Umm, no where did I say there was an absolute boundary (though it is clear that once one has cleared all layers of the atmosphere, one is undoubtedly "in space".
However
vern said:
He was technically in space. He did land ... parachute in. He did not bounce off.
this is not of necessity, technically correct, in countering what I had said here:
All said however, it doesn't look like he totally left the atmosphere (or perhaps the stratosphere?), but was rather high up in it...
Lets put some actual figures on this:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/atmosphere.html
According to this image, he would at 30 km be where I predicted, aka high up in the troposphere or in the stratosphere. So technically, I was correct in the placement.
vern said:
Today, the Europeans have the Karman line at 62 miles which they technically say separate atmosphere and space while anyone who goes up with the US is called an austronaut if they go above 50 miles.
Again, though interesting points, it does not negate anything I said on a technical basis. Doing the necessary mathematical conversions we get
30 KM * (1 mile / 1.609344) = 18.641 miles
This is well within both the 62 miles the Europeans look at and the 50 miles the Americans look at. By neither standard would this person be considered an astronaut, and hence my statement hasn't been shown to be wrong, and it can well be argued that he was not technically in space using the numbers you yourself provided...
so discussion of drag is moot since both Europeans and US authorities technically can have astronauts high enough but yet not be affected by "bouncing" off.
The ironic thing is, what you were interested in arguing against, is where I said just this. OK, I did use the word atmosphere in the more general venacular (what is technically called the troposphere), and also where things were placed (with the system of terminology used back when I was in school); and yet this (use of more general terminology there) is the only thing you could really take issue with. Conceptially, the placements are quite well where I put them.
Further, in my initial post, no where did I use the word space and I wasn't the first to introject that word into the discussion, though after entered, I ellaborated on the position.
Though interesting (and perhaps leaning towards semantics); using the same figures, and the same level of semantics, it can be counter argued that he wasn't technically in space as the 18.641 miles falls within the figure used by either the Europeans or Americans as already stated...