Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Amateur Astronomy / July 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Is space a total Vacuum?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Srinidhi - 23 Mar 2006 20:55 GMT
Additionally, is space a total vacuum? What about dark energy and dark
matter that occupy more than 96% of the universe?
Phil Wheeler - 23 Mar 2006 21:22 GMT
> Additionally, is space a total vacuum? What about dark energy and dark
> matter that occupy more than 96% of the universe?

No .. but don't try breathing out there :)
Tom Hise - 23 Mar 2006 21:24 GMT
>Additionally, is space a total vacuum? What about dark energy and dark
>matter that occupy more than 96% of the universe?

Nothing is a total anything.  Space is, in general a very good vacuum but
not perfect.  

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(density)

1.48  kg/m3        Earth atmosphere at sea level
1.34 × 10-5  kg/m3     Earth atmosphere at 82 kilometer altitude
1.00 × 10-18 kg/m3     Observed density of space in core of galaxy
Sam Wormley - 24 Mar 2006 00:15 GMT
> Additionally, is space a total vacuum? What about dark energy and dark
> matter that occupy more than 96% of the universe?

  The WMAP data give the most precise values for the density of ordinary
  [baryonic] matter made of protons and neutrons: 0.4 yoctograms per cubic
  meter, and for the total of dark and baryonic matter: 2.5 yoctograms per
  cubic meter.

  See: http://edu-observatory.org/eo/cosmology.html
Davoud - 24 Mar 2006 02:37 GMT
Srinidhi asked:
> > Additionally, is space a total vacuum? What about dark energy and dark
> > matter that occupy more than 96% of the universe?

Sam Wormley replied:
>    The WMAP data give the most precise values for the density of ordinary
>    [baryonic] matter made of protons and neutrons: 0.4 yoctograms per cubic
>    meter, and for the total of dark and baryonic matter: 2.5 yoctograms per
>    cubic meter.

Now there's a helpful reply for a neophyte!

Davoud

Signature

usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

rat ~(    );> - 24 Mar 2006 09:32 GMT
<<Sam Wormley replied:

>    The WMAP data give the most precise values for the density of ordinary
>    [baryonic] matter made of protons and neutrons: 0.4 yoctograms per cubic
>    meter, and for the total of dark and baryonic matter: 2.5 yoctograms per
>    cubic meter.

Now there's a helpful reply for a neophyte!

Davoud >>

And I get crap for criticizing newbies with very poor spelling for
complaining about having to tilt and swivel their telescopes to point
them...

rat
~(   );>
Starboard - 24 Mar 2006 20:35 GMT
>And I get crap for criticizing newbies with very poor spelling for
>complaining about having to tilt and swivel their telescopes to point
>them...

>rat

12 hours ago, you said the guy was a troll.
Which is he; a troll or newbie?

Errol
Starboard - 24 Mar 2006 21:11 GMT
>And I get crap for criticizing newbies with very poor spelling for
>complaining about having to tilt and swivel their telescopes to point
>them...
>rat

To add a little humor to this, here's an excerpt from Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia:

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts rude or
offensive messages on the Internet, such as in online discussion
forums.....

BoycottAl was trying to understand why what he saw in his scope didn't
match what was shown in his manual. Which by the way, if I'm correct,
means he was doing exactly what you accused him of not doing - reading.
In fact, he discovered a disparity between the manual and his real life
observation; perhaps lending to wondering if there was an alignment
fault with his scope.

And so he asked a question.  And basically, you insulted him.

So, judging from the above definition; who's the troll?  

Errol
Otherside - 30 Jul 2006 21:43 GMT
Ah yes...   it's comfortable in a perverted sort of way to return to this
group after a long hiatus and see that some things never change.

> >And I get crap for criticizing newbies with very poor spelling for
> >complaining about having to tilt and swivel their telescopes to point
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Errol
EdTriplet@gmail.com - 24 Mar 2006 09:15 GMT
How exactly do they go from a refined grid of temperature measurements
to knowing precisely the average composition of all things?
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.