Earth's cries recorded from Space!!!!!!!

what is it then? the final frontier?

well thats all fine and dandy as long as i get to ride the enterprise

EDIT: hmmm... interesting


so i guess saying that space is not a vacuum is like saying that that death is not terminal :)

...unless by vacuum you mean like Hoover or Big Green Fat Reducing Clean Machine (by George Foreman)

You quote Wikipedia with such ease....

;)

The fact is space is not a vacuum. There are 2 hydrogen molecules per cubic meter.

Not a vacuum.

To explain it further...

If it were a "vacuum" how would you explain the propulsion of rockets through space? The use of retro rockets should be enough....

;)

People tend to rely to much on Wikipedia.
My statement comes from my 2nd year physics professor (he was somewhat of a "nerd").

Question is: What would you give to go to space? Would you go?

I know I would hit it...

:)
 
You quote Wikipedia with such ease....

;)

The fact is space is not a vacuum. There are 2 hydrogen molecules per cubic meter.

Not a vacuum.

To explain it further...

If it were a "vacuum" how would you explain the propulsion of rockets through space? The use of retro rockets should be enough....

;)

People tend to rely to much on Wikipedia.
My statement comes from my 2nd year physics professor (he was somewhat of a "nerd").

Question is: What would you give to go to space? Would you go?

I know I would hit it...

:)


Ok let me say it again, For All Practical Reasons Space IS a Vacuum.
It is not an abosolute vacuum, but obtaining an absolute vacuum is also for all practical reasons impossible. Why do you think a vacuum is measured in for example 10exp-6 Tor or 10exp-15 Tor?

How do a space ship propell in space, do you REALLY think those 2 hydrogen molecules per cubic meter is eneugh to propell a 1000kg rocket??? The space ship is propelled though the laws of Newton, for every force there are an opposite force of the same energy.
So to propell the rocket they blow out gas with a suirtain force, the direction of the gas is opposite to the direction in which they want to move...

I think you need to go back to your second year tbh :p
 
Lets go a bit further on the 2 molecules of Hydrogen per cubic meter in space.

What do we need for sound to be carried from one place to the next?
I have found a non wikki source that explains sound a bit better
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/sound.htm

I will just make conclusions from what I have read.
In order for sound to move from one place to the next it require interaction of mollecules with one another. In an object such as water the molecules are very close together so the sound can move rather fast from molecule to molecule. In air at atmospheric pressure mollecules are about 1700 times further appart from one another than in watter so it takes a longer time for the molecules to interact to allow for the sound to travel.
The density of air in the air around us is about 30,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules per cubic centimeter! http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
In Space 2 molecules of hydrogen per cubic meter implies that sound would travel 10exp27 slower than in air. If you further take into account the probability that those two hydrogen molecules would interact with one another (never mind a vibration possible throught them) you should start to see the impossibility of sound traveling through space.
 
If it were a "vacuum" how would you explain the propulsion of rockets through space? The use of retro rockets should be enough....

;)
Newton's Third? Even if space was an absolutely perfect vacuum, rockets would still work. Don't really understand the sentence about retro rockets...?
 
Lets go a bit further on the 2 molecules of Hydrogen per cubic meter in space.

What do we need for sound to be carried from one place to the next?
I have found a non wikki source that explains sound a bit better
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/sound.htm

I will just make conclusions from what I have read.
In order for sound to move from one place to the next it require interaction of mollecules with one another. In an object such as water the molecules are very close together so the sound can move rather fast from molecule to molecule. In air at atmospheric pressure mollecules are about 1700 times further appart from one another than in watter so it takes a longer time for the molecules to interact to allow for the sound to travel.
The density of air in the air around us is about 30,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules per cubic centimeter! http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
In Space 2 molecules of hydrogen per cubic meter implies that sound would travel 10exp27 slower than in air. If you further take into account the probability that those two hydrogen molecules would interact with one another (never mind a vibration possible throught them) you should start to see the impossibility of sound traveling through space.

Hence - not a perfect vacuum....

;)

Thanks for your use of a non-wikipedia source. It irritates me when people take wikipedia as scripture...

Still would like an answer to my space-travel question though...

:)
 
Hence - not a perfect vacuum....

;)

Thanks for your use of a non-wikipedia source. It irritates me when people take wikipedia as scripture...

Still would like an answer to my space-travel question though...

:)


Think I answered that in the post before the one you quoted.
but with a reference from Space travel 101
http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/01581/SpaceTravelEnglish/propulsion/physicsofpropulsion.html

Nearly all propulsion technologies that scientists have developed so far rely on Newton's third law, which states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Basically, what this law is saying is that if you push on an object with a certain amount of force, that object pushes back on you with the same amount of force but in the opposite direction. To understand the consequences of this law, we have to examine Newton's first two laws and the concepts of force, impulse, and momentum.


So what does all of this have to do with propulsion? Good question! Suppose you're floating out in space holding a rock. Your mass is about 60 kilograms and the rock's mass is about 5 kilograms. You and the rock make up an isolated system, and so, we can use the above formula for momentum. No matter what happens within an isolated system, the momentum must remain constant. Initially, you and the rock aren't going anywhere, so your momentum is zero and must always be zero (unless some outside force changes that, but then the system wouldn't be isolated). Now, suppose you throw the rock away from you with a velocity of 10 m/s. Then your velocity must also change, otherwise the overall momentum of the system would not be zero. Using the formula for the overall momentum of the system, we can calculate your velocity:

m1v1 + m2v2 = 0
(60)(v1) + (5)(10) = 0
60v1 = -50
v1 = -0.83 m/s

The negative sign indicates that you are moving in the opposite direction of the rock. We could have
chosen the direction of the rock to be negative (so v2 = -10) and then your velocity would have been positive.

The important thing to note is that although the system's momentum stayed the same, you managed to get yourself moving by throwing away the rock. Had the rock been more massive or had you thrown it faster, your resulting velocity would also have been faster. This is basically what Newton was saying in his third law. When you throw the rock, you exert a certain force on it, causing it to accelerate for a period of time. At the same time, the rock pushes back on you with the same force, causing you to accelerate in the opposite direction.

Now, suppose you started out with 10 rocks of mass 5 kilograms. If you threw one rock after another, you would gradually build up your speed. This is the same principle used in most propulsion systems to get something moving. However, instead of throwing rocks, propulsion systems usually shoot out large amounts of gas (known as the fuel or propellant) at very high velocities (similar to if you inflated a balloon then let go, except much more powerful).

Follow the link, the Space travel 101 site is quite educational.
 
Last edited:
Ah that question...
Well my answer is simple, I don't need to go to space if I am already in it ;)
Define space, Space as in the universe, or Space as in the gap between plannets and other objects in the universe? ;)
Mm, if I follow the second definition space can also mean the gap between the two hydrogen molecules in the cubic meter of space (hence a perfect vacuum) ;)

I would leave earth in a heartbeat if I was given the opertunity to visit for example the space station!
 
Ah that question...
Well my answer is simple, I don't need to go to space if I am already in it ;)
Define space, Space as in the universe, or Space as in the gap between plannets and other objects in the universe? ;)
Mm, if I follow the second definition space can also mean the gap between the two hydrogen molecules in the cubic meter of space (hence a perfect vacuum) ;)

I would leave earth in a heartbeat if I was given the opertunity to visit for example the space station!

Damn straight.

Even if it were just to float along for a week...

Hmmm.

:rolleyes:
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X