OK, rabinoz, you are right, I will try not to be rude when talking about FET any more.
Stop talking rubbish about "Tardigrades", we are talking about people!
And what do you claim: "The ISS is pressurised to ?"
And what "Circular logic!" ?
What on earth are you talking about with As I've shown, that option is epistemically impossible (at least to me, and I guess to all of you).
You have shown nothing of the sort! All you have shown is that you don't know how do do it!
I must be slow! In your post you posed what seemed like questions which I answered in good faith, then get is all thrown back in my face. The trouble is you know nothing of engineering design or capabilities!
Maybe I am "one of the worst apologetics any ideology has ever had! ", but your lack of understanding is abysmal.
OK, sorry, I was trolling a lot (red herring and quote mining). But you really can't blame me. Just put yourself in the FE-er's shoes, just for a second. What do you see? You see smart people believing something that you see every day with your own eyes that it is wrong. You naturally try to talk about it with them and change it. But they use all of their intelligence to defend the indefensible position. How does that make you feel? I mean, it really makes me feel furious. Sorry about that, but that's simply the human nature. If I try to change myself, I just feel guilty.
Of course I know how high passenger aircraft fly! But I said "pressurised to the equivalent of not higher than 2,400 m (8,000 ft)". We are not talking about the air pressure outside the aircraft, but the pressure in the cabin - pressurised!
Yes, "forces are vectors", so what? You say "the pressure acting on the wall of ISS is FOUR TIMES (100%/25%) grater (sic)" If you want to be so fussy 10.9 psi pressurisation and 3.47 psi outside pressure (at 35,000 ft), a difference of 7.54 psi cf 14.7 at sea level. I believe that makes it less than 2 TIMES
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. English is not my first language. But I don't think that that's entirely my fault, since you said:
Passenger aircraft are supposed to be pressurised...
You should've said something like: "The pressure in the cabin is kept at…". Besides that, the word "pressurised" is not even in my dictionary.
Maybe I'm no expert on fluid mechanics! It was only a small part of study some 60 years ago, but yes, I know about Bernoulli and osmotic pressure! But, what is the slightest relevance of these to the pressure inside the ISS?
I explained what I meant, but I don't blame you if you didn't read that. Namely, they claim that ISS is able to turn urine back into water using the same method that we use to desalinate water. Well, I've read in my chemistry textbook that we do that by putting the semipermeable membrane between the salt and sweet water and then putting something on that salt water to increase its pressure above the osmotic pressure. But in zero-g, that is completely unfeasible, isn't it?
Context, context! I believed we were talking about possible ways to increase the pressure inside the ISS and apart from anything else how is the "dynamic pressure" due to a high velocity going to help anyone breath - or osmotic pressure?
I had assumed you had those same misconceptions about physics people I talked to in real life had. These people seem to honestly believe that you can increase the pressure by making the air circulate, that people are able to survive zero pressure if the pressure is decreased gradually, that you can desalinate water using filter-paper, and so on. And that really annoys me, and when I try to explain to them why it is wrong, they usually just attack me for not being a scientist and they don't trust me.
You are really low! just because you could not find the information "Sorry, I just couldn't find it by Googling, so I guess you just made it up." That is your failure, not mine!
partly from" http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/179225main_ISS_Poster_Back.pdf
The modules are shaped like canisters and spheres.
I still have no bright idea how did you calculate the total area from that data.
I know the pressure is the other direction, but the pressure at the test depth of some submarines (950 ft) is about 28 atmospheres! The test pressure on LPG transports is about 17 atmospheres. Yes I know that weight is less of a problem, but the ISS is pressurised to 1 atmosphere not 28!
So, you are claiming that submarines are pressured with 28 atmospheres. Well, to me, that seems very unlikely. First of all, as a FE-er, I am not allowed to believe in submarines until I see enough evidence of them. As far as I am concerned, I've heard only the stories about them. When I tell things like that to people in real life, they consider me crazy, but, to me, that's not a proof of any kind. Second of all, even if they do exist, it is still unlikely that they endure pressure of 28 bars. That hydrostatic pressure would only occur at around 285 meters. I've calculated it using p(h)=rho*g*h. The atmospheric pressure inside the submarine and above the see cancel each other out. Density (rho) of water is around 1000, g is 9.81 and one bar of pressure is equivalent to 10ˆ5 Pascals (so, p(h) is 28*10ˆ5). If you don't trust me, solve the equation. And the actual depth at which that pressure would be total is significantly lower. First of all, it is decreased by the buoyancy. And the buoyancy force is proportional to the volume of that submarine. So, the pressure is decreased by p(u)=rho*g*V/S (I don't know if that formula is correct, I deduced it from F(u)=rho*g*V and p=F/S. If you think that it's wrong, tell me.) I can't calculate it because I don't know neither the volume (V) neither the area (S) of that submarine. Also, even if the submarine somehow reaches that depth, it will probably be moving very fast. And the formula of the dynamic pressure is p(d)=rho*vˆ2/2. (I have no intuitive explanation for why it would be exactly that, but it doesn't contradict my experience) So, the pressure acting on it is also going to be decreased by the dynamic pressure, and it grows very fast compared to the speed. In fact, I've calculated that a submarine of dimensions 1x1x1 meter (and I guess the actual submarines are much bigger) moving at 3m/s (and I guess the actual submarines move a lot faster) relatively to the water would have to go as deep as 390 meters to achieve that pressure of 28 atmospheres. I have never even heard of someone claiming that they go that deep. And the depth is greater (thanks for correcting my spelling of that word, BTW) the greater the volume and speed is. Third of all, it really isn't a good analogy. I mean, the pressure an object can endure is affected by the shape of that object and by the direction at which that pressure is acting on (from the inside or the outside). Most of the people, including you, already know that, but are not aware to what extent. A chick is able to break the shell of an egg using only its beak, while a chicken can literally lie on that egg without breaking it. And ISS is supposed to be made mostly of spheres, right? Well, that should be impossible!
To be clear, I don't believe in airplanes either, they just happen to make the FET easier to defend.
Why would I refute
"there MUST BE ZERO PRESSURE at the ISS."
? At an altitude of 400 km the air pressure is near enough to ZERO - who's arguing?
My statement "Remember that crew can spend long periods in the ISS." was to justify the sea level pressurisation and not the 8,000 ft pressurisation used in commercial aircraft, nothing more!
If I wasn't clear, I am sorry, I was saying that it is impossible to KEEP any pressure close to the atmospheric inside the ISS.
I would not claim to know how to do it either, but the engineers that design aircraft, etc do know!
Here we go again! That's one of the stupidest RE arguments, yet one of the most common. I mean no disrespect to you, hey, I was once a RE-er using exactly that argument. Look, I realize that nobody knows everything. I realize that there might be something that I think I know but that isn't true, and that that leads me to the wrong conclusion. But can't you at least TRY to reach the truth?! You had been in school for decade(s), so why shouldn't you be allowed to use what you had learned?
The air pressure at 70,000 feet (21,357 m) is 4.9 kPa or about 0.045 atmospheres! The Concorde was not a big as the ISS, but there is so little difference in pressure between 0.045 atmospheres at 0.00 atmospheres that it makes no difference to the design strength needed.
So, let me try to rephrase that story: The airplane started to move uncontrollably and they think they reached some impossible altitude, but somehow they survived. Wow! Well, I know that's against all odds. Let's for the sake of argument assume that airplanes exist. Does that mean that this story is true? Well, no. It could be made up to be sold to the newspapers. And let's assume that this is true, that people who wrote this story truly believed that. What is more likely: that they were deceived by the instruments or that they really reached the altitude they thought was impossible?
See, if you are a FE-er, you automatically reject any explanation involving the rotundity of the Earth as wrong. Think of the people of different religions talking about miracles. They never see their god, they always just try to explain something that they couldn't explain otherwise using their religion. It is obvious that they are making arguments from ignorance.
See, the same goes for the story you just told. If airplanes exist, they are too complicated for anyone to understand exactly how they work (each part). Even if an engineer says that they couldn't explain how could the instruments show that they are higher than possible, that doesn't mean that the RE is the most probable explanation.
In fact, I think that that explanation is not even wrong. It contradicts with what we see every single day.
Engineering saying:
Difficulties handled immediately, Impossibilities take a little longer
Of course they want us to think that. But you, if you want to reach the truth, should ask for a proof. I know that people would consider you crazy. But you will still win the vast majority of debates. And that will give you a great pleasure. When I try to talk people out of believing in airplanes, for example, they ridicule me. They ask me even to visit a psychiatrist. But, when asked, they have to admit they have never seen an airplane, yet alone flown in it, and that they really have no rational justification for believing in them. Yet they still think I am irrational. Well, every truth passes through three stages of acceptance: ridicule, serious opposition and acceptance. And, so, I know that, if airplanes really don't exist, they will accept that and consider me the smartest man on the planet. And if they do, OK, I will be ridiculed once again, but only for a short time.
You believe what you like, but from what I can see you fail to back it with any actual facts!
What do you mean by that? I mean, come on, aren't the laws of physics facts? And, you know what, when I ask that in real life, they just attack me. One of my friends told me: "If you honestly believe that, why don't you do some experiments with manometers in an anti-gravity chamber and win a nobel prize?" And when I explained to him that anti-gravity chambers don't exist and that manometers wouldn't work on zero-gravity, he started whining about how rude and arrogant I am. But, hey, do you know how much pleasure I felt winning that debate?
So, being a FE-er is not always bad. You win the debates, you don't feel cognitive dissonance trying to convince yourself nonsense, you feel good about yourself being one of the few trying to reach the truth about the shape of the Earth…
And I really shouldn't even be attempting to prove that ISS doesn't exist. The burden on proof is definitely on you. Don't take it as an attack, take it as a fact.
Anyway, I would suggest we get back to the topic of the GPS.