Fun
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

99.9999% of outer space is a vacumn...

And you can't convince me otherwise, unless you have empirical proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
fakable Best Comment
absolute emptiness is physically impossible
@fakable you'd look way better without the dog ears and the tattoo ngl 😀

Learninglife9 · 61-69, F
Scientists say space is vacuum. The thing is how can you determine 99.9999% of space is a vacuum when some scientists determine spaces infinite meaning there is no end to it. Scientists can't determine what's on the other side of what they can't see. Some Scientists argue - can't determine whether we're living in a black hole.

And I would like to know what proof beyond a reasonable doubt can be given to you?
@Learninglife9 well obviously in proper context, outer space means the observable universe
Learninglife9 · 61-69, F
@uikakarotuevegeta

That's why I asked the question you see man can only observe only 5% of the universe or so it is reported - what about the other 95% -there is no evidence.
https://www.anl.gov/science-101/dark-matter-and-dark-energy#:~:text=Visible%20matter%20(everything%20we%20can,around%205%25%20of%20the%20universe.

And man can only see so far what lies beyond the point that he can't see - is why I asked.
https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2024/05/17/what-lies-beyond-the-observable-universe/?amp=1
Luke73 · 26-30, M
It depends on how you define vacuum. Wikipedia defines vacuum as "space devoid of matter". With that the space isn't really vacuum. A better description would be that in the most parts of the universum, the density of matter is very very low.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@Luke73 Wikipedia acknowledges that the encyclopedia should not be used as a primary source for research, either academic or informational. The British librarian Philip Bradley said, "the main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."[13] Likewise, Robert McHenry, editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica from 1992 to 1997, said that readers of Wikipedia articles cannot know who wrote the article they are reading—it might have been written by an expert in the subject matter or by an amateur.[14] In November 2015, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger told Zach Schwartz in Vice: "I think Wikipedia never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that didn't lead to mob rule" and that since he left the project, "People that I would say are trolls sort of took over. The inmates started running the asylum."[15]
@Luke73 Inaccurate information may persist in Wikipedia for a long time before it is challenged. The most prominent cases reported by mainstream media involved biographies of living persons. The Seigenthaler incident demonstrated that the subject of a biographical article must sometimes fix blatant lies about his or her own life. In May 2005, a user edited the biographical article on John Seigenthaler Sr. so that it contained several false and defamatory statements.[10] The inaccurate claims went unnoticed between May and September 2005 when they were discovered by Victor S. Johnson, Jr., a friend of Seigenthaler. Wikipedia content is often mirrored at sites such as Answers.com, which means that incorrect information can be replicated alongside correct information through a number of web sources. Such information can develop a misleading air of authority because of its presence at such sites: "Then [Seigenthaler's] son discovered that his father's hoax biography also appeared on two other sites, Reference.com and Answers.com, which took direct feeds from Wikipedia. It was out there for four months before Seigenthaler realized and got the Wikipedia entry replaced with a more reliable account. The lies remained for another three weeks on the mirror sites downstream."[203]

Seth Finkelstein reported in an article in The Guardian on his efforts to remove his own biography page from Wikipedia, simply because it was subjected to defamation: "Wikipedia has a short biography of me, originally added in February 2004, mostly concerned with my internet civil liberties achievements. After discovering in May 2006 that it had been vandalised in March, possibly by a long-time opponent, and that the attack had been subsequently propagated to many other sites which (legally) repackage Wikipedia's content, the article's existence seemed to me overall to be harmful rather than helpful." He added: "For people who are not very prominent, Wikipedia biographies can be an 'attractive nuisance'. It says, to every troll, vandal, and score-settler: 'Here's an article about a person where you can, with no accountability whatsoever, write any libel, defamation, or smear. It won't be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person, and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia.'"[204]
True.

However, the little bits of non-vacuum are FASCINATING!!

noexpectations1 · 41-45, M
Similar to inside a politician's head..
smileylovesgaming · 31-35, F
I bet you that 99.9999% of outer space isn't a vacuum

 
Post Comment