  Fantasy
This week: Space Edited by: Robert Waltz  
More Newsletters By This Editor 
1. About this Newsletter
2. A Word from our Sponsor
3. Letter from the Editor
4. Editor's Picks
5. A Word from Writing.Com
6. Ask & Answer
7. Removal instructions
America has tossed its cap over the wall of space.
-John F. Kennedy
When a place gets crowded enough to require ID's, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Throw your dreams into space like a kite, and you do not know what it will bring back, a new life, a new friend, a new love, a new country.
-Anais Nin
For the wise man looks into space and he knows there is no limited dimensions.
-Lao Tzu |
| ASIN: B085272J6B |
Product Type: Kindle Store
|
Amazon's Price: $ 9.99
|
|
SPACE
Today, I'm going to talk about nothing.
Well, not nothing, really. Almost nothing. I'll even go so far as to say that we can define "space," at least for the purposes of writing, as a place where there's more nothing than something.
Perhaps this editorial will be of more interest to writers of science fiction than those of fantasy, but even the most hardcore science fiction writer has to make stuff up sometimes (which is fantasy) and the best fantasy writers are firmly grounded in how natural laws work (science).
There exist many misunderstandings and outright fallacies about space, and I wanted to address some of them, because when I read an adventure story or watch a movie, these things tend to break me out of the mood. Let's start with an easy one:
Where does space begin? Assuming this means you're on the surface of a planet with an atmosphere, like Earth, this question means "how high up do I have to fly before I'm in space?" This actually has practical value now, as we're on the cusp of civilian flights to "space," and it's possible we'll see more and more promotions for "trips to SPACE!" that rich people, or lucky sweepstakes winners, might be able to enjoy. Well, it's not that easy to define. We're used to seeing oceans and lakes, which have a clear boundary between water and air. No such clear boundary exists between air and space, however; the atmosphere generally becomes more and more tenuous, with progressively lower density. To complicate matters, tides work on the atmosphere too, and other factors serve to shift any arbitrary density boundary we might set. There are various altitudes that officially mark the boundary of "space" from Earth, depending on purpose. So anyone who offers to send you into space? Ask 'em how high they're talking.
Where does space end? We are at the center of the universe. Well, not really - but we do appear to be at the center of the observable universe, consisting of a volume of space that we can, in principle, observe, because photons on this side of that enormous, invisible sphere can reach Earth, though the most accepted cosmological models suggest that the universe is way, way bigger than the observable universe. Of course, we may never know for sure, because we can't observe it, let alone get to it. In truth, there is no one unique "center" of the universe, and a hypothetical observer in a far-distant galaxy will also see herself as the center of the universe - and both observers, here on Earth and in that far-away galaxy, will be correct. Space, in short, has no outer boundary; it's likely that, if the universe itself is not infinite in scope, it's at least boundless in the same sense that a person could, in theory, walk around the equator of a planet and wind up back where he started - only extended into another dimension and on a vastly larger scale. But the universe is also, in a sense, inside-out, because we see farther back in time the further out we look.
What's in space? Space is not, as it's popularly perceived, a pure vacuum. It's about as close to a pure vacuum as it's possible to get, though, especially in the intergalactic void where scientists estimate a density of about one atom per cubic meter. But volumes in galactic spiral arms, like where Earth is, are generally filled with tenuous gas, dust, charged particles, solar wind, and very small rocks. All this crap in space means that traveling at close to the speed of light, a popular theme in science fiction, is fraught with hazard - the faster you go, the less "vacuum-y" space appears.
How cold is space? Actually, that's not as meaningful a question as most people think. Vacuum - or near-vacuum - doesn't have a temperature, per se, because temperature is a function of atomic vibration, and in a place with few to no atoms, temperature isn't meaningful. Objects far away from stars have really low temperatures, but objects near stars can be intensely hot on the star-facing side and extremely cold on the other Like the Moon, for instance. Cosmologists put the temperature of space at something close to absolute zero, but that's not a useful assumption within a solar system. Also, a living being such as a human exposed to vacuum will not instantly freeze or explode from the pressure differential or, as is sometimes portrayed in movies, both simultaneously. It's theoretically possible for someone to survive for a few seconds, perhaps up to a minute, in hard vacuum. That doesn't sound like a lot of time, I know, but it would be the longest minute of your life.
Is there gravity in space? Yes. Gravity, like the atmosphere, doesn't just stop. It's a continuum. The effects of gravity thin out over distance, proportional to (if I'm remembering my physics correctly) the square of the distance from a mass, but they never actually stop. An object free-falling through space doesn't describe a straight line (well, not as we understand "straight line"), but its path is deflected by the effects of the gravity of stars, planets, and the like. Now, it is possible to find places where gravity (almost) cancels out - imagine two stars of the same size orbiting each other; between them would be a point of gravitational balance, or nearly so. "Nearly," because there's other matter in the universe, but the effect of such matter would be spread out and rather negligible in comparison to the big honkin' nearby stars orbiting each other.
How big is space? As noted above, we don't know, and it's likely that we can't know, at least not from direct observation. What is known with some certainty is that there are over 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe, the same order of magnitude as the number of stars in our galaxy. If we assume that our galaxy is about average, we can figure on maybe 50 thousand billion billion stars in the observable universe, give or take a few thousand billion billion. Such a large number is almost beyond our comprehension. And that's just stars - never mind rocks, planets and balls of mostly gas like Jupiter. The universe may not be infinite in scope, but might as well be, given that we simply will never have time to observe every object within it.
What is this dark matter I keep hearing about? Dark matter is hypothesized to account for the difference in the expected behavior of large-scale objects such as gravity clusters, and the observed behavior of such objects. While scientists aren't quite sure what it is, there are a few leading candidates (mostly sub-atomic-sized exotic matter that doesn't interact with ordinary matter except in terms of gravity). This gap in our knowledge is, of course, a boon for science fiction and fantasy writers, because we can Make Stuff Up about it. However, when you read a science fiction or fantasy novel that talks about dark matter, you can be sure that the author Made Stuff Up. (It's possible that dark matter, as such, doesn't exist, and there's another explanation for the behavior of large-scale objects. Science has been known to come up with stuff before, such as the concept of the "luminiferous ether," that is discarded in the light (pun intended) of new evidence. This is what makes science awesome - it admits when it's wrong and adapts.)
What's the deal with all the exoplanets they've been discovering? This one's really interesting, because up until about 20 years ago, everyone assumed that there were planets orbiting other stars, but there was never any direct evidence for them. This changed when observational techniques improved, and we were able to deduce the existence of planets from very tiny, periodic wobbles in a star's distance from us. Those wobbles indicated the presence of a nonluminous mass orbiting the star. Originally, we only found enormous planets in that way - or perhaps a class of star known as a "brown dwarf;" the boundary between that and a large gas giant is still under debate. In any event, we've been able to infer the presence of smaller and smaller planets since then. And lest you get all excited over some "discovery of an Earth-like world" announced in some sensationalist website, keep in mind that to an astronomer, Mars, Venus, and Mercury are all "Earth-like." No one has yet found a world with the gravity, atmosphere and hydrosphere of Earth. I mean, it's cool that we're discovering exoplanets at all, but wake me up when you find one with an oxidizing atmosphere - that is, spectroscopic evidence of free oxygen in the atmosphere. See, the only known process that can keep oxygen in the atmosphere, rather than doing what oxygen does and reacting with other elements - is life.
Why are we wasting money on space when there's so much we need to address here on Earth? I'm including this because I hate - hate - this line of argument. It's ignorant and misguided. For starters, no scientific pursuit is a "waste." Second, the questioner appears to believe that we're loading rockets with $100 bills and shooting them into the Sun or something. No - that money creates jobs and opportunities here on Earth. And, perhaps most compelling for me, consider this: As we look further into the future, the probability that life on Earth will be severely impacted by a large-scale catastrophe approaches unity. A small, well-placed asteroid could destroy human civilization. A larger, well-placed asteroid could wipe humanity off the face of the Earth. Even if we get lucky in the game of Cosmic Billiards, it's a strongly supported scientific fact that eventually, the sun will heat up to the point where humans won't be able to live on Earth. While I'm sure some people (and likely whales) would consider this a benefit, consider that such an event would wipe out a lot of other species too, much as the K-T impact is thought to have initiated the extinction of most dinosaurs. And also consider that it would destroy all records of the only known life form in the vast, effectively infinite universe to ever look at the sky and wonder what's out there - and then proceed to find out. So if nothing else, we need to study space so that, one day, all our eggs won't be in one fragile and easily-dropped basket.
I've heard a lot of people assert that we're an insignificant dust mote in comparison to the vast cosmos; a life form clinging to one speck of mud in a backwater corner of the universe. This is mostly, I think, a reaction to the historically pervasive, and patently absurd, idea that we are the reason the universe exists, so it's understandable that some people would go so far in the other direction. I like to point out, however, that sure, we're insignificant now... but we won't always be.
So that's it for now on the topic of nothing. See you next month, when I'll talk about... something. |
A few musings about space, mostly in the science fiction realm:
|
Have an opinion on what you've read here today? Then send the Editor feedback! Find an item that you think would be perfect for showcasing here? Submit it for consideration in the newsletter!
https://www.Writing.Com/go/nl_form
Don't forget to support our sponsor!
| ASIN: B07RKLNKH7 |
Product Type: Kindle Store
|
Amazon's Price: $ 0.99
|
|
Last time, in "Fantasy Newsletter (February 15, 2012)" , I talked about the importance of art to fantasy (and along those lines, we mourn the passing of one of the all-time great fantasy artists, Mœbius .)
Lilithmoon☽  : Excellent NL, I really enjoyed it.
Thanks!
bertiebrite hoping for peace : Being both a writer and an illustrator, I enjoyed your article. The use of art in writing, (painting, sculpture, etc,) is not often done. I suppose because not many writers feel equipped to incorporate something they have no knowledge of into their stories. One really great set of stories that relies upon art is the Illustrated Man by Ray Bradbury.
Having no knowledge of something is a good reason to go and get some knowledge.  As for Ray Bradbury, he's just all-around great, and that particular book was one of the first that I read by him.
Catherine Hall : I agree with you. I have artistic friends and some who appreciate great literature but ... guess who finds it hard to appreciate work I don't understand? If we want to communicate our ideas to people, we can't denigrate popular medi as too "low". I love your idea of adding art to add depth and realism to fantasy worlds. My husband loves history so we've visited more old castles and stately homes than I knew existed. I find it's the decorative elements and the personal items used by the owners and servants. And looking round my living room, I see items we've chosen to display on our walls and in our bookcases, furniture. What's important to us? TV, computer games, books, landscape (pictures) and schoolbooks. Everybody's house will be different simply because of these items which display our personal taste and culture.
Very true. It's not just what we like when we go to museums, but the stuff in our everyday lives, that helps to define what we are. We can use this as writers to add dimensions to a character.
SusannaF : I love your article about art. The difference between art for critics and art for the general public is something I've noticed and wondered about myself. Who we are writing for and for what effect is something writers also need to keep in mind. [Submitted item: "Baroea Chapter 5: A Light in the Darknes" [13+]]
Yes. It's possible to gain unexpected readers, but I've come to believe that a targeted audience is helpful in crafting a successful story.
And that's all for me for March - see you next month! Until then,
DREAM ON!!!
|
| ASIN: B083RZ37SZ |
|
Amazon's Price: Price N/A
Not currently available. |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, click here for your newsletter subscription list. Simply uncheck the box next to any newsletter(s) you wish to cancel and then click to "Submit Changes". You can edit your subscriptions at any time.
|
Fantasy: March 14, 2012 Issue [#4929]
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
