The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Bobbelton
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

planets and stars are the opposite of outer space

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 234 times Debate No: 96711
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

it is not what it is limited by.. earth is what outer space is not.. like flowers are limited by outer space

side note, hypothetical thinking.. i think, that earth is bound to become a star, as compression is heat, and gravity on earth increases the more mass earth gains.. which goes to explain what a black hole also that it is not destruction as that would imply earth or planets are creations.. matter can at best transform not be destroyed.. so the end of the star earth might become is a black hole and a black hole if its not just a myth is transformation from energy of a start to outer space
not sure how stars form or if they become black holes when they die out or end.. hypothetical stuff

i would just like to hear where there might be disagreement on these things and we can debate it

i am not my mind but my mind is mine to have..

Bobbelton

Con

I will be arguing against the statement "planets and stars are the opposite of outer space". Thank you for the opportunity to engage in this debate.

The term "outer space" is generally defined as "space beyond the atmosphere of the earth". Within the context of this definition, the presence physical matter (i.e. stars, planets, and other astrological bodies) does not impact whether or not a location beyond the atmosphere of the earth may still be considered space. Hence planets are considered a component of "outer space" because they occupy a space beyond the atmosphere of the earth.

To address the formation of stars: stars form from superheated clouds of interstellar gas. Gravity causes the gas to condense and increase in temperature. The earth has not acquired more mass over time - the total mass on the planet is decreasing. This is because of gasses, such as hydrogen, escaping the outer atmosphere of the earth and entering outer space. The net mass of escaping gas exceeds the net mass of added matter (such as asteroids).

Thank you. I hope that his information has been helpful. For more information on the formation of stars I suggest the following link:
http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

but there is no air in outer space


matter stays on earth, as matter attracts matter.. gravity


i see air or gasses on earth as the thin layer getting thinner and thinner the higher we speak of, so as i see it gasses can not leave earth.. unless it has no mass, and gas is mass :)

Bobbelton

Con

Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this discussion! I would like to address a couple points:

1) "Matter stays on earth, as matter attracts matter...gravity."
You are correct that the gravitational energy of the earth prevents the escape of most atmospheric gasses! I was alluding a phenomenon known as "atmospheric escape". Extremely light gasses (hydrogen and helium) have relatively small mass values comparable to the cumulative atmosphere. These light gasses rise to the edges of the atmosphere while heavier gasses (oxygen or carbon) remain closer to the earth. Think of a balloon filled with helium rising because it is comparatively lighter than the surrounding air. These light gasses can escape the atmosphere when excited by solar winds or other energies. When these molecules become excited, they achieve enough energy to escape the atmosphere. I will include a citation with more information regarding this topic here: https://en.wikipedia.org...

2) "There is no air in outer space."
Although there does not exist a breathable "atmosphere" in outer space, there do exist individual particles of gasses and other elements. We actually observe a "partial vacuum" within the context of outer space - not a "perfect vacuum". The free particles in outer space actually include those escaped molecules mentioned in the previous paragraph! I will include another reference for information on vacuums: https://en.wikipedia.org...

You are correct in asserting that the atmosphere of the earth decreases in density as we rise further from the surface! Remember that there is no distinct barrier between the "atmosphere" and" space". Gasses rise along a continuum of decreasing pressure rates approaching the vacuum of space. As gasses move further from the surface of the earth, the influence of gravity diminishes. I hope that this has been helpful!
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

im not saying gravity is energy though, more like water droplets seeking to merge if you put them close to each other.. gravity is matter as i see it.. unlike magnetism which is stored electrical interference

hmm, helium, cool hadnt thought of that.. but, put helium into the air and it mixes, so i dont think it escapes..

as i see it, there is a "distinct barrier" between the atmosphere and outer space, because air is an absolute value.. if you poor to much water in a glass it will overflow for sure, its an absolute value.. in the same way, i see outer space a bit like a vacuum in comparison as a barrier between earths atmosphere and outer space

im not sure how you disagree with the my hypothesis?
Bobbelton

Con

Here is an excellent resource addressing the layers of the atmosphere:
http://futurism.com...

Unfortunately, there is no measurable single barrier between the atmosphere and the vacuum of space. If we define the atmosphere as the portion hospitable to humans, then the viability of atmospheric conditions is contingent on the condition of the individual. Most orbital telescopes actually orbit within the observable atmosphere - the exosphere. Ultimately, the burden of proof for identifying the precise end of the atmosphere falls to the instigator. I am sorry if my explanation has proven inadequate. Please refer to the sources I have provided in this and subsequent posts.

To address the concept of the earth accumulating enough mass to become a star; the primary elements of the mantle and core are not conducive to producing a star no matter the pressure or temperature. I included additional information regarding this topic in the comment section.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to discuss this topic. I hope that this debate has been both entertaining and helpful for all participants.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 3 weeks ago
vi_spex
the question becomes, how much compression or increase in weight does it take
Posted by Bobbelton 3 weeks ago
Bobbelton
In part, this is because the Earth is composed primarily of incompressible solids and liquids. You need compressible gasses to form a star.
Posted by Bobbelton 3 weeks ago
Bobbelton
Incorrect. Iron and other dense elements cannot form a lasting star. The planet earth is composed of materials that are incompatible with the formation process of stars. If you are talking about a gas giant such as Jupiter or Neptune your argument has some validity. In the case of earth, this is not possible.

If you want to read up on this topic you can. Here is another simple source for your convenience: https://www.quora.com...
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
the only difference is size.. a star formed of gasses could begin much more easily so could be smaller
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
there is really no other thing that can happen
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
there is no difference man, what would become of a planet that becomes to compressed, it heats up and becomes a star..
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
but you are arguing the same thing then.. matter transforming into a star, there isnt really any difference
Posted by Bobbelton 1 month ago
Bobbelton
Each atom of matter constitutes a minute amount of mass. Consequently, each atom is responsible for some amount of gravitational influence. Over the course of millions of years, these clouds become dense where gravity is strongest. Subsequently, with the correct conditions, immense collective pressure causes these clouds to become stars. The same is not correct for planets because they have different atomic components (such as iron).
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
sure gasses not close to gravitational pull

what is dense gas.. there is no gravity in outer space to compress it
Posted by Bobbelton 1 month ago
Bobbelton
Remember! Stars form from dense clouds of gas - not metals or heavy elements. The sun formed from a nebula of hydrogen and other gasses. Heavy metals constitute a very low percentage of matter within the observable universe and do not contribute to the burning of stars. These metals form planets as byproducts of the stars burning - hence the stars actually help to create the planets, not the other way around.
No votes have been placed for this debate.