Space Flight

  • 870 Replies
  • 211648 Views
*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #210 on: June 07, 2013, 01:36:23 PM »
This is what awaits anyone who goes into space, if it's the vacuum we are told.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Vakuum im Kesselwagen / Implodiert
Why Scepti, surely you must know that the light weight shuttles and lunar landers are stronger than that steel tank.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #211 on: June 07, 2013, 01:40:12 PM »
Thank God for scepti the life saver.   That's actually the opposite of what could happen in the vacuum of space,  but nice try.   Vacuum chambers don't implode so we obviously can make objects to withstand the pressure differentials.
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
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #212 on: June 07, 2013, 01:45:47 PM »
Why Scepti, surely you must know that the light weight shuttles and lunar landers are stronger than that steel tank.
Just as an FYI, the atmospheric pressure inside the lunar module was maintained at 5 psi while in space.  That's about 1/3 the pressure at sea level on earth.
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.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #213 on: June 07, 2013, 02:12:27 PM »
All of you analogies have greater pressure outside than inside thus causing implosion.   If the air is trying to rush out,  it is going to find any weakness and use it causing a larger and larger while until the structure stabilizes.   The result would be a gaping hole but not a crushed vehicle.  See what happens when you put some water and the powder found in an mre inside a sealed 2 liter.  This is an example of higher internal pressure than external. 
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 #214 on: June 07, 2013, 02:13:28 PM »
Why Scepti, surely you must know that the light weight shuttles and lunar landers are stronger than that steel tank.
Just as an FYI, the atmospheric pressure inside the lunar module was maintained at 5 psi while in space.  That's about 1/3 the pressure at sea level on earth.
Look Marko. It doesn't matter what they say the pressure was...the vacuum of space is the vacuum of space..it does not have prejudice...it awaits the ever willing 5/10/15 or 10 million psi...all the air wants to do, is fill the vacuum and it will expand and breach the container or rocket to do that.

Since you're so sure that it's impossible to contain a pressure of 5 psi, I'll make sure to explain to the flight crew when I fly on Monday that under no circumstances must they pressurize the cabin! I'm sure they and all the passengers on board will thank me for saving their lives!
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
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #215 on: June 07, 2013, 02:22:38 PM »
All of you analogies have greater pressure outside than inside thus causing implosion.   If the air is trying to rush out,  it is going to find any weakness and use it causing a larger and larger while until the structure stabilizes.   The result would be a gaping hole but not a crushed vehicle.  See what happens when you put some water and the powder found in an mre inside a sealed 2 liter.  This is an example of higher internal pressure than external.
Do you know what an actual implosion is and how it happens. If not I'll be glad to explain it to you and as to why you are wrong in what you said.

Please explain it to me.
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 #216 on: June 07, 2013, 02:45:53 PM »
Why Scepti, surely you must know that the light weight shuttles and lunar landers are stronger than that steel tank.
Just as an FYI, the atmospheric pressure inside the lunar module was maintained at 5 psi while in space.  That's about 1/3 the pressure at sea level on earth.
Look Marko. It doesn't matter what they say the pressure was...the vacuum of space is the vacuum of space..it does not have prejudice...it awaits the ever willing 5/10/15 or 10 million psi...all the air wants to do, is fill the vacuum and it will expand and breach the container or rocket to do that.

Since you're so sure that it's impossible to contain a pressure of 5 psi, I'll make sure to explain to the flight crew when I fly on Monday that under no circumstances must they pressurize the cabin! I'm sure they and all the passengers on board will thank me for saving their lives!
And why do you think planes are pressurised high up and not below a certain height?

Have a good think about it and then you can have a word with the cabin crew.

I'm not sure what you mean. At 35000 feet the air pressure inside the cabin is about 11.3 psi, and the pressure outside is 3.5 psi, the difference is 7.8 psi. You said that you can't even contain 5 psi. Somehow every flight I have ever been on the cabin has not exploded. So I'd say you must be wrong.
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
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #217 on: June 07, 2013, 03:00:12 PM »
Look Marko. It doesn't matter what they say the pressure was...the vacuum of space is the vacuum of space..it does not have prejudice...it awaits the ever willing 5/10/15 or 10 million psi...all the air wants to do, is fill the vacuum and it will expand and breach the container or rocket to do that.
Do you know what a barometer is?  Do you understand how it works?

Why does the atmosphere crush the top of the glass tube where there is a vacuum.  Why does air not force its way through the mercury to fill the void? 
« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 03:03:07 PM by markjo »
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 #218 on: June 07, 2013, 03:04:25 PM »
I fear differential pressure and partial pressure are concepts that may be beyond scepti, but I'll explain them as best I can anyway.

Differential pressure: the difference in pressure between the inside of a pressurised vessel and the outside. For your average commercial airliner, traveling at 35,000ft, Shmeggly has already provided the numbers: 11.3psi inside, 3.5psi outside, for a differential of 7.8psi. The planes I used to work on went to a differential of 7psi, but they weren't built to fly as high, so didn't need the extra 0.8. Space-going vehicles operate at an atmosphere of 3-5psi, and space is approximately 0psi, for a differential of 3-5psi, less than commercial airliners, and not at all hard to achieve.

Partial pressure: you may be wondering how crews could survive with an air pressure as low as 3psi in something like the shuttle or Apollo modules? Our atmosphere is at 14.7psi at sea level, and consists of almost 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen, and the remainder is various other gasses. The partial pressure of oxygen at sea level is 21% of 14.7, or about 3.1psi. Since all we need is the oxygen, we can therefore survive in an atmosphere of 100% oxygen at 3psi, which I believe is what they used in the Apollo modules.

Hopefully those were clear enough!
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."

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #219 on: June 07, 2013, 03:06:12 PM »
Why Scepti, surely you must know that the light weight shuttles and lunar landers are stronger than that steel tank.
Just as an FYI, the atmospheric pressure inside the lunar module was maintained at 5 psi while in space.  That's about 1/3 the pressure at sea level on earth.
Look Marko. It doesn't matter what they say the pressure was...the vacuum of space is the vacuum of space..it does not have prejudice...it awaits the ever willing 5/10/15 or 10 million psi...all the air wants to do, is fill the vacuum and it will expand and breach the container or rocket to do that.

Since you're so sure that it's impossible to contain a pressure of 5 psi, I'll make sure to explain to the flight crew when I fly on Monday that under no circumstances must they pressurize the cabin! I'm sure they and all the passengers on board will thank me for saving their lives!
And why do you think planes are pressurised high up and not below a certain height?

Have a good think about it and then you can have a word with the cabin crew.

I'm not sure what you mean. At 35000 feet the air pressure inside the cabin is about 11.3 psi, and the pressure outside is 3.5 psi, the difference is 7.8 psi. You said that you can't even contain 5 psi. Somehow every flight I have ever been on the cabin has not exploded. So I'd say you must be wrong.
I said it cannot be contained in a vacuum. Why do you want to twist things. Wouldn't you like to get to the truth, or does the truth scare you?

Your plane equalizes the pressure stress on it's fuselage . Don't forget that the plane if travelling at 500 mph .

An example.
If you were in a plane and a big hand (somehow) grabbed hold of the fuselage and started to exert pressure onto it in a squeeze motion, what would you do to counteract it?

Of course, you would up the pressure and push it back until the stresses were evened out right?
See what I'm saying.

I see what you're saying but of course it has no bearing on reality. A 5 psi pressure differential is a 5 psi pressure differential whether in a vacuum or not. The pressure inside an airplane cabin is not there to equalize pressure with the outside, it's to keep people inside from passing out and dying due to lack of oxygen.
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
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #220 on: June 07, 2013, 03:11:54 PM »
Look Marko. It doesn't matter what they say the pressure was...the vacuum of space is the vacuum of space..it does not have prejudice...it awaits the ever willing 5/10/15 or 10 million psi...all the air wants to do, is fill the vacuum and it will expand and breach the container or rocket to do that.
Do you know what a barometer is?  Do you understand how it works?

Why does the atmosphere crush the top of the glass tube where there is a vacuum.  Why does air not force its way through the mercury to fill the void?
It doesn't crush the top of the glass.
Why not?  There is no air at the top and you said that "all the air wants to do, is fill the vacuum and it will expand and breach the container or rocket to do that."  So why doesn't the atmosphere breach the glass tube and fill the vacuum?
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
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #221 on: June 07, 2013, 03:16:10 PM »
Space-going vehicles operate at an atmosphere of 3-5psi, and space is approximately 0psi, for a differential of 3-5psi, less than commercial airliners, and not at all hard to achieve.

For the Apollo missions, this is true.  However, the ISS maintains a 14.7 psi oxygen/nitrogen environment.  A pure oxygen environment would be too dangerous for such a long term mission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Life_support
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.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #222 on: June 07, 2013, 03:20:13 PM »
I fear differential pressure and partial pressure are concepts that may be beyond scepti, but I'll explain them as best I can anyway.

Differential pressure: the difference in pressure between the inside of a pressurised vessel and the outside. For your average commercial airliner, traveling at 35,000ft, Shmeggly has already provided the numbers: 11.3psi inside, 3.5psi outside, for a differential of 7.8psi. The planes I used to work on went to a differential of 7psi, but they weren't built to fly as high, so didn't need the extra 0.8. Space-going vehicles operate at an atmosphere of 3-5psi, and space is approximately 0psi, for a differential of 3-5psi, less than commercial airliners, and not at all hard to achieve.

Partial pressure: you may be wondering how crews could survive with an air pressure as low as 3psi in something like the shuttle or Apollo modules? Our atmosphere is at 14.7psi at sea level, and consists of almost 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen, and the remainder is various other gasses. The partial pressure of oxygen at sea level is 21% of 14.7, or about 3.1psi. Since all we need is the oxygen, we can therefore survive in an atmosphere of 100% oxygen at 3psi, which I believe is what they used in the Apollo modules.

Hopefully those were clear enough!
Great. I won't argue with that but you are still missing the point.
Air, or pure oxygen or whatever you want, wants to fill the vacuum. That's it's goal and it will not stop...EVER.... until John Connor is terminated.. or until it fills that vacuum.

PSI difference in planes are for passenger comfort and to keep the plane structurally stable, which is fine but it's a side step away from what we are talking about with a vacuum, so let's not use it.

Cabin pressure has NOTHING to do with structural stability.

And if air absolutely will not stop unless it fills a vacuum, how does any air stay on Earth's surface?
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
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #223 on: June 07, 2013, 03:23:27 PM »
But it's just a small vacuum and the air cannot get in until it gains enough pressure of which there isn't enough to allow it to breach the small tube with a tiny vacuum.
Size has nothing to do with pressure.  A vacuum is 0 psi whether it's deep space or in a barometer.  The whole of the earth's 14.7 psi can not breach the thin glass of a barometer.  Why should the eternal vacuum of space have any better luck breaching a properly constructed space craft?
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 #224 on: June 07, 2013, 03:35:48 PM »
Space-going vehicles operate at an atmosphere of 3-5psi, and space is approximately 0psi, for a differential of 3-5psi, less than commercial airliners, and not at all hard to achieve.

For the Apollo missions, this is true.  However, the ISS maintains a 14.7 psi oxygen/nitrogen environment.  A pure oxygen environment would be too dangerous for such a long term mission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Life_support

Well there ya go, I learned something! Thanks markjo!

Air, or pure oxygen or whatever you want, wants to fill the vacuum. That's it's goal and it will not stop...EVER.... until John Connor is terminated.. or until it fills that vacuum.

PSI difference in planes are for passenger comfort and to keep the plane structurally stable, which is fine but it's a side step away from what we are talking about with a vacuum, so let's not use it.

It is the same principle though, so it is relevant. From my post: "Space-going vehicles operate at an atmosphere of 3-5psi, and space is approximately 0psi, for a differential of 3-5psi, less than commercial airliners, and not at all hard to achieve."

To put this another way, let's say both the airliner and the space vehicle (whatever it may be) have a window with an area of 1 square foot. In the airliner, the force on this window is 7.8psi x 144 square inches = 1123.2 pounds. In the space vehicle, the force is (let's go the high side) 5psi x 144 square inches = 720 pounds. Now, 720 is less than 1123.4, so it actually takes less structural strength to hold that window in place in the space vehicle. Even on the ISS, the force on the same window would be 14.7 x 144 = 2116.8, which is pretty big, but not impossible to engineer for. To show how strong we can make things when we want to, the Trieste (a bathyscaphe) was built to withstand pressures of nearly 18,000psi! And it just had perspex windows! (Yes, they were very thick, but they didn't burst)
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."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #225 on: June 07, 2013, 03:40:11 PM »
But it's just a small vacuum and the air cannot get in until it gains enough pressure of which there isn't enough to allow it to breach the small tube with a tiny vacuum.
Size has nothing to do with pressure.  A vacuum is 0 psi whether it's deep space or in a barometer.  The whole of the earth's 14.7 psi can not breach the thin glass of a barometer.  Why should the eternal vacuum of space have any better luck breaching a properly constructed space craft?
Here's a clue. psi.
The vacuum of space is 0 psi.  The vacuum in a barometer is 0 psi.  What's the difference between 0 psi in space and 0 psi in a barometer?
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 #226 on: June 07, 2013, 04:05:07 PM »
Space-going vehicles operate at an atmosphere of 3-5psi, and space is approximately 0psi, for a differential of 3-5psi, less than commercial airliners, and not at all hard to achieve.

For the Apollo missions, this is true.  However, the ISS maintains a 14.7 psi oxygen/nitrogen environment.  A pure oxygen environment would be too dangerous for such a long term mission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Life_support

Well there ya go, I learned something! Thanks markjo!

Air, or pure oxygen or whatever you want, wants to fill the vacuum. That's it's goal and it will not stop...EVER.... until John Connor is terminated.. or until it fills that vacuum.

PSI difference in planes are for passenger comfort and to keep the plane structurally stable, which is fine but it's a side step away from what we are talking about with a vacuum, so let's not use it.

It is the same principle though, so it is relevant. From my post: "Space-going vehicles operate at an atmosphere of 3-5psi, and space is approximately 0psi, for a differential of 3-5psi, less than commercial airliners, and not at all hard to achieve."

To put this another way, let's say both the airliner and the space vehicle (whatever it may be) have a window with an area of 1 square foot. In the airliner, the force on this window is 7.8psi x 144 square inches = 1123.2 pounds. In the space vehicle, the force is (let's go the high side) 5psi x 144 square inches = 720 pounds. Now, 720 is less than 1123.4, so it actually takes less structural strength to hold that window in place in the space vehicle. Even on the ISS, the force on the same window would be 14.7 x 144 = 2116.8, which is pretty big, but not impossible to engineer for. To show how strong we can make things when we want to, the Trieste (a bathyscaphe) was built to withstand pressures of nearly 18,000psi! And it just had perspex windows! (Yes, they were very thick, but they didn't burst)
Ok let's see if I can explain in my simple terms.

You know your vacuum pump on earth right?
Ok and you know that when the air is "sucked" out of it for a short while by a reasonably strong suction pump, the vacuum tube doesn't break right...because it's made of strong stuff and can withstand a reasonably strong suction.
The thing is...if you put a stronger pump on it and left it to suck, it would eventually implode, as in the air pressure will find it's way in, unless that container was so strong that it could withstand a full on full force of the max psi available around it.

If you make that vacuum chamber bigger, it has to be made, equally super strong.because obviously there is more psi acting on a larger surface.
I'm sure you know all this.

Ok , let's transfer this to the vacuum that we are told space is.
Space is an immediate vacuum, meaning, there is no pump sucking anything out...it's just a huge seemingly never ending vacuum, so we are led to believe.

Ok, so now you are putting a rocket into that and we know that the rocket is not made of super thick solid iron ...now tell me what's going to happen when you think of the psi inside of the rocket busting a gut to get out.

That's a common misconception, but when you get right down to the nuts and bolts of it (so to speak), all that really matters is the difference in pressure, and as has been pointed out, that's really not very much, especially when compared to diving down an oceanic trench.

If it was a matter of the ratio of pressure, you would have a point, but it isn't, it's the difference.
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."

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #227 on: June 07, 2013, 04:23:41 PM »
Scintific Method:

You are seriously underestimating what air pressure at psi can do.

No, I know exactly what it is capable of, I've made great use of it in the past.
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."

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #228 on: June 07, 2013, 04:34:38 PM »
Scintific Method:

You are seriously underestimating what air pressure at psi can do.

No, I know exactly what it is capable of, I've made great use of it in the past.
Are you interested in finding out the truth? I mean honestly.
If you are, I will show you why rockets could not even get into space, if it was the vacuum we are told .

Scepti, we've been down that road already. I know how these things work, I have played with them for years, I don't even need a scientist to tell me how they work because I worked it out for myself! It just so happens that what the scientists say matches what I worked out through my own observations. What you say has little to no relation to what I have seen for myself, so if you'll excuse me, I won't be putting much value on what you have to say. I will listen, but don't expect me to take it seriously.
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."

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #229 on: June 07, 2013, 04:34:57 PM »
All of you analogies have greater pressure outside than inside thus causing implosion.   If the air is trying to rush out,  it is going to find any weakness and use it causing a larger and larger while until the structure stabilizes.   The result would be a gaping hole but not a crushed vehicle.  See what happens when you put some water and the powder found in an mre inside a sealed 2 liter.  This is an example of higher internal pressure than external.
Do you know what an actual implosion is and how it happens. If not I'll be glad to explain it to you and as to why you are wrong in what you said.

Please explain it to me.
Your implosion happens in an atmosphere against a vacuum, not in space. Implosion means a forced in force.
On earth, a vacuum chamber is waiting for air to be forced "into" it....now, if that vacuum chamber was made of ,say...weak aluminium, the more vacuum that's created , the more the air wants in but the air becomes so overpowering, it crushes the aluminium, or in the case of that train container until it equalizes.

In space, it's an explosion in terms of, the air forces itself out but as it does it collapses the container, simply because the air needs to fill that vacuum in super quick time.
In simple terms, imagine blowing up a crisp packet and releasing all of it's air in on go, what do you do?
You smash the bag against your other hand and bang, all the air is gone, leaving you with a flat crisp bag, devoid of air.

I don't doubt your intelligence but you have been swayed by a good explanation of bull shit in this science.
I'm correct.

You are not correct in this assumption.  There is zero pressure in the vacuum of space, meaning that there is no material physically applying a force from outside on the container.  The only force being applies is from the air pressing on this container, and the container's design allows this force to be spread over the container so that it does not rupture.  In the even of a rupture, the air rushes out, but since there is no force being applied to the outside of the container, there is no reason the container would collapse on itself.

High pressure inside, low pressure outside = explosion
High pressure outside, low pressure inside = implosion

Space is low pressure outside, container is high pressure inside = thus is an explosion.

I don't doubt your extreme distaste for very commonsensical physics, but you have been swayed by a massive amount of bullshit.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #230 on: June 07, 2013, 04:52:22 PM »
You just disagreed with the fact that a container that ruptures in space will just blow out and not crumble, and then in the same breath agreed that it would just blow out and not crumble.  You seem to understand the concept of high pressure vs low pressure, I'm not real sure what you issue is with how a rupture in space would occur, other than you obviously don't think space is an empty vacuum.

The air is trying to get out of the container in space because there is 0 pressure in the vacuum of space, high pressure flows to low pressure to try to balance out.  It's the same concept as wind on Earth and your drinking straw.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #231 on: June 07, 2013, 05:06:07 PM »
You just disagreed with the fact that a container that ruptures in space will just blow out and not crumble,
Quote
No I didn't.
and then in the same breath agreed that it would just blow out and not crumble.
Quote
No I didn't.
You seem to understand the concept of high pressure vs low pressure, I'm not real sure what you issue is with how a rupture in space would occur, other than you obviously don't think space is an empty vacuum.
Quote
To argue space, I have to go on what they tell us, in order to argue it, which is why I'm using the vacuum they say.

The air is trying to get out of the container in space because there is 0 pressure in the vacuum of space, high pressure flows to low pressure to try to balance out.  It's the same concept as wind on Earth and your drinking straw.
Quote
With this statement, you honestly don;t realise how close you are to the real truth. I'm being totally serious here.

Okay, so explain a few things to me

1.  Why did that container with the air getting sucked out implode in that video?  Please don't personify the air in the explanation, make it plain and simple.

2.  Why does a submarine crumple in deep water if there is a catastrophic rupture?

3.  What happens if you continually pump air into a sealed container and this container ruptures?

4.  Is there any pressure in space?

5.  Is there pressure in an air filled container in space?

6.  If a vacuum chamber were put into space, what would happen?

7.  If an air filled container ruptures in a vacuum chamber/space, what would cause it to crumple?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #232 on: June 07, 2013, 06:04:07 PM »
Okay, I just wanted to make sure that the effects of pressure in a vacuum were understood.  Glad we could clear that up.
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
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #233 on: June 07, 2013, 06:38:33 PM »
No psi in space?
How many psi do you think there are in space?   ???

Quote
You have a rocket with gases at psi and huge in that massive vacuum against a piddly barometer with a tiny vacuum with a tiny area around that vacuum for the air pressure to act upon.
I'd say there is a massive......no, a humongous difference, wouldn't you.
No, I wouldn't.  The principle is exactly the same. 
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
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #234 on: June 07, 2013, 07:37:46 PM »
No psi in space?
Quote
No psi in space?
You have a rocket with gases at psi and huge in that massive vacuum against a piddly barometer with a tiny vacuum with a tiny area around that vacuum for the air pressure to act upon.
I'd say there is a massive......no, a humongous difference, wouldn't you. Make sure you quote all of what I said. Instead of making it look like I was wondering if there was no psi in space or not.
How many psi do you think there are in space?   ???
Quote
As they tell us, none...so do not twist things.

Quote
You have a rocket with gases at psi and huge in that massive vacuum against a piddly barometer with a tiny vacuum with a tiny area around that vacuum for the air pressure to act upon.
I'd say there is a massive......no, a humongous difference, wouldn't you.
No, I wouldn't.  The principle is exactly the same.
Quote
Only if the barometer was a complete vacuum, which it isn't.
>o< FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, LEARN HOW TO NEST REPLIES TO QUOTES PROPERLY.  IT MAKES REPLYING TO INDIVIDUAL POINTS A LOT EASIER.

*sigh*  The empty space at the top of a barometer is a complete vacuum.
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
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #235 on: June 07, 2013, 07:46:27 PM »
Incorrect Marko.
Trust me, proper nesting of quotes makes keeping track of multiple replies within a post a lot easier.
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
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #236 on: June 07, 2013, 07:58:20 PM »
Incorrect Marko.
Trust me, proper nesting of quotes makes keeping track of multiple replies within a post a lot easier.
I'm talking about your barometer vacuum.
Then please explain why I'm incorrect.
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
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #237 on: June 07, 2013, 08:22:36 PM »
Because you said it's a complete vacuum and it isn't.
Why is it not a complete vacuum?
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
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #238 on: June 07, 2013, 08:31:29 PM »
Because you said it's a complete vacuum and it isn't.
Why is it not a complete vacuum?
Because if it was, it would not still be a barometer.
Why not?  The vacuum is what makes a barometer work.
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
  • 42529
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #239 on: June 07, 2013, 08:48:04 PM »
Because you said it's a complete vacuum and it isn't.
Why is it not a complete vacuum?
Because if it was, it would not still be a barometer.
Why not?  The vacuum is what makes a barometer work.
Yes. But that's the point....If it were a perfect vacuum there would be no barometer as the glass tube wouldn't be intact.
If there is no vacuum in the glass tube, then what is supporting the 29 or so inches of mercury in the tube?
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.