No no, there's no limit
Jan. 2nd, 2007 03:21 pmWhen the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, one of the many things that was changed forever was the notion of airspace. Before then, it had been safe to assume that the space above a country simply belonged to that country; suddenly, with wealthy nations able to sling their technology overhead at will, it turned out there was a natural boundary after all, somewhere before the oxygen ran out. The exact boundary remains undefined in international law, which is probably just as well. One country in particular would vigorously resist such a law, because apparently it has still not even accepted the principle that there is any upper limit to its airspace. That country is Norway.
No, it isn’t. It is, of course, France. The country apparently believes it extends infinitely upwards. Best of all for fans of Gallic sophistication and blowing up boats belonging to environmental protestors, the spin of the Earth’s axis and the shape of its orbit mean that there is by now [very probably] no part of the universe that has not, technically, been French.

Fig. 1: Infinite France
No, it isn’t. It is, of course, France. The country apparently believes it extends infinitely upwards. Best of all for fans of Gallic sophistication and blowing up boats belonging to environmental protestors, the spin of the Earth’s axis and the shape of its orbit mean that there is by now [very probably] no part of the universe that has not, technically, been French.

Fig. 1: Infinite France
no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 03:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 04:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 03:52 pm (UTC)The claim was based on the fact that the Earth has by now done an awful lot of rotations, but you're right, I have no actual proof. So for now I've modified the sentence, and must now invite any passing mathematicians, astronomers or professional guessers to apply themselves to this question.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 04:25 pm (UTC)This might all be nonsense, but in my defense I do have my own telescope.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 04:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 04:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 06:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 06:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 07:17 pm (UTC)Also, expansion means that the matter in the universe gets further apart, but the universe itself is unbounded. So there's no way to determine how "big" it is. We're not inside a big sphere with an edge.
Does your head in thinking about it.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 05:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 08:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 09:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 10:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 04:53 pm (UTC)If you took off from the French border and travelled vertically for 200km, taking the average width of France to be something like w=821.49km (area = 674,843km2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France)), the beam would be around 13km away: radius of earth r = 6378.1km; w x (1+200km/r) = approx w + 25.8km.
This senseless nitpick brought to you by Google and my dim and distant knowledge of the sine rule.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 07:19 pm (UTC)... I can't believe I really googled for the square root of the area of France.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-04 11:14 am (UTC)You are, of course, entirely right. I have modified the illustration in the journal entry and hereby reproduce the original, erroneous illustration for the sake of clarity.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-04 12:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 03:49 pm (UTC)They can't get back into space once they've landed, so it's sort of Aliens meets Black Hawk Down. Would look good on CNN though.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 05:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 08:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-06 03:37 am (UTC)