Can anybody that actually answer any of these questions, please tell me!

What happens to heat in space where there is no gravity? There must be some gravity or magnetic forces even if very small.

Lets say I fired a engine in space, if I could. How could I fire a engine if there is no oxygen in space? There must be some oxygen no!

Anyway what happens to the heat in space does it go left, right, up, down, or does it look for gravity and defy it as it does on earth where there is gravity? WOW

It would make sense to me that if there was a heat sourse like the " Big Bang" The Gravitation force that caused the once tiny compacted universe to bond together, that the heat would be moving away from the gravity that was once compact. Thus making everything created after the "Big Bang" constantly moving away from the source or expanding! Along the way having its own little sub chemical reactions (galaxys) along the seemingly endless journey.

Is the temperature the same all throughout space exempting stars, planets and chemical reactions just space empty as it may be. Well it can't be empty space must consist of some chemical composition or is it simple a blank. If so what made space? What does it consist of? Can we duplicate it? There must be a mathmatical answer. No!

Plenty of people have become famous and recieved the Nobel Piece prize only later to find out they where very wrong. So I am guesing the people that award the prize are just as complex and confused as the scientist that recieved the prize.

Can I get the Noble prize? I have questions and can not figure out the answers just like everybody else.

robertkortright@aol.com

As long as you don't use my answers for your Nobel prize.

First of all you need to know what heat is. Heat is the kinetic energy of particles. In a solid this means that the particles are vibrating very much, and we perceive the solid as hot. The hotter it is the stronger the particles vibrate. In a gas the particles of a hot gas have a lot of kinetic energy, because they can move freely.
I am not sure where you want to put the gravity or magnetic fiels in here, the are not necessary.
So, what happens if you put a hot solid in space? It will cool down, mainly by radiation, because space is "empty" (we will get to that) there are almost no particles to interact with to let conduction or convection be a great player in the cooling game.
If you put a hot gas in space, then it is a little different. As the particles are free and have a lot of kinetic energy, they will just fly away in all directions. Per particle the "temperature" will remain the same (if we assume that the particle's temperature is given by the ratio of kinetic energy and Boltzmann's constant).
To go on, indeed if you want to light up a candle in space, you will fail, because there is an very good vacuum in outer space (which does not mean there is nothing there, we are talking about a particle per cubic centimeter and less!!). But a rocket in space does not use stuff to burn, just blowing out gass at one side will let you move towards the other side, a law that Newton already recognized.
Also, "fire a rocket" is an anachronism, from the time that we used combustible engines.
So, no there is no plenty of oxygen to burn stuff, but there is oxygen in space.

So, like I said, for a gas, it just flies everywhere. It does not "look" for gravity, it will be influenced by gravity, it also does not defy gravity, just like on Earth nothing is defying gravity. It is too much to explain here, but because the atmosphere has a temperature it does not "fall down on our heads" like you might expect. So no WOW here.

you seem to have a strange way of thinking about gravity, it is just a force, there is nothing compact about it. Also, the big bang model that you describe is a 3D view, whereas the "real" big bang needs a 4D view, the universe was created everywhere at the same time and it is expanding, and to get a grasp of how it expands you need to look up the 2D metaphor, of the balloon being blown up. I will let you do that in a book.
In all the "heat" that was there in the beginning is still there and we see it (sort of) in the 2.7 Kelvin background radiation. But there is still gravity pervading the whole universe and radiation etc. There is nothing "running away" from the "compacted gravity".

No, the temperature is not the same through the whole of space.
Space is not empty, nobody ever said something like that. "Natura Horror Vacuum". There is very little density in outer space. The one we can reach most easily is in the solar wind and there we measure several particles per cubic centimeter. And futher away there may be even less. But not empty.

Space is just what it is, "something with a size that can be filled". Space itself does not consist of anything, but it can be filled with a lot, particles, radiation, fields etc. And no, we cannot create space in a laboratory, creating a new universe or something like it. There is, however, a description of it all, but you will have to go to the theoretical physics department, and get a course starting with general relativity and then everything that has been build on that, to get an inkling of what space is.

Why would "us physicists" care about the Nobel peace prize, when we have the one for physics? (although you really mean piece, thinking that the winner gets a part of Alfred Nobel himself, but let's not go there ...)

The only region in which I can think of Nobel laureates being shown wrong is in economy, about 10 years ago. AFAIK nothing of the sort has happened in physics. You don't get them for something "really new", it needs to have shown to have its worth. And although the Nobel prize nomination is from a small group of (knowledgeble) wo/men, and not public, I am sure they do have their advisors etc.

Uhh, lemme think, uhhhhhh, NO. You may have questions, but it is clear you have not put a lot of effort into finding an answer (you only answer NO all the time) whereas the Nobel laureates in physics have given us a lot of answers. I would advise you to take a little more advanced course in physics, that you might know what heat is and how rockets works in space etc. etc.

Maybe a good resolution for 2008?

Happy New Year

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)