Minor correction Simon. I heard on April 26th that Voyager 1 is back online and communication with earth. In general, software engineers discovered one of the computers had areas that were corrupted and after re-uploading the software / coding using areas of other computers, Voyager 1 started communicating again. The signal (travelling at the speed of light) took almost 23 hrs to reach Voyager 1. The round trip signal (travelling at the speed of light) took almost two days. It’s amazing that both Voyagers are still working and communication after almost 48 years.
It's comical that you actually buy into this insane bullspit....you think that we can communicate with something billions of miles away yet my cellphone doesn't catch signal from 50 yards off the hwy? You are SMOKED!! The indoctrination is strong with you sir.
Wow almost 50 years and not even a light day away!!! So I’m assuming it’s going to take about 183 years before it’s a full light year away?? Amazing how small we really are in this massive galaxy 🌌/ universe !!!
@@dpsamu2000 yeah I must have been on one when I typed that 183 years clearly 50 x 365 is more than 183 !!! I’m scratching my head because I have no idea how I even came up with that when I have a calculator!!!
Actually, the tree falling in the woods with no one around to "hear" it, still causes air molecules to be moved in waves. The presence of ear drums is not required for the physics of the air molecules to be moved by an object. It's the same as tossing a rock over your shoulder into a pond while not looking at the water. The water reacts with waves regardless of whether it is being watched or not.
but we're living in a Simulation.. *they* don't render or calculate what isn't seen or heard.. I was going to be more serious and mention Quantum collapse and Schrödinger's box.
I agree with your explanation, but I believe the core of the question is semantic, not scientific, and revolves around the technical definition of the word "sound". Had this argument many times. my usual answer is: "That depends on whether you're an Arts major or a Science major." 😉
11:31 Great news -- as of April 5, 2024, Voyager 1 is back on-line!! Major kudos to the Voyager team, for figuring out what was wrong, and devising a fix.
It was April 20. And they just started doing the repair which would likely take weeks to complete. A bad memory chip containing some of it's software was the culprit. It caused it's transmissions to be garbled since November 14, 2023. They had to move that software elsewhere and change references to it in the rest of the code. The first of a series of software updates was completed on April 20. The repair is complicated because the software was too big to fit anywhere else. It had to be broken up and spread across different locations. Their first software update got Voyager 1 sending status information about the condition of the probe. An important first step.
Even without a living thing to hear it, the sound is still created (and can be detected with a microphone)... This thing that if nobody hears it there was no sound is just BS.
Sound waves exist without ears. That’s like saying light doesn’t exist if no eyes see it. No. Photons are still traveling, just like air is still vibrating.
its not that Hollywood writers dont know this information its just that a scientifically accurate looking explosion with no sound would just look soooo boring!
You can easily do this experiment. Watch some thrilling war movie depicting fierce battles on land or sea, and just turn off the sound. See how much less exciting it is.
The Expanse is phenomenal. It proved you can still have action, drama, and suspense in space, but still be scientifically accurate. That IS the suspense. Physics practically is a villain, a hero, and a secret weapon by itself.
I was actually a bit upset and disappointed when (Spoiler!) Naomi jumped through the vacuum of space without a vac suit without drying. Just shows how feel this misconception runs within most of us.
Yes the Expanse is amazing, way more accurate than other shows and movies but it does make some compromises. For example the ships would need huge radiators and heat sinks, plus they do have sound effects for space sequences. Firefly actually had no sound effects for its space sequences which though it is on the whole much less realistic than The Expanse actually makes it more accurate in that one regard.
Correct. And once most of the available hydrogen is fused to something else the helium will fuse to something bigger (IIRC beryllium), eventually carbon and oxygen will be formed by fusion and so forth - until iron is the result of the fusion. It all stops at iron because the next fusion between iron atoms takes up more energy than it produces. So when the fusion switches to making something larger out of the iron that's when the star is going to die (by that time our sun for example would reach a diameter of about the Jupiter orbit, so our good old earth is toast inside that red giant star our sun has become)... If it's larger than ten times our sun, it's going to go supernova, which is when almost all other elements we know will form again (we ourselves live off a supernova that happened more than 5 billion years ago - else we wouldn't have any other elements than anything below iron in the periodic table)
@@karlgunterwunsch1950 so eventually, unless the weirdness of "dark matter" somehow intervenes in an unpredictable manner, the universe will eventually consist of nothing but "iron stars" and black holes. And it may stay like that forever.
Depends on the asteroid field. One example they arrived into the remains of planet Alderaan. Reasonable to think it didn't had time to separate too much. In the second case we only know it was very dense. It is possible. Yes most are extremely insanly sparse, but again it depends what caused it
I remember reading a Sci-Fi short story a long time ago, that was written by one of the classic Sci-Fi authors in the 1950s, although I can't remember which one. It featured a rescue of some passengers on a space ship that had suffered some kind of accident and needed to be evacuated quickly, but there were no space suits for the passengers to wear while moving over to the rescue ship. The distance between the two ships was short and could be traversed in less than 2 minutes by pulling one's self along a tether between the two ships, so they had the passengers enter the airlock of the doomed ship one by one, hyper-ventilate to maximally oxygenate their blood and then expel as much air as possible from their lungs before holding their breath on the exhale, so that there was little to no pressure from air in their lungs. Then they opened the airlock and had the rescuing astronaut (iirc) drag them to the rescue ship by pulling himself and the passenger along the tether. This blew my mind at the time, but tracks with all the information in this video. Those old Sci-Fi authors sure knew their science.
I think that's the question that I, and many others, still have. Assuming you're in some kind of spaceship or station and something goes wrong, with no space suits available, is it possible for a human to survive, even if for just a few _seconds_ , an exposed transfer to a functioning and safe rescue vehicle? Also, given the fact that our bodies have numerous subconscious protocols when unconscious and in life threatening danger, would any of those unconscious reflexes unintentionally cause death if you went unconscious during an exposed transfer in space? Like how the body reflexively takes a small breath before being submerged in water. Based on what was said in this video, it sounds like that would be a fatal mistake in space.
Thats a possible situation in our future but its not a happy ending. The people might survive but will be suffering from decompression sickness. Obiously better than being left for dead but not a clean rescue where the people are able to walk away.
@cameronl1859 Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein were all writing in the 50s and none of them have ever been slouches in the Science department of Sci Fi, so I dispute your implicit claim that all Sci Fi in the 50s was space opera. Project Mercury started in 1958, so people interested in science in the 50s would have been well aware of vacuum conditions in space. That having been said, since I can't remember the name of the story or the author, I can't guarantee that the story wasn't published in the 60s rather than the 50s, I just know I read it in an anthology of classic short stories from that 50s-60s era of Sci Fi that I had borrowed from the library when I was a teenager.
@cameronl1859 Sure. It just seems like you're making an awfully big deal out of the fact that I might be off a few years on the publishing date of a short story I read 50-ish years ago. My point remains that, for the time, the fact that this story was apparently accurately representing the contents of this video is pretty amazing, when more modern movies, even those that are supposedly portraying a more "hard science" Sci Fi, don't.
I would question the conclusion concerning your body's ability to adapt to one atmosphere (Atm) of pressure change. As a scuba diver and a former US Navy Aerospace Physiology Technician, I admit that a single Atm is reasonably easily handled when moving above 1 Atm, but when going in the opposite direction the relationship between temperature, pressure, volume and boiling points of liquids. There is a very good reason pilots who fly at extreme altitudes are required to wear pressure suits. Although it is cold enough to freeze very quickly at approximately 63,000 ft in altitude, the air pressure at that altitude brings the boiling point of the blood to around standard body temperature. In space, depending on your protective gear etc it would just be a race between what kills you first, but I believe the embolism, possibly secondary to your blood gasses coming out of solution (boiling) would win.
Actually, your bodily fluids boiling wins (re: what would kill you first in space). A human can survive at least 3 minutes without air, on the other hand the Russian cosmonauts who died in space due to an accidental cabin depressurization were dead in about 15 seconds.
Interstellar did really well with the lack of sounds in a vacuum. Whenever there was a camera shot in a vacuum it was just... silent. No sound. That movie is a work of art. The expanse show also did a really great work on exposure to vacuum without a spacesuit. Obvious spoiler ahead! Naomi jumps out of an airlock without a spacesuit to escape a ship. She lets air go out so her lungs don't rupture, and at the end of the 15 sec window where she would pass out she injects herself with oxygenated blood, buying her a bit more time which is enough for her to reach a spaceship close by, open the airlock, close it and pressurise it. She then passes out but wakes up gasping for air. She is in pain, she has troubles with balancing herself, blood socket in her eye pops, she looks buised and also has received some sun burns. Not only that, she is extremely dehydrated.
Everyone's always trying to ruin our fun! Suspension of disbelief is a wonderful thing. I don't care how inaccurate that movie is. Even as a huge Philip K Dick fan I love that movie.
I feel like the most absurd line from Total Recall is often overlooked. "The entire core of Mahs is ice. The reactah melts it... and releases the oxygen." Yeah, no and no. 1. A planet of rock is not gonna form around a less dense core of ice in the first place. 2. We can't breathe water vapor. Melting ice does _not_ separate the oxygen from the hydrogen. Earth had water for billions of years before there was significant oxygen in the atmosphere (slowly produced as a by-product by stromatolites growing in the shallows).
I'd say sound is the air vibrations itself, which can affect things other than ear drums, and the air vibrations from a falling tree are still there whether anyone is there to hear it or not. The actual definition of sound is "vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear" which means air vibrations bring sound is not contingent on being heard, just that they could be heard if an ear was near.
If the sound from roaring engines is heard within the ship, but not when the camera pans outside of the ship, that would be an accurate depiction of how sound would work in and out of a space ship.
The atmosphere inside of a habitable vessel would also allow for the propogation of a blast wave, and the enclosed nature of such a vessel would make it much more devastating. Just like bombs detonated inside buildings or caves have a more dramatic effect than those exploding outside. Worse still, the immediate vacuum which would occur after any atmosphere was consumed by deflagration would act violently against structures and people within. Ever see an explosion underwater? How it pushes out, then collapses in on itself? A little like that. So, yes...starships could explode in space. It would just be much faster and much more violent than what we're used to.
@@ScottyBeastmuch as the TH-camr protests violent decompression in vacuum, the same principles should apply, it isn't the nature of the humans exposure, but the volume of their atmosphere
Also you will probably hear it if the other ship passes by your one closely. Engines emit reactive mass and radiation that will interact with the ship's hull
0:55 - Chapter 1 - Sound doesn't exist in a vaccum 2:30 - Chapter 2 - Explosions in space 4:45 - Chapter 3 - A human body will freeze or explode in space 7:10 - Chapter 4 - The sun is a burning fiery ball 9:55 - Chapter 5 - Flying through an asteroid belt is dangerous
Kudos to the editor for throwing a beret on Simon when he said "We're going to bust some myths". Even without the stash, it was a good throwback to Jamie.
Space is very, very cold. The baseline temperature of outer space is 2.7 kelvins - minus 454.81 degrees Fahrenheit, or minus 270.45 degrees Celsius - meaning it is barely above absolute zero, the point at which molecular motion stops. But this temperature is not constant throughout the solar system.Apr 16, 2022
Background microwave radiation is 5⁰ kelvin. For heat to leave your body, other masses at a lower temperature would have to touch your body and absorb the heat until it reaches the same temperature as your body, at which point, it would stop puling heat from you. Air has lots of gas particles to pull heat from you. Water has even more. Lying on the ground has the highest density of particles and will sap your heat the fastest. Well, moving wind or water would be moving away before they reach any temp close to your body temperature, so you just keep getting cold air/water pulling heat constantly. In "empty" space, there is basically nothing to touch you and cool your body. In front of a star, say right outside Earth's atmosphere, you would get wrecked by solar radiation, and you would get cooked fast as hell, basically being a super super fast tan.
Radiative heat loss. You can lose heat in complete vacuum. If you were in fact floating facing the sun, one side would burn and the other would freeze.
@@logangodofcandy If only NASA had some information on this... Oh, wait, it does. All manned spacecraft must have heaters, and as was seen in the Apollo 13 disaster, when that heater was turned off the temperature in the craft got down to the middle 30's. The only reason it didn't get colder is you had 3 human bodies in a space smaller than a closet! They also were not in any shade at that point in the trip for days. Heat is also lost through emission in the form of IR, that doesn't require any molecular contact to keep shedding heat. Although, the specific point in the video is correct that it would not happen in seconds, like some movies show.
A couple of updates since Simon's team wrote the script: Voyager 1 is communicating again. NASA engineers told the onboard chip to disable the "dead" or damaged part and transfer the instructions to functional portions of the chip. Eventually, yes, Voyager 1 will "die". The other thing is that neither Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 have not left the solar system. Assuming they keep going, eventually they will enter the Kuiper Belt and indeed the system, but that hasn't happened at this time.
@@cellanjones28 *_How The Universe Works_* did an astoundingly fascinating episode about it. It was the fourth season ("series" if you're British), and the episode was called _"Edge of the Solar System"_ (Sadly, season 4 is not available to watch on Discovery Plus, but I just bought the 4th season on my Amazon account, and I think it may be available to MAX subscribers.)
I just had to look up voyager 1. That’s insane they reconnected. It’s almost 1am and taking everything in me not to go down that rabbit hole. I’ll have to tomorrow!
@@bwines16 "Fixing" Voyager 1 to some degree is probably one of the most astonishing achievements in space flight in recent years, given the circumstances.
I have a few qualms with the answers given here. Okay, our body won't 'violently decompress' when exposed to space, but as pointed out, the air in our lungs will. The human body is replete with gas pockets and liquids. Survivors of decompression events have reported that the last conscious memory being the liquid on their tongue starting to boil. Of course, this isn't boiling due to heat, it's boiling due to insufficient pressure keeping the fluid in that state.
NASA has Voyager 1 back in communication!! They were able to send a patch and are currently running tests. but they do have understandable information once again from the probe
The IT Help Desk at NASA is a helluva thing, isn't it? They were able to send a fix for a computer 15 billion miles away that was built before home computers were a thing. And it worked.
The Total Recall scene was not in space, it was in the Mars atmosphere. Mars' atmosphere is composed of 95.32% carbon dioxide, 2.7% nitrogen, 1.6% argon and 0.13% oxygen. The atmospheric pressure at the surface is 6.35 mbar which is over 100 times less than Earth's. Making it even less scientifically accurate, but I thought I'd make that distinction.
No one knows much about any planet. No one has been to the moon, let alone Mars.... all, space lies. People believe about what's at the Earth's core ( if you believe the globe lies ) the fact that Earth is 6000+ kilometres radius, yet we've only ever drilled down about 12 kilometres..... You're all gullible idiots.
Whatever the science or semantics may be, right before he said that a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it makes no sound, he said that an anvil struck with a hammer in the vacuum of space is making plenty of noise (a synonym for or a type of sound), it's just not surrounded by a medium that can transfer it. So, at the very least, he contradicted himself.
Yeah... I don't agree with that. That's like saying that if you have deaf people in the audience then sound does not exist around them, though the hearing near them CAN hear it. It is IMPOSSIBLE to catch a ball if no ball is thrown... so it is IMPOSSIBLE for a hearing person to hear a sound if no sound exists. It's a bit like saying, there's no light on in your house if you're not there. Yeah??? Tell THAT lie to the power company and see how far it gets you!
7:00 There was a Russian who was testing space suit designs when he tested one that didn't work so well. He survived and made a full recovery. He described the sensation of the saliva in his mouth as very strange and quite cold. Water boils when it contains more heat than it can hold onto. Boiling is the process that water uses to shed this extra heat. So in a vacuum water will boil until it is cooled below the freezing point and becomes a solid. No matter how warm the surroundings are.
The phase of matter that water is in depends on temp and pressure. In a zero pressure environment liquid water once exposed instantly boils to a gas. The phase change will result in heat being drawn away and some of the water becoming a solid (ice) eventually tho it will become a gas. If the water is frozen it will sublimate directly to a gas but will do so a rate that is slower the lower the temp. Phase changes always occur with conduction of heat.
@@exoticspeedefy7916 Not if the pressure of your body containing it remains relatively normal. Depends how strong/elastic your blood vessels/skin/muscles are.
Pressure suits are absolutely not necessary for space. We do not turn into a casserole on exposure to a vacuum, unless the exposure is close to instantaneous in which case injuries will be minor. NASA are spending billions on new space suits, designed to contain their wearers in a semi-inflated balloon which greatly limits movement, even causes injury (to the hands in particular, as reported by many ISS astronauts). All that's needed is a respirator of the re-breathing type, and face mask. Excess heat is a major problem in space, as any satellite engineer will tell you. So a cooling suit is what is required for longer EVAs, but shorter excursions require nothing more than protective clothing, against micro-meteorites and / or regolith. This all seems quite straightforward to prove, and has been if our hapless cosmonaut is anything to go by. Maybe space engineers don't want to be shown to be chumps, that they could have been performing EVAs using basic diving gear all along.
Surprisingly, one of the best depictions of the effects of space on an unprotected human body takes place in the space horror film Event Horizon. When one of the crew members is about to be expelled into space, the captain tells him to exhale quickly, then rushes to save him before asphyxia, but the crew member is all bruised and battered. They did their homework!
You missed the scene in 2001, where David Bowman is about to eject into space, and he is seen visibly forcing all the air out of his lungs possible, just prior to doing so. Meanwhile in the novel 3001, Frank Poole is found still drifting in space, preserved by the vacuum; and the doctors in the year 3001 are able to revive him, and he goes on to help destroy the monolith before it destroys Earth.
There is also a huge difference in how a hole in a space craft works. In movies it violently rips everything out of that small hole when in reality a person could plug up a dime sized hole with their thumb with no issue. The vaccum of space does not suck. The air is simply trying to equlize by escaping into the vaccum, if you plug up that hole then nothing will escape. You can fix holes in the ISS with duct tape if you wanted.
Hmm... I mean usually a hole in movies is pretty large like a human sized body hole. And during depressurization a large enough hole would be a problem. I mean a small hole yeah wouldn't be bad but remember P=F/A.
Yeah, that caught my ear to. Though, I've read that this type of channel _intentionally_ strews in a few of such screwups every now and then just to get people to debate in the comment section and thus drive up engagement.
Ok, I've only watched the first part of this. But I feel like I have to say this because there's always some confusion here. If you're in a ship you can definitely hear that ship's engines. If you are in aTIE fighter you can hear the ion engines rev up and down from the cockpit. Sound isn't gone just because your in space. Sound is gone if you're in the vacuum of space. Which you're not, if you're in a ship.
Scenes with roaring ships in them usually cut to the people inside the ship, so the fake part is the view of the ship not the sound as the crew cannot see the ship from that perspective. But then when itdoesnt cut to the inside of the ship a silent ship is not very entertaining so the sound is still from the perspective of the crew onboard the ship so it is more entertaining.
Direct energy ejected from an explosion can still reach the hull of the ship you're in, as a stream (not wave) of energetic micro particles. This would allow you to, "hear the explosion", kind of. On the other hand, an energy burst large enough to do that will have distracted from the faint whooshing sound by the extremely loud sound of your ship's atmosphere escaping through myriad new tiny holes. Screw sound! :P
I feel like Fire Fly/Serenity was closer to being right without ditching the suspension of belief. The sound we hear is the equipment from which mechanics perform, kind of like swinging a hammer at a metal pole and it vibrates - that would travel through the machine, to you, to your ear but it would be a weird dull sound.
But imagine a movie or a game without, it's more as just boring without and you are never quite aware what happens around you, thus sound is for the entertainment essential and entertainment does not have to be real at all. Perhaps the approach to be isn't as good since the real sense of sci-fi is to cover social problems not the technology. *dear reader* :) "We leap with our social developement 100 year behind our technology" H.G. Wells, War of Worlds 1898 It's not a novel about space or technology in this sense it's a philosophial novel about humankind. the bloodsucking alien is just to bring us in an extreme situation in which the author pulls the mask from our faces and shows us the real monster. And that is the root of it not accuracy in technological vision, vice versa Wells criticises it heavy that we think we are dominating nature with this weak technology we have and think we are the crown of creation due to destructive acting against mankind and nature. I guess accuracy is rather a hemlock as needed to write good sci-fi. Since heck, you know it's a novel and it starts as a continuing story of a columnist in a newspaper so it's all fantasy in a fantasy, he introduces chapters with "dear reader" nonetheless he is able to sell this fiction for real, you live through the story with the protagonist who is certainly the columnist in other terms Wells himself. It gives him the possibility to comment the drama while being part of it. "we haven't deserved that nature saved us" And whatever good sci-fi i have read the technology is only environment, for the real message of the story, a setup. And pardon me since when do aliens exist? Since war of worlds, it's a product of our (his) fantasy and we have zero evidence for it. We could count Verne or Kepler to it but first has written only entertainment (yes i guess there is critic as well in blind faith in technology) which is good as well and Kepler liked to hide his theories, or wrap it in a story. Latter i haven't read yet to be honest. For facts i refere to stellarium or to a science article, but not on a novel, movie or game related to sci-fi, that's a quite different topic and i don't know if that makes sense at all to wrap this knowledge then in a novel or movie or game, to a certain extend it's ok, but space is boring. And please guess always of H.G. Wells not Orson Welles (resp. Howard Koch) Who is finally responsible for the complete wrong image of a possible alien lifeform we have which is so far from novels before this radioplay. The only thing left of it is the power of media but this is in the original novel only a tiny bit of the message in all. Whatever the intention was this was the result of it. In the novel power of media is reduced to that you get the impression that this continuing story is reality, fake news if you like though, but "dear reader" always gets you back to earth. That is far from what Orson made out of it. He earned a grammy for it, killed a novel and made a whole genre rediculous through this and reduced it to spectacle even if that wasn't his intention, a bit unwise in my opinion. War of Worlds is a war of head-worlds, and i might have read dozends but this i had to read three times and each time it moved me. you need time to think about all he states in it. Certain things you might refuse for yourself but think when you read it for the second time "yes i know i do that to". *It seems we don't mind to be literally held as cattle as long as we have food and sex enough* The wonder in it is that he creates rage against yourself instead of hoplessness. It's not "humans are shit and i can't change this" It's "i know it's part of our nature but i don't like to be like this!" Most of all it isn't "arrrrrgh bloodsucking aliens" The protagonist admires them because they operate social, there is no inequality and the goal is to survive as species. Their planet (Mars) is sustained and they only look for a way to survive, while we destroy our own source of life for something questionable as personal wealth especially if that exceeds the to imaginable. And this we would need so much today, instead of giving it up before we started. 200 years, Mr. Wells, 200 years by now! So far to the sci in this fi. Projectiles or saucers doesn't matters at all. In the novel they arrive with projectiles, the first he saw broke that's why you dear reader will know how they might look like. He got closer and knocked with his pipe on the cylinder... (still in night-robe and slippers on the way to get his daily newspaper, eh philosphists don't like to get up early in the morning). It's really a fantastic story and no matter 19th century you are in the time and the place, i guess the language plays a big role, it differs much.
A tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it *does* make a sound. The sound is the vibration of the molecules, not the act of hitting a sensory device like an eardrum. If you come into your house with the phone already ringing, for example, it didn't start making the sound when you entered.
Somebody is far too literal and doesn’t understand a paradox The point is not wether or not the tree would make a sound, but wether or not this could ever be 100% proven. Which it couldn’t.
@@FrankCoffman words mean things, don't alter that meaning willynilly. sound /saʊnd/ noun 1. vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.
The statement "sound only exists if there are eardrums" is incorrect. I can obviously put a recorder in the woods where the tree falls, and despite there being no eardrums around, the sound will exist and be recorded. A more accurate statement would simply be "sound only exists if there is something to detect the molecular vibrations", eardrums are not a requirement.
My thoughts too. When I tried to rationalise, I compared sound to light. Without making this religious or anything, light should be present whether someone is there to see it or not. After all, they all derive from waves, so why wouldn't they?
And another thing! Why are all spacesuit helmets/visors illuminated from the inside? The light shining in the astronauts face would make it impossible to see!
Thanks for pointing out that "instantly freezing when exposed to the vacuum of space" idiocy. It has been driving me up the walls in every SciFi Space movie I have ever seen, which has portrayed it like that. - NASA has actually just recently managed to bring Voyager 1 back online, with some very clever reprogramming and work arounds, avoiding using the damaged systems. Really rather impressive considering the age of the tech and the probe itself. - While the asteroid scene in "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back" is questionable at best, since we aren't provided with any information about whether these asteroids are in a belt formation round a star (like ours) or in closer proximity to some other form of gravity well. The same cannot be said about the very similar scene in "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" with Obi Wan, Jango, and Boba Fett. Simply because, as we can clearly see in the beginning of the scene, it takes place inside the ring-system of the planet of Geonosis, where these "asteroids" very likely would be much closer together due to them orbiting the planet. - And finally; Remember that in space no-one can hear your black hole rumble (a LIGO/Alien related mash-up joke).
15 or 20 years ago I got the original Star Wars film and started to watch it as I had been told all my life how great it was. Could not hang more than about 10 minutes as the acting was so horrible and the story ridiculous. So now I just block anyone who starts rambling about Star Wars as I naturally assume their brains are switched off.
Not to well actually but lol. In Ep IV, Han says an asteroid field, iirc, and it's not anywhere in a system. So my conclusion always was it was just something completely uncharted and just randomly in interstellar space, remnants from some random collision of some sort perhaps.
@@paulmartin2348 I totally get what you are saying, but their brains being switched off, that's a bit harsh. A Star Wars geek's response to that would probably be something like "only the Sith deal in absolutes." 😆 It is a different imaginary state of mind, that's for sure. One which allows for just enough leeway for us to enjoy the story. The amount of leeway needed obviously heavily varying from movie to movie and person to person, and a person's individual relationship with science. Because it is a detachment (or escape) from reality. And you know; we all do it. Because without putting ourselves into a different mindset, we wouldn't really be able to enjoy any kind of movies, TV series, computer games, or even just a book for that matter. The problem I have with this "instant popsicle" idiocy, is that when movie-makers just keep repeating the same mistake and reinforcing this nonsense, it ends up annoying me enough to pull me out of my imaginary mindset, presumably just like all the nonsense in "A New Hope" does to you. Most SciFi movies from that era are more like really drawn-out low-budget psychological thrillers. I mean even "2001: A Space Odyssey", although not so low-budget, it still mostly falls into the psychological thriller category... And then along comes George Lucas with this "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." fairytale adventure movie, which just happens to take place in space. It broke all the previous constrains of what a SciFi movie could be, and that's really why it became such a huge phenomenon. So, that's really were you need to send your mind mentally; into the same place as when watching The Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter, etc... or actually even The Matrix... OMG, that one hasn't aged well either: telephone booths, cutting landlines, "the mind can't survive without the body" BS, going against the core concept of the very manga movie it was trying to imitate. Don't get me wrong, I love The Matrix. But I still have to detach myself from reality and commit to its fantasy world in order to enjoy it. The asteroid field scene, like many other scenes in "The Empire Strikes Back", is pretty ridiculous by todays standards. But if "you're" going to nitpick and say "the asteroids are never that close together in our asteroid belt" then you expose that you're unaware of how much you are assuming about the situation and which you actually don't know. Simply because George Lucas didn't bother with presenting you with all the details... Again, because it's a fairytale adventure movie and not a science documentary. 🥸😆 (But also because George didn't know... or care.)
@@fett713akamandodragon5 Yeah, and if the imperial pilots are anything like the stormtroopers, then for all we know it could just be debris from their latest attempt at parallel parking. 😆
As the water boils in your body, the temperature will drop as energy is absorbed by the vaporizing water. This boiling will continure until it reaches about zero Celcius, (boiling point of water at zero psi) so you did "freeze" but not due to touching something cold. Your body (skin) will however provide some pressure as the gases accumulate inside of you, thus rasing the boiling point a bit due to the increase of pressure.
I do like the Idea of asteroids being dangerous in space as an unstable place to be upon or hosting the eggs of some space-faring biological creature which is neat. I think the reason Hollywood depicts "Freezing in Space" is because Space being cold as cold is the absence of heat it's easier to show people freezing to get that across than just letting people pass out and suffocate as it's more dramatic.
@@donaldwert7137 I mean, you could also have people catch fire and explode when they can't swim, that would be dramatic, but that isn't what happens. Space is a real thing, and when you go there, you don't instantly freeze.
@@HuckleberryHim Of course not. Even the depictions of drowning are dramatized, usually with plenty of thrashing in the water, etc., when in reality most drowning victims go under and stay under, no cries for help, etc. I drowned when I was a kid and would have died had my brother not spotted me at the bottom of the pool, pulled me out and applied what was then called artificial resuscitation. This was in a motel pool with plenty of people around and no one saw it happened, the first clue there was anything wrong was that no one had seen me for a while. That's how real life works and people have a general, if inaccurate, idea of how drowning works. In a movie, the event would have looked very different in order to engage the viewer. Very few people have seen an explosion in a vacuum, so great liberties are taken for dramatic effect.
So in 2001 Space Odyssey when Dave the astronaut is locked out of the spaceship by HAL, and he has to jump through the air lock without his space helmet, that is technically feasible.
I don't have anything to refer to, but I'm pretty sure gases solved in your bloodstream would instantly gasify into bubbles and cause massive damage similar to divers ascending too fast.
Technically, instead of holding his breath, Bowman should have exhaled as the hatch blew, to prevent traumatic lung injury. There would be enough O2 in his blood to maintain consciousness for a few seconds, and embolism would not be immediate due to the strength of the body's internal membranes. When 3 soviet cosmonauts died in the early 1970s (a valve malfunctioned and depressurized their capsule, shortly before re-entry), the bodies were found to have some evidence of bleeding from the nose, eyes and ears. But they died of asphyxiation, likely combined with subsequent air embolism in blood vessels in the brain. During a vacuum chamber training exercise, a US astronaut's space suit depressurized (slowly). He recovered from the brief exposure, but said the last thing he remembered (before passing out) was feeling saliva on his tongue boiling at room temperature (Hey: Who remembers "Pop Rocks" ?).
So you say "in fact"... You mean just because there seems not to be any energy and thus the temperature might be at 0K (-273°C / -169.444°F)? Yea that would be quite cold. But weren´t you listening, that the energy of a star like our sun reaches into space? And that in the surroundings of a star it would be mostlikely hot for millions of miles because of this? And that you morelikely would feel only cold when covered by a massive object like a planet or an asteroid between you and the star, and thus not beeing emittet to the heat of the energy from it? So the "cold" in space cannot be constand everywhere. Just due to the large distance you wouldn´t instandly burn when emittet to those energywaves of a star - well if you´re close enough on the other hand it might be different; but don´t think of beeing engulfed in flames all of a sudden, but rather mostlikely getting burnings without flames at all due to the lack of oxigen. In short: To say that it IS cold in space is nonsense, especially claiming this to be a "fact" without ever having to have messured temperature in spaceby yourself... If you do have evidence, show it to us education hungry people, instead of sharing your "all mighty wisdom" without stating those "facts"..
@@andreasgrunebaum811 This is incorrect. Sorry. Do more research. Most space is the space between stars & between galaxies. Far beyond the reach of even the hottest stars, their heliosphere, and their “energy” as you put it. And yes it’s very cold. You know what’s even more cold? I won’t be pulled into a back & forth in a comments section. Fair dinkum. LOL
@@AIainMConnachie Temperature is a measurement of the speed at which particles are moving, and heat is how much energy the particles of an object have. So in a truly empty region space, there would be no particles and radiation, meaning there’s also no temperature. Of course, space is full of particles and radiation to produce heat and a temperature. So how cold is space, is there any region that is truly empty, and is there anywhere that the temperature drops to absolute zero? The hottest regions of space are immediately around stars, which contain all the conditions to kick start nuclear fusion. Things really warm up when radiation from a star reaches a spot in space with a lot of particles. This gives the radiation from stars like the sun something to actually act upon. That’s why Earth is a lot warmer than the region between our planet and its star. The heat comes from particles in our atmosphere vibrating with solar energy and then bumping into each other distributing this energy. Proximity to our star and possessing particles are no guarantee of warmth, though. Mercury - closest to the sun - is blisteringly hot during the day and frigidly cold at night. Its temperatures drop to a low of 95 Kelvins (-288 ⁰Fahrenheit/-178 ⁰Celsius ). Temperatures dip to -371 ⁰F (-224 ⁰C) on Uranus, making it even colder than on the furthest planet from the sun, Neptune, which has a still incredibly cold surface temperature of -353 ⁰F (-214 ⁰C ). This is a result of a collision with an Earth-sized object early in its existence causing Uranus to orbit the sun on an extreme tilt, making it unable to hang on to its interior heat. Far away from stars particles are so spread out that heat transfer via anything but radiation is impossible, meaning temperatures radically drop. This region is called the interstellar medium. The coldest and densest molecular gas clouds in the interstellar medium can have temperatures of 10 K (-505 ⁰F/-263 ⁰C or ) while less dense clouds can have temperatures as high as 100 K (-279 ⁰F/-173 ⁰C). The universe is so vast and filled with such a multitude of objects, some blisteringly hot, others unimaginably frigid, that it should be impossible to give space a single temperature. Yet, there is something that permeates the entirety of our universe with a temperature that is uniform to 1 part in 100,000. In fact, the difference is so insignificant that the change between a hot spot and a cold spot is just 0.000018 K. This is known as the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and it has a uniform temperature of 2.7 K (-459⁰F/-270⁰C). As 0 K is absolute zero this is a temperature just 2.725 degrees above absolute zero. The CMB is a remnant leftover from an event that occurred just 400,000 after the Big Bang called the last scattering. This was the point when the universe ceased to be opaque after electrons bonded to protons forming hydrogen atoms, which stopped electrons from endlessly scattering light and enabling photons to freely travel. As such this fossil relic "frozen in" to the universe represents the last point when matter and photons were aligned in terms of temperature. The photons that make up the CMB weren't always so cold, taking around 13.8 billion years to reach us, the expansion of the Universe has redshifted these photons to lower energy levels. Originating when the universe was much denser and hotter than it is now, the starting temperature of the radiation that makes up the CMB is estimated to have been around 3,000 K (5,000° F/2,726⁰C). As the universe continues to expand, that means space is colder now than it's ever been and it's getting colder. If an astronaut were left to drift alone in space then exposure to the near-vacuum of space couldn’t freeze an astronaut as often depicted in science fiction. There are three ways for heat to transfer, conduction, which occurs through touch, convection which happens when fluids transfer heat, and radiative which occurs via radiation. Conduction and convection can't happen in empty space due to the lack of matter and heat transfer occurs slowly by radiative processes alone. This means that heat doesn’t transfer quickly in space. As freezing requires heat transfer, an exposed astronaut - losing heat via radiative processes alone - would die of decompression due to the lack of atmosphere much more rapidly than they freeze to death.
For those looking for more intormation about actual solar fusion... Two protons (basically Hydrogen plasma) fuse into Deuterium, a heavier isotope of Hydrogen A third proton then fuses with a deuterium atom to form Helium-3 Two Heilum-3 atoms fuse to product (eventually) Helium-4 and a lot of energy After that, older stars will start fusing Helium into Oxygen, Oxygen into Nitrogen, then Nitrogen into Iron. Sadly, at that point, fusing iron into anything heavier requires an input of energy instead of generating energy, so the star stops generating energy and collapses.
One of the two protons would need to slightly gain mass and lose its charge to become a neutron. That actually happens when Potassium40 captures one of its innermost electrons and converts to chemically inert Argon40. That's the basis for potassium-argon radiometric dating of volcanic rocks, since the Ar40 escapes to the atmosphere before the lava/ash solidifies, trapping the K40 and "resetting the clock". I believe Carbon12 is also a byproduct of stellar fusion.
You've got more chance of randomly finding another vessel in the Pacific Ocean than you have of even seeing an asteroid in the Asteroid Belt, or of randomly bumping into a satellite orbiting the Earth.
Given how often satellites have to do object avoidance manoeuvres, I would reconsider the last part of you statement. Also depends on how you define "satellite". Do you mean a machine that operates in space? Or do you mean the more conventional definition of one object that orbits another due to gravitational interactions?
@@blackoak4978 I was thinking the same thing. Hitting a sat is a low probability, but WAY higher than hitting an asteroid. A lot of the maneuvering or satellites is because we keep many of them in relatively the same orbit. (and we've been dropping a lot of junk in space for decades.)
what you, including simon (well he just reads, doesn´t think to much) ignore is, that space vessels of any sort, especially spaceships in science fiction, travel with speeds that sometimes are multiple time the speed of light. At this speeds the distances between the asteroids gets travelled so fast any form of avoidance is impossible, from reaction time to just plain inertia. Average distance in the belt of our system is said to be travelled by light in 3 seconds ... but how to you see a asteroid 1million km away? So whenl you see it, it is to late...
@@gshaindrich And you're missing both the "sci-fi" of such tech, and _the entire point._ If you can travel faster than light (or even a fraction), you have shields, deflectors, and sensors that can see more than 3ft in front of you. Our belt is not so dense light cannot get through it; in fact, most straight lines through it doesn't hit anything. (none of our probes have had to do any corrections to avoid hitting anything. we've made course corrections to actually reach asteroids.) Gravity would coalesce any field as dense as Hollywood paints. Passengers is a good example. A ship moving at half the speed of light (roughly), with pretty beefy shields. The field it went through was somewhat realistic, with a good bit of distance between rocks, and not that many hitting the ship. (of course, that ship had some pretty lame programming unable to analyze or accept the unexpected. Just putting things in orbit, we've learned there's no such thing as "that can't happen".)
@@gshaindrichyou think soanxe is WAY more .... not soace... then it is. When the Milky Aqt and Andromeda collide: no starts will. That's how empty 2 galaxies coming together ok space is NOT dense.
@@rickwrites2612every single thing that contains mass in any capacity experiences sound. The other trees experience sound, rocks, grass, the air around the tree, etc. If you're saying that sound is just an interpretation of sound waves, then sure I guess? But that's such an overly specific way of trying to disprove this "myth" and if you go around with this thought and tell people "oh, nobody heard it, so therefore it did not make noise!" well then that's a propagation of misinformation in my eyes. It made sound. The tree displaced atmospheric molecules, which produced sound waves that echoed throughout the nearby area. Just because center of the universe Jimmy didn't hear it, doesn't mean it didn't exist at all.
Vibrational resonance in the molecules of atmosphere and surroundings yes. Sound requires something to perceive it. It comes down to definitions of the words.
@ripn929707 I hate that show. It's typical Hollywood softcore porn with the edgyiness dialed up to 2000 on a dial with only 10. I will say they do kinda have the vastness of space feel dialed in pretty good. Things like startek make it feel like your ship is 10k miles wide and everything is just 5ft over there. A solar system is about as cozy as my living room according to them. So I get where your coming from cinematicly. But the entire series is boring and predictable and almost entirely forgettable.
One of my favorites is how hollywoods portrays storms on mars, blowing around people and heavy equipment. It seems EVERY movie about mars has at least one storm to set up the drama. While a 70 mph wind on mars would affect you as much as a light breeze on earth.
That's an excellent point! I'm currently re-reading the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson and by the the series terraforming of Mars reaching it's later stages, humanity has thickened Mars' atmosphere such that its winds actually DO become quite impactful! It reminds me a little of the Parker Solar Probe passing through the outer atmosphere of our sun. You can have temperatures of many thousands of degrees in this region (apparently) and yet as long as the craft's trajectory is careful and the heat shield always faces the star; the craft is okay - and part of the reason for that is that while the temperature is very high, the density of particles or plasma(?) in that region is sufficiently low that it the craft is able to survive limited periods within it.
Yea, that's why I was puzzled when he said to check out The Martian for a more accurate take on space. Then again, he said space, not Mars and I don't remember the space scenes off the top of my head.
When I head about the Walker Solar Probe "touching" the sun it made me think of an old song. Quoting the song I said, "I had a friend, they say he got crazy once and tried to touch the sun. He lost a friend,, but kept the memory. Now he walks in quiet solitude because in space, no one can hear you scream."
In the scene in _2001: A Space Odyssey_ where Kier Dullea is hyperventilating for his helmet-less space-walk, Dullea and Kubrick made a mistake in having him hold his breath when he went outside. As Simon says, that would result in Dullea's character rupturing his lungs. The writer, Arthur C Clarke, was an experienced scuba diver and knew that a diver can rupture their lungs ascending while holding their breath from as little as a few metres, and could have corrected that, but he wasn't on set that day.
Animals have eardrums, and even in "empty forests" birds and outta the select few insects that have ears and can perceive sound most of those species live in the forest. Therefore if a tree falls in the forest, it always makes a sound because the odds of not a single pair of ears is within earshot of that is a number I don't think we even have a name for...
the question is phrased with "...and no one is around to hear it." so yeah.. that would include any animals or insects that would be able to hear it (i still am certain that the sound waves would be created, which would be the sound of a falling tree, but the question is rather specific in that regard)
@@Yourehistronic but you will never have a forest where NOTHING lives.... there will always be at least insects... Thats why included an "empty forest" which is a forest where no mammals live....Its like Schroedingers Cat. The cat itself is a conscious observer... Its because we know more about biology now than we did when these 2 thought experiments were first conceived and now they are outdated... Yes I get the theoretical and hypothetical in nature of both and aren't supposed to be physically carried out, but that ruins the whole validity of the experiment... Here's a newer thought experiment that makes sense because of our better understanding of light... "If you could travel faster than light, your perspective would be completely shrouded in darkness and completely invisible to everyone else.." See how that is not only way more difficult to debate but impossible to debunk..?
@@Yourehistronicit's overly specific and relies on some annoying, trivial thought process to support it. The tree falling displaced atmospheric molecules in the space it fell through and again by colliding with the ground. This generated sound waves. It's overly specific to say that just because the sound waves weren't interpreted by some sort of sound translating structure, that all of the sudden the sound just didn't occur at all. It's stupid. The tree itself propagates, absorbs, and deflects sound. The ground it hits absorbs and deflects sound. Everything in the area that the sound waves reach are affected by the sound wave to some degree. Our eardrums also absorb sound. There's no reason to say that just because something didn't hear it, then the sound didn't occur at all. Imagine I am wearing 100% soundproofing earphones and I honk my car horn. Did the horn make a sound? Well, bar my horn being broken, yes it definitely did make a sound. This argument that the fell tree doesn't make a sound is factually flawed. Sound will always occur as long as there is any level of molecular movement occurring. Even at an atomic level, sound exists. It is just far too faint for us to hear it. Everything makes sound all the time. And sound is constantly scattering and deflecting and diminishing everywhere all of the time. Sound conflicts with itself and other sounds, conflicts with other masses of all matter states. So to answer this horribly misled riddle of "if a tree fell and no one was there to hear it, did it make a sound?" Yes... it did. It made sound before it fell too. It made sound after it had already fallen as well. It will also always make sound as long as there is a tree at all. Stupid, stupid riddle.
@@Jayson_Tatum It depends of the definition of sound. One definition is: "the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing". By that definition it is true that there is no sound if not heard. I agree it is a silly definition and of cause a falling tree makes sound waves in it's surrounding materials (air etc.). That is my opinion.
Sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid. An ear doesn't need to be there to hear it for the wave to exist. Who wrote this?
@@keithposter5543 I just rechecked myself. Oxford English, MW, wiki, none define sound as having to be heard. You're describing the definition of the word "hearing".
@@TheHonestPeanut Ok, IMHO they're taking a shortcut and effectively defining for 'common usage'. BUT, this all comes from the original philosophical question: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does is make a sound?" Let's assume that there are also no animals with hearing there etc, then the answer is "No, it does not make a sound". You could say it makes 'sound' if we accept that sound waves = sound, but it does not make *a sound* . You could also argue that it's impossible to say if it makes sound(waves) with nothing there to detect them as there will be no evidence after the fact 😉
Also in a lot of movies the space craft have their engines constantly burning (but not gaining speed) and they have to bank in order to turn, so basically applying atmospheric aerodynamics in the vacuum of space.
Those things, like the sounds of explosions in space, are really deliberate artistic license, not inadvertent errors. The producers deliberately put that stuff in because in total silence, the scene just isn't exciting enough for them. Likewise the banking is a deliberate attempt to make the spaceships behave like fighter planes here on Earth. Star Wars did a lot of that stuff.
A note on space explosions: I usually have a little chuckle when a post battle debris-field is shown, with lots of big and little pieces of a ship drifting around. The micro-gravity of the ship's mass is not sufficient to keep the bits and pieces from falling away in whatever direction the explosions would have blown them. They would be travelling away from the the ship's original trajectory, at a wide range of velocities, depending on mass. So the debris-field would rapidly expand without constraint. There's no reason to think any 2 pieces would stay close together, let alone thousands of them.
True, but that would not look cool on screen. That is the point of suspending disbelief when watching sci-f movies. Otherwise, they are ALL incredibly stupid.
I've always chuckled at when a spaceship is hit and it starts to fall downwards on screen as though it's sinking, what??!, there's no gravity pull to initiate a downward trajectory.
Funnily enough when movies depict a big explosion on earth the parts get blown in every direction and away from the point of explosion which is true. But in space with no gravity or atmosphere all the parts just hang around together.
So I looked up the definition of the word “sound”, and it lists as “vibrations that travel through air or another medium and CAN be heard when they reach a person’s or animal’s ear.” -the Oxford English Dictionary This wording implies that the vibrations have to be of those that COULD be heard by humans, were humans there to hear it, not that a sound can only be defined as such when a human hears it.
The definition of sound depends on whether you are talking about physics or human physiology/psychology. See Wikipedia / Sound. I prefer the physics definition; a sound can occur without anyone hearing it.
To anyone who still says “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, it doesn’t make a sound” I would ask them to envision something a little more impactful for that scenario. Imagine, an atomic bomb detonates in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Well, nobody in their right mind defines light as only existing if there is somebody/something seeing it. So, why should the definition of sound be any different?
@@emotown1 Light is defined as a band of electromagnetic radiation visible by humans. We don't have a word for the perception of light so we use the same one and mention the context.
Again a slight _Um, Actually_ for Chapter Two: Detonation simply means that the speed the reaction (sometimes combustion, sometimes decomposition) propagates through a material is faster than the speed of sound in the material. It's not instantaneous, as shown by numerous instances of _very_ high-speed footage (shoutout to the Slow Mo Guys), but it can be _very_ fast. Black Powder can also burn in a total vacuum if the container it is in relatively small and the ignition source creates enough pressure for the reaction to take place (See CodysLab doing exactly this).
The notion that space isn't cold is ridiculous. Obviously, proximity to a star and your placement in its site line would determine whether you experience any heat, but that reality negates the stated click bait premise. If that star isn't there, if your position is behind an object in the star's site line or if the star is sufficiently far enough away, then the void of space registers just above absolute zero. That's pretty freakin' cold. Obviously, if you're in range of star's solar radiation, you will experience heat, but the void itself is, by definition, infinitely colder than anything else in existence. Stuff like this drives me nuts.
I think what he means is that space is not thermally conductive, a requirement for our senses to send a “shit that’s cold!” message to our brains. Which is altogether different from saying that space is not cold in terms of taking a shaded temperature reading. Actually, I have no idea what he meant he explained it so badly.
No they don't. The sounds you "hear" in space in movies, are easily explained away as what the people *inside* the ships hear. In other words, most of the tech used is still making sound *inside;* where most of the tech is, and where the ship is filled with air; so most of what you're hearing is what the crew inside the ships are hearing. And then there's the fact that a lot of space movie scenes take place in high orbit, where there is still small amounts of air; and thus still sound. Albeit muted sound, but sound none the less.
I believe that the "death" of a star is the case of a supernova. A nova, as I understood, is when a white dwarf star pulls in enough hydrogen from a companion red giant star to cause fusion to occur on the surface. It also occurs in a cycle, so the same binary system can keep generating a nova whenever the threshold for fusion is reached, at least until the source of hydrogen is exhausted or the star is ejected or something.
When I hear sound effects in sci-fi movies, I always interpret the sound we hear in the cinema as a representation of what a person dying in that explosion is experiencing. One of the best representations of an actual space explosion was in The Last Jedi when it went totally silent for a few seconds. It was dramatic, it was effective, and somewhat realistic given that sound doesn't travel in a vacuum.
I like to think that when we hear the sounds of a spaceship in film, that we are hearing approximately what the ship's passengers hear. This doesn't really transfer to objects like missiles etc. I do respect when Firefly, 2001, 2010, etc. respect the silence of space, but I give a pass when they don't because of dramatic license. It's a small transgression IMO.
One of my favorite imaginary space things in movies (or, mostly, Star Trek) is that being inside a nebula is like being surrounded by multi-colored clouds.
Clouds that for some reason swirl around the ship like wingtip vortices of an airplane. Even as a ten year old that part of the voyager intro kind of bothered me.
This video made me want to rewatch Total Recall. Its depiction of what happens to a human body under vacuum may not be the most accurate one, but it's hilarious! 😂
Fine, but Kahn still has one of the very best lines in Hollywood history: “Do you know the Klingon proverb which tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold? It is very cold in spaaaaace.”
It was fixed a few days ago. Dodgy memory in one of the computers. Nasa sent a patch up telling the spacecraft not to use that bit of memory and since then they've been receiving good data again.
There is a scene in The Expanse where a Belter opens their helmet for a moment after breathing out, meaning their face is directly in contact with space, and the guy brushes some hair out of his face before closing the suit up again and he is just fine. I suppose if you do not breathe in or out then Ebullism does not occur? Or does not occur quickly enough, perhaps.
Honestly, they did the right thing, unlike game of thrones. The showrunners said they stopped because they want to wait until more books are written I believe.
@@fett713akamandodragon5 actually the book finished during the final season of the show. They already had three book materials to work with. The reason it got cancelled was the contract is over and the show is on hiatus because the Laconian Arc has a 30 year time gap and the feasibility of production is not realistic and still needs more time. Also they need to find a show runner to help with the production cost.
@@fett713akamandodragon5 I heard one of the biggest reasons was because they had to kill off the Alex character (didn't happen in the book series) just because the actor was such an unbelievable asshole to work with, they had to just finally fire him. And because of that the whole storyline just got thrown out of whack. They don't have any plans of reviving the show.
Roger taught us that if you stare too long at the sun you develop sun madness, and will become obsessed with getting to it. Pretty sure that's accurate.
One of my favorite anecdotes about these topics was from one of the guys involved with testing the original spacesuits used in the early days of the Space Race. In a vacuum chamber test, his suit had a rupture that depressurized it, causing him to pass out before they could get the chamber repressurized to get him out. Afterward, he said that the last thing he remembered before passing out was feeling his saliva boiling on his tongue.
No doubt! Naomi's jump without a suit from one ship to the other. Pretty dang accurate, along with so many other scenes in the series. Quality science fiction.
voyageur 1 resumed sending coherent data last month. Also the sun fuses atoms of Hydrogen to produce Helium and not the other way around as you mistakenly said. Also I believe sound is produced by a tree falling down even if no one is there to hear it. Actually there is always something there to hear it. animals birds and insects. The tree produces a sound that is slowly propagated through the atmosphere until it fades away into nothing. That is just my opinion and I may make mistakes also.
You forgot my favorite one, people throwing around big objects because they are "weightless" ... the object still has mass and still has inertia. Your little 65kg human mass cannot move a 500kg cargo container in space
Fun fact: you're wrong. "Shrapnel" has long since become a genericized term, like "Band-Aid", "Thermos", or quite recently, "photoshop". You can put a "band-aid" on a wound even if it's not made by the original manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson.
Here are some other fun facts (can be placed in a number of these parts in the vid): 1: You do not need to keep the engines of your ship running indefinitely to keep said ship moving forward. Since there is little/no friction in space, your ship will travel forever, provided it doesn't hit something. 2: You cannot fly ships or fighters in space. As there is no atmosphere in space, any ship traversing the void cannot turn like planes do on Earth. You can't bank and roll and do any other maneuver that you can do on Earth. Likewise, firing missiles in space presents the same problem. 3: If you want to give a extremely simplified explanation of how a star (the sun) works, reference an incandescent light bulb. The filament is sealed in a vacuum where it can burn without being snuffed out due to oxygen. A star in space is essentially a really, really big light bulb filament. 4: You can't see a black hole, hence the name. When you do "see" one, it's because it's bending/warping light and space around it (at least what hasn't been sucked in). 5: Submarines would not be the most "ideal" for space travel as some might think. This idea comes from people that see a sub being able to spend months underwater means it can survive in space. The problem isn't so much how airtight it is, rather that the reactor has no way to vent the heat building up inside itself, usually transferred to the air and water outside it. In a vacuum, you cannot transfer heat anywhere. Your overpriced Yeti cups are vacuum sealed, this is why it keeps things hot/cold inside the cup. 5a: Heat CAN be transferred away from a ship by way of radiators located around the ship. While you can't technically transfer the heat away, you can displace it into somewhere that keeps it away from places on the ship. Think of the radiators like the heatsink on your computer's CPU (bad analogy since we have air/water that can transfer the heat from the heatsink, but it's a similar idea). 6: On the topic of heat transfer, the sun does not in fact warm you up because it's so hot. Since space cannot transfer heat, what makes you warm is the infrared light coming from the sun (again, I'm being very general here, but that's the basic idea).
Yes but because molecules of matter are far apart in space conduction and convection can't really occur and those are far more efficient ways to transfer heat than thermal radiation. Even with space having such low temperatures the ISS and spacecraft rely on a circulation of coolant to keep heat from building up to levels that are a danger to personal and equipment even on such things as solar panels. It takes awhile for thermal radiation to raise or dissipate temperature levels and an example of that is why temperatures don't rapidly change at sunrise or sunset here on Earth (in fact it's often coldest shortly after sunrise). So while a creature would essentially go into hypothermia and freeze after a few hours maintaining an atmosphere in their lungs to survive until then would be an understatement of challenging.
@@patcusack6252 If someone was sitting in the closest seat, they likely would have been ejected. Just look at the condition of the seat. It was stripped down to the metal frame. But that was from the slipstream, not the decompression itself.
No the pressure is only 14psi, a small hole would not suck you out, there is only so much air that can get through a pinhole at that pressure. A large quickly appearing hole on the other hand is a different story. More square inches more total push on the surface, and faster evacuation. And come to think about it, our space craft are only at like 8 psi not the normal 14: so even less.
Fun fact, starting with the trek reboot movies, the star trek franchise pretty much ditched any attempt to be science based, it even stopped having much in-universe logic to its science.
Even if there are no ears within the area of a falling tree, it still makes a sound. Just as a star continues to burn brightly even if there are no eyes to behold it. Several people here have already stated the (presumed accidental) reversion regarding hydrogen comes from helium so I will leave that one out.
@@keithposter5543 Which is all the falling tree ever makes regardless of ears nearby. The falling tree never interprets the sound waves it creates so it makes what it makes in all cases.
@@craigthomas2497 OK, looks like I've opened a Pandora's box of semantics. 'Sound' seems to be commonly defined as 'sound waves' - but the original philosophical question referred to in the video asks whether the falling tree makes "a sound" if no one is there to hear it. Discounting birds/animals (let's say that "no one" means "nothing"), the tree does not make "a sound" because "a sound" is an experience
By this logic, light isn’t a thing either, it’s just light waves. So I guess all the stars in the early universe were just wasting their time shining since there were no eyes to see them 😂
@@MarkFranklin-l3p Ha - well, you're getting deeper with that one. Light is electromagnetic and perpetual, sound waves are just movement of objects and dissipate quickly. We can still see stars from the early universe and light might be a particle or wave depending on who's looking 😉
No, sound can also just refer to the waves traveling through a medium (not just air) - so you don't need anyone around to hear a tree fall to call the waves sound. Sound is not only defined by brain-connected ears processing compression waves.
Sound is vibration as observed by someone who can hear or an object to record and play back those vibrations for an observer later. So sound is not objective but the subjective observations of the observer. Remove the observer and there is no subject to evaluate the vibrations. There are many who can observe sounds outside the normal range and they can hear these sounds even when other would claim no sound. So yes the tree causes vibrations but without something to observe the specific frequencies there is no sound.
My favourite space movie incongruity is when George Clooney stops floating away in Gravity when Sandra Bullock catches him, but then somehow continues to float away when she lets go of him. It's my understanding that he wouldn't continue to float away once his momentum is stopped. (Although, I'm no expert on the subject.)
I love how Gravity(2013) didn't make your list. As much as I love space films and science, I couldn't watch that film for the one inexcusable Hollywood element they showed in the trailer that was no doubt wildly annoying throughout the whole film: an astronaut constantly panicking and breathing heavily. Astronauts go through rigorous training to get rid of the panic response and know that hyperventilation and lack of oxygen can lead to their death by using up all their oxygen or passing out and being unable to do anything. No astronaut with this temperament would ever make it through the training, let alone into space.
Nonsense. Hyperventilation only consumes your oxygen supply if you're using an open loop supply. That would be incredibly wasteful. Spacecraft and spacesuits use carbon scrubbers, and operate more closely to rebreathers than standard SCBA gear.
Thanks for keeping us updated! I feel sympathy and empathy for our country. low income people are suffering to survive, and I appreciate Deborah. You've helped my family with your advice. imagine investing $30,000 and receiving $95,460 after 28 days of trading.
I began investing in stocks and Def earlier this year, and it is the best choice l've ever made. My portfolio is rounding up to almost a million, and I have realized that when a stock makes it to the news. Chances are you're quite late to the party, the idea is to get in early on blue chips before it becomes public. There are lots of life changing opportunities in the market, and maximize it.
It depends on the question. If there's no*thing* to hear it, it doesn't make a sound. Period. If there's no*body* to hear it, it likely makes a sound as birds/other animals with hearing could hear it if they are there. As long as there's an atmosphere, it will make sound*waves*, but not necessarily sound, as that is an experience, not a thing.
@@keithposter5543 By definition, in a forest there would be at least other trees and/or plants that could "hear" the tree fall. There likely would be other living organisms as well.
@@keithposter5543 Sound is a thing, its energy being propagated through a medium and id doesn't matter if anyone is there or not that transfer of energy still occurs
In the Wing Commander movie (1999), there is a scene where a spaceship crashes on the landing deck of the space carrier. Since they can’t go out into space to recover the pilot, they use a vehicle to push the spaceship off the edge of the landing deck. The spaceship tumbles off the edge like an airplane being pushed off a naval carrier. Great stuff 😂😂😂
Not all science fiction gets the vacuum of space wrong. I remember a part in "Moons of Madness" where the protagonist was forced to run around the outside of a structure on Mars without a space-suit so that he could enter through a different air-lock. The scientist that told him how to do it said as long as he emptied his lungs of air first, and he didn't pass out along the trip, he would be fine if he could make the journey in 20-30 seconds.
- A human can't exist at air pressures less than 1 psi (approximately 63,000 ft. above sea level on earth) for more than a few seconds. The air pressure on the surface of Mars is less than 0.01 psi (i.e. a human without a full pressure suit would be dead in ~15 seconds, and have considerable organ and cellular damage almost immediately).
2:20 this conclusion doesn’t match up with the previous explanation for sound and why it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, yes it makes noise. Regardless if there is an ear to receive and hear the sound, the logical explanation for this event is any tree that falls in the woods generates sound (sending vibrations through particles) regardless if an ear picks up said sound. Your entire initial argument is how sound occurs when something vibrates in a way that it sends out sound waves, and only when there are particles/molecules to carry that sound, the reason why sound cannot be “heard” in a vacuum is not because no ears can receive/hear it, it just doesn’t travel. The opposite is true for the tree falling in the woods scenario, because we’d have to explain why a falling tree does not vibrate and therefore transfer a sound wave through the air when it falls. Based on what we know, this is impossible to happen unless physics cease simply because nobody can hear it. Yes, it’s not “heard” but it does not mean sound is not generated.
I paused at 9:34 to continue it later (next bathroom break!) and you were talking about the color of stars. I switched to my music and it was The Police with "Invisible Sun." Nice timing!
RE: sound. It's a specific phenomenon based on EARS, which are evolved to sense air vibrations, which can extend to water. So while shock waves travel in water and even metal, it's not actually sound until it vibrates something our ears can sense, such as air or water. So sound isn't an independent thing, it's an interaction with ears.
The temperature of space is about 3.2 Kelvin. That's cold. But it's also a vacuum and a vacuum is a great insulator. So if you suddenly find yourself out in orbit around the moon and on the dark side, you will be highly distracted from losing your body heat by the explody feeling of your lungs and throat.
I mean, once you get away from the sun and planets that can radiate small amounts of heat, we are looking at about 3 degrees kelvin, or -275 degrees Celsius or -463 degrees F. I guess if you don't think that that's cold, then it isn't cold?
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [1/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vLGjxFL6U_I/mqdefault.jpg)
"Helium fuses to produce Hydrogen" - you WILL not hear the end of this!😂😂
Heh heh…
A cursory check of the comments section and…. Yes. He has gone viral.
LOL I completely missed that!
and neither should they. sloppy crap money-spinning pretending to be educational
i immediately went to comments after heating this lol
That's probably why they made such an obvious "mistake". Baiting comments is practically required for the algorithm
Minor correction Simon. I heard on April 26th that Voyager 1 is back online and communication with earth. In general, software engineers discovered one of the computers had areas that were corrupted and after re-uploading the software / coding using areas of other computers, Voyager 1 started communicating again. The signal (travelling at the speed of light) took almost 23 hrs to reach Voyager 1. The round trip signal (travelling at the speed of light) took almost two days. It’s amazing that both Voyagers are still working and communication after almost 48 years.
It's comical that you actually buy into this insane bullspit....you think that we can communicate with something billions of miles away yet my cellphone doesn't catch signal from 50 yards off the hwy? You are SMOKED!! The indoctrination is strong with you sir.
www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasas-voyager-1-resumes-sending-engineering-updates-to-earth
Wow almost 50 years and not even a light day away!!! So I’m assuming it’s going to take about 183 years before it’s a full light year away?? Amazing how small we really are in this massive galaxy 🌌/ universe !!!
@@SovietMOB 18250 years to be 1 light year away.
@@dpsamu2000 yeah I must have been on one when I typed that 183 years clearly 50 x 365 is more than 183 !!! I’m scratching my head because I have no idea how I even came up with that when I have a calculator!!!
Actually, the tree falling in the woods with no one around to "hear" it, still causes air molecules to be moved in waves. The presence of ear drums is not required for the physics of the air molecules to be moved by an object. It's the same as tossing a rock over your shoulder into a pond while not looking at the water. The water reacts with waves regardless of whether it is being watched or not.
but we're living in a Simulation.. *they* don't render or calculate what isn't seen or heard.. I was going to be more serious and mention Quantum collapse and Schrödinger's box.
The presence of eardrums is required for something to be heard through.
@@therollband1290so if there was a security camera recording at that moment it wouldnt be sound bc theres no eardrums?
I agree with your explanation, but I believe the core of the question is semantic, not scientific, and revolves around the technical definition of the word "sound". Had this argument many times. my usual answer is: "That depends on whether you're an Arts major or a Science major." 😉
@DarthBludgeon yep, if you define "sound" in terms of sound waves, you don't need ears for sound to exist.
11:31 Great news -- as of April 5, 2024, Voyager 1 is back on-line!!
Major kudos to the Voyager team, for figuring out what was wrong, and devising a fix.
You believe anything 😂
@@Kobe8DaGreat24 You disbelieve anything
It was April 20. And they just started doing the repair which would likely take weeks to complete. A bad memory chip containing some of it's software was the culprit. It caused it's transmissions to be garbled since November 14, 2023. They had to move that software elsewhere and change references to it in the rest of the code. The first of a series of software updates was completed on April 20. The repair is complicated because the software was too big to fit anywhere else. It had to be broken up and spread across different locations. Their first software update got Voyager 1 sending status information about the condition of the probe. An important first step.
Did they find a fix or did ET phone our home?
Uh oh here comes V-ger
a tree in the forest will always be surrounded by ear drums, they just won't be human ones
Just for a second I pictured a set of drums made from ears.
@@markc7955
badass
Even without a living thing to hear it, the sound is still created (and can be detected with a microphone)... This thing that if nobody hears it there was no sound is just BS.
Sound waves exist without ears. That’s like saying light doesn’t exist if no eyes see it. No. Photons are still traveling, just like air is still vibrating.
How can sound be real, if your ears aren‘t real
its not that Hollywood writers dont know this information its just that a scientifically accurate looking explosion with no sound would just look soooo boring!
You can easily do this experiment. Watch some thrilling war movie depicting fierce battles on land or sea, and just turn off the sound. See how much less exciting it is.
This is true
The Expanse is phenomenal. It proved you can still have action, drama, and suspense in space, but still be scientifically accurate. That IS the suspense. Physics practically is a villain, a hero, and a secret weapon by itself.
I was actually a bit upset and disappointed when (Spoiler!) Naomi jumped through the vacuum of space without a vac suit without drying.
Just shows how feel this misconception runs within most of us.
@@sonneh86 same
Yes the Expanse is amazing, way more accurate than other shows and movies but it does make some compromises.
For example the ships would need huge radiators and heat sinks, plus they do have sound effects for space sequences.
Firefly actually had no sound effects for its space sequences which though it is on the whole much less realistic than The Expanse actually makes it more accurate in that one regard.
Boring
@@sonneh86 To be fair, it did nearly kill her.
8:28 I think you misspoke. Hydrogen fuses to become helium, not the other way around that you said.
He definitely misspoke
Correct. And once most of the available hydrogen is fused to something else the helium will fuse to something bigger (IIRC beryllium), eventually carbon and oxygen will be formed by fusion and so forth - until iron is the result of the fusion. It all stops at iron because the next fusion between iron atoms takes up more energy than it produces. So when the fusion switches to making something larger out of the iron that's when the star is going to die (by that time our sun for example would reach a diameter of about the Jupiter orbit, so our good old earth is toast inside that red giant star our sun has become)... If it's larger than ten times our sun, it's going to go supernova, which is when almost all other elements we know will form again (we ourselves live off a supernova that happened more than 5 billion years ago - else we wouldn't have any other elements than anything below iron in the periodic table)
@@karlgunterwunsch1950 so eventually, unless the weirdness of "dark matter" somehow intervenes in an unpredictable manner, the universe will eventually consist of nothing but "iron stars" and black holes. And it may stay like that forever.
For those in the back row: th-cam.com/video/qyNkrlwKs7c/w-d-xo.htmlsi=x854a-9klUo6Jko_
Simon: "...allegedly..."
Hollywood: "But the chances of successfully navigating an asteroid field are 3,720 to 1!"
Real life: "We're in an asteroid field?"
Been watching you a decade brother.
@@vertyisprobablydead Glad you're still watching. Thanks
Thank you and your channel for clearing my doubts when I quit religion 12 years ago. 🙏
Depends on the asteroid field. One example they arrived into the remains of planet Alderaan. Reasonable to think it didn't had time to separate too much.
In the second case we only know it was very dense. It is possible. Yes most are extremely insanly sparse, but again it depends what caused it
Never tell me the odds.
BTW, any plans for a new serial? Power Corrupts is great work.
I remember reading a Sci-Fi short story a long time ago, that was written by one of the classic Sci-Fi authors in the 1950s, although I can't remember which one. It featured a rescue of some passengers on a space ship that had suffered some kind of accident and needed to be evacuated quickly, but there were no space suits for the passengers to wear while moving over to the rescue ship. The distance between the two ships was short and could be traversed in less than 2 minutes by pulling one's self along a tether between the two ships, so they had the passengers enter the airlock of the doomed ship one by one, hyper-ventilate to maximally oxygenate their blood and then expel as much air as possible from their lungs before holding their breath on the exhale, so that there was little to no pressure from air in their lungs. Then they opened the airlock and had the rescuing astronaut (iirc) drag them to the rescue ship by pulling himself and the passenger along the tether. This blew my mind at the time, but tracks with all the information in this video. Those old Sci-Fi authors sure knew their science.
I think that's the question that I, and many others, still have. Assuming you're in some kind of spaceship or station and something goes wrong, with no space suits available, is it possible for a human to survive, even if for just a few _seconds_ , an exposed transfer to a functioning and safe rescue vehicle? Also, given the fact that our bodies have numerous subconscious protocols when unconscious and in life threatening danger, would any of those unconscious reflexes unintentionally cause death if you went unconscious during an exposed transfer in space? Like how the body reflexively takes a small breath before being submerged in water. Based on what was said in this video, it sounds like that would be a fatal mistake in space.
Thats a possible situation in our future but its not a happy ending. The people might survive but will be suffering from decompression sickness. Obiously better than being left for dead but not a clean rescue where the people are able to walk away.
2001.
@cameronl1859 Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein were all writing in the 50s and none of them have ever been slouches in the Science department of Sci Fi, so I dispute your implicit claim that all Sci Fi in the 50s was space opera. Project Mercury started in 1958, so people interested in science in the 50s would have been well aware of vacuum conditions in space. That having been said, since I can't remember the name of the story or the author, I can't guarantee that the story wasn't published in the 60s rather than the 50s, I just know I read it in an anthology of classic short stories from that 50s-60s era of Sci Fi that I had borrowed from the library when I was a teenager.
@cameronl1859 Sure. It just seems like you're making an awfully big deal out of the fact that I might be off a few years on the publishing date of a short story I read 50-ish years ago. My point remains that, for the time, the fact that this story was apparently accurately representing the contents of this video is pretty amazing, when more modern movies, even those that are supposedly portraying a more "hard science" Sci Fi, don't.
I would question the conclusion concerning your body's ability to adapt to one atmosphere (Atm) of pressure change. As a scuba diver and a former US Navy Aerospace Physiology Technician, I admit that a single Atm is reasonably easily handled when moving above 1 Atm, but when going in the opposite direction the relationship between temperature, pressure, volume and boiling points of liquids. There is a very good reason pilots who fly at extreme altitudes are required to wear pressure suits. Although it is cold enough to freeze very quickly at approximately 63,000 ft in altitude, the air pressure at that altitude brings the boiling point of the blood to around standard body temperature. In space, depending on your protective gear etc it would just be a race between what kills you first, but I believe the embolism, possibly secondary to your blood gasses coming out of solution (boiling) would win.
True. Even a dog is smart enough to be terrified of a vacuum......
Actually, your bodily fluids boiling wins (re: what would kill you first in space). A human can survive at least 3 minutes without air, on the other hand the Russian cosmonauts who died in space due to an accidental cabin depressurization were dead in about 15 seconds.
Interstellar did really well with the lack of sounds in a vacuum. Whenever there was a camera shot in a vacuum it was just... silent. No sound. That movie is a work of art.
The expanse show also did a really great work on exposure to vacuum without a spacesuit.
Obvious spoiler ahead!
Naomi jumps out of an airlock without a spacesuit to escape a ship. She lets air go out so her lungs don't rupture, and at the end of the 15 sec window where she would pass out she injects herself with oxygenated blood, buying her a bit more time which is enough for her to reach a spaceship close by, open the airlock, close it and pressurise it. She then passes out but wakes up gasping for air. She is in pain, she has troubles with balancing herself, blood socket in her eye pops, she looks buised and also has received some sun burns. Not only that, she is extremely dehydrated.
That Total Recall scene might be completely inaccurate... but DAMN it was a genius bit of movie magic!
It could be accurate if the Mars colony had a much higher pressure. Explosive decompression is explosive. Do not lookup the _Byford Dolphin_ incident.
well, asphyxiation is true xD
Everyone's always trying to ruin our fun! Suspension of disbelief is a wonderful thing. I don't care how inaccurate that movie is. Even as a huge Philip K Dick fan I love that movie.
I feel like the most absurd line from Total Recall is often overlooked. "The entire core of Mahs is ice. The reactah melts it... and releases the oxygen." Yeah, no and no.
1. A planet of rock is not gonna form around a less dense core of ice in the first place. 2. We can't breathe water vapor. Melting ice does _not_ separate the oxygen from the hydrogen. Earth had water for billions of years before there was significant oxygen in the atmosphere (slowly produced as a by-product by stromatolites growing in the shallows).
Plus a whole atmosphere was created (in a matter of seconds!) by melting ice, if I recall totally, I mean correctly
I'd say sound is the air vibrations itself, which can affect things other than ear drums, and the air vibrations from a falling tree are still there whether anyone is there to hear it or not. The actual definition of sound is "vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear" which means air vibrations bring sound is not contingent on being heard, just that they could be heard if an ear was near.
Thank you. I just wrote something similar before checking if I was first.
Guess microphones don't pick up sound, just vibrations. This sounds like semantics not science
If the sound from roaring engines is heard within the ship, but not when the camera pans outside of the ship, that would be an accurate depiction of how sound would work in and out of a space ship.
The atmosphere inside of a habitable vessel would also allow for the propogation of a blast wave, and the enclosed nature of such a vessel would make it much more devastating. Just like bombs detonated inside buildings or caves have a more dramatic effect than those exploding outside. Worse still, the immediate vacuum which would occur after any atmosphere was consumed by deflagration would act violently against structures and people within. Ever see an explosion underwater? How it pushes out, then collapses in on itself? A little like that. So, yes...starships could explode in space. It would just be much faster and much more violent than what we're used to.
@@ScottyBeastmuch as the TH-camr protests violent decompression in vacuum, the same principles should apply, it isn't the nature of the humans exposure, but the volume of their atmosphere
So like Firefly and the Expanse?
Interstellar does this very well.
Also you will probably hear it if the other ship passes by your one closely. Engines emit reactive mass and radiation that will interact with the ship's hull
0:55 - Chapter 1 - Sound doesn't exist in a vaccum
2:30 - Chapter 2 - Explosions in space
4:45 - Chapter 3 - A human body will freeze or explode in space
7:10 - Chapter 4 - The sun is a burning fiery ball
9:55 - Chapter 5 - Flying through an asteroid belt is dangerous
Your mixing up reality as it is, and people asking you to define words meaning. Like "sound' means heard by eardrum.
Kudos to the editor for throwing a beret on Simon when he said "We're going to bust some myths". Even without the stash, it was a good throwback to Jamie.
I was looking for this type of comment, because i came here from watching mythbusters :)
i wish i had three hands
Space is very, very cold. The baseline temperature of outer space is 2.7 kelvins - minus 454.81 degrees Fahrenheit, or minus 270.45 degrees Celsius - meaning it is barely above absolute zero, the point at which molecular motion stops. But this temperature is not constant throughout the solar system.Apr 16, 2022
In space what molecules get that cold?
Background microwave radiation is 5⁰ kelvin. For heat to leave your body, other masses at a lower temperature would have to touch your body and absorb the heat until it reaches the same temperature as your body, at which point, it would stop puling heat from you. Air has lots of gas particles to pull heat from you. Water has even more. Lying on the ground has the highest density of particles and will sap your heat the fastest. Well, moving wind or water would be moving away before they reach any temp close to your body temperature, so you just keep getting cold air/water pulling heat constantly.
In "empty" space, there is basically nothing to touch you and cool your body. In front of a star, say right outside Earth's atmosphere, you would get wrecked by solar radiation, and you would get cooked fast as hell, basically being a super super fast tan.
Radiative heat loss. You can lose heat in complete vacuum. If you were in fact floating facing the sun, one side would burn and the other would freeze.
@@logangodofcandy If only NASA had some information on this... Oh, wait, it does. All manned spacecraft must have heaters, and as was seen in the Apollo 13 disaster, when that heater was turned off the temperature in the craft got down to the middle 30's. The only reason it didn't get colder is you had 3 human bodies in a space smaller than a closet! They also were not in any shade at that point in the trip for days. Heat is also lost through emission in the form of IR, that doesn't require any molecular contact to keep shedding heat. Although, the specific point in the video is correct that it would not happen in seconds, like some movies show.
A couple of updates since Simon's team wrote the script: Voyager 1 is communicating again. NASA engineers told the onboard chip to disable the "dead" or damaged part and transfer the instructions to functional portions of the chip. Eventually, yes, Voyager 1 will "die". The other thing is that neither Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 have not left the solar system. Assuming they keep going, eventually they will enter the Kuiper Belt and indeed the system, but that hasn't happened at this time.
Voyager 1 left in 2012. It entered interstellar space.youre thinking of the Oort cloud not the keiper belt
@@cellanjones28 Oh yes, so I am. I was indeed thinking of the Oort Cloud.
@@cellanjones28 *_How The Universe Works_* did an astoundingly fascinating episode about it. It was the fourth season ("series" if you're British), and the episode was called _"Edge of the Solar System"_
(Sadly, season 4 is not available to watch on Discovery Plus, but I just bought the 4th season on my Amazon account, and I think it may be available to MAX subscribers.)
I just had to look up voyager 1. That’s insane they reconnected. It’s almost 1am and taking everything in me not to go down that rabbit hole. I’ll have to tomorrow!
@@bwines16 "Fixing" Voyager 1 to some degree is probably one of the most astonishing achievements in space flight in recent years, given the circumstances.
Astronaut 1: "I can't find any milk for my coffee"
Astronaut 2: "In space no-one can. Here, use cream"
Oh, oh, very nicely done. *tips hat*
English holorimes are rare and wonderful, thank you!
so good
sounds stupid
???
@@NeutralDrowyou should read the newspaper comic Pearls Before Swine.
I have a few qualms with the answers given here.
Okay, our body won't 'violently decompress' when exposed to space, but as pointed out, the air in our lungs will. The human body is replete with gas pockets and liquids. Survivors of decompression events have reported that the last conscious memory being the liquid on their tongue starting to boil. Of course, this isn't boiling due to heat, it's boiling due to insufficient pressure keeping the fluid in that state.
NASA has Voyager 1 back in communication!! They were able to send a patch and are currently running tests. but they do have understandable information once again from the probe
Oh that's great news! Thanks!
Yay, NASA!
The IT Help Desk at NASA is a helluva thing, isn't it? They were able to send a fix for a computer 15 billion miles away that was built before home computers were a thing. And it worked.
NASA are the real rock stars.
@@ClarkBK67 You could say the asteroid belt are the real rock stars oh that was bad
The Total Recall scene was not in space, it was in the Mars atmosphere. Mars' atmosphere is composed of 95.32% carbon dioxide, 2.7% nitrogen, 1.6% argon and 0.13% oxygen. The atmospheric pressure at the surface is 6.35 mbar which is over 100 times less than Earth's. Making it even less scientifically accurate, but I thought I'd make that distinction.
so its a difference of .993 bar instead of 1 bar. close enough i think.
I bet you're fun to go to the cinema with!
No one knows much about any planet. No one has been to the moon, let alone Mars.... all, space lies.
People believe about what's at the Earth's core ( if you believe the globe lies ) the fact that Earth is 6000+ kilometres radius, yet we've only ever drilled down about 12 kilometres..... You're all gullible idiots.
Whatever the science or semantics may be, right before he said that a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it makes no sound, he said that an anvil struck with a hammer in the vacuum of space is making plenty of noise (a synonym for or a type of sound), it's just not surrounded by a medium that can transfer it. So, at the very least, he contradicted himself.
'Consida dis a divose' - Quaid/ Arnold "Screw Your Freedom" Schwarzenegger
Hats off to you. You nailed that for sound to exist there must be a source, medium and receiver. Retired sonar tech here.
Yeah... I don't agree with that. That's like saying that if you have deaf people in the audience then sound does not exist around them, though the hearing near them CAN hear it. It is IMPOSSIBLE to catch a ball if no ball is thrown... so it is IMPOSSIBLE for a hearing person to hear a sound if no sound exists. It's a bit like saying, there's no light on in your house if you're not there. Yeah??? Tell THAT lie to the power company and see how far it gets you!
7:00 There was a Russian who was testing space suit designs when he tested one that didn't work so well.
He survived and made a full recovery. He described the sensation of the saliva in his mouth as very strange and quite cold.
Water boils when it contains more heat than it can hold onto. Boiling is the process that water uses to shed this extra heat. So in a vacuum water will boil until it is cooled below the freezing point and becomes a solid. No matter how warm the surroundings are.
I saw that footage! He was in a vacuum while wearing a space suit, and he felt the saliva in his mouth boiling. Then he fell onto his back.
The phase of matter that water is in depends on temp and pressure. In a zero pressure environment liquid water once exposed instantly boils to a gas. The phase change will result in heat being drawn away and some of the water becoming a solid (ice) eventually tho it will become a gas. If the water is frozen it will sublimate directly to a gas but will do so a rate that is slower the lower the temp. Phase changes always occur with conduction of heat.
@@undertow2142 wouldn't the blood in the body also be boiling?
@@exoticspeedefy7916 Not if the pressure of your body containing it remains relatively normal. Depends how strong/elastic your blood vessels/skin/muscles are.
Pressure suits are absolutely not necessary for space. We do not turn into a casserole on exposure to a vacuum, unless the exposure is close to instantaneous in which case injuries will be minor. NASA are spending billions on new space suits, designed to contain their wearers in a semi-inflated balloon which greatly limits movement, even causes injury (to the hands in particular, as reported by many ISS astronauts). All that's needed is a respirator of the re-breathing type, and face mask. Excess heat is a major problem in space, as any satellite engineer will tell you. So a cooling suit is what is required for longer EVAs, but shorter excursions require nothing more than protective clothing, against micro-meteorites and / or regolith. This all seems quite straightforward to prove, and has been if our hapless cosmonaut is anything to go by. Maybe space engineers don't want to be shown to be chumps, that they could have been performing EVAs using basic diving gear all along.
Surprisingly, one of the best depictions of the effects of space on an unprotected human body takes place in the space horror film Event Horizon. When one of the crew members is about to be expelled into space, the captain tells him to exhale quickly, then rushes to save him before asphyxia, but the crew member is all bruised and battered. They did their homework!
Yes! That was crewman Teddy. One issue though, the ship 'compelled' him not into space, but into Neptune. If memory serves that is.
You missed the scene in 2001, where David Bowman is about to eject into space, and he is seen visibly forcing all the air out of his lungs possible, just prior to doing so.
Meanwhile in the novel 3001, Frank Poole is found still drifting in space, preserved by the vacuum; and the doctors in the year 3001 are able to revive him, and he goes on to help destroy the monolith before it destroys Earth.
First thing I thought of, too!
I believe similar was done in an episode of "For All Mankind."
There is also a huge difference in how a hole in a space craft works. In movies it violently rips everything out of that small hole when in reality a person could plug up a dime sized hole with their thumb with no issue. The vaccum of space does not suck. The air is simply trying to equlize by escaping into the vaccum, if you plug up that hole then nothing will escape. You can fix holes in the ISS with duct tape if you wanted.
Hmm... I mean usually a hole in movies is pretty large like a human sized body hole. And during depressurization a large enough hole would be a problem. I mean a small hole yeah wouldn't be bad but remember P=F/A.
Cold fusion is the least of ST: Into Darkness's problems
The entire Kelvinverse is a giant stack of problems.
@@JarrodFrates It's a "wouldn't it be cool if.." kind of thing rather than any attempt at realism.
@@JarrodFrates Agreed.. It's Star Trek for Dummies
yeah, really had to leave all my science and physics at the door to enjoy that one
At 8:27 - You made a mistake - what you want to say is that Hydrogen isotopes fuses to produce Helium, plus byproducts.
Yeah, that caught my ear to. Though, I've read that this type of channel _intentionally_ strews in a few of such screwups every now and then just to get people to debate in the comment section and thus drive up engagement.
That's annoying. Rather be well informed than misinformed...
Came to point out that very same error
Ok, I've only watched the first part of this. But I feel like I have to say this because there's always some confusion here. If you're in a ship you can definitely hear that ship's engines. If you are in aTIE fighter you can hear the ion engines rev up and down from the cockpit. Sound isn't gone just because your in space. Sound is gone if you're in the vacuum of space. Which you're not, if you're in a ship.
Scenes with roaring ships in them usually cut to the people inside the ship, so the fake part is the view of the ship not the sound as the crew cannot see the ship from that perspective. But then when itdoesnt cut to the inside of the ship a silent ship is not very entertaining so the sound is still from the perspective of the crew onboard the ship so it is more entertaining.
Direct energy ejected from an explosion can still reach the hull of the ship you're in, as a stream (not wave) of energetic micro particles. This would allow you to, "hear the explosion", kind of. On the other hand, an energy burst large enough to do that will have distracted from the faint whooshing sound by the extremely loud sound of your ship's atmosphere escaping through myriad new tiny holes. Screw sound! :P
I feel like Fire Fly/Serenity was closer to being right without ditching the suspension of belief. The sound we hear is the equipment from which mechanics perform, kind of like swinging a hammer at a metal pole and it vibrates - that would travel through the machine, to you, to your ear but it would be a weird dull sound.
But imagine a movie or a game without, it's more as just boring without and you are never quite aware what happens around you, thus sound is for the entertainment essential and entertainment does not have to be real at all. Perhaps the approach to be isn't as good since the real sense of sci-fi is to cover social problems not the technology.
*dear reader* :)
"We leap with our social developement 100 year behind our technology"
H.G. Wells, War of Worlds 1898
It's not a novel about space or technology in this sense it's a philosophial novel about humankind.
the bloodsucking alien is just to bring us in an extreme situation in which the author pulls the mask from our faces and shows us the real monster.
And that is the root of it not accuracy in technological vision, vice versa Wells criticises it heavy that we think we are dominating nature with this weak technology we have and think we are the crown of creation due to destructive acting against mankind and nature.
I guess accuracy is rather a hemlock as needed to write good sci-fi.
Since heck, you know it's a novel and it starts as a continuing story of a columnist in a newspaper so it's all fantasy in a fantasy, he introduces chapters with "dear reader" nonetheless he is able to sell this fiction for real, you live through the story with the protagonist who is certainly the columnist in other terms Wells himself. It gives him the possibility to comment the drama while being part of it.
"we haven't deserved that nature saved us"
And whatever good sci-fi i have read the technology is only environment, for the real message of the story, a setup.
And pardon me since when do aliens exist?
Since war of worlds, it's a product of our (his) fantasy and we have zero evidence for it.
We could count Verne or Kepler to it but first has written only entertainment (yes i guess there is critic as well in blind faith in technology) which is good as well and Kepler liked to hide his theories, or wrap it in a story. Latter i haven't read yet to be honest.
For facts i refere to stellarium or to a science article, but not on a novel, movie or game related to sci-fi, that's a quite different topic and i don't know if that makes sense at all to wrap this knowledge then in a novel or movie or game, to a certain extend it's ok, but space is boring.
And please guess always of H.G. Wells not Orson Welles (resp. Howard Koch) Who is finally responsible for the complete wrong image of a possible alien lifeform we have which is so far from novels before this radioplay. The only thing left of it is the power of media but this is in the original novel only a tiny bit of the message in all. Whatever the intention was this was the result of it.
In the novel power of media is reduced to that you get the impression that this continuing story is reality, fake news if you like though, but "dear reader" always gets you back to earth. That is far from what Orson made out of it. He earned a grammy for it, killed a novel and made a whole genre rediculous through this and reduced it to spectacle even if that wasn't his intention, a bit unwise in my opinion.
War of Worlds is a war of head-worlds, and i might have read dozends but this i had to read three times and each time it moved me. you need time to think about all he states in it. Certain things you might refuse for yourself but think when you read it for the second time "yes i know i do that to".
*It seems we don't mind to be literally held as cattle as long as we have food and sex enough*
The wonder in it is that he creates rage against yourself instead of hoplessness.
It's not "humans are shit and i can't change this"
It's "i know it's part of our nature but i don't like to be like this!"
Most of all it isn't "arrrrrgh bloodsucking aliens"
The protagonist admires them because they operate social, there is no inequality and the goal is to survive as species.
Their planet (Mars) is sustained and they only look for a way to survive, while we destroy our own source of life for something questionable as personal wealth especially if that exceeds the to imaginable.
And this we would need so much today, instead of giving it up before we started.
200 years, Mr. Wells, 200 years by now!
So far to the sci in this fi.
Projectiles or saucers doesn't matters at all.
In the novel they arrive with projectiles, the first he saw broke that's why you dear reader will know how they might look like. He got closer and knocked with his pipe on the cylinder... (still in night-robe and slippers on the way to get his daily newspaper, eh philosphists don't like to get up early in the morning).
It's really a fantastic story and no matter 19th century you are in the time and the place, i guess the language plays a big role, it differs much.
A tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it *does* make a sound. The sound is the vibration of the molecules, not the act of hitting a sensory device like an eardrum.
If you come into your house with the phone already ringing, for example, it didn't start making the sound when you entered.
Gimme back my thunder! I was about to say the same thing.
Somebody is far too literal and doesn’t understand a paradox
The point is not wether or not the tree would make a sound, but wether or not this could ever be 100% proven. Which it couldn’t.
@@Bianchiboy The question is *literally* whether it makes a sound, and that's how Simon tackled it.
Also, other animals exist and even insects hear, so to say a sound doesn't exist when no one is around is going to be extremely rare.
@@FrankCoffman words mean things, don't alter that meaning willynilly.
sound
/saʊnd/
noun
1.
vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.
The statement "sound only exists if there are eardrums" is incorrect. I can obviously put a recorder in the woods where the tree falls, and despite there being no eardrums around, the sound will exist and be recorded. A more accurate statement would simply be "sound only exists if there is something to detect the molecular vibrations", eardrums are not a requirement.
My thoughts too. When I tried to rationalise, I compared sound to light. Without making this religious or anything, light should be present whether someone is there to see it or not. After all, they all derive from waves, so why wouldn't they?
Waves are waves, whether or not there is something there to record/observe their presence or not.
@@darthwiizius This. I really can't stand the pretentious philosophical war that surrounds it.
@@invader_jim2837
Does a philosophical question exist without dickheads to hear it? That should be the "philosophical" question.
It's not sound until someone hears it. Recording acoustic shock waves isn't sound.
And another thing! Why are all spacesuit helmets/visors illuminated from the inside? The light shining in the astronauts face would make it impossible to see!
Because they pay a lot for beautiful actors. They are not hiding all those dollars behind some dark visors.
Blame The Abyss.
Always bugs me too. But the first answer here is correct
Thanks for pointing out that "instantly freezing when exposed to the vacuum of space" idiocy. It has been driving me up the walls in every SciFi Space movie I have ever seen, which has portrayed it like that.
- NASA has actually just recently managed to bring Voyager 1 back online, with some very clever reprogramming and work arounds, avoiding using the damaged systems. Really rather impressive considering the age of the tech and the probe itself.
- While the asteroid scene in "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back" is questionable at best, since we aren't provided with any information about whether these asteroids are in a belt formation round a star (like ours) or in closer proximity to some other form of gravity well. The same cannot be said about the very similar scene in "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" with Obi Wan, Jango, and Boba Fett. Simply because, as we can clearly see in the beginning of the scene, it takes place inside the ring-system of the planet of Geonosis, where these "asteroids" very likely would be much closer together due to them orbiting the planet.
- And finally; Remember that in space no-one can hear your black hole rumble (a LIGO/Alien related mash-up joke).
15 or 20 years ago I got the original Star Wars film and started to watch it as I had been told all my life how great it was. Could not hang more than about 10 minutes as the acting was so horrible and the story ridiculous. So now I just block anyone who starts rambling about Star Wars as I naturally assume their brains are switched off.
Not to well actually but lol. In Ep IV, Han says an asteroid field, iirc, and it's not anywhere in a system. So my conclusion always was it was just something completely uncharted and just randomly in interstellar space, remnants from some random collision of some sort perhaps.
@@paulmartin2348 I totally get what you are saying, but their brains being switched off, that's a bit harsh. A Star Wars geek's response to that would probably be something like "only the Sith deal in absolutes." 😆
It is a different imaginary state of mind, that's for sure. One which allows for just enough leeway for us to enjoy the story. The amount of leeway needed obviously heavily varying from movie to movie and person to person, and a person's individual relationship with science. Because it is a detachment (or escape) from reality. And you know; we all do it. Because without putting ourselves into a different mindset, we wouldn't really be able to enjoy any kind of movies, TV series, computer games, or even just a book for that matter.
The problem I have with this "instant popsicle" idiocy, is that when movie-makers just keep repeating the same mistake and reinforcing this nonsense, it ends up annoying me enough to pull me out of my imaginary mindset, presumably just like all the nonsense in "A New Hope" does to you.
Most SciFi movies from that era are more like really drawn-out low-budget psychological thrillers. I mean even "2001: A Space Odyssey", although not so low-budget, it still mostly falls into the psychological thriller category... And then along comes George Lucas with this "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." fairytale adventure movie, which just happens to take place in space. It broke all the previous constrains of what a SciFi movie could be, and that's really why it became such a huge phenomenon.
So, that's really were you need to send your mind mentally; into the same place as when watching The Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter, etc... or actually even The Matrix... OMG, that one hasn't aged well either: telephone booths, cutting landlines, "the mind can't survive without the body" BS, going against the core concept of the very manga movie it was trying to imitate. Don't get me wrong, I love The Matrix. But I still have to detach myself from reality and commit to its fantasy world in order to enjoy it.
The asteroid field scene, like many other scenes in "The Empire Strikes Back", is pretty ridiculous by todays standards. But if "you're" going to nitpick and say "the asteroids are never that close together in our asteroid belt" then you expose that you're unaware of how much you are assuming about the situation and which you actually don't know. Simply because George Lucas didn't bother with presenting you with all the details... Again, because it's a fairytale adventure movie and not a science documentary. 🥸😆 (But also because George didn't know... or care.)
@@fett713akamandodragon5 Yeah, and if the imperial pilots are anything like the stormtroopers, then for all we know it could just be debris from their latest attempt at parallel parking. 😆
@@Zhixalom lol, true enough!
As the water boils in your body, the temperature will drop as energy is absorbed by the vaporizing water. This boiling will continure until it reaches about zero Celcius, (boiling point of water at zero psi) so you did "freeze" but not due to touching something cold. Your body (skin) will however provide some pressure as the gases accumulate inside of you, thus rasing the boiling point a bit due to the increase of pressure.
I do like the Idea of asteroids being dangerous in space as an unstable place to be upon or hosting the eggs of some space-faring biological creature which is neat.
I think the reason Hollywood depicts "Freezing in Space" is because Space being cold as cold is the absence of heat it's easier to show people freezing to get that across than just letting people pass out and suffocate as it's more dramatic.
Yep. I think drama trumps accuracy every time.
up in space , or down in the ocean, it's asphyxiation. funny thing about the life zone
@@donaldwert7137 I mean, you could also have people catch fire and explode when they can't swim, that would be dramatic, but that isn't what happens. Space is a real thing, and when you go there, you don't instantly freeze.
@@HuckleberryHim Of course not. Even the depictions of drowning are dramatized, usually with plenty of thrashing in the water, etc., when in reality most drowning victims go under and stay under, no cries for help, etc. I drowned when I was a kid and would have died had my brother not spotted me at the bottom of the pool, pulled me out and applied what was then called artificial resuscitation. This was in a motel pool with plenty of people around and no one saw it happened, the first clue there was anything wrong was that no one had seen me for a while. That's how real life works and people have a general, if inaccurate, idea of how drowning works. In a movie, the event would have looked very different in order to engage the viewer. Very few people have seen an explosion in a vacuum, so great liberties are taken for dramatic effect.
Did not appreciate how Guardians of the Galaxy represented it twice.
So in 2001 Space Odyssey when Dave the astronaut is locked out of the spaceship by HAL, and he has to jump through the air lock without his space helmet, that is technically feasible.
Almost anything in that movie is technically/physically feasible
@@father_flair I just wonder how painful or difficult that would be, having your head exposed to the vacuum of space for several seconds like that?
I loved how the airlock scene begins in silence, sound only gradually coming in as the lock pressurizes.
I don't have anything to refer to, but I'm pretty sure gases solved in your bloodstream would instantly gasify into bubbles and cause massive damage similar to divers ascending too fast.
Technically, instead of holding his breath, Bowman should have exhaled as the hatch blew, to prevent traumatic lung injury. There would be enough O2 in his blood to maintain consciousness for a few seconds, and embolism would not be immediate due to the strength of the body's internal membranes.
When 3 soviet cosmonauts died in the early 1970s (a valve malfunctioned and depressurized their capsule, shortly before re-entry), the bodies were found to have some evidence of bleeding from the nose, eyes and ears. But they died of asphyxiation, likely combined with subsequent air embolism in blood vessels in the brain.
During a vacuum chamber training exercise, a US astronaut's space suit depressurized (slowly). He recovered from the brief exposure, but said the last thing he remembered (before passing out) was feeling saliva on his tongue boiling at room temperature (Hey: Who remembers "Pop Rocks" ?).
Most of space IS in fact cold. Very cold. So another rather misleading TH-cam title. Nothing to see here
So you say "in fact"... You mean just because there seems not to be any energy and thus the temperature might be at 0K (-273°C / -169.444°F)? Yea that would be quite cold. But weren´t you listening, that the energy of a star like our sun reaches into space? And that in the surroundings of a star it would be mostlikely hot for millions of miles because of this? And that you morelikely would feel only cold when covered by a massive object like a planet or an asteroid between you and the star, and thus not beeing emittet to the heat of the energy from it? So the "cold" in space cannot be constand everywhere. Just due to the large distance you wouldn´t instandly burn when emittet to those energywaves of a star - well if you´re close enough on the other hand it might be different; but don´t think of beeing engulfed in flames all of a sudden, but rather mostlikely getting burnings without flames at all due to the lack of oxigen.
In short: To say that it IS cold in space is nonsense, especially claiming this to be a "fact" without ever having to have messured temperature in spaceby yourself... If you do have evidence, show it to us education hungry people, instead of sharing your "all mighty wisdom" without stating those "facts"..
@@andreasgrunebaum811 This is incorrect. Sorry. Do more research. Most space is the space between stars & between galaxies. Far beyond the reach of even the hottest stars, their heliosphere, and their “energy” as you put it. And yes it’s very cold. You know what’s even more cold? I won’t be pulled into a back & forth in a comments section. Fair dinkum. LOL
@@AIainMConnachie Temperature is a measurement of the speed at which particles are moving, and heat is how much energy the particles of an object have. So in a truly empty region space, there would be no particles and radiation, meaning there’s also no temperature.
Of course, space is full of particles and radiation to produce heat and a temperature. So how cold is space, is there any region that is truly empty, and is there anywhere that the temperature drops to absolute zero? The hottest regions of space are immediately around stars, which contain all the conditions to kick start nuclear fusion.
Things really warm up when radiation from a star reaches a spot in space with a lot of particles. This gives the radiation from stars like the sun something to actually act upon.
That’s why Earth is a lot warmer than the region between our planet and its star. The heat comes from particles in our atmosphere vibrating with solar energy and then bumping into each other distributing this energy.
Proximity to our star and possessing particles are no guarantee of warmth, though. Mercury - closest to the sun - is blisteringly hot during the day and frigidly cold at night. Its temperatures drop to a low of 95 Kelvins (-288 ⁰Fahrenheit/-178 ⁰Celsius ).
Temperatures dip to -371 ⁰F (-224 ⁰C) on Uranus, making it even colder than on the furthest planet from the sun, Neptune, which has a still incredibly cold surface temperature of -353 ⁰F (-214 ⁰C ).
This is a result of a collision with an Earth-sized object early in its existence causing Uranus to orbit the sun on an extreme tilt, making it unable to hang on to its interior heat.
Far away from stars particles are so spread out that heat transfer via anything but radiation is impossible, meaning temperatures radically drop. This region is called the interstellar medium.
The coldest and densest molecular gas clouds in the interstellar medium can have temperatures of 10 K (-505 ⁰F/-263 ⁰C or ) while less dense clouds can have temperatures as high as 100 K (-279 ⁰F/-173 ⁰C).
The universe is so vast and filled with such a multitude of objects, some blisteringly hot, others unimaginably frigid, that it should be impossible to give space a single temperature.
Yet, there is something that permeates the entirety of our universe with a temperature that is uniform to 1 part in 100,000. In fact, the difference is so insignificant that the change between a hot spot and a cold spot is just 0.000018 K.
This is known as the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and it has a uniform temperature of 2.7 K (-459⁰F/-270⁰C). As 0 K is absolute zero this is a temperature just 2.725 degrees above absolute zero.
The CMB is a remnant leftover from an event that occurred just 400,000 after the Big Bang called the last scattering. This was the point when the universe ceased to be opaque after electrons bonded to protons forming hydrogen atoms, which stopped electrons from endlessly scattering light and enabling photons to freely travel.
As such this fossil relic "frozen in" to the universe represents the last point when matter and photons were aligned in terms of temperature.
The photons that make up the CMB weren't always so cold, taking around 13.8 billion years to reach us, the expansion of the Universe has redshifted these photons to lower energy levels.
Originating when the universe was much denser and hotter than it is now, the starting temperature of the radiation that makes up the CMB is estimated to have been around 3,000 K (5,000° F/2,726⁰C).
As the universe continues to expand, that means space is colder now than it's ever been and it's getting colder.
If an astronaut were left to drift alone in space then exposure to the near-vacuum of space couldn’t freeze an astronaut as often depicted in science fiction.
There are three ways for heat to transfer, conduction, which occurs through touch, convection which happens when fluids transfer heat, and radiative which occurs via radiation.
Conduction and convection can't happen in empty space due to the lack of matter and heat transfer occurs slowly by radiative processes alone. This means that heat doesn’t transfer quickly in space.
As freezing requires heat transfer, an exposed astronaut - losing heat via radiative processes alone - would die of decompression due to the lack of atmosphere much more rapidly than they freeze to death.
The natural state of the universe is cold. Absent energy, being converted (rare) Yes space is always cold, objects can give heat, not space.
I wouldnt say its "cold" just a lack of molecules. Cold describes the state of molecules, not the area. Space is in fact not cold.
For those looking for more intormation about actual solar fusion...
Two protons (basically Hydrogen plasma) fuse into Deuterium, a heavier isotope of Hydrogen
A third proton then fuses with a deuterium atom to form Helium-3
Two Heilum-3 atoms fuse to product (eventually) Helium-4 and a lot of energy
After that, older stars will start fusing Helium into Oxygen, Oxygen into Nitrogen, then Nitrogen into Iron.
Sadly, at that point, fusing iron into anything heavier requires an input of energy instead of generating energy, so the star stops generating energy and collapses.
There are more branches after formation of deuterium. For instance two deuterium nuclei can form helium-4 directly
One of the two protons would need to slightly gain mass and lose its charge to become a neutron. That actually happens when Potassium40 captures one of its innermost electrons and converts to chemically inert Argon40. That's the basis for potassium-argon radiometric dating of volcanic rocks, since the Ar40 escapes to the atmosphere before the lava/ash solidifies, trapping the K40 and "resetting the clock".
I believe Carbon12 is also a byproduct of stellar fusion.
Nice fairytale.
@@digitaldazzle5836 Nice Ignorance.
You've got more chance of randomly finding another vessel in the Pacific Ocean than you have of even seeing an asteroid in the Asteroid Belt, or of randomly bumping into a satellite orbiting the Earth.
Given how often satellites have to do object avoidance manoeuvres, I would reconsider the last part of you statement.
Also depends on how you define "satellite". Do you mean a machine that operates in space? Or do you mean the more conventional definition of one object that orbits another due to gravitational interactions?
@@blackoak4978 I was thinking the same thing. Hitting a sat is a low probability, but WAY higher than hitting an asteroid. A lot of the maneuvering or satellites is because we keep many of them in relatively the same orbit. (and we've been dropping a lot of junk in space for decades.)
what you, including simon (well he just reads, doesn´t think to much) ignore is, that space vessels of any sort, especially spaceships in science fiction, travel with speeds that sometimes are multiple time the speed of light. At this speeds the distances between the asteroids gets travelled so fast any form of avoidance is impossible, from reaction time to just plain inertia. Average distance in the belt of our system is said to be travelled by light in 3 seconds ... but how to you see a asteroid 1million km away? So whenl you see it, it is to late...
@@gshaindrich And you're missing both the "sci-fi" of such tech, and _the entire point._ If you can travel faster than light (or even a fraction), you have shields, deflectors, and sensors that can see more than 3ft in front of you. Our belt is not so dense light cannot get through it; in fact, most straight lines through it doesn't hit anything. (none of our probes have had to do any corrections to avoid hitting anything. we've made course corrections to actually reach asteroids.) Gravity would coalesce any field as dense as Hollywood paints.
Passengers is a good example. A ship moving at half the speed of light (roughly), with pretty beefy shields. The field it went through was somewhat realistic, with a good bit of distance between rocks, and not that many hitting the ship. (of course, that ship had some pretty lame programming unable to analyze or accept the unexpected. Just putting things in orbit, we've learned there's no such thing as "that can't happen".)
@@gshaindrichyou think soanxe is WAY more .... not soace... then it is. When the Milky Aqt and Andromeda collide: no starts will. That's how empty 2 galaxies coming together ok space is NOT dense.
I'm really glad he mentioned The Expanse. It's one of the best sci-fi show out there and certainly the most realistic.
If a tree fell in the forest, it does produce sound because it does make sound regardless if someone is their to hear it. Physics demands it.
There. But I agree.
I mean it produces sound waves. But they only become sound when they hit something capable of experiencing sound.
@@rickwrites2612every single thing that contains mass in any capacity experiences sound. The other trees experience sound, rocks, grass, the air around the tree, etc. If you're saying that sound is just an interpretation of sound waves, then sure I guess? But that's such an overly specific way of trying to disprove this "myth" and if you go around with this thought and tell people "oh, nobody heard it, so therefore it did not make noise!" well then that's a propagation of misinformation in my eyes. It made sound. The tree displaced atmospheric molecules, which produced sound waves that echoed throughout the nearby area. Just because center of the universe Jimmy didn't hear it, doesn't mean it didn't exist at all.
Vibrational resonance in the molecules of atmosphere and surroundings yes. Sound requires something to perceive it. It comes down to definitions of the words.
Unless of course, no one is around to hear it which means the answer is no
So... turns out, 2001: A Space Odyessey is the most accurate representation of space exposure in a movie... Good job Kubrick!
Fun fact: Frank Poole survived! Sorta.
His body froze fast enough that when a comet miner stumbled on it 1,000 years later, he was able to be revived.
The Expanse is also pretty spot on.
The Expanse is defin6the most accurate depiction of living, working, traveling, and fighting in space. Highly reccomend.
Well, he had Arthur C Clarke sitting next to him going, "no, that's not right!"
@ripn929707
I hate that show. It's typical Hollywood softcore porn with the edgyiness dialed up to 2000 on a dial with only 10.
I will say they do kinda have the vastness of space feel dialed in pretty good. Things like startek make it feel like your ship is 10k miles wide and everything is just 5ft over there. A solar system is about as cozy as my living room according to them. So I get where your coming from cinematicly. But the entire series is boring and predictable and almost entirely forgettable.
One of my favorites is how hollywoods portrays storms on mars, blowing around people and heavy equipment. It seems EVERY movie about mars has at least one storm to set up the drama. While a 70 mph wind on mars would affect you as much as a light breeze on earth.
That's an excellent point! I'm currently re-reading the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson and by the the series terraforming of Mars reaching it's later stages, humanity has thickened Mars' atmosphere such that its winds actually DO become quite impactful!
It reminds me a little of the Parker Solar Probe passing through the outer atmosphere of our sun. You can have temperatures of many thousands of degrees in this region (apparently) and yet as long as the craft's trajectory is careful and the heat shield always faces the star; the craft is okay - and part of the reason for that is that while the temperature is very high, the density of particles or plasma(?) in that region is sufficiently low that it the craft is able to survive limited periods within it.
Yea, that's why I was puzzled when he said to check out The Martian for a more accurate take on space.
Then again, he said space, not Mars and I don't remember the space scenes off the top of my head.
The author of The Martian acknowledged he was fudging that one to have a plot
When I head about the Walker Solar Probe "touching" the sun it made me think of an old song. Quoting the song I said, "I had a friend, they say he got crazy once and tried to touch the sun. He lost a friend,, but kept the memory. Now he walks in quiet solitude because in space, no one can hear you scream."
In the scene in _2001: A Space Odyssey_ where Kier Dullea is hyperventilating for his helmet-less space-walk, Dullea and Kubrick made a mistake in having him hold his breath when he went outside. As Simon says, that would result in Dullea's character rupturing his lungs. The writer, Arthur C Clarke, was an experienced scuba diver and knew that a diver can rupture their lungs ascending while holding their breath from as little as a few metres, and could have corrected that, but he wasn't on set that day.
So that scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey where David Bowman outsmarts HAL and goes into space and into the spaceship is realistic? Cool
Animals have eardrums, and even in "empty forests" birds and outta the select few insects that have ears and can perceive sound most of those species live in the forest. Therefore if a tree falls in the forest, it always makes a sound because the odds of not a single pair of ears is within earshot of that is a number I don't think we even have a name for...
the question is phrased with "...and no one is around to hear it."
so yeah.. that would include any animals or insects that would be able to hear it
(i still am certain that the sound waves would be created, which would be the sound of a falling tree, but the question is rather specific in that regard)
@@Yourehistronic but you will never have a forest where NOTHING lives.... there will always be at least insects... Thats why included an "empty forest" which is a forest where no mammals live....Its like Schroedingers Cat. The cat itself is a conscious observer...
Its because we know more about biology now than we did when these 2 thought experiments were first conceived and now they are outdated... Yes I get the theoretical and hypothetical in nature of both and aren't supposed to be physically carried out, but that ruins the whole validity of the experiment... Here's a newer thought experiment that makes sense because of our better understanding of light...
"If you could travel faster than light, your perspective would be completely shrouded in darkness and completely invisible to everyone else.."
See how that is not only way more difficult to debate but impossible to debunk..?
@@Yourehistronicit's overly specific and relies on some annoying, trivial thought process to support it. The tree falling displaced atmospheric molecules in the space it fell through and again by colliding with the ground. This generated sound waves. It's overly specific to say that just because the sound waves weren't interpreted by some sort of sound translating structure, that all of the sudden the sound just didn't occur at all. It's stupid. The tree itself propagates, absorbs, and deflects sound. The ground it hits absorbs and deflects sound. Everything in the area that the sound waves reach are affected by the sound wave to some degree. Our eardrums also absorb sound. There's no reason to say that just because something didn't hear it, then the sound didn't occur at all.
Imagine I am wearing 100% soundproofing earphones and I honk my car horn. Did the horn make a sound? Well, bar my horn being broken, yes it definitely did make a sound. This argument that the fell tree doesn't make a sound is factually flawed. Sound will always occur as long as there is any level of molecular movement occurring. Even at an atomic level, sound exists. It is just far too faint for us to hear it. Everything makes sound all the time. And sound is constantly scattering and deflecting and diminishing everywhere all of the time. Sound conflicts with itself and other sounds, conflicts with other masses of all matter states.
So to answer this horribly misled riddle of "if a tree fell and no one was there to hear it, did it make a sound?" Yes... it did. It made sound before it fell too. It made sound after it had already fallen as well. It will also always make sound as long as there is a tree at all. Stupid, stupid riddle.
@@Yourehistronic
In what version of the English language would "no one" in that context include animals?
@@Jayson_Tatum It depends of the definition of sound. One definition is: "the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing".
By that definition it is true that there is no sound if not heard.
I agree it is a silly definition and of cause a falling tree makes sound waves in it's surrounding materials (air etc.).
That is my opinion.
Sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid. An ear doesn't need to be there to hear it for the wave to exist. Who wrote this?
Sound waves are vibrations propagated etc. Sound is an experience derived from them.
@@keithposter5543 sound is vibration whether something is there to experience it or not. Literally by definition.
@@keithposter5543 I just rechecked myself. Oxford English, MW, wiki, none define sound as having to be heard. You're describing the definition of the word "hearing".
@@TheHonestPeanut Ok, IMHO they're taking a shortcut and effectively defining for 'common usage'. BUT, this all comes from the original philosophical question: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does is make a sound?" Let's assume that there are also no animals with hearing there etc, then the answer is "No, it does not make a sound". You could say it makes 'sound' if we accept that sound waves = sound, but it does not make *a sound* .
You could also argue that it's impossible to say if it makes sound(waves) with nothing there to detect them as there will be no evidence after the fact 😉
@@keithposter5543 You're describing hearing. Stop being wrong. It's boring.
Also in a lot of movies the space craft have their engines constantly burning (but not gaining speed) and they have to bank in order to turn, so basically applying atmospheric aerodynamics in the vacuum of space.
Those things, like the sounds of explosions in space, are really deliberate artistic license, not inadvertent errors. The producers deliberately put that stuff in because in total silence, the scene just isn't exciting enough for them. Likewise the banking is a deliberate attempt to make the spaceships behave like fighter planes here on Earth. Star Wars did a lot of that stuff.
Voyagers: the dish facing forward is a common mistake in animations. They communicate with Earth. Backward. Oh my.
A note on space explosions:
I usually have a little chuckle when a post battle debris-field is shown, with lots of big and little pieces of a ship drifting around.
The micro-gravity of the ship's mass is not sufficient to keep the bits and pieces from falling away in whatever direction the explosions would have blown them.
They would be travelling away from the the ship's original trajectory, at a wide range of velocities, depending on mass.
So the debris-field would rapidly expand without constraint.
There's no reason to think any 2 pieces would stay close together, let alone thousands of them.
Yah ship vanished boy.
True, but that would not look cool on screen. That is the point of suspending disbelief when watching sci-f movies. Otherwise, they are ALL incredibly stupid.
I've always chuckled at when a spaceship is hit and it starts to fall downwards on screen as though it's sinking, what??!, there's no gravity pull to initiate a downward trajectory.
Funnily enough when movies depict a big explosion on earth the parts get blown in every direction and away from the point of explosion which is true. But in space with no gravity or atmosphere all the parts just hang around together.
So I looked up the definition of the word “sound”, and it lists as “vibrations that travel through air or another medium and CAN be heard when they reach a person’s or animal’s ear.”
-the Oxford English Dictionary
This wording implies that the vibrations have to be of those that COULD be heard by humans, were humans there to hear it, not that a sound can only be defined as such when a human hears it.
Dictionaries are not always strictly correct, especially with natural sciences.
The definition of sound depends on whether you are talking about physics or human physiology/psychology. See Wikipedia / Sound. I prefer the physics definition; a sound can occur without anyone hearing it.
To anyone who still says “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, it doesn’t make a sound” I would ask them to envision something a little more impactful for that scenario.
Imagine, an atomic bomb detonates in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Well, nobody in their right mind defines light as only existing if there is somebody/something seeing it. So, why should the definition of sound be any different?
@@emotown1 Light is defined as a band of electromagnetic radiation visible by humans. We don't have a word for the perception of light so we use the same one and mention the context.
Again a slight _Um, Actually_ for Chapter Two: Detonation simply means that the speed the reaction (sometimes combustion, sometimes decomposition) propagates through a material is faster than the speed of sound in the material. It's not instantaneous, as shown by numerous instances of _very_ high-speed footage (shoutout to the Slow Mo Guys), but it can be _very_ fast. Black Powder can also burn in a total vacuum if the container it is in relatively small and the ignition source creates enough pressure for the reaction to take place (See CodysLab doing exactly this).
before he gets to it, I wanna say.
Sound can be captured by light, foregoing a medium.
See Veritasium chip bag sound
Ayup. There's also all the sound engineers who work with sound converted to electricity.
the medium is the laser
the laser oscillates and is picked up by a receiver which translates the oscillations into sound waves(speakers)
@@eekee6034 electricity is the medium, in this case
The notion that space isn't cold is ridiculous. Obviously, proximity to a star and your placement in its site line would determine whether you experience any heat, but that reality negates the stated click bait premise. If that star isn't there, if your position is behind an object in the star's site line or if the star is sufficiently far enough away, then the void of space registers just above absolute zero. That's pretty freakin' cold. Obviously, if you're in range of star's solar radiation, you will experience heat, but the void itself is, by definition, infinitely colder than anything else in existence. Stuff like this drives me nuts.
I think what he means is that space is not thermally conductive, a requirement for our senses to send a “shit that’s cold!” message to our brains. Which is altogether different from saying that space is not cold in terms of taking a shaded temperature reading. Actually, I have no idea what he meant he explained it so badly.
@@emotown1 , hence, the pointlessness of his argument.
@@craigamore2319 Yup, I agree.
No they don't. The sounds you "hear" in space in movies, are easily explained away as what the people *inside* the ships hear. In other words, most of the tech used is still making sound *inside;* where most of the tech is, and where the ship is filled with air; so most of what you're hearing is what the crew inside the ships are hearing. And then there's the fact that a lot of space movie scenes take place in high orbit, where there is still small amounts of air; and thus still sound. Albeit muted sound, but sound none the less.
Stars don't go nova when they're born, they go nova when they are old and dying.
I believe that the "death" of a star is the case of a supernova. A nova, as I understood, is when a white dwarf star pulls in enough hydrogen from a companion red giant star to cause fusion to occur on the surface. It also occurs in a cycle, so the same binary system can keep generating a nova whenever the threshold for fusion is reached, at least until the source of hydrogen is exhausted or the star is ejected or something.
Nova and Supernova isn't the same thing.
Hollywood may be scientifically wrong making explosions go BOOM, but could you imagine how boring they would be if they were silent?
When I hear sound effects in sci-fi movies, I always interpret the sound we hear in the cinema as a representation of what a person dying in that explosion is experiencing. One of the best representations of an actual space explosion was in The Last Jedi when it went totally silent for a few seconds. It was dramatic, it was effective, and somewhat realistic given that sound doesn't travel in a vacuum.
I like to think that when we hear the sounds of a spaceship in film, that we are hearing approximately what the ship's passengers hear. This doesn't really transfer to objects like missiles etc. I do respect when Firefly, 2001, 2010, etc. respect the silence of space, but I give a pass when they don't because of dramatic license. It's a small transgression IMO.
One of my favorite imaginary space things in movies (or, mostly, Star Trek) is that being inside a nebula is like being surrounded by multi-colored clouds.
Clouds that for some reason swirl around the ship like wingtip vortices of an airplane. Even as a ten year old that part of the voyager intro kind of bothered me.
@@o0shivashakti0o I think that was the tiny gas giant that seemed to be the size of a space station.
This video made me want to rewatch Total Recall. Its depiction of what happens to a human body under vacuum may not be the most accurate one, but it's hilarious! 😂
Fine, but Kahn still has one of the very best lines in Hollywood history:
“Do you know the Klingon proverb which tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold? It is very cold in spaaaaace.”
I recently discovered there aren’t wookies in space.
But… I did it all for the wookiee!
You can't prove that.
0:44 love the Jamie beret
Voyager 1 is sending telemetry once again.
Really?? 😮 I'm so happy to hear that!!!!
@@SetiSupremethis video must have been recorded ages ago 😂😂
Stubborn little craft
It was fixed a few days ago. Dodgy memory in one of the computers. Nasa sent a patch up telling the spacecraft not to use that bit of memory and since then they've been receiving good data again.
@@deadzio That must be it 😀 or he just hasn't come across the latest on the Voyagers. I too had missed it even though I spend some time on nasa.gov
The Expanse getting some love!
There is a scene in The Expanse where a Belter opens their helmet for a moment after breathing out, meaning their face is directly in contact with space, and the guy brushes some hair out of his face before closing the suit up again and he is just fine. I suppose if you do not breathe in or out then Ebullism does not occur? Or does not occur quickly enough, perhaps.
"contact with space"? Space is the absence of anything and cannot be contacted. Like cold is a fiction - it is the absence of heat.
There's a special place in hell for the people responsible for the cancellation of The Expanse..
Honestly, they did the right thing, unlike game of thrones. The showrunners said they stopped because they want to wait until more books are written I believe.
@@fett713akamandodragon5 actually the book finished during the final season of the show. They already had three book materials to work with.
The reason it got cancelled was the contract is over and the show is on hiatus because the Laconian Arc has a 30 year time gap and the feasibility of production is not realistic and still needs more time. Also they need to find a show runner to help with the production cost.
Is it next to the place where people talk loudly in movie theatres?
@@fett713akamandodragon5All of the Expanse novels are finished. The last novel released before the season 6 premiered.
@@fett713akamandodragon5 I heard one of the biggest reasons was because they had to kill off the Alex character (didn't happen in the book series) just because the actor was such an unbelievable asshole to work with, they had to just finally fire him. And because of that the whole storyline just got thrown out of whack. They don't have any plans of reviving the show.
Roger taught us that if you stare too long at the sun you develop sun madness, and will become obsessed with getting to it. Pretty sure that's accurate.
Sounds serious…ly awesome. That’s where Mountain Dew comes from.
Roger?
@@anodosarcade7355 American Dad
@@anodosarcade7355 sincerely hope they're talking about Roger from American Dad
That movie was interesting.
One of my favorite anecdotes about these topics was from one of the guys involved with testing the original spacesuits used in the early days of the Space Race. In a vacuum chamber test, his suit had a rupture that depressurized it, causing him to pass out before they could get the chamber repressurized to get him out. Afterward, he said that the last thing he remembered before passing out was feeling his saliva boiling on his tongue.
That's why I love The Expanse❤
No doubt! Naomi's jump without a suit from one ship to the other. Pretty dang accurate, along with so many other scenes in the series. Quality science fiction.
Truth!
I miss the Expanse
Everyone knows that Soundwaves are from transformers he was a cassette player..wait... going to ebay to buy the toy for educational purposes 😂😂😂😂
voyageur 1 resumed sending coherent data last month. Also the sun fuses atoms of Hydrogen to produce Helium and not the other way around as you mistakenly said. Also I believe sound is produced by a tree falling down even if no one is there to hear it. Actually there is always something there to hear it. animals birds and insects. The tree produces a sound that is slowly propagated through the atmosphere until it fades away into nothing. That is just my opinion and I may make mistakes also.
You forgot my favorite one, people throwing around big objects because they are "weightless" ... the object still has mass and still has inertia. Your little 65kg human mass cannot move a 500kg cargo container in space
You can but not if it's coming towards you.
Fun fact shrapnel only exists when it comes from a WW1 Shrapnel shell created by Henry Shrapnel. This is actually fragmentation.
Fun fact: you're wrong. "Shrapnel" has long since become a genericized term, like "Band-Aid", "Thermos", or quite recently, "photoshop". You can put a "band-aid" on a wound even if it's not made by the original manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson.
Here are some other fun facts (can be placed in a number of these parts in the vid):
1: You do not need to keep the engines of your ship running indefinitely to keep said ship moving forward. Since there is little/no friction in space, your ship will travel forever, provided it doesn't hit something.
2: You cannot fly ships or fighters in space. As there is no atmosphere in space, any ship traversing the void cannot turn like planes do on Earth. You can't bank and roll and do any other maneuver that you can do on Earth. Likewise, firing missiles in space presents the same problem.
3: If you want to give a extremely simplified explanation of how a star (the sun) works, reference an incandescent light bulb. The filament is sealed in a vacuum where it can burn without being snuffed out due to oxygen. A star in space is essentially a really, really big light bulb filament.
4: You can't see a black hole, hence the name. When you do "see" one, it's because it's bending/warping light and space around it (at least what hasn't been sucked in).
5: Submarines would not be the most "ideal" for space travel as some might think. This idea comes from people that see a sub being able to spend months underwater means it can survive in space. The problem isn't so much how airtight it is, rather that the reactor has no way to vent the heat building up inside itself, usually transferred to the air and water outside it. In a vacuum, you cannot transfer heat anywhere. Your overpriced Yeti cups are vacuum sealed, this is why it keeps things hot/cold inside the cup.
5a: Heat CAN be transferred away from a ship by way of radiators located around the ship. While you can't technically transfer the heat away, you can displace it into somewhere that keeps it away from places on the ship. Think of the radiators like the heatsink on your computer's CPU (bad analogy since we have air/water that can transfer the heat from the heatsink, but it's a similar idea).
6: On the topic of heat transfer, the sun does not in fact warm you up because it's so hot. Since space cannot transfer heat, what makes you warm is the infrared light coming from the sun (again, I'm being very general here, but that's the basic idea).
All good points.
Outer space has a baseline temperature of 2.7 Kelvin, minus 453.8 degrees Fahrenheit or minus 270.45 degrees Celsius, according to LiveScience
Never mind those pesky facts that counter the youtubepreneur's take on things.
Yes but because molecules of matter are far apart in space conduction and convection can't really occur and those are far more efficient ways to transfer heat than thermal radiation. Even with space having such low temperatures the ISS and spacecraft rely on a circulation of coolant to keep heat from building up to levels that are a danger to personal and equipment even on such things as solar panels. It takes awhile for thermal radiation to raise or dissipate temperature levels and an example of that is why temperatures don't rapidly change at sunrise or sunset here on Earth (in fact it's often coldest shortly after sunrise). So while a creature would essentially go into hypothermia and freeze after a few hours maintaining an atmosphere in their lungs to survive until then would be an understatement of challenging.
Dat putty dam cold if ya axe me!
Let's not forget if your spacecraft gets the tiniest of holes expect to be slurped through it like spaghetti from the decompression.
Kind of like the people that were sucked out of that air Alaska flight?
@@patcusack6252it’s different for planes because planes are moving very fast through an atmosphere. Spaceships aren’t moving in an atmosphere.
@@patcusack6252 If someone was sitting in the closest seat, they likely would have been ejected. Just look at the condition of the seat. It was stripped down to the metal frame.
But that was from the slipstream, not the decompression itself.
@@patcusack6252 NO because because being sucked out of a tiny hole isn't a thing. Being sucked out of a much larger hole is.
No the pressure is only 14psi, a small hole would not suck you out, there is only so much air that can get through a pinhole at that pressure. A large quickly appearing hole on the other hand is a different story. More square inches more total push on the surface, and faster evacuation. And come to think about it, our space craft are only at like 8 psi not the normal 14: so even less.
Fun fact, starting with the trek reboot movies, the star trek franchise pretty much ditched any attempt to be science based, it even stopped having much in-universe logic to its science.
Even if there are no ears within the area of a falling tree, it still makes a sound. Just as a star continues to burn brightly even if there are no eyes to behold it. Several people here have already stated the (presumed accidental) reversion regarding hydrogen comes from helium so I will leave that one out.
It makes sound waves, not 'a sound'. Sound is an experience interpreted from sound waves, not a thing itself. (edited for harshness)
@@keithposter5543 Which is all the falling tree ever makes regardless of ears nearby. The falling tree never interprets the sound waves it creates so it makes what it makes in all cases.
@@craigthomas2497 OK, looks like I've opened a Pandora's box of semantics. 'Sound' seems to be commonly defined as 'sound waves' - but the original philosophical question referred to in the video asks whether the falling tree makes "a sound" if no one is there to hear it. Discounting birds/animals (let's say that "no one" means "nothing"), the tree does not make "a sound" because "a sound" is an experience
By this logic, light isn’t a thing either, it’s just light waves. So I guess all the stars in the early universe were just wasting their time shining since there were no eyes to see them 😂
@@MarkFranklin-l3p Ha - well, you're getting deeper with that one. Light is electromagnetic and perpetual, sound waves are just movement of objects and dissipate quickly. We can still see stars from the early universe and light might be a particle or wave depending on who's looking 😉
Hollywood treats space like they treat based-upon-book films; discard the stuff they think is boring, and add some drama to bits they want to keep.
No, sound can also just refer to the waves traveling through a medium (not just air) - so you don't need anyone around to hear a tree fall to call the waves sound. Sound is not only defined by brain-connected ears processing compression waves.
Sound is vibration as observed by someone who can hear or an object to record and play back those vibrations for an observer later. So sound is not objective but the subjective observations of the observer. Remove the observer and there is no subject to evaluate the vibrations. There are many who can observe sounds outside the normal range and they can hear these sounds even when other would claim no sound. So yes the tree causes vibrations but without something to observe the specific frequencies there is no sound.
False.
The mechanical vibrations through a medium are only referred to as "sound" when they act upon, and are interpreted by a receiver.
As for the titlecard: Outer space has a baseline temperature of 2.7 Kelvin, minus 453.8 degrees Fahrenheit or minus 270.45 degrees Celsius
Ah wonderful. Thank you! A voice of intelligence. A diamond in a coal mine. I made this same point & attracted a whole lot of coal miners.
But is doesn't matter, because anything in outer space is protected by a thick layer of the best insulation: vacuum.
My favourite space movie incongruity is when George Clooney stops floating away in Gravity when Sandra Bullock catches him, but then somehow continues to float away when she lets go of him. It's my understanding that he wouldn't continue to float away once his momentum is stopped. (Although, I'm no expert on the subject.)
I love how Gravity(2013) didn't make your list. As much as I love space films and science, I couldn't watch that film for the one inexcusable Hollywood element they showed in the trailer that was no doubt wildly annoying throughout the whole film: an astronaut constantly panicking and breathing heavily.
Astronauts go through rigorous training to get rid of the panic response and know that hyperventilation and lack of oxygen can lead to their death by using up all their oxygen or passing out and being unable to do anything. No astronaut with this temperament would ever make it through the training, let alone into space.
Nonsense. Hyperventilation only consumes your oxygen supply if you're using an open loop supply. That would be incredibly wasteful. Spacecraft and spacesuits use carbon scrubbers, and operate more closely to rebreathers than standard SCBA gear.
But wasn't Sandra Bullock's character a scientist? Yes, they have training but they're not freaking robots.
All humans have some degree of panic response, even highly trained soldiers.
Thanks for keeping us updated! I feel sympathy
and empathy for our country. low income people
are suffering to survive, and I appreciate Deborah.
You've helped my family with your advice. imagine
investing $30,000 and receiving $95,460 after 28
days of trading.
I began investing in stocks and Def earlier
this year, and it is the best choice l've ever
made. My portfolio is rounding up to almost
a million, and I have realized that when a
stock makes it to the news. Chances are
you're quite late to the party, the idea is to
get in early on blue chips before it becomes
public. There are lots of life changing
opportunities in the market, and maximize
it.
What opportunities are there in the market,
and how do 1 profit from it?
You can make a lot of money from the
market regardless of whether it strengthens
or crashes. The key is to be well positioned.
I would really like to know how this actually
works.
All you need is a good capital, and the
service of a professional broker, with those
your investment will most certainly produce
high yields.
Great vid man, nice shout out to The Expanse!
Every tree ever makes noise when it falls, whether anyone is around to hear said sound, is another matter altogether.
Does it have to be a person hearing the sound? How about a deer? A bird. An insect? A bacterium? A plant?
It depends on the question. If there's no*thing* to hear it, it doesn't make a sound. Period. If there's no*body* to hear it, it likely makes a sound as birds/other animals with hearing could hear it if they are there. As long as there's an atmosphere, it will make sound*waves*, but not necessarily sound, as that is an experience, not a thing.
@@keithposter5543 By definition, in a forest there would be at least other trees and/or plants that could "hear" the tree fall. There likely would be other living organisms as well.
@@KnightRanger38 Trees/plants don't have hearing
@@keithposter5543 Sound is a thing, its energy being propagated through a medium and id doesn't matter if anyone is there or not that transfer of energy still occurs
I remember hearing somewhere that the “guardians of the galaxy” had the most realistic what happens to you in space scene
Nah, 2001. Dave Bowman survives a spacewalk without a helmet.
@@emeraldaly7646 Another one that's pretty good as far as exposure to vacuum goes is in Event Horizon oddly enough.
Nice Expanse callout. I LOVE the sequence when Uncle Mateo just opens his helmet on an asteroid to fix a junky wire. Real as you get.
In the Wing Commander movie (1999), there is a scene where a spaceship crashes on the landing deck of the space carrier. Since they can’t go out into space to recover the pilot, they use a vehicle to push the spaceship off the edge of the landing deck. The spaceship tumbles off the edge like an airplane being pushed off a naval carrier. Great stuff 😂😂😂
Thanks for setting that straight. Keep up the great videos Simon.
Not all science fiction gets the vacuum of space wrong. I remember a part in "Moons of Madness" where the protagonist was forced to run around the outside of a structure on Mars without a space-suit so that he could enter through a different air-lock. The scientist that told him how to do it said as long as he emptied his lungs of air first, and he didn't pass out along the trip, he would be fine if he could make the journey in 20-30 seconds.
- A human can't exist at air pressures less than 1 psi (approximately 63,000 ft. above sea level on earth) for more than a few seconds. The air pressure on the surface of Mars is less than 0.01 psi (i.e. a human without a full pressure suit would be dead in ~15 seconds, and have considerable organ and cellular damage almost immediately).
2:20 this conclusion doesn’t match up with the previous explanation for sound and why it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, yes it makes noise. Regardless if there is an ear to receive and hear the sound, the logical explanation for this event is any tree that falls in the woods generates sound (sending vibrations through particles) regardless if an ear picks up said sound. Your entire initial argument is how sound occurs when something vibrates in a way that it sends out sound waves, and only when there are particles/molecules to carry that sound, the reason why sound cannot be “heard” in a vacuum is not because no ears can receive/hear it, it just doesn’t travel. The opposite is true for the tree falling in the woods scenario, because we’d have to explain why a falling tree does not vibrate and therefore transfer a sound wave through the air when it falls. Based on what we know, this is impossible to happen unless physics cease simply because nobody can hear it. Yes, it’s not “heard” but it does not mean sound is not generated.
I paused at 9:34 to continue it later (next bathroom break!) and you were talking about the color of stars. I switched to my music and it was The Police with "Invisible Sun." Nice timing!
RE: sound. It's a specific phenomenon based on EARS, which are evolved to sense air vibrations, which can extend to water. So while shock waves travel in water and even metal, it's not actually sound until it vibrates something our ears can sense, such as air or water.
So sound isn't an independent thing, it's an interaction with ears.
The temperature of space is about 3.2 Kelvin. That's cold. But it's also a vacuum and a vacuum is a great insulator. So if you suddenly find yourself out in orbit around the moon and on the dark side, you will be highly distracted from losing your body heat by the explody feeling of your lungs and throat.
I mean, once you get away from the sun and planets that can radiate small amounts of heat, we are looking at about 3 degrees kelvin, or -275 degrees Celsius or -463 degrees F. I guess if you don't think that that's cold, then it isn't cold?