how dose it look inside the core ?
155946
I think you mean "corps" in french? the humain body? better not to think about that sweety, coz either you would be crazy or you would be scared
883052
1) its optical centre\n2) 1/2 cm\n3)converges, diverges\n4)perpendicular incidence of light\n5)ciliary muscles
70874
Um. No.  The Earth's core is the centre of the Earth.
414316
Hi,\nThe answer is C.\n\nYou could make a ray-diagram and see for yourself...
86782
It's a smily face turn it sideways and you'll see it :)
445478
It is called a QUAsi-StellAR Object or quasar.\n\nNowadays they are generally believed to be galactic cores with enormous black holes at their center.\n\nIt appears starlike (quasi-stellar) but is actually very different in size and what it's made of.
455121
I think the other answerers have a few misconceptions.\n\nThe problem with your question is the use of the word "seen."\nSo I will answer your question in two parts.\n\n1) The best visible wavelength (optical) microscopes cannot see atoms. The best they can probably do, is see some of the fine detail of biological cells, nothing more.\n\n2) Using the term loosely, electron microscopes or atomic force microscopes can "see" atoms, and even electron clouds, but one should not take the word "see" too literally.\n\nAn atomic force microscope works by moving a very fine tip  over a sample. Without going into the specifics of it, a computer can build up a model of the shape and dimensions of atoms in the sample by measuring the forces that the atoms exert on the tip.\n\nSo I will state the answer to your question as this:\n\nWe CAN OBSERVE computer images of atoms; by this i mean that we can view computer images of atoms - but these are more like graphs of interatomic forces than actually viewing atoms.\nThe highest precision that can currently be achieved is viewing the electron clouds of various atoms. We cannot directly observe anything smaller than this.\n\nSo, you might ask, how do we know about the existence of particles like electrons, protons, neutrons, or even quarks?\nWell, that's because their existences can be inferred from various experiments.\n\nE.G. Rutherford's Alpha Scattering experiment showed that atoms consist of mostly empty space (in support of our massive nucleus and electron clouds model)\n\nAnd particle physicists can use devices a bit like cloud chambers to "observe" fundamental particles like quarks by accelerating e.g. protons high speeds and then making them crash into each other. This liberates particles smaller than protons, giving evidence for the existence of quarks.\n\nHowever, these particles are "observed" by the effect that they have on the surrounding medium, not by direct observation.\n\n\nSo to sum up, the atomic force microscope is the best microscope for "viewing" atoms, but don't take this literally. It's resolution allows us to examine the electron clouds of individual atoms.\n\n\nAlso note that "Electron clouds" is also not to be taken too literally, as anyone who knows anything about quantum mechanics will tell you.
16222
The main reason is dust in space that absorbs the light.  For instance, we are in a great big spiral galaxy.  Generally, if you look at a spiral galaxy, you see an immense, bright core.  So why don't we see such a core?  It's because of the dust.  The core, if visible, should be right around the constellation of Sagitarius.  But since there's so much dust in the plane of the galaxy, we can't see it in the invisible spectrum.  Astronomers have managed to infer the direction of the center of the galaxy by looking for a type of light (21 cm radiation) that is regualrly produced by astronomical phenomena, and which has an ability to pass more easily through the clouds of dust in space.  By gauging the direction of most of this radiation, they can infer that the bulk of the galaxy is in the direction of Sagitarius.\n\nAnd really, there is "light" coming from all directions, but most of it isn't in the visible range.  Cosmologists have found what is refered to as the 3K (three "degrees" Kelvin--a very cold temperature) radiation background that exists in direction.  This is seen not as the product of stars, but as a remnant of the big bang.\n\nBut most importantly, there are not really "infinite" stars.  The universe, though boundless, is not truly infinite.  There are some mathematical oddities that you find when you try to deal with the infinite and the boundless.  For instance, there are an infinite number of poritive integers, and there are an infinite number of irrational numbers between 0 and 1.  As odd as it seems, there are actually more irrational numbers between 0 and 1 (what my math professor called the "uncountably infinite") than there are positive integers (so-called "countably infinite").  Due to the relativity of simultneity shown by Einstein, one cannot exactlt quantify the total number of stars in the universe at a given point in time, because an observer moving at a different speed and looking at that moment in time would disagree as to which stars had already exploded or not, and which stars had already formed or not.  So while you can really make a definitive statement as to the number of stars, the number is not really infinite in the general sense of the word, as neither is the universe truly infinite.
926058
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/class/phscilab/dens.html\n\ntry this site
364801
Well, technically, it is the Earth's Core.  But if you're referring to MAN-MADE magnets, you are typically looking at superconducting magnets.\n\nRight now, it seems like the two contenders are superconductors at MIT and in Japan.\n\n\nThis may be the next contender:\n\nhttp://www.research.fsu.edu/researchr/springsummer99/departments/abstracts/BiggestMagnet.html
1111240
here you go\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass\n\ngess its a bit harder for you but try to understand
599588
Well it is a spiral galaxy, but it is a kind of cool one.  It is a little difficult to tell from inside the disk, but it looks like we live in a barred spiral galaxy.  \n\nNot one with a huge bar, like this one: (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050112.html) \n\nbut kind of a medium bar like this one:\n\n(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041216.html).\n\nSeen edge on it looks like this far-far-far infrared picture:\nhttp://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap950908.html\n\nThat is real data taken from earth orbit, so you can see why it is hard for us to see if there is a bar. We surmise the bar from the velocity distributions of gas and stars towards the center.\n\nSo that is what it looks like.  In proportion, star wise, you can imagine the central bulge as the size of a hard boiled hens egg yolk, and the disk about the dimensions of a CD. Yeah, VERY thin. there is no edge, the stars just kind of peter out.  Also, the center is mostly old small reddish stars, and the arms are domininated light wise by young blue short lived stars. There is a thicker disk of fainter red old stars too. \nMost of the gas and dust is in the disk and a ring around the bar.  This is where all the star formation goes on. \n\nI could go on for pages more...but that should be enough to get you to ask more focussed questions.
1163379
View it through a magnifying glass- thats quickest
240384
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
270208
Intensity of current and magnetic permeability of the core.
763512
You may need to install some software to view it.. \nE
583103
It is reflected in y-axis, the image will lie in Quadrant I