I thought there was music playing over here, but it's only musicplayer:(

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I don't know his name but he
seems vaguely familiar......
I like the link from the
second post.......

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

Ok, so you've posted the Fundamental Forces in 2 threads already...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

If you did not happen to know it already.

But numbers are not supposed to be of any value at all.

The contents was moved. It is out of context.

Oh, leaked documents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILLHMzDeIpk

Oh, you always know when you had it.

Blame "dial up", will you.

Perhaps I rather should dial another number instead?

Only three more digits to add than you need to do yourself.

Not that difficult to do.

Fly with the wind.

Jessica Alba.

https://www.google.no/?gws_rd=cr&ei=gjOtUrn5JIjJygOK14GQCg#q=Jessica+Alba&undefined=undefined

Better long hair than short hair (but not too long).

1*1=1

What is the secret word?

Always the females having the last word, eh.

Perhaps I should cut and paste my credits here for you to see.

Currently http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQjove0nzss in my playback.


Carbon based life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd0sHifpzIk

Next on my playlist, btw.

Trying out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEVVhOtJso0&list=PL5B893DE85D4278E8

for me to enjoy.

Playlist that is and heck of good music.

So who was the one (a female) suddenly wearing short hair today?

A local person perhaps.

I'll get back to it tomorrow.

You don't read JT for my current nuisance, eh.

So it goes.

Anyway, she told me already.

Welcome to the pleasure Dome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ycCLXLiZWs

13 digit gaussian?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyl5DlrsU90

Kim Wilde? Rather make it Relax.

Supposedly she is a blonde.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y3TKv7Chk4

Kim Wilde.

Making up her hair perhaps,

Lost one disc, still a couple of QNAN's to go.

Warning: Strong voice!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3l7fgvrEKM

And that history about something flying around.

Heck. Am I supposed to believe in this stuff (nonsense)?

At least I am able to read and write. Thanks for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_strings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unified_field_theory

The second link contains more information than the third link.

There came up two suggestions when searching on this two days ago. Now I am not sure whether the third link is the second one which came up at that time since I am on another disc right now.

These articles are summarizing our current knowledge about certain laws and characteristics of nature individually. Being able to collect or conclude everyting into a "Grand Unified Theory" of everything is the ultimate goal of physics science. This includes the field of Quantum Theory and String Theory, where the two Theories of Relatity are sought to be unified with the laws of Quantum Mechanics as we currently know it.

We do not see any mentioning of turbulence, viscocity and thermal dynamics being mentioned here because they are their respective subject fields of science. But these three names may be having their separate explanations when applied by means of one or more of the abovementioned laws of physics (like electromagnetism).

By the way, you may be able to find a picture of James Clerk Maxwell in the Wikipedia article on electromagnetism. I did remember the last name of this person and associated it with this subject.

Also there is an article about Integral Calculus found in the Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_calculus

Here the area of a square is supposed to become similar as the same area of a circle (and vice versa) by means of a calculation being performed.

Why are we still having this discussion about religion here?

Is it really necessary and are we able to reach any final conclusion when it comes to this question?

My point here is as follows.

All published Seti@home candidate scores are based on the current scheme where spikes, gaussians, pulses and triplets are the main or underlying factors being used for the analysis of the data.

The Wow signal, which was discovered by Jerry R. Ehman at the Ohio State University in 1977, was a strong narrowband signal coming from space.

Because it was recorded as an analog signal (what are we processing, by the way), there were no numbers immediately available for this signal. Only a derived signal curve based on the measured signal strength of the signal (or the parts representing it).

I have always questioned the number representing this signal curve.

It does not match the available playback on YouTube, for example. Definitely, the signal was either a scrambled one, or at least heavily saturated when it comes to background noise. Possibly there may be several signal transmissions happening at the same time, using the same frequency band.

Read further down here and you may notice a missing blank line for readability.

If you don't happen to have a copy of Burnham's Celestial Handbook in your shelves, why not try getting a copy of this three book volume for Christmas?

Despite being 30-35 years old of age now, this set of books contains a wealth of information about the best known celestial sources visible in the sky.

Radio astronomy meant to show pancake eyes out of merging galaxies are unfortunately not being mentioned in this work, but if you would like to watch a supernova remnant like the Crab Nebula, M1, in a small telescope - this work should be a must for your book collection.

Especially when you are gradually getting older and need glasses in order to be able to read your books.