The Hubble Deep Field
posted on August 24th, 2007, 8:53 pm
posted on August 27th, 2007, 10:19 am
posted on August 27th, 2007, 1:26 pm
posted on August 29th, 2007, 9:01 pm
posted on August 29th, 2007, 11:55 pm
posted on August 29th, 2007, 11:59 pm
posted on August 30th, 2007, 1:24 am
posted on August 30th, 2007, 11:27 am
posted on August 31st, 2007, 1:16 am
posted on August 31st, 2007, 7:07 pm
posted on August 31st, 2007, 7:45 pm
posted on August 31st, 2007, 8:18 pm
posted on August 31st, 2007, 8:21 pm
posted on August 31st, 2007, 11:43 pm
posted on September 1st, 2007, 1:30 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests
THe heating thing makes sense, but I have to say, the "poles disappearing" thing doesn't. NOrmally when we talk about a pole, we're referring to magnetic north or magnetic south. A planet can't have a magnetic field without poles (this would be like having a bar magnet with magnetic field lines severed at the end). Maybe it's true according to the definition of the geographic poles, but then again if the Earth is anything to go by, we would then say that the poles still exist, but are flattened. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am on this one. I'm quite intrigued about this one; time to consult the old astronomy book I think... 

. Maybe you should write a song.
kind of sums up everything said in this thread lol IMHO
), but Mutant's just being kind.