WARNING: This blog post contains spoilers for the fourth programme in the Bang Goes The Theory series. Don't read it if you haven't seen the space challenge yet and don't want to know what happens.
While we were planning and filming an ambitious item for Bang Goes the Theory in which an 'action man' type-figure dubbed mini-Dallas is sent up to the "edge of space" by a balloon, there was a lot of discussion among the Bang gang about whether or not we could claim to be reaching 'space', and also whether Joseph Kittinger had really "parachuted from space" after his balloon ascent to 102,800 feet (31,333 metres) in 1960.
We got our mini-Dallas to pretty much the same height, but I’m afraid that the answer has to be ‘no’ in both cases, even though the sky looks gratifyingly black in our remarkable camera shots.
BBC
Mini Dallas from Bang Goes The Theory.
It’s pretty obvious if you think about it. Kittinger and mini-Dallas were both carried up by a balloon, and a balloon only goes up if it (plus its 'astronaut' payload) is on average less dense than the air that it displaces. That’s how buoyancy works.
There must still be air – albeit very tenuous – at the height reached by the balloon, otherwise it could not float.
There is not a vacuum at the height reached by these extreme balloons, but the pressure is very low. In fact it is about one-hundredth of the pressure at sea-level. This means that 99% of the atmosphere’s mass is below, and only 1% of the mass of the atmosphere is above.
However, that does not mean that mini-Dallas was 99% of the way to the top of the atmosphere, because the atmosphere becomes more and more tenuous with height. If you look at this diagram that shows how atmospheric temperature varies with height, you will see that 30,000 metres is only about halfway to the top of the stratosphere, and that there are layers called the mesosphere and the thermosphere above that!
Temperature variation with height in the Earth’s atmosphere. The warming with height in the stratosphere and thermosphere are because the air molecules are warmed by absorption of ultraviolet and other radiation from the Sun
Temperature variation with height in the Earth’s atmosphere. The warming with height in the stratosphere and thermosphere are because the air molecules are warmed by absorption of ultraviolet and other radiation from the Sun.
There is actually no definite boundary that marks the top of the atmosphere, but eventually it becomes so completely tenuous that for practical purposes it can be regarded as ‘space’. But where is this limit?
Well, I did some web searching, and I came up with this. Satellites can orbit 200 km above the Earth, free of any appreciable atmospheric drag. Clearly at 200 km, you are in ‘space’ (the International Space Station orbits at 320-347 km). Lower orbits down to about 160 km are possible, but there is too much drag for these to be stable.
The US government refuses to recognise a definition of where space begins, perhaps because it prefers to keep its option open.
However the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale recognises 100 km as the lower limit of space, whereas an encyclopedia of international law suggests 80 km as a practical limit between ‘air space’, potentially reachable by an aircraft, and ‘outer space’.
However you look at it, sadly 30,000 metres or 30 km is less than half way there, but it was a bold effort nonetheless.
Find out more
John Zarnecki looks back over fifty years of space exploration
Consider The Open University course Planets: an Introduction
Login or Register to post comments
Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
eddyteddy84 has started a thread discussing Where does outer space begin?.
William McCormick, considering you think the "big bad government" is responsible for determining the speed of light, I'm guessing you never heard of a relatively unknown guy named Albert Einstein?
Many of his theories have infact been tested (and held up). One of the more famous ones is E = MC squared. Energy = Mass x Speed of light squared.
That means the faster you go, the more mass you pick up. When dealing with every day things, the mass is minimal. When approaching the speed of light, you get diminishing returns and eventually become infinitly massive (no amount of propellent would help).
This theory explains why nuclear fusion releases so much energy. Two hydrogen nuclei join, lose mass, and then you mulitiply the lost mass by 299,792,458 squared. That's how much energy is gained per reaction.
Also, you can exceed the speed of light under the right conditions. The speed of light in a vaccume is c. The speed changes when light passes a medium with a refractive index (n). n = c / v. If you exceed v, you get cherenkov radiation which give fusion reactors their blue glow.
You really need to lay off the tinfoil.
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
All of what you said, was done by Archimedes. So I think I heard of him.
Most of what individuals are taught today, and believe today, they do not even understand. They believe they understand it. They will tell you they understand it. But push comes to shove and they will quote some scientist, or formula. And "NOT" be able to explain it, or demonstrate it.
You claim there is mass. That is a claim that you can make good arguments for. You can develop formulas that will support it in some cases. But not in others.
Some of the formulas the top modern scientist claim to use, are not even used. They are applied and then a host of variable input, is also applied. Often with midstream corrections and plenty of explanations for missed targets.
If your government is not big and bad, then why do you bow and take orders from a bunch of perverts and liars? Why not just throw those pansies out?
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master". George Washington.
The problem is you are not in charge of your government, because they are not even in charge of themselves. Someone like you will come out hard against some tiny sector of the world. But your government that is supposed to be leading that tiny sector to higher living, is doing things ten times more despicable, but we get silence from you when government is exposed. You want a lynching for the little guy, but government you bow and tip your hat?
I learned how radiation is created. I know that fusion is possible and it is not the cause for a lot of energy to be released. But again, I am way off the main stream think on these things.
I was an honors student and I did win a first place at the Long Island science congress at C.W. Post college, and a scholarship. That I just tossed it in the garbage can. I only entered to pass my seventh grade science class. I would have gotten a whopping if I did not.
I have no doubts that the modern scientists of today know almost no actual science. I was told openly by top Universal Scientists in the early seventies, and men that worked on the real space program and real weapons, that most do not know exist. That our civilization is about over. That those in charge pulled the plug on real education.
This is not a conspiracy though, it was openly announced on public television. Many ordinary American people agreed they were far to dangerous to poses knowledge. And did opt to be kept stupid. On that note, government is doing a blazing job of insuring their ignorance.
When they send kids back to the bell towers to ward of lighting then you will know where we are again.
I am surprised they have not sent more astronauts to their graves to ward off any hope of a real space program.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Nothing in your diatribe is in any way related to the topic being discussed. The welding paper you scanned is pretty much a schoolboy level description of the effect of DC on a plasma.
The subject of this thread is where we should consider space begins, the page I linked gives factual information about the boundaries of the solar system and how close our most distant probes are to those regions.
As for the rest of your nonsense, you need to realise that the X-Files is not a documentary, I have no time for paranoid 'mission posters'.
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
Hi Fleetfoot,
Try not to fall out with William: his beliefs are rather unorthodox in many areas, as are some of mine, but he's good value in that he makes people question their own beliefs and he provides some really interesting information from time to time. You don't have to agree with him on anything or indeed anything, but just enjoy his contributions in whatever way you want to take them. He is not one of the enemy.
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
Hi David,
Questioning beliefs is an excellent thing and I will be delighted to discuss such aspects with William. When the science disappears and his posts turn into a political monologue, I'll only point out that it is off-topic IMHO if I respond at all. Thanks for the heads-up though.
George
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
What might the pressure be in a container, that is having a minute amount of fluid pumped into it, with a super low volume, metering type pump? When the chamber or ARC the liquid is being passed through is at 35,000 degrees?
How large an orifice do you think you need to continually accelerate a ship, at an amazing rate of positive acceleration?
Also who told you that light is the ultimate speed? I know who did, and I know that they just made that up. Many were working on it, and suddenly the government just stated that 300,000,000 meters a second was the speed of all ethereal waves. Everything had to go that speed.
The speed of light was set by, the government actually, trying to hide the speed of faster rays by forcing wave length rather then just frequency as the requirement, for transmission standards.
http://www.rockwelder.com/Radio/Octaves.jpg
You have to understand that to Tesla the world was a ball of electric matter. He would comically kid about, a ray from China blasting our capital. Even I have some trouble imagining that. But considering that rays from the sun make it through the planet, I suppose just about anything is possible. It is all just an electrical effect. No mass or weight at all in our universe.
Only electricity can stop electricity. The 3/32"air gap between the points of a common light switch, charge the air, back and forth between the points, so that the air repels electricity from the point with a an abundance of electric particle pressure. This occurs sixty times a second. To keep your lights from coming on. That is how the fancy non-contact sensing electrical sensors read if power is at an electrical device. There is an actual radio like transmission created by the air.
A standard electronics diode must draw some current in the direction it is designed to stop electricity, before it can repel electricity. You can see this easily on an oscilloscope.
My point is there are probably some ancient tribes that put much emphasis on the storm season, so that they do not drown migrating from Island to Island in a canoe, during certain times of the year. Or perhaps they do not go out past the reef during certain times during the year.
To us this would seem rather unimportant because our best vessels could easily weather such conditions. The slight difference whether real or imagined, really is not an important thing to us navigating these waters.
My point is similar. Deep space is a problem to the space shuttle, not a real space ship.
In other words if you go out there worrying about the different types of space, your ship is not nearly ready for safe orbit, much less deep space.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
If you increase the size, you allow the gas to escape and the pressure drops. There is an optimum value but that is an aside, the real question is where you get the energy to create the arc (it's not an acronym btw, a plasma discharge will curve due to magnetic fields hence the shape is an arc of a circle). The key factor is the "specific impulse" of a fuel. In fact ion engines like that used on New Horizons are similar to what you are suggesting without the inefficient heating phase, though ionisation of the Xenon is still a major part of the energy budget.
There were discrepancies in applying Newtonian mechanics to high speed objects that were becoming important at the end of the 19th century. Many worked on the problem but Einstein's paper showed that treating time as a dimension instead of "absolute" as Newton had could solve the problems in the dynamics of electrons. The equations that produces have been tested extensively and have never been found to be inaccurate. The speed of light as a limit falls out of the equations automatically, it is the asymptotic speed at which a particle experiences no duration between the start and end of any path. Beyond that, the "proper time" for the particle becomes imaginary and in some frames the particle arrives before it leaves which is generally considered "unphysical". I was aware of the limit previously of course but nobody "told me", I have looked at the equations and can work it out for myself.
Nope. The value is 299,792,458m/s which at the time was the nearest integer to the best determination of the speed by measurement. The decision made by the scientific community, not any government, was to swap an arbitrary length reference and measured speed for an arbitrary speed value and measured length for the metre. The original determination was by Hertz of course who showed that propagating waves were a solution to Maxwell's Equations and the speed is determined by u0 and e0 which had already been measured.
Both wavelength and frequency can be measured and generally the result is lower than c because of refractive index
The only "rays" that get through our planet are neutrinos which are uncharged. Even neutrons get stopped.
Sorry but that is complete nonsense. Air takes roughly 30kV per cm before it will ionise so the mains voltage (230V here in Europe, 110V in the US I believe) is insufficient. In the absence of ionization, dry air has a very high resistance as there are no free electrons or ions to carry the current so virtually none flows.
Non-contact sensor measure the magnetic field created by the current. Non-contact reporting devices use wireless technology to communicate to external computers. I'm not sure to which of these you are referring.
It's a bit more complex but you are right in that example.
True, the Shuttle was always designed to do a specific job and that only required it to be able to work at low orbit. The expanse of higher orbit capability wasn't justified as any payload could include it's own booster from where the Shuttle dropped it off.
My point is different, when you look at craft like Voyager and New Horizons, they were designed for missions where the maximum possible speed was essential and they could only achieve less than 20km/s. Contemplating what might be achievable limited only by materials and orbital dynamics (in other words the best possible flight plan), we still can't devise a credible way to get to even 1% of the speed of light.
What I objected to was your claim that we had launched a probe that reached another stellar system in 17 months. That is completely untrue and misleading for anyone reading the forum who isn't conversant with the realities of the subject. The Voyager I craft would take 75,000 year (if it was headed in the right direction) and no other craft launched so far could get there sooner.
best regards
George
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
You are drawing me into fifty battles of modern science. There are two types of rays possible from different types of points or contacts.
You can create the arc, which is actually a ray created by cosmic radiation, not the power supply particles of electricity, which are traveling against the flow of the arc.
Or you can create an anode ray that moves very straightly from one contact to the other. The beam is the electrons from the power supply. Experiments using ARC or mercury diode like effects, in a chamber, proved sufficient to charge batteries and supply power for the ARC.
There are many ways to make electricity. Lengths of wire, transformers, and gas tubes can be employed as well. However it took life long experts at the time to create these systems, with small margins of safety. A system the builder was still leery about manning with human beings.
After seeing what they were doing to Apollo astronauts he figured he would build something under contract for men. The LEM was not his first choice. However he made modifications that made it more of a Grumman machine.
If you look at nuclear plants and all the safeties involved, you realize that perpetual motion or even a power source that does not shut off can be very dangerous. The same is exactly true of perpetual motion. It is highly dangerous to use near humans. Without years of research, and understanding.
We would of course first have to relabel all our batteries, and electronic parts and meters, before we could start an undertaking for good.
Building perpetual motion systems with meters and batteries labeled backwards, to what Benjamin Franklin found, and England's top scientists finally accepted, and awarded him for, would be ridiculous. England has since reneged on the very understanding of the lightning rod, that they at first claimed could not work. The lightning rod was a diode, in conjunction with the air.
Englands current stand on the flow of electricity is as silly as the world is flat. So is America's.
Benjamin Franklin had totally and accurately labeled the flow of electricity to create the lightning rod, and his kite experiment. He had no doubts about it.
Colleges went against Benjamin Franklin one more time. That is why we are not perpetual motion trained.
They never tested Einstein's theories. If they could they would know they would not need to.
There was never one test done that showed any difference in time passing due to speed. Not a single one.
You will see no multi wall containment systems, with at least three walls of steel surrounding the test clock, discussed when dealing with the experiments.
So I or any other amateur scientist does not even need to hear anymore nonsense. Without three walls of steel you cannot hope to protect an object while passing through local magnetic fields at high or different speeds. I am sure I could effect any object without three walls of steel.
There was no way from them to know the ambient voltage around the test craft going fast. compared to the one going slow. It was just a mission of variables. Not a real experiment at all.
That is speculation. We have proven that the rays creating light are exponentially faster then the light. We did that by interrupting a light source. When the light source was interrupted, an instant action took place, when it should have taken at least 1.5 seconds.
You can see effects of dim and powerful light. Dim light often looks as if it is moving slowly. And in a way it is, because it takes longer to excite the air to a point that it can carry a beam of light. Longer for the target to register the weaker light.
I will post this now, and finish the reply later.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
Looking back at your post, actually William, it is you who is extending this conversation. The original question and title of the thread is "Where does outer space begin?". I have offered two answers, the magnetopause for physical reasons or 350km as the altitude at which a simplistic ideal gas model of the atmosphere would have the same density as the solar wind. Look back and ask yourself how much of what you have posted in response addresses either the question or my answers.
best regards
George
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
It can be a problem the way threads grow where there are multiple disagreements touched on and I've seen such threads grow to thousands of lines per post. Let me trim this to address just some points on current flow, your comments on the speed of light would be better addressed under the thread that is running on that topic.
In a plasma arc, current heats the material which might already be a gas or some substance which can be vapourised. The heat and electric field cause dissociation of the atoms and their recombination creates the light we see. You've said something similar already if not in those words.
Cosmic rays and background terrestrial radiation also usually play a part in initiating the discharge, once a few atoms are ionised by the radiation, they are accelerated by the field and are capable of ionising further atoms in an "avalanche" effect. The field alone can do this but the presence of a small amount of radiation reduces the voltage needed. However, radiation on its own isn't enough, the useful energy is entirely from the power supply.
In any plasma discharge, you have both positively charged ions and electrons which ahve a negative charge. The electrons move from cathode to anode while the ions move the opposite way. Similar charges repel, opposites attract is the old saying.
Nah, I made a battery out of lemons and a generator out of a rewound transformer and a magnet on a turbine I could spin with the garden hose when I was a kid. It's not hard at all.
The way lightning rods work is complex but although the polarity is significant, it doesn't work like a diode. However, if we start getting into those details, the thread will drift again so I suggest we leave that for another day.
I have no idea what you mean by that. If you are referring to the welding arc paper you mentioned previously, as I said it is standard stuff that would be understood the world over so I don't know what you mean by "Englands current stand"
If you mean labelling as in "positive" versus "negative" for the charge on an electron, it is moot. If you reverse the symbol on all charges, currents and filelds consistently, the change will cancel out in the final analysis and real-world results will be unchanged.
That is obviously untrue but perhaps it would be better discussed under the thread entitled "Speed of Light".
best regards
George
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
I apologize for enlarging the thread or seeming to make it more complicated. But if you get this, you will thank me for stopping you.
You do know that DC current flows in one direction?
I am saying that I can make an ARC with DC current by allowing the DC current from the power supply, to hit a piece of tungsten, melt its surface and beam rays back against the flow of the power supply.
That is how ARC welding was done for years. With a consumable ARC rod. The power supply is flowing only to the electrode. Yet you weld with rays and electricity beaming back from the surface of the molten rod. Against the flow of particles of electricity from the power supply. That is why so many thought that electricity flowed from the terminal short of electrons.
It even fooled colleges.
The particles of electricity leaving the electrode, in this above scenario cannot be from the power supply. You do understand that?
I can, just to confirm this show that I then send particles of electricity from the tungsten silently to the work piece, with the opposite polarity.
If you do not have this understood, you are not up to where Benjamin Franklin was 250 years ago. And there is no way we are discussing higher science, if you do not get this. It is amazingly simple, colleges got it amazingly wrong. And made up a million lies about it, and reality.
http://www.Rockwelder.com/WMV/tigmmicrosoft.html
Check out this short movie. It shows first the torch charged (-) like on a modern car battery. Labeled by modern scientists. It is silently flowing particles of electricity, to the work piece. Because it is not ARCing.
It is merely silently flowing particles of electricity to the work piece. The work piece is large enough so it does not get hot enough, to create an ARC back against the flow of the power supply.
If I were to aim that same torch and polarity at a tiny piece of wire, made of the same work piece material, stainless steel. It could melt my tungsten with one tenth the power applied, that I demonstrated the tungsten staying like a needle. Because of ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode). Not power supply electrons.
Heat was particles of electricity the last time I checked. Even colleges believe that.
I then charge the torch with AC it just sends and receives DC current at 60 hertz complete cycles.
Lastly I charge the torch (+) like on a modern car battery labeled by modern scientists. And the power supply sends particles of electricity from the work piece to the torch. Melting the torch tungsten very quickly. But the tungsten does beam a ray back, against the power supply, before it burns back the tungsten.
I give you my word, I am only interested in truth. Not at all in disrupting useful conversation. I saw something not right and interjected. This has come up before. I am sure you would want to know. I know what happened to others.
This is the root to everything else.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
I may seem a bit strange or even possessed by this. However I know this entire conversation backwards and forwards from both sides of the issue.
The reason why the issue of outer space verses low orbit space, starts. Is because of the cover-ups during the Apollo missions. The Mother ship, kept developing shorts, and blowing oxygen tanks.
The ARC went across great distances of thin outer space gases, within the ships internal mechanical compartments. Causing the mother ship oxygen tank to explode. It was an ARC that was created. They had found melted metal, where no power should have been able to effect.
It would happen usually within a couple days, after they left the earths orbit. And the gases in the ship were allowed to become totally evacuated.
They actually blamed the explosion on a failed oxygen regulator and blow off device. They later denied this, and it became very murky as to what actually happened during Apollo nine and Apollo thirteen missions.
Two astronauts returned the failed Apollo nine Mother ship blow off valve and regulator to earth. When my father realized that they were not going to report what really happened, he grabbed some souvenirs from the Lunar module. One was the failed mother ship oxygen valve.
I did a stand up presentation with the failed mother ship blow off valve in class in the forth grade.
My teacher was so impressed that she setup a tour of Grumman for the class. However before we could go, government regulations were imposed because of wartime, the Vietnam War, that banned any non-employee's from entering Grumman. At least without special clearance. Any Grumman kid could of course go in, we were just allowed in by the plant managers.
But that is what it is all about. ARC and the amazing power factor, or amplification of small amounts of energy. Grumman had simple ways to avoid these things from occurring. Because they understood ARC. I cannot say if they still understand ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode). However I suspect some still do.
As you know modern scientists do not believe that you can create locally, an effect where a small amount of power is utilized and then that amount, creates a larger amount of power. So they may never be able to understand ARC.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
William wrote: "They sent a ship out of our solar system years ago. It took 17 months I believe, to reach another solar system."
Only five craft have achieved escape velocity for the Solar system, the most distant of which is Voyager 1. It isn't travelling towards the nearest neighbouring star system but if it were, it would get there in about 75,000 years. It is currently about 15 light-hours from us while the the Centauri system is about 4 light-years away. As yet it is still within the heliopause, the boundary where the solar wind gives way to inter-stellar space. Rant all you like about the politics, we don't have technology capable of reaching even that system in less than tens of thousands of years.
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
You have been told many things. You were brought up in a world, where the people that set the standards for education were poor students, and subsequently poor teachers.
These peoples, fear of the infinite subject of the atom, and the all electric particle matter universe. Was just too much uncertainty for them to manage.
In their fear or out of their fear, they decided that a lesser amount of knowledge about the atom was necessary for them to deal with earth, and earths reality.
The real Universal Scientists listened and heard what the modern government backed scientists said, but considered that, if it was not some sort of a sick joke, that perhaps these proclaiming to be scientists, should be rounded up and exterminated, like some disease. If they could not stop, observe and compare truths that could be easily laid out in front of them.
Truthfully in my own opinion I agree with that thinking totally. However their backers the law makers should be addressed first.
There are compounds that expand exponentially, when you run these compounds through a 35,000 degree ARC, the expansion is amazing. This is old technology to the real engineers and scientists. Simple actually.
This link below explains the ARC through a noble gas. From that you can calculate what kind of expansion is possible from those temperatures.
Trust me some know something about it. But are a bit afraid to face it, with some yelling "rant", at good solid science.
The people yelling rant seem a bit odd to me as well. When so many grade school truths are ignored by supposed modern "scientists".
http://www.Rockwelder.com/Welding/Linde/index.html
There were some poor modern scientists at the time of the Apollo missions, that actually came out and said that they could not face the reality of this. I could not even tell you what that means.
Colleges are no longer under control of the Acronym ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode) And the many deaths caused by not understanding it. And they certainly are not responsible for the confusion created by colleges, and the students that left the halls, thinking they were educated in anything.
We also have gyro propulsion as well. Did you ever see the tiny gas propelled Lunar module practice vehicle, it has been on the history channels a couple times. It could fly around for extended amounts of time in earths atmosphere.
Grumman had built the Rigel ramjet rocket in the fifties to lunch nuclear weapons from submarines. We have had these technologies much longer then most would like to admit. They were always secret, when they were built. If only because the government would not deny or confirm their existence. When they certainly had proof one way or the other.
American individuals that worked on these projects would talk about them openly. But the government did not wish to promote them. So they disappear into a dark forbidden place in society. Many will not admit, that all of our institutions are totally the puppets of government. No matter how hopeful or optimistic we may wish to be, about it being something else.
All of our battles on the battle field were just political games of chicken not utilizing any real military equipment. Even the use of the nuclear bomb, was a very limited type of power that we had many years prior.
You can prove how the universe actually works with hardening compounds and mechanisms like a television screen. It is not a conspiracy, it is just a suicidal world full of cowards, full of greed. Cowards have nothing, no matter how many dollars in their tight fists. So they need more, and more. And it never quenches their sickness.
If a coward lived for ten billion years, he would never have anything more then the day before he became a coward.
I have over the years been told things "do not exist", and "never existed". And truthfully as far as the world goes, they did not exist. Until I found proof of them.
The fact that so little proof exists, about something that would be understood if anyone understood the atom. Is proof that something, of that magnitude disappearing from common knowledge, shows a counterintelligence initiative.
An initiative that is not shunned as rumor or lies. But rather is countered with more lies. Lies that, we have access to all knowledge. And do not get me wrong a few of us do. But it certainly is not in the hands of most.
You can debate what caused it. And why it happened. But no matter the reason, the mental sickness that it took to create, and the sickness that holds it in play, is mind boggling. Some cannot face it. And would rather not see the monster. The monster is just a little embarrassment not dealt with, in a timely stand up fashion.
They used to cut off a slaves foot so he could not run. Did that make the slave a better servant. It was just madness, ignorance. Sabotage really. The slave was a form of sabotage.
Ignorance is a form of sabotage.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
p.s. Correcting geopotential altitude to actual only changes the avlue to 350km but bear in mind this is a rough approximation anyway, the simplistic "ideal gas" model probably doesn't hold too well at this extreme.
An exponential function is a straight line when plotted on a logarithmic scale as is the case for that diagram. Of course this is an approximation ignoring temperature variations and dynamic effects. A simple ideal gas model produces an exponential for constant gravitational acceleration, it could be adjusted to take account of the decreasing gravity as described here.
As for where space ends, that's easy, it doesn't. It is unbounded whether it has finite or infinite volume (if you have trouble with that, consider the surface of a sphere which has no boundary but finite area). I agree, it is a very interesting question and large scale cosmology is a very active area to the moment. The next generation of space telescopes will answer some of our questions but probably raise even more. Watch this space ;-)
The magnetopause might be a more suitable boundary for an earth-based definition as beyond that a craft is exposed to significant effects from the solar wind. At 30,000 to 90,000 km it is still beyond what most people might think of as the start of space so an alternative would be to use a definition based on where the atmospheric density is comparable to that of the solar wind at 1AU. The solar wind density is around 10^-23 g/cc (6 atoms per cc, mostly hydrogen). Compare that to this graph for Earth's atmosphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosphere_model.png
The solar wind is well off the bottom of graph! Taking the relationship as exponential (a straight line on the graph), they would be comparable at an altitude around 330km.
p.s. I believe "sound" in the form of shock waves has been observed propagating through nebulae.
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
Hi Fleetfoot,
Welcome to the forum. Your suggestions are excellent and I'm going to need to think about them for a while before I make up my mind whether either of them is as good a definition as we're going to get. Maybe the boundary is the lowest altitude where the solar wind is capable of stripping some of a planet's atmosphere away: that would be the point where a molecule of gas can break free of the Earth's gravity and drift off into space, though the different masses of gas molecules could cause problems for defining where that point might be, but I think the boundary's going to be fuzzy no matter how it is defined.
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
A more intriguing question for those who believe ' science is all' is...
where does space end ?
After all a definition of the 'beginning' may well be abitrary but the end is ...well difficult.
Dontcha think ?
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
Two feasible realistic answers to that question...
ONE:
The point at which and Earth-orbiting object will NOT suffer sufficient (any?) drag from atmospheric remnants to cause its' orbit to decay.
Alternative , think of it as OneA..
Clarke Orbit.
Two:
The Heliopause.
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
I like your suggestions. The heliopause is a long way off though (the point where the solar wind runs out of puff and you reach the interstellar medium) - that's way out beyond the furthest planets in the solar system.
The Clarke Orbit? Doesn't that mean geo-stationary orbit? That sounds better, but it's arbitrary, being based upon the rotation speed of the Earth. Try applying the same rule to Venus!
If we went for the Heliopause and decided that outer space began there, we'd still need to define the space where space begins, and it's clear to everyone that an astronaut doing a space walk is doing it in space. Maybe it should be the point where meteoroids turn into meteors, where the friction from the atmosphere begins to burn things up, but again there's a problem, because that depends on their speed and what they're made of.
If we're going to find a real definition, it has to be to do with getting clear of the Earth's atmosphere: if you're standing on the moon, you're already in space. How about the altitude at which sound stops? Does it ever stop completely, or does it just get quieter and quieter as the molecules get further apart? What about the point where weather stops? How high does lightning go (upward moving "sprites")? Or how about the highest altitude at which the aurora occurs?
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
They sent a ship out of our solar system years ago. It took 17 months I believe, to reach another solar system. It is not like we have any scientific restraint upon us. Just legal restraints, jealousy.
We are not allowed to leave. In order to leave, we would have to have military superiority.
If you were a deceitful, lying, cowardly law maker, would you let strong honest Universal Scientists with years of working knowledge of the most fantastic nature, gain military superiority over you? Law makers know what they deserve. That is why you have the secret services.
Look what it took to protect Hitler. Look at what it takes to protect Obama. Or English officials. If Hitler did not destroy his own countries science, they could have shut America and England down overnight. But Hitler and his party were as corrupt as Sadam.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Firstly, well done. Great show, really effective.
Have often wondered how to achieve such footage of the ‘space’ . How did you manage to retrieve the camera after the helium balloon exploded? Atmosphere activated parachute? And also the software used on the Macbook to track the balloon progress?
Many regards, thanks for a great 5 minutes on a usually boring monday.
Ted.
Re: Comments on: "Where does outer space begin?"
I've heard that the International Space Station falls hundreds of metres every day due to drag: it only stays up there because it is regularly boosted back up again, so you could argue that it is not in space proper. However, there is gas everywhere in the universe at very low levels, so there is no true vacuum out there at all. In effect, you can pick any altitude you like and claim that outer space begins there. You can't even use black sky as a dividing point, because it will never be perfectly black. How high do you need to go before you can see stars in daytime? The sun's a star, so if you jump off the ground, you are in space.