Xeroc

STF Ambassador
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,511

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Xeroc

  3. Posted

    Jupiter class sounds to me like a class better fitting between the NX-01 and the Constellation class. The largest designation we've seen so far has been the Galaxy class so I'm speculating the J would be the Universe class.  :bow:

    That's what I was thinking too, Universe class only makes sense - It did look pretty big (there would be a slight problem if they wanted to make something bigger however!)

     

    And those swept-back nacelles were probably for transwarp too!

  5. Posted

    1st of all this topic was in the off-topic forum but it got beamed here. A scientific LAW is not a "tendency" it is a proven fact. Websters dictionary defines a scientific law as "A rule or principle stating something that ALWAYS works in the same way under the same conditions." A law is definately valued over a theoy in true science.

    Yes, which is exactly why many scientists say the second law of thermodynamics shouldn't really be called a law.

     

    Out of one physics book:

     

    "Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place

    to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out."

     

    Notice the "tends" in that sentance. There have been many articles written about this in magazines such as Scientific American and Discover, among others.

  8. Posted

    But it would violate the second law since the law states that, in time, ALL energy will be "used up" but evolutions states that we will keep evolving forever. Also, most scientists have wither minipulated the evidence to support evolution or have left out many supports for creation. I don't mean to turn this in to a thological debate but hey, starfleet made this an off topic forum :laugh:

    I'm sorry but this isn't the Off-Topic Forum and an Evolution-Creation debate should definitiely NOT be in this thread, perhaps even belongs in Risa.

     

     

    Additionally, the second "law" is often regarded by some as a "tendency" of the universe because it started out orderly. If it started out in maximum disorder, then even the slightest chance movement would create some order violating this "law".

  10. Posted

    The Sun will not go nova or supernova of any type.  The sun is what we call a "main sequence" star, and is not massive enough to go supernova (at the bare minimum, it

    must have 44% more mass to do that, and even then, it's not likely).  Instead, as the

    sun exhausts its supply of hydrogen, its core will begin burning helium at a higher temperature.  The resulting pressure increase will cause the sun to expand into a

    red giant - red due to the resultant decrease in luminosity.  (Not clear whether humans

    will see a "helium flash" or not.)  As the sun grows to engulf the inner planets, helium will burn into carbon and oxygen.  At this point, the outer hydrogen atmosphere will be

    not much more than a remnant of the original star, and the inner core will not be massive enough to support fusion beyond oxygen.  It will collapse into what we call a white drawf, and later fizzle out of existence - some call this stage a black dwarf.  Total time: 5-10Gyr

    Nik here explained it pretty well.

     

    Bascially, the SUN won't go NOVA, it will either expand and engulf us, or if it doesn't get quite large enough to actually engulf earth, the increased radiation due to our proximity will burn the earth to a crisp.

     

     

    Additonally, we don't really know how long the universe is going to last - dark energy is still a theory, and according to some calculations if it does exist, it might change direction and cause the universe to collapse!

     

    Negative dark energy

  11. Posted

    Ahh, I see what you meant, when I was looking at the Lunar site I missed the link to the mars face stuff! :P

     

    I read through it and all I can say is: I'm not a believer in big conspiricies like the ones you're talking about. It's possible there is more out there than we might think, but I just don't see the "oooo" factor in all the intricate coincidences. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. This is just mine.

  12. Posted

    Well, I can now kinda see what they are talking about. Personally, it looks like a whole lot of optical illusions to me. Like the famous "mars face":

     

    (There really should be a link here but I can't find the MSNBC article where they talked about new hi-res pictures reavealed that it was just natural features and unusual lighting)

  15. Posted

    Do you recall, sometime last year.  I heard on the news they were going to scrap the whole space program.  What was that about?

    I don't know where you heard that but it's not correct. Just the opposite in fact. They are planning missions to the moon now and they are planning what the next Space vehicles will be now.

    Well, they wanted to scrap the SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM. And implement a new an updated program. You can read more about some partial strategies here:

     

    Orbital Space Plane

  19. Posted

    Well, I don't think it will work as the frozen state of the person should crystallize and denature their protiens effectively destroying their inner workings at the cellular level.

     

    However there was a good TNG episode about this:

     

    "The Neutral Zone"

     

    Check out the description on ST.com

  21. Posted

    Well I went poking around at the site and have found the first evidence i've ever seen to suggest something is/was going on at the Moon and NASA has been covering it up.

     

    Ancient Moon City remains???

     

    Click for Spoiler:

    Put simply, the area around Kepler is littered with geometric patterns and buildings. The ejecta blanket of the crater itself appears to have been altered, with a city built right on top of it.

    rampart2.jpg

    The "Rampart" and "Longhouses" built on the ejecta blanket of Kepler.

    The "Rampart" is easily the most stunning object in the entire region, consisting of concentric, rectangular walls and rounded forward "buttress." No known (or even imagined) geologic process can account for such an object on the surface of such a geologically simplistic world as our Moon. It bears all the hallmarks of an eroded artificial edifice, and none of the characteristics of a landscape formed almost exclusively by cratering. Add to that the fact that it appears on ejecta blanket of Kepler, a feature formed some 3.5 billion years after the cessation of any lava flows or possible tectonic activity, and it becomes even more remarkable.

     

     

     

    Remmarkable is right.

    Maybe I'm missing something but I can't see a darn thing in that picture unusual.

     

    Still an interesting site though.

  23. Posted

    In an ideal world (which we don't live in!) Perpetual motion would be possible.

     

    With friction and heat loss, it doesn't work.

     

    Some experiments have shown that it might be possible to create a frictionless surface, and so some perpetual motion might be possible.

     

    Aother way is to think of a gear spinning in orbit around the earth. It is constantly in motion and only looses a tiny fraction of energy due to orbital inconsitincies and interaction with solar wind and the thin atmospheric particles up there. That is pretty darn close to perpetual motion.