air in space i just seen a bbc newsround report

Originally posted by backtoreality
Unfortunately, I cannot name names. All I can say is that this precise information came to me from a VERY reliable source. I am not at liberty to say any more about where the information came.

Stepping aside from the discussion at hand, can you at least understand why a claim made by an unknown person, made by another unknown person on the internet is treated with a healthy dose of skepticism?

If I were, for example, to say that I had friends high up in ICANN, but I couldn't say who they were only that they're "Good folk." And that these people have sworn to high heaven that the Internet is made possible by the manipulation of the subtle presssure gradiants present in the ætheric medium that permeates all the universe, would that present a convincing argument to you?

I understand your concern Whiskey Jack.

I believe that it is up to the reader to decide whether to believe or not. Afterall, we can only hope to tell the truth as we know it; we can not control how others may take to that information.

Would you not agree my friend?

backtoreality

Using your

Astronomy (note: not astrology) background

how do you explain the fact that the distance to the stars does not affect in any measurable way the intensity of the light we see from them?

If there was air in space, the farther away the stars the less visible they would be, in the same way that a star near the horizon is less visible than a star high in the sky.

Originally posted by backtoreality

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh so basically, what you're saying is the blatantly obvious fact that commercial planes can't go supersonic, which no one claimed anyway.

Really? I know some people who flew on the concorde you might want to talk to.

Funny, didn't YOU say you weren't talking about military planes OR the Concorde, but now you bring it up.

Originally posted by ArMaP
backtoreality

Using your

Astronomy (note: not astrology) background

how do you explain the fact that the distance to the stars does not affect in any measurable way the intensity of the light we see from them?

If there was air in space, the farther away the stars the less visible they would be, in the same way that a star near the horizon is less visible than a star high in the sky.

In any measurable way?
It does.

Distance is part of the formula to calculate Luminosity.

Im still wondering about the fart recycling program. Is there an extra tank that captures straight from the suit? Or do they go EVA with a tube up their arse? Or do you mean the gas is reclaimed just while they are on the station/shuttle? If so, how? Again, tube up the arse? Special vacuum diaper? Or is it just from the lavoratory? If it's just from the lavoratory... that's a lot of wasted gas, considering it's pure rocket fuel. Unless of course the crew is required to tuck it away until they're on the pot... which would be a terrible inconvenience!

The atmospheric pressure around the ISS causes drag.

Originally posted by backtoreality
In any measurable way?
It does.

Distance is part of the formula to calculate Luminosity.

Sorry for this questions, but I am not familiar with these names.

Does this Luminosity calculation uses only the fact that light intensity gets smaller with the square of the distance to the light source in a vacuum or does it use some constant for the "filter effect" that would be caused by the existence of a measurable gas in space?

You have voted backtoreality for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

I can honestly say i have NEVER seen one guy keep so many people wound up for so long..It just goes to show what can happen if you join a thread half way through and don,t checkup on the validity of the original reply

Hilarious dude.. Don,t worry.. Most of the onlookers got the joke

BTW you could have used a photoshopped pitot tube for you ''air intake'' to good effect

Originally posted by ArMaP
Sorry for this questions, but I am not familiar with these names.

Does this Luminosity calculation uses only the fact that light intensity gets smaller with the square of the distance to the light source in a vacuum or does it use some constant for the "filter effect" that would be caused by the existence of a measurable gas in space?

Yes, this formula takes into account the breathable air in space and the effect it has on light from distance stars.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by backtoreality

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh so basically, what you're saying is the blatantly obvious fact that commercial planes can't go supersonic, which no one claimed anyway.

Really? I know some people who flew on the concorde you might want to talk to.

Funny, didn't YOU say you weren't talking about military planes OR the Concorde, but now you bring it up.

You are mistaken Zaphie...
I was not talking about the concorde, I was talking about the people who have been on the concorde.

By the way, the concorde flew at about 60,000ft--or maybe a little higher--but those engines just sucked in that AIR with no problems. *sniiiif* wonderful air up there my friend.

Originally posted by nogirt
The atmospheric pressure around the ISS causes drag.

Please elaborate.

I think I know what you are getting at, but without putting the generic word "air" in your statement you are not helping my case.

Originally posted by backtoreality
Yes, this formula takes into account the breathable air in space and the effect it has on light from distance stars.

Could you show us that formula, please.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by backtoreality
Yes, this formula takes into account the breathable air in space and the effect it has on light from distance stars.

Could you show us that formula, please.

I could, but you might not understand it.
Have you ever studied differential equations, or linear algebra?

To the last few unbelievers out there:

It took me a lot of time searching through photographs, but I finally found a picture which clearly shows the intake vent of a commercial airliner. I hope this will be the 'smoking gun' evidence needed for your serious consideration of my argument.

Enjoy:
www.airliners.net...

Originally posted by backtoreality
I understand your concern Whiskey Jack.

I believe that it is up to the reader to decide whether to believe or not. Afterall, we can only hope to tell the truth as we know it; we can not control how others may take to that information.

Would you not agree my friend?

Certainly, but I think you're making a couple critical mistakes with your presentation here:

First, there is the problem of this unnamed, and probably unknowable[1], authority you cite. However true the claims may be, we cannot accept them based solely on your say-so if we are to look at your proposal scientifically. If you would like us to accept it as a matter of faith, certainly you can proceed with the Revealed Truth the way you have been, but if you want us to look at it scientifically this piece of evidence must be discarded as unverifiable.

Second, with your throw away comment suggesting doubt that anyone here could understand differential equations or linear algebra, you imply condecension. You suggest that you, the Authority Figure™ on this subject are stooping to share your wisdom with us poor plebians. Now I will admit that I don't have knowledge of those subjects, I know for a fact that they are standard subjects for higher mathematical education in college (at least here in Iowa) and it's quite likely there are a number readers and/or participants in this discussion that are quite familiar with them. So, aside from a bit of time lost if that's not the case, what do you lose by not posting the formulae?

[1] Since, according to you, you're not willing to compromise his or her identity, there's really no way we can know who you're talking about unless we know you personally.

Originally posted by Whiskey Jack
First, there is the problem of this unnamed, and probably unknowable[1], authority you cite. However true the claims may be, we cannot accept them based solely on your say-so if we are to look at your proposal scientifically. If you would like us to accept it as a matter of faith, certainly you can proceed with the Revealed Truth the way you have been, but if you want us to look at it scientifically this piece of evidence must be discarded as unverifiable.

With all due respect, Mr. Whiskey, I value my life too much to reveal the name of the source. What I have done here already has put me in great jeopardy I believe, and I am not willing to push forward anymore than to state the facts.

Second, with your throw away comment suggesting doubt that anyone here could understand differential equations or linear algebra, you imply condecension. You suggest that you, the Authority Figure™ on this subject are stooping to share your wisdom with us poor plebians.

Well, again with all due respect, imagine trying to teach a 1st grader about nuclear reactors...you can try, but why?

Since, according to you, you're not willing to compromise his or her identity, there's really no way we can know who you're talking about unless we know you personally.

Oh. Um, I'm terribly sorry Mr. Whiskey but I don't date from the same team.



[EDIT: I provided all the proof you need in my previous post]

[edit on 11-8-2006 by backtoreality]

Originally posted by backtoreality
I could, but you might not understand it.
Have you ever studied differential equations, or linear algebra?

Don't worry, I have.

And I am sure some of the other members of this forum would be nice enough to explain it to me, in case this formula is too much for me.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by backtoreality
I could, but you might not understand it.
Have you ever studied differential equations, or linear algebra?

Don't worry, I have.

And I am sure some of the other members of this forum would be nice enough to explain it to me, in case this formula is too much for me.

Please see my previous post.

Originally posted by backtoreality
I agree with you on one point: this is getting nonsensical.

Actually, I said that you're nonsensical.

There isn't even a flow to the conversation anymore. So, I would like to focus on one point, then move to the next.

So basically, you don't want to answer any of the questions or comment on any of the critiques of your poorly stated hypothesis?

I will go ahead and start. I disagreed with you about the temperature in space. Yet, after correcting you, you still stuck to your guns with the following statements:

1."The temperature in space is roughly 6K"
2."The average temperature for an object in the sun is roughly 7C...which is still nowhere near 300F"

You have already corrected yourself on #1, but you still will not budge on #2. I for one, do not understand what "average temperature" means when you are dealing with objects in direct sunlight.

Well, funny thing... Let's go back to the post in question.

Firstly, though, two things. What you stated there contradicts what you said about the temperatures in space previously. Also, you have comment on people taking your statements "out of context," yet look at what you just did.

Anyway, back to the statements at hand. In the post I had just linked to, this was stated...

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by backtoreality
What your Google search didn't tell you is that 6K is the temperature of space IN THE SHADE. The temperature of space when exposed to the sun is something like 300F. That's how the air does not freeze.

No, I didn't use Google. Sorry to disappoint. Just in working on my Physics and Astronomy degrees I happened to pick a few things up here and there. But, in one aspect, I was wrong... That's the average temperature of interstellar space.

The average temperature for an object in the Sun is roughly 7 C, which is still nowhere near 300 F. Of course, if it were 300 F, like you claim, how can the astronauts breath that, as that would be well above the boiling point?

Now, the realization of my error came after the first statement that you had pointed out. I just had forgotten at the time of what I had stated previously, that the temperature in space is 6K.

How does this contradict what you said previously? Well, in what I quoted of you above, you say that I had corrected myself on the first statement, but did not for the second statement. In actuality, it was the other way around. Maybe that was a typing error on your part, so I guess I'll just have to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Though, yet again, I was mistaken. The 7 C is what the average temperature a blackbody would attain in sunlight. You're correct about the temperatures of space, which I kept in quotes below...

In space, the temperature can range from -180°F out of view of the sun; and to +235°F in the direct glare of the sun.
www.onsetcomp.com...

So, how do astronauts breathe and survive in such extreme temperatures without any protection? I find it amazing that here on Earth, people would die at those extremes, but in space, according to you, all is well. How is that possible?

Originally posted by ArMaP
And I am sure some of the other members of this forum would be nice enough to explain it to me, in case this formula is too much for me.

I gladly would. Also, I'm sure E_T, Grady, HowardRoark, and a vast number of others would also be able to as well.

So, please, indulge us backtoreality.

Also, I'm working on a list of unanswered questions still, though expect one within the coming days. Here are two you can answer now though:

Will you actually answer the questions in a direct manner, or will you avoid the questions like you have every other time?
Do you honestly believe all that you have said in this thread?

[edit on 8/11/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]