Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Astronomy and Amateur Science

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #41  
Old 01-06-2009, 10:42 PM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
Thanks Rob and Steven for your consideration and comment.
I understand the matters relating to orbit speed etc... my selection of a grain of sand was to have an object that would take little to move... so if the bh can influence something lets try a grain of sand... I would have thought the black hole would be massive beyond reasonable limits if we are to conclude it can influence all the gallaxy via gravity...
Alex,

The point is a BH doesn't doen't influence the entire galaxy.

The total solar mass of our galaxy is 5.8 X 10^11,
The BH is 4 X 10^6.

The solar mass contribution of the BH in the galaxy is only 0.0007%.
The BH is not the engine room of the galaxy.
It's only stars in the neighbourhood which orbit around the BH.
All other stars orbit around the galaxy's centre of mass which is not necessarily the geometric centre of the galaxy.

Quote:
Steven all I am pointing to as to the message of gravity escaping a black hole is simple... our sums tell us nothing can escape yet it must..at least the mythical graviton I would reason is/if created and must travel to other parts of the Universe to get the message of gravity to another object... well if the gravity is so strong one could expect that not even a particle can leave...be it a photon or a graviton... the bh sums say they can not leave .... .
In the 1960's a NZ physicist came up with a solution to Einsteins field equations in which the black hole could rotate.The BH also has 2 horizons, the familiar event horizon and the ergosphere.

It is a BH that can actually repel charged particles which seemed to violate the very nature of a BH being a powerful gravitational sink.
What happens is that matter falling into the black hole collides with other matter and generates X-rays. The X-rays ionize some of the accretion matter into charged particles. If the charged particles fall into the ergosphere the particles rotate in the horizon and generate an electromagnetic field.

The BH is able to align the field lines so that charged particles get swept up in the field and ejected in the form of relativistic jets.

It is this type of black hole that reveals itself in the form of X-ray binaries.

So as you can see gravity doesn't always win with BH.

Regards

Steven
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-06-2009, 09:13 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Good morning Steven.
I am delighted to read your post ... as usual you are so helpful and informative...of course I know everything you say but I am sure it will help others... no in truth I never have read a note on how the jets form using the GR approach. Thanks specifically for that new info (to me)

You said........

The point is a BH doesn't doen't influence the entire galaxy.

The total solar mass of our galaxy is 5.8 X 10^11,
The BH is 4 X 10^6.

The solar mass contribution of the BH in the galaxy is only 0.0007%.
The BH is not the engine room of the galaxy.
It's only stars in the neighbourhood which orbit around the BH.
All other stars orbit around the galaxy's centre of mass which is not necessarily the geometric centre of the galaxy

AND I say yes indeed..my point has been made by you ... it has seemed to me "others" think a black hole is the engine room and all I have said before in this thread has been to make that point.

Although science is happy with the current explanation I still hold with my push view of the Universe and entertain both a GR universe and a push universe... and I realise my approach is not even poor philosophy and morosophic in the extreme... and I thank you again for your tolerate approach when we discuss these things... my style sometimes could seem dogmatic but I am even and open mined with an unhealthy curiosity in these matters: lol:.

Have a great day.

alex
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-06-2009, 04:28 PM
Robh's Avatar
Robh (Rob)
Registered User

Robh is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post

Although science is happy with the current explanation I still hold with my push view of the Universe and entertain both a GR universe and a push universe...

Have a great day.

alex
Alex,

Maybe you've explained your view somewhere before, but since no-one else has asked here ...
For what reason would you postulate gravity as a pushing force?
Just exactly how does this mechanism of push work with gravity? Something must be doing the pushing. Example, with Solar wind, you have a stream of energised charged particles. The effect can be seen in comets where the tail is blown in a direction away from the SUN. Hypothetically, a large sail in space could be pushed by photons. However, the particles in your model must also emanate from a power source or are they just buzzing around in space (the "ether" revisited). At what level of matter is the pushing being done?
And, for moving bodies, won't these particles in space create drag?

Or, as in general relativity, is a massive body simply a sink in the curvature of space where other bodies just roll in as it were. It is possible that mass simply affects the curvature of space and no particle is actually associated with gravity. It then begs the question as to what space actually is.

Curious, Rob.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-06-2009, 09:08 PM
Insane Climber's Avatar
Insane Climber (Jason)
Registered User

Insane Climber is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Paramatta
Posts: 178
Well this is all very interesting, My theory on center of mass has not been disproved. Nor has the idea that a black hole may in fact be an effect, not an object. I now understand that the center of mass could never pull all the matter together in a galaxy, but then neither could a Black hole.

So the question i now think is relevant is. How do galaxy's so often form into nice pretty flat disk shapes with limbs. If a galaxy formed around a black whole wouldn't it be more 3D? I know people talk about black holes like there some flat circular doorway into another world. But there not are they? they are Spheroid aren't they?

Of course i am leading back to the idea that a Galaxy first formed around 2 objects or stars orbiting each other. This to me would explain the shape and limbs that galaxy's form. As 2 objects orbiting obviously form a flat disk!

I keep coming back to one thing which has me really stumped? why are there so few collisions?

Jas

PS: It's STILL cloudy in Sydney
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-06-2009, 10:18 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Rob thank you for asking about my thoughts about push gravity.
You may regret it and I can imagine some members reading you post will be saying "Oh no dont get him started he will never stop..."

For some years I have held a belief that gravity works along the lines first put forward by Le Sage in 1745.
I suppose it is aether based in so far as those who subscibe to the notion imagine there is a flow of particles from every star (and other bodies no doubt) in the Universe ... maybe a particle contained within the electromagnetic spectrum... neutrinos could be the sort of thing I speculate upon.. however the flow of all these particles in effect create a pressure in space in fact I like to think space is teaming with particles..a somewhat infinite flow...

A mate of Newton was into the idea of push gravity (I cant recall his name) and I am confident that Newton was exposed to the idea... rather than embrace such a mechanical approach when asked what was the force of gravity Newton replied that it was the force of God which I find interesting as his push gravity mate was hunted down by the Church and done in..apparently for his unhealthy influence over children but of course I see a conspiracy by the church not to let the power of God be subject to any further errosion...

In such an environment of particles everywhere (all travelling at C or near it ...and I believe some nuetrinos have been attributted as near C) I speculate that gravity manifests via a shielding effect...so we are stuck on the surface of our wonderful planet because the flow from above is unimpeeded whereas the flow that comes from under our feet has travelled thru the planet.... and so we have an imbalance in this flow which causes the effect most mistakenly call attraction but it an imbalance in the flow ..or gravity (The flow for most purposes we could call the aether lets not get into the problem with it carrying light whatever... I know about the MM experiment but say that the gravity B probe in a mechanical sence is also mapping the path of the aether...anyways dont worry about that for the moment... just consider the particles flying about neutrinos etc and ask what do we call such if not the aether the ancients speculated upon)

Or think of it this way..you mention the solar wind..think of all the solar wind from all over from everywhere all stars... and if you are in a strong wind and sheltered behind a shed the shed may seem attracted to you but it is being pushed by the wind...as you would be pushed to the shed if on the windward side...actually add sand they can be our mythical particles for the sake of better metaphore... now dont take too much literal I am trying to cram a fair bit into a small space... if you are really interested have a look at the site Ron built (below) I have been babbling about push gravity for years and Ron and others have placed it in the 2%ers club site...
Now as to space drag I suggested space would be sticky ages ago and that what the pioneer craft would run into sticky space when they burst thru the heliosphere and that they would slow (and in fact in time will appear to stop and then accelerate until they appear to be racing away from us at (whatever speed our solar system is orbiting the centeral ..lets call it a black hole to keep everyone happy... I think its 350 klms per second but not sure without looking it up..orbital speed anyways..now it seems that the craft are slowing... NASA though otherwise and are somewaht at a loss to explain the observation and suggest leaking "stuff" slowing them whatever...but I say it is simple, the push of stella space working to grab them whilst the rest of the solar system continues..or the drag of all those particles... anyways at last peek they were slowing ..if it is leaking fuel or coolant they will stabalise at a new relatively constant speed...however if not a leak they will continue to slow... so time will tell if they can keep track of them...and if so we will have observational evidence that space does in effect drag which comes about from the aether or whatever we need to call it when the concept is resurected... as it will have to be I feel..what will we call all the HB's flying everywhere??? they can not be confined to existing only in stuff one would think but I expect we could expect them to be everywhere..another part of the flow you see...

General Relativity is geometry and as such it can not control or influence space ... General Relativity revells in the fact it requires no force... well of course it requires no force because it is the observation and not the machinery of the Universe... General Relativity (as I understand it and I do not pretend to understand it very well which means I am presumptuious when even taliking about it) as I said is geometry and can only ever be how we record how mass and space relate... and mass and mass of course...

Curvature of space surely is a comment on the space time grid as mapped by General Relativity... The "cubes" of our 3d (er 4d) grid become smaller the closer to mass reflecting greater gravity and as such enables us to have a map of space and a way to place within it matter (with mass of course) ....so I simply say this.. General Relativity offers no force for gravity, neither attraction or push gets a look in upon my understanding.. the force comes from the math itself... and as such Dr A in a masterful stroke took science forward and like Newton had the good sence not to bring up the aether or erode the force of God for certainly I can see no other force as responsible for gravity in the GR context...

What is space...

Space is everything ..we are in effect in space..those gaps in an atom are space... space is the flow of all particles able to do so in everydirection from every body and every time...think of it this way..hold up your finger and ask what particles reasonably would reach this point...well when you think it thru something from everywhere will pass that point and that is true for ever point in the Universe.. and when one thinks about it that way it is not a long strech to imagine that all these presumed particles must push and places of greater or lesser pressure will present to us as gravity.

Yes I have a TOE is back in general chat someplace and it is constructed upon the push approach to the Universe...

That you for asking.

alex
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-06-2009, 10:33 PM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane Climber View Post
Well this is all very interesting, My theory on center of mass has not been disproved. Nor has the idea that a black hole may in fact be an effect, not an object. I now understand that the center of mass could never pull all the matter together in a galaxy, but then neither could a Black hole.
I'm afraid it has been disproved.

Astronomers have found a star known as S2 which orbits Sag A* which is at the centre of our galaxy.
Since they know the orbital properties of S2 they are able to calculate the mass of Sag A* which is 4 million solar masses. Sag A* is also a radio source.

It appears that Sag A* may not be at the exact rotational centre of the galaxy so it to will orbit around the centre of mass.

Regards

Steven
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-06-2009, 10:50 PM
Insane Climber's Avatar
Insane Climber (Jason)
Registered User

Insane Climber is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Paramatta
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
I'm afraid it has been disproved.

Astronomers have found a star known as S2 which orbits Sag A* which is at the centre of our galaxy.
Since they know the orbital properties of S2 they are able to calculate the mass of Sag A* which is 4 million solar masses. Sag A* is also a radio source.

It appears that Sag A* may not be at the exact rotational centre of the galaxy so it to will orbit around the centre of mass.

Regards

Steven
That only proves that there is a very large mass there. And as you can probably see by the discussion so far we all pretty much agree that no one knows what a black hole is. And also please remember that i have very little idea what I'm talking about. I only started this discussion to learn. The thing i didn't expect was a bunch of people who keep telling me that "Astronomers" Have it all worked out. Come on guy's. I'm just having some fun here, Now how about coming out with some thought of your own. I read all the magazines too you know.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-06-2009, 10:50 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane Climber View Post
Well this is all very interesting, My theory on center of mass has not been disproved. Nor has the idea that a black hole may in fact be an effect, not an object. I now understand that the center of mass could never pull all the matter together in a galaxy, but then neither could a Black hole.

So the question i now think is relevant is. How do galaxy's so often form into nice pretty flat disk shapes with limbs. If a galaxy formed around a black whole wouldn't it be more 3D? I know people talk about black holes like there some flat circular doorway into another world. But there not are they? they are Spheroid aren't they?

Of course i am leading back to the idea that a Galaxy first formed around 2 objects or stars orbiting each other. This to me would explain the shape and limbs that galaxy's form. As 2 objects orbiting obviously form a flat disk!

I keep coming back to one thing which has me really stumped? why are there so few collisions?

Jas

PS: It's STILL cloudy in Sydney
Needless to say I have certain views on why galaxies are flat and indeed our solar system is flat... it is only an idea and at this point I say be careful placing any faith in anything I have said ..my views are not always accepted by everyone...er enyone actually...

Think of it this way ... in the case of the Solar System (this idea breaks down with the lack of influence of a balck hole when applied to a galaxy dam it).... our Sun travells along and the planets tag along ..the only way you can maintain a stable structure is if the system travells like a pie in the face or the plane of the system is at right angles to the direction of travel..in fact it is not right angles in the case of our solar system because of something else ... but it cant travel like a frizbee because the trailing edge would be far out and the lead edge too far in... sorry its hard to explain ... however now we have established the lack of influence via a black hole it is not the same as our solar system as our Sun has influence over its entire domain..and if the galaxy was travelling like a pie in the face they would be cone shaped .. mmm ... this is interesting I need to rethink everything.. forget everything I have said I am going to rethink everything.

alex
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-06-2009, 11:08 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane Climber View Post
That only proves that there is a very large mass there. And as you can probably see by the discussion so far we all pretty much agree that no one knows what a black hole is. And also please remember that i have very little idea what I'm talking about. I only started this discussion to learn. The thing i didn't expect was a bunch of people who keep telling me that "Astronomers" Have it all worked out. Come on guy's. I'm just having some fun here, Now how about coming out with some thought of your own. I read all the magazines too you know.
Er I thought I came out with a few ideas which present as novel in so far as I dont think anyone thinks along similar lines...

OK how about this... a galaxy is actually like a CD or DVD disk... there is actaully a hole in the center created by a binary system of huge bodies but through this hole one side of the universe flows to the other and this flow drags material which we see as massive jets and blame on a black hole.

The fact is we are very priveledged humans to be able to consider these matters. The math supports the notion of a black hole which although an uncomfortable recognition may well be correct... the fact is there have been the best brains in the world developing the ideas and more importantly the math in support so that even in the absence of direct observation the various "other" observations do point to the speculated black hole being a reality... what is unfortunate is most of us learn about them via the Simpsons or some other movie or hype that takes them into a different realm add to that the nonsense we see in science reports that in an effort to be entertaining perhaps create many misconceptions... I still dont know what in my mind is a misconception or not so I constantly question anything I think I know about anything...

alex
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-06-2009, 08:11 AM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane Climber View Post
That only proves that there is a very large mass there. And as you can probably see by the discussion so far we all pretty much agree that no one knows what a black hole is. And also please remember that i have very little idea what I'm talking about. I only started this discussion to learn. The thing i didn't expect was a bunch of people who keep telling me that "Astronomers" Have it all worked out. Come on guy's. I'm just having some fun here, Now how about coming out with some thought of your own. I read all the magazines too you know.
A good example of Zap's quote in this thread.

So you agree there is a large mass there. So therefore a BH (or whatever you wish to call it) is an object and not an effect. You have disproved your own theory.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 03-06-2009, 04:47 PM
Robh's Avatar
Robh (Rob)
Registered User

Robh is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane Climber View Post
That only proves that there is a very large mass there. And as you can probably see by the discussion so far we all pretty much agree that no one knows what a black hole is. And also please remember that i have very little idea what I'm talking about. I only started this discussion to learn. The thing i didn't expect was a bunch of people who keep telling me that "Astronomers" Have it all worked out. Come on guy's. I'm just having some fun here, Now how about coming out with some thought of your own. I read all the magazines too you know.
I was having some fun here. This has been an intellectual adventure for me, both hypothesizing and listening to other contributors' opinions. When people put forward the "what ifs", you've always got to have a good think about the feasibility of their suggestions. Obviously, this has to come from some knowledge base and different people know different amounts about different things. All in all, I think the thread has run with a fairly orderly respect!

Not knowing exactly what a Black Hole is (i.e. its internal nature) does not prevent us from actually identifying a Black Hole and predicting/observing its effects on objects around it. The external effects of a BH is primarily due to its mass and predictions have been made from general relativity.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, just how much evidence is needed before we can conclude that any theory is an accurate representation of what we see, or in this case, that BHs exist? The building evidence from many different sources is pointing to the existence of BHs ... fast orbiting stars, galactic core radiation, accretion disks, relativistic jets, X-rays, gamma rays, event horizon shadows, frame dragging. Observations are consistent with theory and they best explain what we see (or in the case of BHs, don't see). I'm personally leaning towards their existence but if suddenly evidence points us in a new direction, I'm prepared to go there as well.

Regards, Rob.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03-06-2009, 06:51 PM
Insane Climber's Avatar
Insane Climber (Jason)
Registered User

Insane Climber is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Paramatta
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
So you agree there is a large mass there. So therefore a BH (or whatever you wish to call it) is an object and not an effect. You have disproved your own theory.
Yes thankyou for pointing that out. I am currently trying to rethink my view on this whole idea. Trouble is several people blew my original idea out of the water, i am now frantically trying to play catchup with all the stuff you guy's have raised. xelasnave has raised so many issues that i currently have trouble sleeping.

The truth is I am slowly starting to realise that its not a question of weather black holes exist. It's more a question of weather i can understand why they must.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03-06-2009, 07:14 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Hey there Jase I am happy that you are spending your time thinking and not sleeping..after a couple of days without sleep one can move into even wider specualtion which will unfortunately be delussional...but hey so long as you think about things is the point..for all we know you may be the one whilst tossing and turning to come up with the new physics....

best wishes sleep tight.

alex
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 03-06-2009, 09:38 PM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
General Relativity is geometry and as such it can not control or influence space ... General Relativity revells in the fact it requires no force... well of course it requires no force because it is the observation and not the machinery of the Universe... General Relativity (as I understand it and I do not pretend to understand it very well which means I am presumptuious when even taliking about it) as I said is geometry and can only ever be how we record how mass and space relate... and mass and mass of course...
General relativity is not geometry it is a gravitational field theory and forces do exist in GR provided they are external.

The basics behind GR can be understood by anyone who has done year 12 physics and is familiar with electric fields.

If one considers the space between 2 charged plates, the electric field lines run perpendicular to the plates. The strength of the field is pictorially defined by the distance between each field line. If you put a charged particle between the plates, the field lines loop and converge or diverge depending on the charge of the particle.

With GR the gravitational field lines are defined as the trajectories taken by small mass "test particles". In zero gravity the particles move at a constant velocity in a straight line. If the particles moves into the gravitational field of a large mass, the trajectories deviate towards the centre of gravity of the large mass.

Einstein worked out that the trajectories of the particles in a gravitational field is the same as a particle moving from pt A to pt B in the shortest possible distance in curved space.

A particle moving in curved space along the shortest pathway does not see gravity as a force as it is travelling in an inertial frame of reference.

If however we add a second large mass to the picture which causes the particles to deviate from their trajectories, the particles experience gravity as a force.

Regards

Steven
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-06-2009, 08:11 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Steven things always make sence when you explain them. Thanks again.
alex
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-06-2009, 04:19 PM
Robh's Avatar
Robh (Rob)
Registered User

Robh is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
Rob thank you for asking about my thoughts about push gravity.
You may regret it and I can imagine some members reading you post will be saying "Oh no dont get him started he will never stop..."

That you for asking.

alex
Alex,

I read your view on push gravity with some interest. It has taken me a while to go over the basis of the theory from other sources.

I've gathered the conclusions of some experts about the theory ...
Maxwell thought that the theory required an enormous expenditure of external power, violating the law of conservation of energy.
Poincare concluded that there were inherent problems with drag and heating in all the Le Sage models. The Earth would basically vaporize.
A flux of neutrinos are mass penetrating but would not be isotropic, as stars are the main sources. The suggestion that the neutrino or a particle like it would work in a quantum field theory of gravitation was disproved by Feynman.

Gravitational shielding in Le Sage's model is a violation of the equivalence principle used in general relativity. Poincare basically stated that Le Sage's model and general relativity were incompatible.

So, my question is what is it about the current model of the Universe that makes this model look at all valid? If general relativity is holding up to scrutiny, you would have to abandon this model.

Regards, Rob.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-06-2009, 05:38 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robh View Post

So, my question is what is it about the current model of the Universe that makes this model look at all valid?
The answer is simple: absolutely nothing.
We went through this discussion before.. last year or earlier this year, if I remember correctly.
(we called those elusive particles "pu****rons".. "pushi-trons" or "pusitrons" .. It seems there is some automatic censorship in place here ).. And with the same points and conclusions at the end.

As Alex said in his last post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
Steven things always make sence when you explain them. Thanks again.
alex

We all should take effort to remember those explanations, to avoid going through all this again in the future
Otherwise, one day Steven may stop bothering to continue giving explanations any more

Last edited by bojan; 04-06-2009 at 06:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-06-2009, 07:01 PM
astroron's Avatar
astroron (Ron)
Supernova Searcher

astroron is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambroon Queensland Australia
Posts: 9,326
I don't know if this adds anything to the debate, but did not want to start a new thread with it
Please advise if it it does add to the debate
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p.../pr-21-09.html
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-06-2009, 07:04 PM
Robh's Avatar
Robh (Rob)
Registered User

Robh is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan View Post
The answer is simple: absolutely nothing.
We went through this discussion before.. last year or earlier this year, if I remember correctly.

We all should take effort to remember those explanations, to avoid going through all this again in the future
Otherwise, one day Steven may stop bothering to continue giving explanations any more
I would say that there are a lot of new members who have joined IIS since this discussion took place, me included. I see no problem in asking the question and had no intention of taking the thread in a new direction. Who knows, Xelasnave might even be swayed to change his point of view!

Regards, Rob.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-06-2009, 07:28 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,105
I am sorry if I "sounded" a bit jerky.. my intention was actually to add some humour to this discussion (Alex should remember.. :-) )

There is absolutely no harm in starting threads with those mind-blowing subjects :-)
I apologise if I offended anyone with my remark, really.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 01:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement