space

[elfin vampire]

and in addition to Sayos argument, the fact that we can see stars is also a clear indication that "Space" is largley void of particulate matter, a single spec of dust from every 10 kms would render even our nearest neighboring star 4.7 light years away, invisible

 

Interstellar dust causes light defraction. In fact we can use spectral analysis to discover the composition of interstellar dust clouds by the absorption lines in light from stars shining through them.

The fact that we can see stars at all is significant that space-time must be a quantifiable body itself to allow for the propogation of light. It must be a significant medium rather than a 'nothingness,' hence the validity of the original topic posting.

 

According to established physics, "space" has an inherant dynamic to it and that is gravitation. Time-space itself is compositional to physical matter and the measurable CBR of "space" is enough to cause 'drag' in propositional interstellar craft as increasing speeds are attained.

 

In terms of theoretical physics, in this instance a vacuum is most incorrect indeed. This is the Physics-Astronomical Sciences/Cosmology forum, is it not?

[YT2095]

then allow to re-itterate the accepted terms of a "vacuum" with which you cannot argue:

 

Vaccum: "Space in which there are no molecules or atoms. A perfect Vacuum is unobtainable, since every material which surounds a space has a definite vapour pressure.

The term is generaly taken to mean a space containingair or othergas at very low pressure `Ultra High` vacua (i.e. vacua in which the pressure does not exceed 10^-9 Torr) occur naturaly at heights of more than 800 kms above the Earths surface, and by special techniques pressures of 10^-12 Torr can be acheived in the Lab"

 

there is your Physical Sciences deffinition

[elfin vampire]

"Vac`uum [.yoom] n. place , region containing no matter and from which all air, gas has been removed."

 

your call

 

No, it is the call of centuries of astronomers and astrophysicists. The definition of vacuum simply does not describe "space" in any context whatsoever, as I am being commanded to become so literal.

Firstly, since the discovery of the CBR it has been universally recognised that "space" is a gas of diffuse photons, remnant of the BB.

Due to measurements taken from NASA spacecraft, it has been estimated that interstellar space contains at worst, one atom of matter per square metre.

Nebulae of 2nd generation proto-star creation contains heavy elements, including those which comprise air.

 

Respectfully.

[elfin vampire]

It is a plain observation that your interest here is in arguing a point which is both detractful and utterly inconsiderate to the original topic posting.

Should we continue this argument in the engineering forums I would respectfully differ to you upon this.

However in this instance you are wrong.

[YT2095]

your "observation" is flawed.

 

Outer Space (as reffered to in post#1) is indeed a vacuum by all definitions. it is NOT a GAS of Photons, nor either it a Plasma.

it`s a Vacuum, and describing outer space as a vacuum is quite accurate.

nowhere in the deffinition did it preclude stong or weak nuclear forces, nor did it state that it was an impassable media.

 

feel free to differ with me and the rest of established Science, that IS your perrogative

[elfin vampire]

feel free to differ with me and the rest of established Science, that IS your perrogative

 

Since I've restrained myself to quoting from published and established astrophysicists and you have been expressing your opinions I shall assume that a correction of your sentence feel free to differ with me or the rest of established Science.. would be more accurate.

As I've repeatedly stated my sources of these statements, including the provision of links to where they can be read in original form, I should reiterate that far from being related to my own physical experimentation and calculus these are the statements of the established scientific community of which you speak, albeit in the media of worldwide scientific journal and established physics theorum publication in the field of astrophysics, rather than students' textbooks of (reportedly, largely Newtonian) engineering and other curriculum.

 

I regularly cut and paste quotes from the 1920 publication Special and General Relativity, Albert Einstein, the 1920 publication General Relativity and the Ether, Albert Einstein and a variety of university publications as I feel a great deal of original premise has been largely forgotten by students of contemporary curriculums, often orientated more to the geometry and mathematics than the physical reality of what has been entailed.

I was shocked to find a BSc about to embark upon his Masters in physics appreciate GR as no more than geometry, with little or no appreciation of what that geometry defined in a physical sense. This was an instance which found him intellectually contradicting his own agreed calculus and leaving him to discredit a fundamental theorum of the very foundations of contemporary physics, where no contradiction to the actual theorum existed.

 

As I have little or no interest in going back over the same gound already covered, any details you are uncertain about I should be happy to continue to provide the links to. I can alternatively provide the links to the thread within the science forum, entitled: Theorum of Relativity if you should so prefer. It is of general interest as several comments are provided by relatively elderly and rather highly qualified patrons of the field.

 

Perhaps you should like to gloss over the UCLA online tutorial upon cosmology and relativity. I point your particular attention to the sentence which contains the following phrase:

"..the photons of the CMB.."

 

A simpler tutorial is also online and has some wonderful little animations, perhaps you'd like to look that up. It also states matters precisely as I have, the author a holder of a doctorate on the subject. It's titled "Spacetime 101."

 

Or perhaps you are quite happy to sit down with an inexpansive library and detract inquisitive students from contemporary astrophysics?

 

it`s a Vacuum, and describing outer space as a vacuum is quite accurate.

nowhere in the deffinition did it preclude stong or weak nuclear forces, nor did it state that it was an impassable media.

 

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only wonld be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

 

-Albert Einstein, 1920

 

It is incorrect to think of space as a vacuum.

Moreover, in simple answer to the topic posting within the context of the question: indeed space is not a vacuum at all.

(why couldn't you just have said that to the poor kid?)

Nevertheless.

Furthermore not only is this established among astrophysicists in the company of Max Planck, it is also clearly observable in nature, as the topic poster had correctly noticed (somewhat a little more inspired than yourself on the subject I should think).

 

[YT2095]

after reading your diatribe of nonsense/insults and poorly interpreted data, I find myself wondering what you goal is here?

I/we made our case perfectly clear, the word "Vacuum" applies most perfectly to space! had you have been paying attn long enough to actualy READ what was being said in context, you would have understood this.

and as for "Moreover, in simple answer to the topic posting within the context of the question: indeed space is not a vacuum at all.

(why couldn't you just have said that to the poor kid?)"

 

how dare you patronise him!!! and outer space IS a Vacuum!

 

And, I`m also a very GOOD Moderator thank you, as many will atest to (although probably more forgiving than some). I do very much dislike arrogance however!

 

[elfin vampire]

the word "Vacuum" applies most perfectly to space

 

Neither in Cosmology nor theoretical Astrophysics.

 

after reading your diatribe of nonsense/insults and poorly interpreted data

 

Presumably you view quotes of published Relativity/Universities/Science Journals insulting and their findings in err due to poorly interpereted data. Or perhaps you find that I am misinterpereting these publications in order to challenge a standing based upon the fact that you have simply not read them.

 

I find myself wondering what you goal is here?

 

To open doors for enquiring minds, including my own and perhaps learn something of personal value along the way. To interact with others whose interests genuinely lay with science.

Yours Sir, appear to me to be rather more Freudian.

 

I/we made our case perfectly clear

 

And finally we have it. You here claim to be representative of an establishment in your standing with this plain example of gross misjudgement regarding the theorum of various fields in science.

You are no more than a signed member to a private website and this furthers your scientific and educational qualifications exactly: not in the slightest.

That your statement is representative of site administration, it is also therefore a statement of ineptly qualified site administration (to be making claims regarding established scientific theorum without appropriate reference).

 

how dare you patronise him!!!

 

How dare you dare to dare that I dare.

 

and outer space IS a Vacuum!

 

And, I`m also a very GOOD Moderator

 

This speaks for itself.

 

I do very much dislike arrogance however!

 

Perhaps sir, you would injure yourself less if you were not so arrogant.

 

Please feel free to delete my membership at any time.

[iglak]

the ether is not included in the calculation of a vacuum.

"space" is a good vacuum, but not a perfect one, like YT2095 said. the only thing that contributes to the calculation of a vacuum is the density of the space in atoms per whaatever interval.

the ether is not the only theory out there, and just because einstein thought it was correct doesn't mean it was correct. if there is an ether, then that ether IS space, meaning that more ether would equal to more of a vacuum.

 

P.S. i might be wrong on parts of this, i only know about this what i hear (and logically conclude from what i hear)

[Sayonara]

YT2095 said in post #32 :

RARRR!

 

elfin vampire said in post #33 :

GROWL!

 

Seems to me that one of you is saying "the fabric of space can't be bottled up", and the other is saying "a volume of space contains stuff". Not really an argument at all.

[Radical Edward]

as regards vacuums, space is actually pretty crap.

[YT2095]

"In Space, no one can hear you Scream!"

 

Why? coz it`s a vacuum

not a particularly good one as Radical Edward stated and I stated in post #27, 10^-9 Torr in space as opposed to 10^-12 Torr in a lab.

as also stated the properties of a vacuum in space do not preclude nuclear forces, capacitance, inductance or impedance (which is a function of capacitance and inductance over frequency).

Have a Nice Day