Space Flight

who force fed you that space is an absolute vacuum?

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 14, 2013, 11:08:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2013, 11:02:53 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 14, 2013, 10:45:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2013, 10:33:55 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 14, 2013, 09:44:04 AM

If you pressurized a tire in a sealed container at atmo,  what would happen to said tire when taken out of the sealed container?

It would blow the container apart before you got it out. It would just compress the air already inside.

Let me rephrase,  if you were inside a sealed room at atmo, no air in or out , and you filled a tire to the proper pressure; what would happen to the tire when you removed it from the sealed room and exposed it to the atmospheric pressure?

You couldn't do it.

Why?  It should just drop the pressure inside the room a bit too do it,  as well as add a bit more carbon dioxide and other biproducts of the pump.   What makes it impossible?

You couldn't fill the tyre with the proper pressure...it would explode...that's why I'm saying it's impossible.

So, no matter how little air you put in the tire (you brits and your terrible spelling, learn English already ) it must explode? What about one molecule of oxygen? That would have to be one strong molecule?!

Obviously one molecule will not have the energy to burst the tire even in a vacuum, nor two, nor three, etc.... Therefore there must be some amount of air that the tire can contain even in a vacuum.

Quote from: Rama Set on June 14, 2013, 02:47:45 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2013, 10:41:40 AM

Quote from: Rama Set

The air would try to expand yes, but the  net pressure it applies would not go up simply because you are in a vacuum.

You have seen a balloon in a vacuum chamber right?
The more air that gets sucked out...the bigger the balloon expands to fill the vacuum and then it pops.
Just like your space rocket would if space is a vacuum and it could reach space.

Space craft are not made from a thin sheet of a highly elastic substance. This makes all the difference in the world.

It makes no difference at all in space, if it's the vacuum we are told.

Of course it would make a difference. An aluminum sheet remains as strong as ever and oxygen can only apply so much force and it is not always going to be enough to cause metal to explode. Unless you can explain metals sudden inability to withstand the outward pressure?

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on June 15, 2013, 01:15:19 AM

but maybe space is not an absolute vacuum.
why do you believe everything you are told scepti?

what Zetetic experiments have you performed?

I don't believe everything I'm told, so what kind of comment is this?
I said, "if space is the vacuum they tell us it is."
The problem still stands about vacuums though.

So if you think "space" is filled with air or some kind of gas, why can't rockets work in space, fly to the moon etc.?

The only way I can do this, is to argue it from the point of claims that space is a vacuum.
If it's not...then we are being lied to.
If it is...we are being lied to.

So either way, we're being lied to.

To clarify, space is not a perfect vacuum. A perfect vacuum is a volume of space that contains absolutely no matter, not even a single sub-atomic particle. Space does contain matter, but in miniscule quantities, meaning that it is not a perfect vacuum, but it's close enough for general discussions on the subject.

On another point, do you understand that "psi" is an acronym for "pounds per square inch"? You seem to be confusing it with volume, which would be in cubic inches, cubic feet, gallons, litres, etc.

The larger the chamber...the stronger it has to be, because it has an enormous amount of psi inside it and an enormous amount surrounding the outside of it, equalizing it from inside and out.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. If the chamber is at 0psi inside, and the atmosphere is at 14.7psi outside, then the pressures are clearly not equalised (0 ≠ 14.7). If what you were trying to say was that there is a lot of nothing inside, and a lot of air outside, that would be more correct.

Simply put, a pressure vessel of any kind does not equalise with the surrounding environment, it actually maintains a difference in pressure  between the inside and outside of the vessel. That is the purpose of a pressure vessel. If it did what you suggest, it would be useless, as it would not retain any pressure.

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 15, 2013, 05:16:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2013, 01:21:56 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on June 15, 2013, 01:15:19 AM

but maybe space is not an absolute vacuum.
why do you believe everything you are told scepti?

what Zetetic experiments have you performed?

I don't believe everything I'm told, so what kind of comment is this?
I said, "if space is the vacuum they tell us it is."
The problem still stands about vacuums though.

So if you think "space" is filled with air or some kind of gas, why can't rockets work in space, fly to the moon etc.?

I don't know what space is filled with. I can only guess...but we are 'told' it is a vacuum so I dare say that somewhere high up (however high) it make be devoid of matter.

For now, the point of debate, is about rockets and vacuums, right?
So that's what we are dealing with.

Maybe space is not a vacuum. And space travel is possible.
Scepti why do you believe everything NASA tells you?

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 15, 2013, 05:05:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2013, 01:07:44 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 14, 2013, 11:08:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2013, 11:02:53 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 14, 2013, 10:45:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2013, 10:33:55 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 14, 2013, 09:44:04 AM

If you pressurized a tire in a sealed container at atmo,  what would happen to said tire when taken out of the sealed container?

It would blow the container apart before you got it out. It would just compress the air already inside.

Let me rephrase,  if you were inside a sealed room at atmo, no air in or out , and you filled a tire to the proper pressure; what would happen to the tire when you removed it from the sealed room and exposed it to the atmospheric pressure?

You couldn't do it.

Why?  It should just drop the pressure inside the room a bit too do it,  as well as add a bit more carbon dioxide and other biproducts of the pump.   What makes it impossible?

You couldn't fill the tyre with the proper pressure...it would explode...that's why I'm saying it's impossible.

So, no matter how little air you put in the tire (you brits and your terrible spelling, learn English already ) it must explode? What about one molecule of oxygen? That would have to be one strong molecule?!

Obviously one molecule will not have the energy to burst the tire even in a vacuum, nor two, nor three, etc.... Therefore there must be some amount of air that the tire can contain even in a vacuum.

The question was about filling the bike tyre to it's normal atmospheric inflation, which would be something like 120/130 psi and that's why my answer was how it was.

I wasn't referring to filling the tire in a vacuum, but just in a sealed room which is at atmospheric pressure, or 14.7 psi.  And car tires, when properly inflated, are in range of 28 to 32 psi typically.  I see absolutely no reason why this tire would not be able to be inflated.  Even so, lets just say you inflate it as much as you can before it pops, lets say 20 psi, what would happen to the tire when it left the sealed room?

Quote from: DuckDodgers

I wasn't referring to filling the tire in a vacuum, but just in a sealed room which is at atmospheric pressure, or 14.7 psi.  And car tires, when properly inflated, are in range of 28 to 32 psi typically.  I see absolutely no reason why this tire would not be able to be inflated.  Even so, lets just say you inflate it as much as you can before it pops, lets say 20 psi, what would happen to the tire when it left the sealed room?

I never inferred that the tire was in a vacuum but you are creating a small vacuum, the minute you start to put air in that tyre in that 'sealed' room that starts off at atmospheric pressure.
The more you put air into the tyre from that atmosphere in that sealed room, that room ceases to become full atmospheric pressure but it wants to become it's normal state, so the air in the tyre expands itself to get into the room to equalize the pressure.

Your tyre will expand and if you open the door to the room, the full atmospheric pressure will rush in and fill the room back to equalized pressure and compress the tire to now equalize the pressure inside of it.

If you get stuck on what I've said, just tell me which part and I'll gladly simplify it.

You are not creating a small vacuum at all just by filling a tire in a filled room.  And I suppose the situation was flawed for what I was trying to get at.  You seem to be implying that the size of the pressure environment around a pressurized container causes the force applied to the vehicle to change.  If you take an object inflated to 30 psi outside and you move it into a room, 10 ft cubed that is sealed off from the outside environment and is at atmo, the force wouldn't change just because the outside environment shrank.  Atmospheric pressure is the same whether in a small cube, a large room, a building, or outside, 14.7 psi is 14.7 psi.  Similarly, a vacuum is the same whether it is in a small cube, large room, a building, or in space, 0 psi is 0 psi.

who force fed you that space is an absolute vacuum?

NASA.

but Scepti says he is not force fed. 

Sceptimatic, in fact you are saying that vacuum is at an infinite negative pressure, right ?

Quote from: DuckDodgers

If you take an object inflated to 30 psi outside and you move it into a room, 10 ft cubed that is sealed off from the outside environment and is at atmo, the force wouldn't change just because the outside environment shrank.  Atmospheric pressure is the same whether in a small cube, a large room, a building, or outside, 14.7 psi is 14.7 psi.  Similarly, a vacuum is the same whether it is in a small cube, large room, a building, or in space, 0 psi is 0 psi.

You are totally missing the point here.

If you inflated a car tyre ,'outside' of the room and then put it in that room, you have simply put it in exactly the same environment as it was outside and all you have done is shut the door, so the tyre would stay exactly how it was when you put it in.
You are confusing yourself.

So the size of the environment doesn't change anything?  Thank you for clarifying that.  Now why can something be placed in a vacuum chamber on Earth and not explode, but would explode out in space?  The pressures of the environment are the exact same, 0 psi.

Quote from: Antonio on June 15, 2013, 08:49:15 AM

Sceptimatic, in fact you are saying that vacuum is at an infinite negative pressure, right ?

If we go by what we are told, then a vacuum is zero pressure or as close as...as to be negative and infinite.
That's what the scientific world would have us believe and they base all their rocketry, etc, on it, so to argue that, we must go by their version of events.

 
Why do you go by what are you are force fed and not Zetism ?

Quote from: Antonio on June 15, 2013, 08:49:15 AM

Sceptimatic, in fact you are saying that vacuum is at an infinite negative pressure, right ?

If we go by what we are told, then a vacuum is zero pressure or as close as...as to be negative and infinite.
That's what the scientific world would have us believe and they base all their rocketry, etc, on it, so to argue that, we must go by their version of events.

It's unclear. What do YOU think ? zero pressure or negative and infinite? that's not the same, is it ?

So are you saying that creating a vacuum on Earth is impossible?  And what can we pressurize containers to thousands of psi but we can't contain a pressure differential of 14.7 psi?  Deep sea submersibles have to deal with pressure differentials much, much greater than the 0 psi to 14.7 psi that would exist between atmo and space pressures.  Every 10 meters of ocean depth increases the pressure by 1 atmo, 14.7 psi. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste

This submersible travelled almost 11 km under the ocean.  That is 16,039.17 psi exerting outside the vehicle.  I couldn't find a reference about the internal pressure, but I'm sure it wouldn't be too much higher than atmo at the most, still substantially less than the 16k psi on the outside.  So obviously the 14.7 psi difference sounds quite insubstantial compared to that.

Quote from: Antonio on June 15, 2013, 11:21:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2013, 09:04:50 AM

Quote from: Antonio on June 15, 2013, 08:49:15 AM

Sceptimatic, in fact you are saying that vacuum is at an infinite negative pressure, right ?

If we go by what we are told, then a vacuum is zero pressure or as close as...as to be negative and infinite.
That's what the scientific world would have us believe and they base all their rocketry, etc, on it, so to argue that, we must go by their version of events.

It's unclear. What do YOU think ? zero pressure or negative and infinite? that's not the same, is it ?

It depends on how you want to twist it.
Let's just go for what we are debating, which is rockets and vacuum.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean,  I've asked you twice what is the pressure of vacuum, as you should define it before debating about rockets acting on it. It's quite reasonable.

The question is really simple, no tricks, no trap.
Please give me a plain, simple answer.

Firstly, I have an issue with your assumption that there is no way to safely have a container at atmo within a vacuum.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 15, 2013, 02:46:46 PM

Firstly, I have an issue with your assumption that there is no way to safely have a container at atmo within a vacuum.

I'm going to answer this question with a question first, just so I know how your mindset is on what we are talking about, so I apologise for doing this.

Actually it's two questions.
1. Can you force too much air into a container and explode it?
2.Can you suck too much air out of a container and implode it?
How you answer these, will determine if you are grasping anything I've put forward.

These are very incomplete questions, but very well.
1.  Yes
2.  Yes
However, the design of the container will dictate whether and when they explode/implode.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 15, 2013, 02:59:53 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2013, 02:54:19 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 15, 2013, 02:46:46 PM

Firstly, I have an issue with your assumption that there is no way to safely have a container at atmo within a vacuum.

I'm going to answer this question with a question first, just so I know how your mindset is on what we are talking about, so I apologise for doing this.

Actually it's two questions.
1. Can you force too much air into a container and explode it?
2.Can you suck too much air out of a container and implode it?
How you answer these, will determine if you are grasping anything I've put forward.

These are very incomplete questions, but very well.
1.  Yes
2.  Yes
However, the design of the container will dictate whether and when they explode/implode.

Great stuff'
At least you are getting there a little bit.
Just to be a bit more clear with you. They could use any design they wanted and any thickness, but if you attempt to suck out more air than it can handle, then it implodes and if you put too much air pressure in, it will explode, do you agree with this before I go on...and if not, tell me why not, in very simple terms.

As long as you understand the difference between a vacuum and negative air pressure.

1. Can you force too much air into a container and explode it?
2.Can you suck too much air out of a container and implode it?

If I may, I'll submit my answers as well:

1. Yes, always, the limit depends only on the design of the container
2. Not necessarily. If the container is weak, yes, but if it has been designed to withstand the difference between atmospheric 14.7psi and vacuum 0psi, then no. Btw, designing for this is not hard, as I pointed out earlier, light bulbs often use a near-total vacuum to stop the filament burning up.

Quote from: Scintific Method on June 15, 2013, 03:37:27 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2013, 02:54:19 PM

1. Can you force too much air into a container and explode it?
2.Can you suck too much air out of a container and implode it?

If I may, I'll submit my answers as well:

1. Yes, always, the limit depends only on the design of the container
2. Not necessarily. If the container is weak, yes, but if it has been designed to withstand the difference between atmospheric 14.7psi and vacuum 0psi, then no. Btw, designing for this is not hard, as I pointed out earlier, light bulbs often use a near-total vacuum to stop the filament burning up.

You still fail to understand how atmospheric pressure works.
Oh and light bulbs are filled with an inert gas.

One of us certainly fails to understand pressure, and given that I have done numerous experiments involving pressure differences and vacuums, I think I know who it is...

As for light bulbs, here's a quote from a Wikipedia article on them:

"The hot filament is protected from oxidation with a glass bulb that is filled with inert gas (or evacuated)."

Evacuated means a vacuum has been created inside the bulb. We are both correct on this, although you imply they are all filled with inert gas, whereas I allow that only some use a vacuum. The ones using a vacuum are the ones that make a loud 'pop' when broken.

Oh, and I don't think you ever answered my question about the mercury barometer. What is in that empty space at the top? It's not air, and it's not mercury, so what is it?

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 15, 2013, 02:59:53 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2013, 02:54:19 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 15, 2013, 02:46:46 PM

Firstly, I have an issue with your assumption that there is no way to safely have a container at atmo within a vacuum.

I'm going to answer this question with a question first, just so I know how your mindset is on what we are talking about, so I apologise for doing this.

Actually it's two questions.
1. Can you force too much air into a container and explode it?
2.Can you suck too much air out of a container and implode it?
How you answer these, will determine if you are grasping anything I've put forward.

These are very incomplete questions, but very well.
1.  Yes
2.  Yes
However, the design of the container will dictate whether and when they explode/implode.

Great stuff'
At least you are getting there a little bit.
Just to be a bit more clear with you. They could use any design they wanted and any thickness, but if you attempt to suck out more air than it can handle, then it implodes and if you put too much air pressure in, it will explode, do you agree with this before I go on...and if not, tell me why not, in very simple terms.

Any container is only as strong as its design.   Once the design limit is exceeded,  it fails. 

Quote from: Scintific Method

Oh, and I don't think you ever answered my question about the mercury barometer. What is in that empty space at the top? It's not air, and it's not mercury, so what is it?

It's a partial vacuum.
I fail to see what you are getting at.

Partial vacuum? So what's in that space that makes it only a partial vacuum?
What I'm getting at is that that space is, essentially, the same level of vacuum as space. It's only a small volume, but it is still a vacuum. What you have been saying, as far as I can tell, is that the top of the tube should collapse violently under atmospheric pressure, and yet it doesn't.

I know you know about air pressures, I'll give you that.
All I'm saying , with all due respect to you...is...you are missing some crucial thinking about it, which is the reason we cannot agree on it.
I'm not trying to be smug here but I also know what I'm talking about...but let's not get into a dick measuring contest and we can get to the bottom of the problem, so we are both clear. Ok?

Would you say that the crucial thinking I'm missing is the volumes involved? I am well aware of the volumes involved, but I am also aware that they do not really make much of a difference. A billion cubic miles of air at 14.7psi applies the same amount of pressure to something as a single cubic inch of air at 14.7psi. Note I said pressure, not force. The force applied depends entirely on the surface area of the object.

I'm not trying to be a smart-arse, I'm just trying to explain things as I understand them.

So now you know that they can all be breached, it's just a matter of pressure from outside or inside a vessel.

So bearing that in mind...and the fact that we are talking about rockets in the vacuum of space as we are constantly reminded that space is...you should now be clear in your mind that any rocket carrying fuel into that vacuum, will be rendered useless in short order, because it will surrender its gases to that vacuum 'unconditionally.'

Except rockets are specifically designed to function in a vacuum.  You are putting far too little faith in human ingenuity.  I can't begin to tell you how a rocket engine actually functions, but I can telling you that like any other engine, fuel flow rate plays a major part in its workings.  I would also imagine that the exhaust area of the rocket would be the most resiliently designed portion of the rocket to counter the fact that it is a designed exit for matter.

Quote from: Antonio on June 15, 2013, 12:52:04 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2013, 11:27:22 AM

Quote from: Antonio on June 15, 2013, 11:21:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2013, 09:04:50 AM

Quote from: Antonio on June 15, 2013, 08:49:15 AM

Sceptimatic, in fact you are saying that vacuum is at an infinite negative pressure, right ?

If we go by what we are told, then a vacuum is zero pressure or as close as...as to be negative and infinite.
That's what the scientific world would have us believe and they base all their rocketry, etc, on it, so to argue that, we must go by their version of events.

It's unclear. What do YOU think ? zero pressure or negative and infinite? that's not the same, is it ?

It depends on how you want to twist it.
Let's just go for what we are debating, which is rockets and vacuum.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean,  I've asked you twice what is the pressure of vacuum, as you should define it before debating about rockets acting on it. It's quite reasonable.

The question is really simple, no tricks, no trap.
Please give me a plain, simple answer.

And like I've told you...to make it simple...let's go with 'zero' psi.

You started saying  maybe zero maybe negative. Anyway, why quoting 'zero' ? It's a bit difficult to have some clear answers here.
I insist on this because it's the main point. Should we go now further with your assumption of a real zero pressure vacuum, without quotes, or you think that this zero psi has something special ?
Please keep it plain and simple.

Quote from: Scintific Method

Partial vacuum? So what's in that space that makes it only a partial vacuum?

This is an excellent question...one of which I've been waiting to answer and as to why people underestimate, atmospheric pressure.
The reason it's only a partial vacuum, is, because not all of the air has been taken out....some is left in which expands to equalise the outside pressure, which because the vacuum itself was solely created by the mercury's weight, it's weight is not strong enough to create a full vacuum. If you don't understand this... tell me why and I'll be glad to explain.

What is in the top of the mercury tube if not a vacuum?

Quote from: Scintific Method

Partial vacuum? So what's in that space that makes it only a partial vacuum?

This is an excellent question...one of which I've been waiting to answer and as to why people underestimate, atmospheric pressure.
The reason it's only a partial vacuum, is, because not all of the air has been taken out....some is left in which expands to equalise the outside pressure, which because the vacuum itself was solely created by the mercury's weight, it's weight is not strong enough to create a full vacuum. If you don't understand this... tell me why and I'll be glad to explain.

But all the air was driven out when the mercury filled the tube, there can be none left.

Oh, and if you take 1 cubic inch of air at 14.7psi and expand it to fill 10 cubic inches of space (not hard to do, a similar thing can be done with a cheap medical syringe by blocking the end with your finger and pulling the plunger back), it won't stay at 14.7psi unless you add a lot of energy to it! What you will end up with if all you do is expand the air, is 10 cubic inches of air at 1.47psi (please note the decimal point).

Quote from: Scintific Method

What I'm getting at is that that space is, essentially, the same level of vacuum as space. It's only a small volume, but it is still a vacuum. What you have been saying, as far as I can tell, is that the top of the tube should collapse violently under atmospheric pressure, and yet it doesn't.

It will only implode, if more air is taken from it.
Under just the weight of the mercury itself, which created that partial vacuum...the tube is well strong enough to withstand outside air pressure against it.

Say I have a really long tube, and a deep container of mercury. When I lift that tube 30 inches out of the mercury, the mercury stops rising with the tube and stays at 30 inches (well, 29.9 at sea level on an ICAO standard day). If I continue to lift the tube, that empty space gets bigger and bigger, but the tube won't break. Why?

Quote from: Scintific Method

Would you say that the crucial thinking I'm missing is the volumes involved? I am well aware of the volumes involved, but I am also aware that they do not really make much of a difference. A billion cubic miles of air at 14.7psi applies the same amount of pressure to something as a single cubic inch of air at 14.7psi. Note I said pressure, not force. The force applied depends entirely on the surface area of the object.

I'm not trying to be a smart-arse, I'm just trying to explain things as I understand them.

This is where you are going wrong. You see,  we , as humans with our small frames against the amount of air pressure in volume around us, can happily survive in it, because we equalize that pressure fairly easily as long as we stay strong enough to withstand it.
Trust me...air pressure can be complicated for many people to logically get their heads around, because they only think of it in basically irrelevant thoughts...such as, ' oh, it's nothing, we can run in it and breathe it, so it's no big deal.'
Which it isn't, in that context.
It starts to become more difficult to understand when you start to mess with it's natural atmospheric density...this is where people lose track of it.
If you want a one on one explanation, I'd be happy to give you one and I'm not being smug...I really do know what I'm talking about on this.

Pressure is pressure, 14.7psi means there is 14.7 pounds of force being applied to every square inch of a surface exposed to it. Makes no difference how much air is pushing on that surface, it's still only pushing with a force of 14.7psi.

If I am missing something, please do point it out.

Quote from: Stabbald

Half of your argument relies on the made up "fact" that anything sent into space will instantly explode due to the vacuum. This is *impossible* unless the pressure of space is vastly negative, which it isn't. It's been demonstrated to you repeatedly that things have already been built that can withstand pressure differentials orders of magnitude higher.

Any rocket sent into a zero psi vacuum will 'expand' all of it's fuel, 'immediately' into that vacuum.Any pressure against zero pressure as in a virtual vacuum, will 'always' attempt to equalize that pressure.
The rocket, will be breached due to expanded gases against no resistance.

Actually, the fuel and oxidizer in most space rockets are stored in a liquid form and pumped into into the rocket engine's combustion chamber where they are converted into gasses and burned.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 16, 2013, 03:31:24 AM

Quote from: Scintific Method

Partial vacuum? So what's in that space that makes it only a partial vacuum?

This is an excellent question...one of which I've been waiting to answer and as to why people underestimate, atmospheric pressure.
The reason it's only a partial vacuum, is, because not all of the air has been taken out....some is left in which expands to equalise the outside pressure, which because the vacuum itself was solely created by the mercury's weight, it's weight is not strong enough to create a full vacuum. If you don't understand this... tell me why and I'll be glad to explain.

What is in the top of the mercury tube if not a vacuum?

Maybe some mercury vapor?

Quote from: Antonio

I insist on this because it's the main point. Should we go now further with your assumption of a real zero pressure vacuum, without quotes, or you think that this zero psi has something special ?
Please keep it plain and simple.

If you want to keep things simple, then stop the twisting. You clearly know I'm talking about a vacuum and it couldn't be any clearer throughout this topic...so to be simple...we are talking about a vacuum, ok?

Well actually you are twisting simple things. I'm just asking you to clearly define vacuum, as it seems that you have a personal definition for it. Nothing more, nothing less. I understand that you are under heavy crossfire and immediately light your defense mode, but you are constantly avoiding the answer.

You often say "be open minded, don't be spoonfed".  I agree, and thence cannot blindly believe your theories just because you say "I'm right" ? So please go forward:
Is you definition of vacuum at a zero pressure state? If no, please explain, if yes, let's go to the following step.

Simple.