Thread: Stupid Space Question

If space is a vacuum, where does the oxygen and other things that r leaked into it go?

and if they stay in the space, couldn't we just fill space up with air technically (not saying it plausible or probable, but theoretically possible? (ignoring the fact that space infinitely expands.

and what happens when space expands to far? the big crunch??

if we could some how travel faster then the speed of light and look back would we see a ball of light that has been emitting from a central point in space? or no because we past where the viewing point of the light can be?

Originally Posted by Brokenazs

If space is a vacuum, where does the oxygen and other things that r leaked into it go?

It's not a perfect vacuum, anywhere. Where the concentration of particles is thick, we have nebula (clouds) that eventually may gravitate together as a star, and so forth. Why space is not just one featureless expanse of fog puzzles some people.

Hi Brokenasz,
could you please not use those large logos? They confuse your threads and would show up in any of your posts. Right now, they dominate them which makes them almost as important as your questions which is ridiculous. So, as moderator of this section, I kindly ask you to remove them in later posts.
Thank you,
Dishmaster.

kk i made them smaller is that better? or do u want them gone completely?

There is more gas in space than around planets. The presence of nebulae has been mentioned. However, there is also an enormous amount simply in interplanetary and interstellar space. The density is incredibly low - perhaps a hydrogen molecule per cubic millimetre. However, space is so enormous that the sum total of all those hydrogen molecules makes up enormous quantities of gas.

In fact, there was a proposal some years ago to use this gas as fuel for interstellar spacecraft. The Bussard Ramjet engine was to use intense electro-magnetic fields stretching way out into space to gather the hydrogen, compress it till fusion occurred, and then release the gas out the back at a high fraction of the speed of light, thus providing propulsion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet
Sadly, further analysis of this technique proved it would not work. Sob.

what about my other questions?

The other questions?
These are more difficult to answer. I will try.
When space expands too far. The big crunch?
There is an interesting article in the 13 December issue of New Scientist, looking at some predictions made by the new theory of quantum loop cosmology. And yes. They predict that there will be a big crunch. Space will expand to a certain extent and then fall back on itself. Then there will be a new big bang. This may be how the universe started. it may be that reality consists of an infinite series of big bang/big crunch/big bang series. On the other hand, this is just another theory, and no-one really knows just yet.

"if we could some how travel faster then the speed of light and look back would we see a ball of light that has been emitting from a central point in space? or no because we past where the viewing point of the light can be?"

First, there is no way in theory of travelling faster than light.
We could not, in any case, see light, since it is now red shifted to a very much lower frequency. In fact, the original radiation can be detected, but as microwaves. It is known as the cosmic microwave background, and has been mapped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...ound_radiation

Originally Posted by skeptic

The other questions?
These are more difficult to answer. I will try.
When space expands too far. The big crunch?
There is an interesting article in the 13 December issue of New Scientist, looking at some predictions made by the new theory of quantum loop cosmology. And yes. They predict that there will be a big crunch. Space will expand to a certain extent and then fall back on itself. Then there will be a new big bang. This may be how the universe started. it may be that reality consists of an infinite series of big bang/big crunch/big bang series. On the other hand, this is just another theory, and no-one really knows just yet.

"if we could some how travel faster then the speed of light and look back would we see a ball of light that has been emitting from a central point in space? or no because we past where the viewing point of the light can be?"

First, there is no way in theory of travelling faster than light.
We could not, in any case, see light, since it is now red shifted to a very much lower frequency. In fact, the original radiation can be detected, but as microwaves. It is known as the cosmic microwave background, and has been mapped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...ound_radiation

i kno what background radiation is -.- dont insult my intelligence

but wasnt there a time when we didnt think we could break the speed of sound? when we didnt think we could fly at all?

there was a time when the US patient office wanted to close because they thought everything had been invented.

dont think something is impossible just because today's scientists think it can't happen.

Mister Albert Einstein even said that a bomb using fission would never work. and we have nukes now don't we? if we can dream it, it can be done. it may be suicidal, it may be ALMOST impossible, but nothing, and i mean NOTHING is impossible.

Originally Posted by Brokenazs

i kno what background radiation is -.- dont insult my intelligence

Hi Brokenazs, I'm new around here too, so I may be out of line in saying this - in which case advance apologies to you and to the moderators.
I don't think skeptic was trying to insult your intelligence. It is difficult to tell from a post or two what level of knowledge someone has about a subject. (On other forums I have seen immensely knowledgeable individuals in chemistry make unbelievably stupid statements in a post on biology, for example.)
Also, since many posts are written to the gallery, as it were, it can be useful to include simple explanatory remarks that help the casual lurker follow what is going on.
And if you don't mind me being pedantic, I suppose if he was insulting anything it was your knowledge base, not your intellect. :wink:

but wasnt there a time when we didnt think we could break the speed of sound? when we didnt think we could fly at all? there was a time when the US patient office wanted to close because they thought everything had been invented.

i'm not certain, but aren't these examples of scientific urban legend? I believe there would have been some people who would have declared flight, or trans-sonic travel impossible, but surely they were expressing opinion rather than offering theoretical justification for their beliefs?
Several scientists have speculated upon ways that the barrier of light speed could be breached, without braking what are currently thought to be fundamental laws. I think all of these rely upon wormholes, or warping space, rather than actually exceeding the speed of light. Still, that would get you from here to there pretty damn fast.

Re speed of light.

My words were : 'no way in theory of travelling faster than light'. As far as we know with today's physics, the speed of light is absolute. Of course, with a future version of physics, there will be new ways of doing things. However, to date, every indication suggests that the speed of light is absolute.

The only possible exception allowed by theory I have seen is either wormholes or travel through the centre of a spinning giant black hole. However, the mathematical outcomes of such are just as likely to be movements into a new universe, which means one way travel only. This type of travel is not barred by modern theory.

Originally Posted by Brokenazs

but wasnt there a time when we didnt think we could break the speed of sound? when we didnt think we could fly at all?

Both of those were engineering/technology issues not issues dealing with the laws of Physics.

With super-sonic flight, the question was whether we could engineer an aircraft capable of withstanding the stresses of breaking the sound barrier and maintain lift. There was no question as to whether objects could travel faster than sound. (After all, "Big Bertha", a howitzer used in WWI had a muzzle velocity of 1 1/4 times the speed of sound. )

Manned heavier than air flight was other technological issue. Until the invention of the internal combustion engine, there was no power plant capable of lifting an aircraft into the air.

The speed of light limit is a different animal. It is a limit imposed by the fundamental rules governing the operation of the universe. It is "built in" to the very fabric of reality.

Originally Posted by Janus

Both of those were engineering/technology issues not issues dealing with the laws of Physics.

With super-sonic flight, the question was whether we could engineer an aircraft capable of withstanding the stresses of breaking the sound barrier and maintain lift. There was no question as to whether objects could travel faster than sound. (After all, "Big Bertha", a howitzer used in WWI had a muzzle velocity of 1 1/4 times the speed of sound. )

Manned heavier than air flight was other technological issue. Until the invention of the internal combustion engine, there was no power plant capable of lifting an aircraft into the air.

The speed of light limit is a different animal. It is a limit imposed by the fundamental rules governing the operation of the universe. It is "built in" to the very fabric of reality.

so u completely rule out the idea of hyperphotonic travel?

Re FTL travel
It is currently theoretically impossible. Current physics forbids it.
That does not mean it will never be possible, but it would take a radical change in our understanding of physics to permit it.

Perhaps, after the revolution, someone practising the New Physics will design a FTL space craft.

However, going by what we currently understand, I would assign that a low probability.

Originally Posted by skeptic

it would take a radical change in our understanding of physics to permit it.

Yup, that's always the way. Upside down. FTL could be whizzing 'round our heads and we'd think it nonsense 'cause the solution will be like, "lighter than fast craft space".

Neutrinos are small particles with no charge. The sun produces so many that in any second, billions of them are streaming through us yet we have great difficulty in detecting them.

It is possible that there are FTL particles which we cannot detect so do not know exist. It is possible that an FTL form of the EMR exists which we cannot detect. At present though, light is our speed limit.

Cyberia
I am sure you know the answer to your question. FTL particles have been postulated, and even a name given for them - Tachyons. The maths for these hypothetical particles have been calculated, and some strange results achieved. For example - the highest energy tachyon is travelling slowly - just faster than light. A low energy tachyon travels much more quickly.

It is possible that tachyons exist, since there is no bar to something travelling faster than light - just a bar against something accelerating through the light barrier. If tachyons were created with an innate velocity greater than light from their origin, they would not need to accelerate past light speed, and there is no theoretical reason they could not exist.

However, in spite of strong efforts to detect tachyons, none have ever been detected. Some have postulated that a whole other universe exists, travelling at FTL speeds, and not interacting with our own. Nice speculation, but in science, we need data.

Originally Posted by skeptic

since there is no bar to something travelling faster than light - just a bar against something accelerating through the light barrier.

BEN: Let's just say we'd like to avoid any Imperial entanglements.

HAN: Well, that's the trick, isn't it?

Some have postulated that a whole other universe exists, travelling at FTL speeds, and not interacting with our own. Nice speculation, but in science, we need data.

I.e. it has to interact with our own. But what oh what omnipresent force goes unexplained, these tachyons could be forcing?

Originally Posted by Brokenazs

If space is a vacuum, where does the oxygen and other things that r leaked into it go?

and if they stay in the space, couldn't we just fill space up with air technically (not saying it plausible or probable, but theoretically possible? (ignoring the fact that space infinitely expands.

and what happens when space expands to far? the big crunch??

if we could some how travel faster then the speed of light and look back would we see a ball of light that has been emitting from a central point in space? or no because we past where the viewing point of the light can be?

I think space itself must be of some substance (matter ), which was proven when earth firstly was photographed out of space (space here was providing a background for planet earth to be visible I assume ), however.

Therefore space has not been seen as vacuum, but one has been speaking about the vacuum of space too. Vacuum thus was not meant to be space itself, but a property space was said to have. That's how I understand this, I would say, relation.

I do find your post appealing since the water levels do no rise although glaciers are melting which was for sure according to images, video and other reports I have witnessed.

I myself did think earths matter could not dissipate to space, since the atmosphere always was kept and not lost to space. But I marveled about where the additional water, set free by melting ice, was going to.

Could be it was kept on earth or even not. I personally do not recon any weather changes like that it was stormier then it used to be one or two decades ago. If something did change, I would say, its more quiet than before. Less wind and like that. I don't really watch for this however.

If some matter would be lost to space; I think it was dissolves as long as it fits space proportions. Like that there are particles existent which are much smaller in diameter than these on earth. ?

We do not know space as a whole, and can not determine therefore whether it moves as a whole or not (anything we perceive was bases on being 'sensored' due to it's movement ). But if we can not know space as a whole we don't agree on if it moves, or if we don't know if it moves (as a whole entity ) we can not make a statement if it has to be seen as one. Right?

What we will not be able to do was to fill space with air (matter ) since there was 'more' space than matter available. That's not even theoretically possible.

For what I think space can not expand 'too far'. It was made of matter, planets, stars, comets etc. are made of matter, and, therefore this matter has to have an origin before the boundaries of what we call space, universe cosmos or else.


The last section of you post I don't understand.

Steve