Dakota fanning fansite, dakota fanning underwear pics, colin farrell tigerland,

May · Guest

That is not an image I was ever expecting to encounter.
You're an absolute idiot. Do you think that they levitate? They are striking the inside of the socket with their remaining limb, and in most amputees cases can cause pain unless they have all of their bone, i.e. all of the tibia or femur. You can easily break your limb while running if you fall hard, since your leg is inside of a carbon fiber casing, and the rest of your body is not. There is muscle pain, aches, just like everyone else, AND they do happen to use far more oxygen than the average runner.

Reesa · Guest

“both side focus way too much on a damned plant, if everyone could give a damn about it one way or another then i probably wouldn't need to pay 50 dorrars for an eighth..they should seel it in grocery stores and you could bag it and weigh it on one of those hanging scale thingies by the apples

Deniz · Guest

and that political party is the corporate party, which holds both the democrat and the republican party's. To blame one part, and not the other, shows you to be a lemming..
Listen, that's just weird, even for the Internet.!

Beacon · Guest

No, we can estimate how much processing power we have in several ways, one of which is to count how many synapses we have in our brain and count them as one transistor in a processor, able to store a single on/off state. From there we can estimate how powerful of a computer you need to have the power of a human brain. From there you can estimate how much electricity it would take to power such a computer would take.It's all speculation, but that's all they claimed it to be.?
Dude, my dad totally owns a dealership! He will totally hook you up... we're drunk!

Jayce · Guest

Sponsored by The Fourth Kind

Schryer · Guest

no *****, you think im that stupid? joke comment is joking.

Lyla · Guest

OK folks, I'm an actual astronomer specializing in galaxy dynamics, so let me break this down for you. MOND was introduced to account for flat galaxy rotation curves in the absence of dark matter, at which it was very successful. However, MOND has failed to properly account for the motions of clusters of galaxies, while the LCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) theory offers a better fit to the data. In addition, contrary to what is sometimes assumed, LCDM has made a number of predictions that have now been verified. The density of dark matter haloes in the outer regions has been found to be consistent with LCDM. In addition, simulations of the large scale structure of the universe display a pattern of voids and clumps strung together by filaments of dark matter, along which a large number of galaxies are expected to lie. This has been observed - galaxies do appear to lie along filaments. And of course, there's the bullet cluster and gravitational lensing.Here's MOND's real problem: it was intended to be a very simple theory (one free parameter) that could account for observed galaxy dynamics. However, you need to keep changing it and adding more free parameters to account for the other stuff that dark matter explains naturally. What's more, there's no reason to actually think that gravity must be modified as MOND states - it's purely ad hoc. However, there are a number of well-motivated candidates for what might constitute dark matter, namely axions, WIMPS, etc, all of which have been postulated for decades by particle physicists independent of the dark matter hypothesis.So now, you have a theory that want to make an ad hoc modification to the law of gravity to fit the data and that requires a bunch of extra parameters to make it work right, or you can explain all this stuff with dark matter naturally without having to change the laws of physics. We can't see it, but we have a good idea what it has to be made up of.Do you see now why most astronomers don't take MOND very seriously?

LaWanna · Guest

!

is colin farrell married