Think ultra carefully about what I'm about to say.
I'm going to use water as a substitute for atmosphere, just for this thought process, so you can grasp what I'm about to say.
How about you stop treating me (and everyone else that doesn't accept your model and instead points out flaws) like a moron, cut out all the insults (implied or otherwise) and stick to answering questions/explaining stuff?
Water is just a denser atmosphere when all is said and done, so don't give it the old, " ahh but water isn't atmosphere" bollocks, ok?
Well, in your model they seem to have fundamental differences, unless that is just another problem with your model.
If you take a bag underwater, and fill it with air such that it displaces the water, will it weigh more or less?
According to it being just like the atmosphere, as you have displaced more of it, it should weigh more.
Ok, let's take two goldfish bags (you know, those from the fair) without the goldfish in ( I'm using the goldfish bags without the goldfish, from the fair, to make it appear more interesting).
Ok so we have two bags filled with equal amounts of water.
They weight the same. It's like we have two bags of atmosphere, so let's evacuate one bag.
Ok we flatten the bag and find that the bag of water weighs much more.
Why?
Because the bag with the water in it contains the water which has a mass.
That is how it works in reality.
And lets not flatten it. Instead, lets keep it having the exact same shape to make it a valid analogy.
Because the atmosphere is being pushed out of the way by the water filled bag but the flat bag (the evacuated one) weights very little because the bag does not push away very much atmosphere at all now and we see that on the scale.
Nope, unless by "atmosphere" you mean water?
If you do, then no, the empty bag, pushes away more water than the other bag. This is because as well as displacing the physical volume of the plastic bag, it also has to displace the inner volume of the bag, while the water filled one just displaces the bag as the contents are water.
This means that the empty bag is displacing more, and thus should weigh more.
Instead we get the opposite, that the empty bag weighs less.
If you didn't mean water and instead meant atmosphere, then nope, both bags have the same volume and thus displace as much air as each other. Thus according to your model they should weigh the same.
Ok ok, I just know you're going to shout "no no no scepti, I'm talking about air in a jar.2
Ok then let's do that one.
So why didn't you just start with that?
Two thin plastic jars with valves on to evacuate air from them.
Both jars are at equalisation of pressure with the external atmosphere, give or take minor pressure changes.
Both jars weigh exactly the same on extremely delicate scales.
Ok, now we evacuate the air from one.
What you will notice is that as you evacuate the air from the jar, it starts to crush. the external atmosphere is crushing it.
No. Lets not use thin flimsy plastic jars.
Lets instead use strong glass jars, which have negligible volume change upon pressurisation and depressurisation, such that the volume change is negligible.
So no, the jar does not crush enough for that crushing to be important.
Even if it did, there would be no reason to think the volume of the walls changes, instead it will likely bend the walls, or as it crushes it make the walls thicker. So that shouldn't displace any less air.
Remember when you said it doesn't happen?
Well here we are seeing the atmosphere crushing the jar because the air is being allowed out due to the pumps energy compressing the external atmosphere away from the jar and in doing so, allows that atmosphere to crush the more expanded (less) amount of molecules resisting that crush.
Yes. Remember how you are horribly manipulating the situation to suit your agenda rather than honestly answering?
The volume change is negligible. It cannot account for the mass difference.
You have a 1L glass container (approximate volume), which is roughly spherical with a wall thickness of a few mm.
This part wont use actual numbers and simplify the shape a bit, but if you like, I can get you them, at least rough numbers.
A sphere with an internal volume of 1L, and a wall thickness of 3 mm. This means it has an internal radius of ~6.2 cm and an external radius of ~6.5 cm, and thus an external volume of 1152 ml, so the wall itself is 152.2 ml. That means the maximum amount of volume of air displaced by the container when full of air is 152 ml.
It is then evacuated down to 1 mbar, so it contains only 1 1000th of the atmosphere. That means only 1 ml of air is left inside.
If the contraction is negligible, it would have thus displaced an additional 999 ml of air. This means it is now displacing between 999 and 152 ml of air. This means it should be a minimum of 7.56 times as heavy.
If it somehow magically shrunk in the process so now it is only 500 ml internal volume, and the walls magically remained 3 ml wide, this would mean the wall volume is now 97 ml and you are now displacing only an additional 499.5 ml. If you somehow managed to make the walls not displace any air, so you were just dealing with the air displaced from inside, then you have 499.5 ml displaced instead of the maximum of 152 ml. But that is still 3.2 times as much. But these containers do not weigh 3.2 times as much. Instead, they weigh slightly less, and they definitely don't shrink any where near that much.
In order to account for the weight, this formerly 1L container has to shrink to an internal volume of 152.36 ml, or a radius of 3.31 cm, as an absolute maximum. If the walls displace any volume, it has to get smaller. And that is just to break even. To get the small reduction in mass, it would need to shrink a bit more.
But that doesn't happen.
Instead, the volume remains effectively the same and you have it weigh slightly less.
Will you see a change in weight?
Well let's go back to the denpressure system and what it actually means.
See the above explanation. That is what it means. The weight should increase if you suck the air out unless the container is crushed to a tiny fragment of what it used to be.
The jar full of air is at equal pressure to the external but in between those two pressures, you have a skin. (the jar itself).
Only at the start. Once you begin evacuating it, the pressure inside drops.
By how much can be seen by evacuating the air and seeing the jar crushed flat and that's the amount of atmosphere it displaces, which is the amount of atmosphere pushing down onto it and causing a reading on the scale plate.
Except it isn't.
When you evacuate a solid container, you don't see it getting crushed to any where near that scale.
And the same also works in reverse, where you pump more air in, it doesn't magically inflate it.
The one full of air would maybe show such a small change as to be negligible.
Yes, the volume change is negligible, but the mass change is still quite detectable, and your model can't explain it.
Now before you go responding by treating me like a moron and accusing me of not understanding or just looking for flaws, go and read my response and rationally respond to what I have said.
Read what I said.
I used the bags and thin plastic jars to allow your entire evacuation.
You don't need to completely empty it. You just need to get a decent lower pressure. That can be well below the implosion limit.
You used the bags to avoid the problem.
Glass jars will not allow you that as I explained before, because they resist external pressure and if you put a super string pump on, the external pressure would just implode the jar.
Really? Where did you explain it?
There are plenty of glass jars strong enough to withstand a perfect vacuum without imploding. The limitation is getting the perfect vacuum.
I'll tell you what.
Just use the glass jars and fill one with water and one without, as your evacuation.
And is the water meant to represent the atmosphere?
If so, guess what?
When you take the water out, the jar weighs less, even though more "atmosphere" is displaced.
If you are just using the water to displace the atmosphere, then that doesn't work, as it is adding the water in, completely ignoring the actual objection to your model; a situation which your model can't explain but gravity can.
If not then I don't know what you're trying to prove or what you actually want me to prove extra.
It's quite simple. (to understand what we want, explaining it is impossible).
Tell us how displacing more air can make something weigh less, using the basis of your claim that weight is proportional to how much air is displaced.
Yes, I know it is impossible, as if it is the case that weight is proportional to how much air is displaced, then displacing more air will cause it to weigh more; but that is the point. Your model cannot explain this. This shows your model contradicts reality.