Space Flight

  • 870 Replies
  • 82622 Views
*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5064
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #570 on: June 28, 2013, 11:25:11 AM »
I understand pressure just fine.  You don't understand pressure differentials and how easy it is to overcome them.  But that banter could go on all day.
The fact remains that the moon is in the atmosphere,  so there is external pressure,  so this external pressure should increase to equalize the internal pressure of the rocket. This same atmosphere provides the rocket exhaust with matter to react with,  thus making the rocket engine functional.   There is zero reason that we could not go to the moon,  at least no other reason besides the fact that if we have been to the moon,  then your entire world view is incorrect because then those space pictures aren't fake.
I don't know where to start with this.
You obviously knew half an hour ago when you said that rocket scenario would explode.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #571 on: June 28, 2013, 11:31:22 AM »
You are saying they are empty and trying to make out earth is some kind of vacuum. What's the point in that?

I'm refuting your point "that nothing, no particles, no light, can move through a vacuum". If every individual particle is surrounded by vacuum, then clearly that statement is false because air molecules obviously move.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5064
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #572 on: June 28, 2013, 11:38:23 AM »
I understand pressure just fine.  You don't understand pressure differentials and how easy it is to overcome them.  But that banter could go on all day.
The fact remains that the moon is in the atmosphere,  so there is external pressure,  so this external pressure should increase to equalize the internal pressure of the rocket. This same atmosphere provides the rocket exhaust with matter to react with,  thus making the rocket engine functional.   There is zero reason that we could not go to the moon,  at least no other reason besides the fact that if we have been to the moon,  then your entire world view is incorrect because then those space pictures aren't fake.
I don't know where to start with this.
You obviously knew half an hour ago when you said that rocket scenario would explode.
Because it would explode and the reasons for it are in  this topic, so why go over it again when you can simply read the topic.
Because the reasons in this topic support that explanation,  not refute.  We have atmosphere outside the rocket,  this means pressure outside the rocket.  It's no different than having 30 psi in a container at sea level,  since both situations do have pressure on the outside.  So why is this rocket exploding again? 
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #573 on: June 28, 2013, 11:40:58 AM »
You are saying they are empty and trying to make out earth is some kind of vacuum. What's the point in that?

I'm refuting your point "that nothing, no particles, no light, can move through a vacuum". If every individual particle is surrounded by vacuum, then clearly that statement is false because air molecules obviously move.
What are you going on about here?

Forget it, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you yet again. For someone who encourages other people to think about things you're doing precious little of that yourself. I suggest you read through the posts I made already and come back to the point when you have a specific question.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5064
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #574 on: June 28, 2013, 11:50:59 AM »
I understand pressure just fine.  You don't understand pressure differentials and how easy it is to overcome them.  But that banter could go on all day.
The fact remains that the moon is in the atmosphere,  so there is external pressure,  so this external pressure should increase to equalize the internal pressure of the rocket. This same atmosphere provides the rocket exhaust with matter to react with,  thus making the rocket engine functional.   There is zero reason that we could not go to the moon,  at least no other reason besides the fact that if we have been to the moon,  then your entire world view is incorrect because then those space pictures aren't fake.
I don't know where to start with this.
You obviously knew half an hour ago when you said that rocket scenario would explode.
Because it would explode and the reasons for it are in  this topic, so why go over it again when you can simply read the topic.
Because the reasons in this topic support that explanation,  not refute.  We have atmosphere outside the rocket,  this means pressure outside the rocket.  It's no different than having 30 psi in a container at sea level,  since both situations do have pressure on the outside.  So why is this rocket exploding again?
Ok, I'm going to explain this, one last time.

Can anyone who isn't against me and who can be neutral, jump in to tell me you understand what I'm saying when I explain this please.

Ok Duck:
At sea level, you fill a container with pressurised air and that's it. Fair enough right? No problems there, because the container is designed to hold that pressure.

Let's now take that same container into the sky as high as we can go...now tell me what would happen to it.
As high as we can go is very vague. , and we aren't talking about a containers that is pressurized above atmo going up,  we are talking about one that it at mist,  at atmo, but probably lower pressure. But let's play your little game.  It'll keep going up until the atmospheric pressure can no longer equalize it (by your logic of course).  That whole situation is very vague though,  what differentials is the container designed to contain, what was the internal pressure,  how high up can we actually go,  etc. Those are questions we need to know answers to in order to have a good guess about the situation.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #575 on: June 28, 2013, 11:51:39 AM »
You are saying they are empty and trying to make out earth is some kind of vacuum. What's the point in that?

I'm refuting your point "that nothing, no particles, no light, can move through a vacuum". If every individual particle is surrounded by vacuum, then clearly that statement is false because air molecules obviously move.
What are you going on about here?

Forget it, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you yet again. For someone who encourages other people to think about things you're doing precious little of that yourself. I suggest you read through the posts I made already and come back to the point when you have a specific question.
You are not making any sense.

Maybe you need to get some sleep, or some fresh air, or sober up or something. My mind is clear enough to know what I'm talking about. If you can't get my point that's hardly my fault, nobody else I talk to has as much trouble understanding me as you do.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38589
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #576 on: June 28, 2013, 12:26:58 PM »
Scepti . . . is a vacuum (a perfect one) a space with nothing in it (i.e., empty)?
Outside of the earth's dome, it's a perfect vacuum, I believe.
Then why does the perfect vacuum outside the dome not try to equalize with the 14.7 psi within the dome and thereby shatter the dome?
Why should it?
The ice dome froze in place because it was fully expanded and became dormant and froze against that vacuum, meaning the equalisation is already done=zero.
You have been arguing, for I don't know how many pages, that any pressure vessel will rupture when exposed to a perfect vacuum.  Therefore, it seems only logical that the ice dome (a pressure vessel that maintains the atmosphere) would rupture when exposed to a perfect vacuum. 

Besides, how can something (the ice dome) freeze against nothing (a perfect vacuum)?  ???
I'm getting a bit shocked at you Markjo.

Here's a question...and if you answer this, then it might go a long way into helping you understand what I'm talking about.

Why does water turn to ice?
Because as the liquid water molecules lose energy, they experience a phase change where they come together to form a solid, crystalline matrix.  However, liquid water cannot exist in a vacuum and as water vapor in the air cools and condenses, the condensate becomes more dense than the atmosphere and tends to fall to earth as rain or snow.
Do the molecules become dormant?
No.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #577 on: June 28, 2013, 12:38:37 PM »
If you work with air pressures, then you must be a tyre fitter or something like that because you have no clue about atmospheric pressure and what it actually does.
Usually not air pressure, I work more often with liquids. You see, I have to actually make stuff work and your logic doesn't make stuff work.

Another aversion and a personal attack from you though. You claim the pressure on the outside of a pressurized vessel changes, can we actually measure this somehow or not?
Ok you work with water. So you're a life guard.
Calm down I'm just kidding.

Ok let's use water as an example here.

Imagine filling a container in a swimming pool. As you fill it, what is all around it?
Now imagine filling it where you increase the size of the bottle, You expand the bottle against the water , so your volume in pushing against that water, the more you put inside.

Does this help?
Ok, there's water around the bottle.

Now let's say the pool is an ocean and I'm one meter deep filling my bottle so there's a 10kpa hydrostatic pressure. I put enough water in my bottle to get 20kpa in it, which has zero effect on water level in the ocean, so there's still 10kpa around the bottle regardless of it's expansion. Does that help?

Also, you didn't answer my very simple question.

Scepti, were you going somewhere with this water example?

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5064
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #578 on: June 28, 2013, 12:43:47 PM »
I understand pressure just fine.  You don't understand pressure differentials and how easy it is to overcome them.  But that banter could go on all day.
The fact remains that the moon is in the atmosphere,  so there is external pressure,  so this external pressure should increase to equalize the internal pressure of the rocket. This same atmosphere provides the rocket exhaust with matter to react with,  thus making the rocket engine functional.   There is zero reason that we could not go to the moon,  at least no other reason besides the fact that if we have been to the moon,  then your entire world view is incorrect because then those space pictures aren't fake.
I don't know where to start with this.
You obviously knew half an hour ago when you said that rocket scenario would explode.
Because it would explode and the reasons for it are in  this topic, so why go over it again when you can simply read the topic.
Because the reasons in this topic support that explanation,  not refute.  We have atmosphere outside the rocket,  this means pressure outside the rocket.  It's no different than having 30 psi in a container at sea level,  since both situations do have pressure on the outside.  So why is this rocket exploding again?
Ok, I'm going to explain this, one last time.

Can anyone who isn't against me and who can be neutral, jump in to tell me you understand what I'm saying when I explain this please.

Ok Duck:
At sea level, you fill a container with pressurised air and that's it. Fair enough right? No problems there, because the container is designed to hold that pressure.

Let's now take that same container into the sky as high as we can go...now tell me what would happen to it.
As high as we can go is very vague. , and we aren't talking about a containers that is pressurized above atmo going up,  we are talking about one that it at mist,  at atmo, but probably lower pressure. But let's play your little game.  It'll keep going up until the atmospheric pressure can no longer equalize it (by your logic of course).  That whole situation is very vague though,  what differentials is the container designed to contain, what was the internal pressure,  how high up can we actually go,  etc. Those are questions we need to know answers to in order to have a good guess about the situation.
It would expand inside the container and blow it apart, just like a rocket would.
But at what point does that happen? The only definitive answer to that question I've seen is in the vacuum of space,  but if the moon is within the atmosphere,  that negates that argument.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38589
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #579 on: June 28, 2013, 01:06:36 PM »
Scepti . . . is a vacuum (a perfect one) a space with nothing in it (i.e., empty)?
Outside of the earth's dome, it's a perfect vacuum, I believe.
Then why does the perfect vacuum outside the dome not try to equalize with the 14.7 psi within the dome and thereby shatter the dome?
Why should it?
The ice dome froze in place because it was fully expanded and became dormant and froze against that vacuum, meaning the equalisation is already done=zero.
You have been arguing, for I don't know how many pages, that any pressure vessel will rupture when exposed to a perfect vacuum.  Therefore, it seems only logical that the ice dome (a pressure vessel that maintains the atmosphere) would rupture when exposed to a perfect vacuum. 

Besides, how can something (the ice dome) freeze against nothing (a perfect vacuum)?  ???
I'm getting a bit shocked at you Markjo.

Here's a question...and if you answer this, then it might go a long way into helping you understand what I'm talking about.

Why does water turn to ice?
Because as the liquid water molecules lose energy, they experience a phase change where they come together to form a solid, crystalline matrix.  However, liquid water cannot exist in a vacuum and as water vapor in the air cools and condenses, the condensate becomes more dense than the atmosphere and tends to fall to earth as rain or snow.
Do the molecules become dormant?
No.
So what do they do then?
The water molecules form a crystalline matrix, but the individual molecules are still quite actively vibrating with energy.  It isn't until the molecules reach absolute zero (an impossible feat) that they lose all energy and become "dormant".

Perhaps this excerpt from an indoctrination manual will help you understand what's going on:
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/character.html
Quote
Note that:

    * Particles in a:
          o gas are well separated with no regular arrangement.
          o liquid are close together with no regular arrangement.
          o solid are tightly packed, usually in a regular pattern.

    * Particles in a:
          o gas vibrate and move freely at high speeds.
          o liquid vibrate, move about, and slide past each other.
          o solid vibrate (jiggle) but generally do not move from place to place.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #580 on: June 28, 2013, 01:09:53 PM »
If you work with air pressures, then you must be a tyre fitter or something like that because you have no clue about atmospheric pressure and what it actually does.
Usually not air pressure, I work more often with liquids. You see, I have to actually make stuff work and your logic doesn't make stuff work.

Another aversion and a personal attack from you though. You claim the pressure on the outside of a pressurized vessel changes, can we actually measure this somehow or not?
Ok you work with water. So you're a life guard.
Calm down I'm just kidding.

Ok let's use water as an example here.

Imagine filling a container in a swimming pool. As you fill it, what is all around it?
Now imagine filling it where you increase the size of the bottle, You expand the bottle against the water , so your volume in pushing against that water, the more you put inside.

Does this help?
Ok, there's water around the bottle.

Now let's say the pool is an ocean and I'm one meter deep filling my bottle so there's a 10kpa hydrostatic pressure. I put enough water in my bottle to get 20kpa in it, which has zero effect on water level in the ocean, so there's still 10kpa around the bottle regardless of it's expansion. Does that help?

Also, you didn't answer my very simple question.

Scepti, were you going somewhere with this water example?
I was going to but it seemed pointless, because people , for some reason cannot grasp this air pressure carry on, in it's entirety.

Sorry for being rude but have you considered that people  might not get it because it is a dumb idea that does not correlate with reality? Because in various industries and otherwise, pressures great and small are used in a myriad of ways with great success, it really does seem like we actually know how it works.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #581 on: June 28, 2013, 08:46:42 PM »
Ok, I'm going to explain this, one last time.

Can anyone who isn't against me and who can be neutral, jump in to tell me you understand what I'm saying when I explain this please.

Ok Duck:
At sea level, you fill a container with pressurised air and that's it. Fair enough right? No problems there, because the container is designed to hold that pressure.

Let's now take that same container into the sky as high as we can go...now tell me what would happen to it.

Why are you comparing a rocket which has 1 atmosphere in it with a pressurized container? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare the rocket to a container that hasn't been pressurized? Anyway...

I'll provide a little physics lesson here, free of charge of course.

So you take the container that wasn't initially pressurized into an environment of lower air pressure. The pressure within the container is now higher than that of the outside pressure, hence the forces on either end of the container's walls aren't balanced, with a greater force pushing from within the container.

If this container were a balloon, then it would expand to the point where the elastic is strained enough such that the inside pressure is creating an equal and opposite force to the outside pressure and elastic strain (the balloon applies a force inwards because the elastic is stretched and wants to go back to its unstretched state).
However, a metallic container applies the required force by its rigid structure. It's much like sitting on a chair. You exert a force downwards on it, and it exerts an equal and opposite force upwards on you (Newton's 3rd law), and as you apply more weight on the chair, the chair continues to change with it, until you reach the limits of its strength when it can't apply such a large force to keep you from forcing your way through and onto the ground.

Now, pressure is a measure of force / area. The surface area of the container doesn't change, so the pressure merely depends on the amount of air (number of molecules) and other variables such as temperature and volume of the container but we'll assume those are constant so we can ignore them. So 1 atmosphere of air in the container provides a pressure of 14.7 psi. That is, the inside walls are being pushed out with a force of 14.7 pounds (the pound is a mass and not a force but the Imperial system likes to be confusing like that, so I searched the value of the "pound" in psi to be 4.5 Newtons) on every square inch in the container. Any outside air pressure will exert a force back on the walls of the container. Let's say the outside air pressure is 1 psi, so every square inch on the container is being pushed inwards with a force of 1 "pound".

Since the container on any particular square inch is being pushed outwards with 14.7 "pounds" and being pushed inwards with 1 "pound" then the overall effect is an outward push of 13.7 "pounds". This isn't a very large force, but it's being applied over each square inch which is a relatively small area, so the pressure is definitely nothing to play with. Equivalently, if we filled up a tyre to 14.7+13.7 = 28.4 psi then the overall force applied to any square inch of the tyre will be 13.7 "pounds". It's exactly the same thing. This is how Newton's second law F=ma works. If you pull a rope one way with 1000 Newtons (screw the "pounds") and then pull the rope the other way with 1200 Newtons, then the overall effect is a 200 Newton force applied to the rope in the second direction. So if you took a rope and just applied a 200 Newton force in that second direction, the rope's acceleration in that direction will be equal to the first rope's acceleration.

So finally, what is the effect of taking a space ship into the vacuum of space in terms of air pressure? Well, the inside pressure is 14.7 psi, while the outside pressure is virtually 0, hence there is only one force to consider here and that is the outward force of 14.7 "pounds" on every square inch. Many containers can withstand such forces being applied to them, so it's not such a big deal.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #582 on: June 29, 2013, 03:49:07 AM »
No container could withstand that pressure against no opposing reactive pressure. It's either "equal" action to reaction or the container is breached...no if's or but's.

The thing is, the equal reaction to the pressurised gas inside a pressure vessel comes from the tensile strength of the container itself, not from the air outside.

 A steel cable can lift a large weight because of it's tensile strength. This is no different to a steel container holding gas at extremely high pressure, the walls of the container are simply under tension in the same manner as the steel cable lifting the weight. Same with a party balloon. If you clamp one end of the balloon, you can hang weights off the other end and it will stretch (proportional to the amount of weight); hang too much weight off it and it breaks. Fill it with air, and it will stretch (proportional to the pressure of the air inside it); overfill it and it will break.

 Everything has some degree of elasticity (how much it can be deformed before it breaks), even glass (very little, but you can still deform glass a little before it breaks). This elasticity is what holds the pressure inside.

 This is so logical and simple, I'm surprised you didn't think of it yourself.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #583 on: June 29, 2013, 04:05:27 AM »


Quote from: neimoka
Sorry for being rude but have you considered that people  might not get it because it is a dumb idea that does not correlate with reality? Because in various industries and otherwise, pressures great and small are used in a myriad of ways with great success, it really does seem like we actually know how it works.
Sorry for being rude but you obviously cannot grasp it all.
To the contrary, I grasp very well how pressure works which happens to be why I keep bugging you. Anyway since you keep calling out for open-mindedness and logical thinking that was a valid question - which you did not answer. Likewise you still haven't answered my very simple question about the pressure outside a chamber, like I told before I have access to pressure containers and measuring instruments so if you tell me about it I can perform an experiment to see how your idea fares. If I compress air in a steel container which does not observably expand, let's say 2x atm, am I supposed to be able to find something else than normal atmospheric pressure on the outside of that container? Or is your oh so open-minded idea 100% correct only as long as it's left untested?

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #584 on: June 29, 2013, 04:43:38 AM »
Now we know that the craft was said to be THIN aluminium and we know it would have had to have been pressurised to allow the supposed astronauts to breathe, yet in all this time, the air would be expanding inside the craft to equalise the outside environment.
While you're wrong about expansion, I'll assume it is true. So we have 1 atmosphere within the craft, and nearly 0 atmosphere outside. Why will the air pressure within the craft "continue to expand"? Why wouldn't it expand to some point based on how little air there is outside and stop expanding when it's at equilibrium? The air pressure in the tyres don't "continue to expand" until the tyre pops. The only way that happens is if you force the expansion by pumping a lot more air in.

Of course , this will be denied but you only have to look at the bends (divers) to know I'm telling the truth.
So is that your basis for this theory? In that case, please, go ahead and tell me how the bends works and explain why it supports your theory.


The reason why expansion happens is to cater for the lower external atmosphere, to allow it to equalise. This "stretches" any container , no matter what it is, whether it's a balloon or a compressed air cylinder.
The only difference is...we don't see compressed air cylinders expand with our own eyes like we would a balloon...but it's doing exactly that.
Why do you think you need to use heat to separate metals that are bonded, such as fly wheel toothed out er rings and such.
You don't physically see them expand because it's so dense.
And the enclosed environment knows about the external pressure how? All the molecules can do are bump up against the walls within the container, creating a force outwards. This is why the walls of any pressurized container stretch outward. It's not very different to you physically pushing the inside wall yourself.


If you want to talk to me, you can stuff your Newtons "deep" into your Newtonian nobule...cut this crap out as I won't entertain this clap trap. No offence mind. ;)
It's just a metric measure of force. If you're ok with measuring distances using metres, then you should be ok to measure forces with Newtons.

No container could withstand that pressure against no opposing reactive pressure. It's either "equal" action to reaction or the container is breached...no if's or but's.
It boggles my mind how you can say things like this but then you're totally fine with the pressurized tyre example.
There IS an equal reaction, but not by any outside air pressure. it's the stress of the walls that contains the air pressure. It's the chair that holds you up from falling to the floor.

30 PSI tyre versus 14 PSI atmosphere - the atmosphere is not an equal reaction. The tyre is stretched and provides the inward force required to balance the forces.
100 PSI tank versus 14 PSI atmosphere - same shit as above
15 PSI balloon versus 14 PSI atmosphere - "      "     "     "
1 PSI syringe versus 14 PSI atmosphere - the atmosphere provides a larger force on the walls of the syringe by definition of what the PSI stands for, the inner pressure is not an equal and opposite reaction, hence the walls strain inwards.

Now for the moment we've all been waiting for. Following this trend, somehow you keep managing to come to the "logical" conclusion that

14 PSI space ship versus 0 PSI space - Not an equal reaction hence shit blows up.... wtf?


The only reason they hold on earth is because of safety limits and that's it.
I don't care about nonsense that you thought up in the past week, we're arguing (well, you're the only one refuting) about well understood scientific facts here.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #585 on: June 29, 2013, 05:08:12 AM »

Care to be more specific what you mean by testing to see if anything observably expands? Things like balloons expand a lot rather easily, do you mean to test if there is any expansion to a rigid container when pressurized? I can say that steel cylinders like those used for welding gases show no immediately visible signs of any expansion when filled to >100atm, if there's any it could easily be measured to precision of 0.01mm and I'd say there almost certainly isn't that much expansion if there's any. Likewise hydraulic lines often contain much higher pressures and even as their wall thickness is often only 1mm I don't see them bulging about.

But how is that even relevant? According to you there should be a different pressure on the outside of a pressure vessel with or without expansion and I'd like you to tell more of this so I could measure it.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #586 on: June 29, 2013, 06:17:01 AM »
The thing is, the equal reaction to the pressurised gas inside a pressure vessel comes from the tensile strength of the container itself, not from the air outside.
You are not telling me anything new here.

So we're in agreement on that point then?
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #587 on: June 29, 2013, 06:29:31 AM »

Care to be more specific what you mean by testing to see if anything observably expands? Things like balloons expand a lot rather easily, do you mean to test if there is any expansion to a rigid container when pressurized? I can say that steel cylinders like those used for welding gases show no immediately visible signs of any expansion when filled to >100atm, if there's any it could easily be measured to precision of 0.01mm and I'd say there almost certainly isn't that much expansion if there's any. Likewise hydraulic lines often contain much higher pressures and even as their wall thickness is often only 1mm I don't see them bulging about.

But how is that even relevant? According to you there should be a different pressure on the outside of a pressure vessel with or without expansion and I'd like you to tell more of this so I could measure it.
he noticeable difference would be inside the metal itself as in stress levels as we know, because of more agitated molecules outside against smaller more condensed molecules inside the container.

You put any metal under stress and it will warm up.
You have obviously bent a metal bar and realised it got quite hot at the bend right?
That's because friction of molecules have gathered to cover the surface area that you have made bigger.
okay. Do you have data for how much a material like steel compresses?
All compressed air cylinders are domed at each end, "equally" because of action and reaction of compression "inside" of molecules against each other...meaning one half is pushing against the bottom and one half is pushing against the top and a certain pressure at the side but spread over a wider area, or a spill out if you like.
Not all compressed air cylinders are domed equally at each end. Other than that, okay. Except that the pressure per surface are is the same in the entire container (apart from a slightly larger pressure at the bottom), if you meant to imply something else.

Your post did not address my earlier query.
Quote
noticeable difference would be inside the metal itself as in stress levels as we know
does this mean that you no longer claim that pressures always equalize and that thus same pressure must be in effect on both inside and outside of the container, as you did before?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 06:42:57 AM by neimoka »

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #588 on: June 29, 2013, 06:43:33 AM »
The thing is, the equal reaction to the pressurised gas inside a pressure vessel comes from the tensile strength of the container itself, not from the air outside.
You are not telling me anything new here.

So we're in agreement on that point then?
Oh come on man, I've been saying it for long enough in my terms and you know it.
It's a container so it's got to be resisting the force hasn't it.
If you didn't spend so much time trying to twist stuff , (not just you) and actually read into what I'm saying, we wouldn't have to constantly go over this crap.

Then there is no reason a container could not be constructed that could survive a vacuum, if it's ability to contain the internal pressure comes solely from it's own tensile strength.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #589 on: June 29, 2013, 06:56:21 AM »
In answer to your last quote, the pressures are always equal it's just done over the surface area with more agitated or bigger molecules than the compressed ones and they are hammering harder on the outside of the container.

Think of it like like you and your mates squashed inside a bubble and you allow more in, making it a tighter fit and you are being compressed for every person that comes in...but as you allow them in, there are people outside...but these are bigger people and they are constantly running at the bubble but your pressure is easily repelling them and the container is keeping you from bursting out into them, until you allow more people inside which does burst the container into them..

Does this make it any clearer?
It clarifies that you're sticking with your claim. I'd still like to know of a way to observe and measure this increased pressure on the outside of a pressure container, which is something you have not addressed. You're so sure of this, have you observed this phenomenon and how did you do it? How far does this layer of "more agitated or bigger molecules than the compressed ones that are hammering harder on the outside of the container" reach from the container's surface? Is the pressure in this layer always the same as inside the container? These questions are essential for a successful experiment. I'd also like to know since you said that a container compresses only on the inside surface, what is making the gas molecules on the outside agitated and hammering on the outside surface? Does this continue for an indefinite amount of time, after temperatures have equalized and as long as there's pressure in the container, it seems they should otherwise the container would explode?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38589
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #590 on: June 29, 2013, 07:05:21 AM »
Quote from: markjo
It isn't until the molecules reach absolute zero (an impossible feat) that they lose all energy and become "dormant".

Impossible on earth because a "perfect" vacuum cannot be achieved in our lower atmosphere.
It can be achieved at the top of the dome, which means a perfect ice dome.
???  What does reaching absolute zero have to do with creating a perfect vacuum?  Also, your "perfect ice dome" has a bottom, doesn't it?  How does the bottom of the dome form in a 14.7 psi atmosphere and resist the perfect vacuum outside?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38589
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #591 on: June 29, 2013, 07:23:26 AM »
Quote from: markjo
It isn't until the molecules reach absolute zero (an impossible feat) that they lose all energy and become "dormant".

Impossible on earth because a "perfect" vacuum cannot be achieved in our lower atmosphere.
It can be achieved at the top of the dome, which means a perfect ice dome.
???  What does reaching absolute zero have to do with creating a perfect vacuum?  Also, your "perfect ice dome" has a bottom, doesn't it?  How does the bottom of the dome form in a 14.7 psi atmosphere and resist the perfect vacuum outside?
The bottom of the dome is not at 14 psi, what the hell are you talking about.
??? Are you saying that the dome doesn't reach all the way to the ground?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38589
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #592 on: June 29, 2013, 07:34:30 AM »
Quote from: markjo
It isn't until the molecules reach absolute zero (an impossible feat) that they lose all energy and become "dormant".

Impossible on earth because a "perfect" vacuum cannot be achieved in our lower atmosphere.
It can be achieved at the top of the dome, which means a perfect ice dome.
???  What does reaching absolute zero have to do with creating a perfect vacuum?  Also, your "perfect ice dome" has a bottom, doesn't it?  How does the bottom of the dome form in a 14.7 psi atmosphere and resist the perfect vacuum outside?
The bottom of the dome is not at 14 psi, what the hell are you talking about.
??? Are you saying that the dome doesn't reach all the way to the ground?
Do you get some kind of little excited bonk on trying to take the piss or do you decide that you just like to jump in and try to make out you are some kind of higher being or something.
Google is clearly your best friend, because you only come into anything after obviously googling like hell, the topics at hand.
If you want to play piss take games, pm me.
I'm just trying to understand how your "perfect ice dome" fits in with your previously established rules about pressure vessels not being able to withstand perfect vacuums.  There is no need for you to get all pissy with me.  >:(
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #593 on: June 29, 2013, 07:35:10 AM »
But it doesn't solely come from it's own tensile strength man..

Hang on, back up a sec to the part we agreed on:

The thing is, the equal reaction to the pressurised gas inside a pressure vessel comes from the tensile strength of the container itself, not from the air outside.

The point here was that the container works because of it's own tensile strength (you misused 'tensile' in the rest of your comment by the way). There is no need for outside forces to hold it together. I'll repeat that for emphasis: no need for outside forces. We momentarily agreed on this, or so I thought...
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

sokarul

  • 16208
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #594 on: June 29, 2013, 09:17:21 AM »
There is a need for outside force, there has to be for everything on earth. It's always equal and opposite reaction to action. "ALWAYS."
Sceptic are you going to tell me that if you walked over to your wall and pushed on it as hard as you can, the atmospheric pressure is actually stopping the wall from falling over?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

sokarul

  • 16208
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #595 on: June 29, 2013, 09:36:54 AM »
There is a need for outside force, there has to be for everything on earth. It's always equal and opposite reaction to action. "ALWAYS."
Sceptic are you going to tell me that if you walked over to your wall and pushed on it as hard as you can, the atmospheric pressure is actually stopping the wall from falling over?
It won't stop it but it will create a force against it as it falls.
So the wall, other walls, floor, and ceiling do nothing?
Quote
Why don't you stand an 8 foot by 4 foot sheet of ply board up and let go of it on a flat surface and see if it crashes down or gets cushioned down.
Different process. It works with glass too.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #596 on: June 29, 2013, 09:54:48 AM »
In answer to your last quote, the pressures are always equal it's just done over the surface area with more agitated or bigger molecules than the compressed ones and they are hammering harder on the outside of the container.

Think of it like like you and your mates squashed inside a bubble and you allow more in, making it a tighter fit and you are being compressed for every person that comes in...but as you allow them in, there are people outside...but these are bigger people and they are constantly running at the bubble but your pressure is easily repelling them and the container is keeping you from bursting out into them, until you allow more people inside which does burst the container into them..

Does this make it any clearer?
It clarifies that you're sticking with your claim. I'd still like to know of a way to observe and measure this increased pressure on the outside of a pressure container, which is something you have not addressed. You're so sure of this, have you observed this phenomenon and how did you do it? How far does this layer of "more agitated or bigger molecules than the compressed ones that are hammering harder on the outside of the container" reach from the container's surface? Is the pressure in this layer always the same as inside the container? These questions are essential for a successful experiment. I'd also like to know since you said that a container compresses only on the inside surface, what is making the gas molecules on the outside agitated and hammering on the outside surface? Does this continue for an indefinite amount of time, after temperatures have equalized and as long as there's pressure in the container, it seems they should otherwise the container would explode?
Let me see you answer a  question.

Is the area inside of a container larger than outside?
You mean surface area of the container? I'd say smaller on the inside, what about it?  ???

Apparently direct answers about your own hypothesis is something that's just too much to ask of you.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38589
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #597 on: June 29, 2013, 10:43:58 AM »
The soap suds spew out and build up and fall in on themselves and become denser and so they span out wider making the middle more dense and the outer less dense and so on and so on..
As it builds, the sud bubbles get larger and lighter as they span out and as you know, it forms a dome, even of you do this in your house , you would see this, except you don't have a vacuum around you to make the larger bubbles freeze or mat together.
Can you see where I'm at here?
If we go with your analogy for building the dome, then that means that there was a time when the dome did not divide the atmosphere that we know and love from the perfect vacuum that wants to devour that atmosphere.  Does that sound about right to you?  If so, do you see any problems with that?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38589
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #598 on: June 29, 2013, 11:34:07 AM »

Quote from: markjo
If we go with your analogy for building the dome, then that means that there was a time when the dome did not divide the atmosphere that we know and love from the perfect vacuum that wants to devour that atmosphere.  Does that sound about right to you?  If so, do you see any problems with that?
Correct, there was a time when it was forming, when no life as we know it was on it, until all this started happening...and over however many hundreds of thousands of years, it's built up to a size that caters for the life we know.
It's still growing as we speak.
So, that means that there was a time when there was no ice dome and therefore there was nothing to keep the "perfect vacuum" from devouring the atmosphere, right?   
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38589
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #599 on: June 29, 2013, 11:52:24 AM »
I need people to work with me with a mind, away from indoctrination and fine tune this, because I genuinely believe I'm on the right track here.
What your really need to do is to ask yourself "what do I believe, what do I know and what can I prove?"  Please note, those are three different questions that will have three different answers.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.