any smooth metallic surface. To the human eye (and touch) the surface appears smooth and straight. However if you use a powerful enough microscope you will see it consists of billions of ball shaped atoms so the smooth surface is actually built of many many balls stuck together. Does that mean that the surface is not smooth? No! For all intents and purposes it is smooth because you percieve it as such.

The same is true for space. Even if a particle does "hop" from one point to another, those points are so closed together that even today with all our advancments in sub-atomic studies, we still can't tell if there is or if there isn't an intervail between two adjacent point in space.