Denspressure vs Reality

It was used to attain a constant velocity.

And thus it remains in that constant velocity.

Once at constant velocity it means you have no more energy to accelerate and only enough energy to hold a constant velocity.

That's right, no more energy to accelerate. That doesn't mean it won't keep you going at that constant velocity.

You have to understand the differences in terms of how it's all used, because the variations are many when comparing horizontal vehicles or vertical fixed energy applications as well as the obvious rocket in atmosphere argument.

And the main difference (again, neglecting air resistance and friction) is that with vertical motion there is a force (real or apparent) pushing you down, which you need to oppose and you need to apply energy to build up potential energy. But this doesn't stop you dead and force you down. You can convert kinetic energy into potential energy.

No such thing as inertia

Hence why I said WITHOUT INERTIA what keeps it going?

The widely accepted answer is that inertia aka its momentum keeps it going.

When you stop accelerating you decelerate.
When you stop going at a constant speed you slow from that exact constant on a horizontal but stop dead on a vertical.

Why so much magic difference?
Why should it matter if you accelerate before hand?
You are yet to justify that.
Why has no one observed something stopping dead instantly and instead repeatedly observed things continuing to move and slowing down gradually?

Applied energy to a mass by overcoming atmospheric pressure and  friction by that mass.

Except that doesn't explain why it sloshes at all.

Study this, it may help you.

Yes, this lets us see the sloshing of the air due to inertia and notice that it pushes thing in the exact opposite direction to what you claim it should.
When speeding up, the air sloshes backwards and forces the balloon forward, and so on.

It doesn't matter what you say the change is. If acceleration is always 1 then it accelerated from zero and then became a constant speed mph.

Its acceleration is always 1 m/s^2
That means at the end of the first second it travels at speed 1 m/s.
At the end of the second second it travels at 2 m/s.
At the end of the third second it travels at 3 m/s.
And so on.
With its constant acceleration of 1 m/s^2 it has a continually changing velocity.

The only time acceleration is constant with constant velocity is when acceleration is 0.
If your acceleration is anything other than 0, then your velocity must be changing.

However, you can have acceleration of a constant magnitude with velocity of a constant magnitude when travelling in a circle.

Again, it is similar to velocity vs position.
If you start at 0 and travel at a constant velocity of 1 m/s, then after 1 second you are 1 m away from the start.
At the end of the second second you are 2 m away from the start.
At the end of the third second you are 3 m away from the start.

It doesn't magically you mean attain a constant position.

So, do satellites exist in a denspressure reality?

Quote from: MicroBeta on November 28, 2017, 08:33:20 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 04:44:34 AM

<snip>

Quote from: JackBlack on November 28, 2017, 03:48:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 02:16:36 AM

I never said it did just stop, horizontally and you absolutely know this.

But the same argument applies.
Without inertia, what keeps it going?

No such thing as inertia
<snip>

However, your explanations exhibit inertial behavior.  Your so called “slosh effect”.  If there is no such thing as inertia, how do you explain the effect of sloshing atmosphere?

Mike

Applied energy to a mass by overcoming atmospheric pressure and  friction by that mass.


Study this, it may help you.

I understand your explanation so the video is not needed.  I understand the fluid dynamics and acceleration vector that makes the balloon move forward upon acceleration forward. Additionally, the air in the cabin moves to the rear of the car due to inertia...just sayin'

Mike

Study this, it may help you.

No problem, the behaviour of the balloon and the bubble fits perfectly with what I understand.

Now, what would the pendulum do if it were in a near vacuum? Would it behave any differently?

You're missing what acceleration is.  The change in speed from one time step to the next.  If it changes there is an applied acceleration for that time step.  If the next time step has a different speed the there was an acceleration for that time step. 

If a car goes from 0-60 mph in 5 seconds then the average acceleration is 12 m/s^2.  So in the first second the speed goes from 0-12 mph and so on to 60 mph.  It is entirely possible to have a constant change in speed.

As long as speed is changing it is accelerating.  It’s the very definition of acceleration...unless you know a way to change speed without acceleration.  And, of course you don’t because that would be just silly.

Mike

I'm not denying what's in red bold.
It's you that's arguing that it can be a constant and I'm telling you it can't.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 04:35:11 AM

Acceleration is a mph build.
Everything else is not.

So?
Speed is miles build.
Distance is not.

Distance means nothing.

So, do satellites exist in a denspressure reality?

Space as we are told does not exist so take from that what you need to in terms of understanding what I think about any of that stuff.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 08:53:40 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on November 28, 2017, 08:33:20 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 04:44:34 AM

<snip>

Quote from: JackBlack on November 28, 2017, 03:48:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 02:16:36 AM

I never said it did just stop, horizontally and you absolutely know this.

But the same argument applies.
Without inertia, what keeps it going?

No such thing as inertia
<snip>

However, your explanations exhibit inertial behavior.  Your so called “slosh effect”.  If there is no such thing as inertia, how do you explain the effect of sloshing atmosphere?

Mike

Applied energy to a mass by overcoming atmospheric pressure and  friction by that mass.


Study this, it may help you.

I understand your explanation so the video is not needed.  I understand the fluid dynamics and acceleration vector that makes the balloon move forward upon acceleration forward. Additionally, the air in the cabin moves to the rear of the car due to inertia...just sayin'

Mike

Then you stick to your inertia.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 08:53:40 AM

Study this, it may help you.

No problem, the behaviour of the balloon and the bubble fits perfectly with what I understand.

Now, what would the pendulum do if it were in a near vacuum? Would it behave any differently?

A vacuum is impossible so there's no point to it.

It's you that's arguing that it can be a constant and I'm telling you it can't.

And that's the problem, you are just telling us, with no justification of why.
All the evidence indicates that you can have constant acceleration.
That is what causes the parabolic trajectories of free falling objects.

Distance means nothing.

If distance means nothing then speed means nothing, as speed is a measure of distance per unit time.
This doesn't help you at all.

Why can you have a constant rate per unit time, but not a constant rate per unit time?

Quote from: rabinoz on November 28, 2017, 02:32:17 PM

No problem, the behaviour of the balloon and the bubble fits perfectly with what I understand.
Now, what would the pendulum do if it were in a near vacuum? Would it behave any differently?

A vacuum is impossible so there's no point to it.

I bolded the part you seemed to have missed.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 11:46:00 PM

It's you that's arguing that it can be a constant and I'm telling you it can't.

And that's the problem, you are just telling us, with no justification of why.
All the evidence indicates that you can have constant acceleration.
That is what causes the parabolic trajectories of free falling objects.

You can never have acceleration of parabolic free fall. The whole meaning of parabolic free fall is nonsense.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 11:47:09 PM

Distance means nothing.

If distance means nothing then speed means nothing, as speed is a measure of distance per unit time.
This doesn't help you at all.

It doesn't help any of us but you decided to go down this route and this is what you get.

You see, this is where your so called science messes you up.
One minute you can travel in so called space at a constant velocity and yet distance and speed are not strictly an issue because space is apparently a nothing.

Why can you have a constant rate per unit time, but not a constant rate per unit time?

When you are at a constant speed and then when you accelerate.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 11:51:28 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 28, 2017, 02:32:17 PM

No problem, the behaviour of the balloon and the bubble fits perfectly with what I understand.
Now, what would the pendulum do if it were in a near vacuum? Would it behave any differently?

A vacuum is impossible so there's no point to it.

I bolded the part you seemed to have missed.

I haven't missed anything.

It's like you trying to tell me about being close to infinity.
Any idea how close near infinity is?
Answer that and then the vacuum one will naturally answer in the same vein.

You can never have acceleration of parabolic free fall. The whole meaning of parabolic free fall is nonsense.

I never said acceleration of parabolic free fall.
I said a constant acceleration giving rise to parabolic free fall. There is nothing nonsensical about it.

But here you go, dismissing yet another simple fact of reality to try and avoid admitting you were wrong.

You have already accepted that acceleration is just another form of acceleration.
So if you constant accelerate downwards, you follow a parabolic path.

The simplest one is considering your vertical position as a function of time.
But if you have constant horizontal motion, you can have it as vertical position as a function of horizontal position.

If you start at v0 and d0, with a constant acceleration of -a, then at time t your velocity will be v=v0-a*t, and your position will be d=d0+v0*t-0.5*a*t^2.

notice how this is the function of a parabola?

And guess what happens if you throw something into the air? It follows this equation with a as roughly 9.8 m/s^2.
So yes, you can have a parabolic free fall.

It doesn't help any of us but you decided to go down this route and this is what you get.

Yes, I decided to go down this route to try and have you admit the error of your ways, but no, you just double down.

You see, this is where your so called science messes you up.

No, science has nothing to do with it now.
This is how you justify your claim that you can't have constant acceleration while still claiming you can have constant speed.

One minute you can travel in so called space at a constant velocity and yet distance and speed are not strictly an issue because space is apparently a nothing.
When you are at a constant speed and then when you accelerate.

Neither of these address the issue at all.
The first statement makes no sense and I have no idea what you are trying to say.
The second is just a statement which doesn't help at all.
When you are at a constant position and then when you start moving.

Again, why can you have a constant rate of change per unit time, but not a constant rate of change per unit time?

Both velocity and acceleration are rates of change.

Your initial objection was that acceleration was a rate of change, but that would apply equally for velocity.

It sure seems like you have no justification at all and just don't want to admit that you were wrong.

It's like you trying to tell me about being close to infinity.
Any idea how close near infinity is?
Answer that and then the vacuum one will naturally answer in the same vein.

No, it is nothing like that.
It is telling you to be close to 0, as in a perfect vacuum the pressure will be 0.
He asked about being at near vacuum conditions, i.e. near 0 pressure, not near infinite pressure.

So did you also miss that a vacuum is 0, not infinite?

Quote from: rabinoz on November 28, 2017, 02:32:17 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 08:53:40 AM

Study this, it may help you.

No problem, the behaviour of the balloon and the bubble fits perfectly with what I understand.

Now, what would the pendulum do if it were in a near vacuum? Would it behave any differently?

A vacuum is impossible so there's no point to it.

A "a near vacuum" is possible, so answer the question.

I could ask, "what would the pendulum do if it were in a chamber with an air pressure less than one millionth normal atmospheric pressure?"

But, "near vacuum" is a much shorter way of saying much the same thing.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 28, 2017, 02:32:17 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 08:53:40 AM

Study this, it may help you.

No problem, the behaviour of the balloon and the bubble fits perfectly with what I understand.

Now, what would the pendulum do if it were in a near vacuum? Would it behave any differently?

A vacuum is impossible so there's no point to it.

Did you never do the bell jar and alarm experimentation in school?
A ringing mechanical alarm was placed in a bell jar and the air evacuated.
After a while when no air remained in the jar the alarm though still operating,the hammer was still beating the bell, no sound was heard.
Now while a perfect vacuum was not created it was as near for practical purposes.

Why do you think an absence of air in a given volume is not possible?

Quote from: MicroBeta on November 28, 2017, 11:31:41 AM

You're missing what acceleration is.  The change in speed from one time step to the next.  If it changes there is an applied acceleration for that time step.  If the next time step has a different speed the there was an acceleration for that time step. 

If a car goes from 0-60 mph in 5 seconds then the average acceleration is 12 m/s^2.  So in the first second the speed goes from 0-12 mph and so on to 60 mph.  It is entirely possible to have a constant change in speed.

As long as speed is changing it is accelerating.  It’s the very definition of acceleration...unless you know a way to change speed without acceleration.  And, of course you don’t because that would be just silly.

Mike

I'm not denying what's in red bold.
It's you that's arguing that it can be a constant and I'm telling you it can't.

9.8 m/s^2!  It is a constant acceleration and so easily observable that even you can’t deny it exists.  A ten year old with a ball and a ramp can prove it.  You can predict how fast the ball will be moving at any point on the ramp.  If that ramp keeps going and turns upward, you can predict how far up the other side it will go.  You can use 9.8 m/s^2 constant acceleration to predict all of that.  You can even do it the other way around and use the ball and ramp to find 9.8 m/s^2.

I had at least some respect for you for sticking to your guns and explaining your theory.  You claim to be open minded; one the most open minded here.  You claim to use observation and logic to describe how the world around you works.  Then you deny a constant acceleration that is so easily observable even exists.  At best it makes you look like a hypocrite.  At worst it makes you a common troll.

It is an undeniable fact that there is a constant acceleration in our world of 9.8 m/s^2.  Whether it’s caused by gravity, denpressure, or fuckin’ midi-chlorians makes absolutely no difference.  It exists, is easily observable, and proves constant acceleration is not only possible but easily achieved.

If you’re going to make your theory viable, you’re going to have to stop ignoring these basic observations you claim to use as a basis for that theory.

Mike

Sceptimatic, as you appear to have missed a number of fundamental experiment at school,i wonder what school did you go to and what did you study?
For example did you study physics?
I studied engineering at university, then years later moved over to the dark side and did a master's in the arts. While arty things is my 'thing' at the moment I still have a strong interest in science. Though the experiments I did at school all those years ago gave me a foundation for my understanding of how things work.
Not sure if they are in print, but the 'how things work's series of books were fantastic. I would recommend Sceptimatic goes and reads them. They may well be in your local library.
It's interesting that a lot of my understanding of science comes from the many experiments in physics and chemistry I did at school. I went to school at a time when experimentation was seen as an important element in uderstanding how things work.Possibly many flat earthers did not have this opportunity. It would be interesting to know if this were the case.
Sceptimatic does not believe in a number of basic concepts that I did experiments on in school.
Momentum
Conservation of energy
Acceleration, constant or otherwise
Inertia
Properties of a vacuum
Gravity
The aim of this was to allows students to confirm known concepts.

Sceptimatic, as you appear to have missed a number of fundamental experiment at school,I wonder what school did you go to and what did you study?
For example did you study physics?
I studied engineering at university, then years later moved over to the dark side and did a master's in the arts. While arty things is my 'thing' at the moment I still have a strong interest in science. Though the experiments I did at school all those years ago gave me a foundation for my understanding of how things work.
Not sure if they are in print, but the 'how things work's series of books were fantastic. I would recommend Sceptimatic goes and reads them. They may well be in your local library.
It's interesting that a lot of my understanding of science comes from the many experiments in physics and chemistry I did at school. I went to school at a time when experimentation was seen as an important element in understanding how things work.Possibly many flat earthers did not have this opportunity. It would be interesting to know if this were the case.
Sceptimatic does not believe in a number of basic concepts that I did experiments on in school.
Momentum
Conservation of energy
Acceleration, constant or otherwise
Inertia
Properties of a vacuum
Gravity
The aim of this was to allows students to confirm known concepts.

There is the website, Physics Classroom - Home
with one of the earlier classes being, The Physics Classroom, 1-D Kinematics.

A "a near vacuum" is possible, so answer the question.

A very low pressure is possible so let's just go with that.

I could ask, "what would the pendulum do if it were in a chamber with an air pressure less than one millionth normal atmospheric pressure?"

Assuming you mean like inside the van then it would do a very similar thing to what you see in the van except the push back would be a hell of a lot less noticeable.

But, "near vacuum" is a much shorter way of saying much the same thing.

It is in a way but I know how you people like to use vacuum and near vacuum so I like to do it from the real perspective of how low pressure is achieved in a chamber and not a lot of people know the reality of it because they choose to go with random molecules just bashing about .

But anyway, there you go.

Did you never do the bell jar and alarm experimentation in school?
A ringing mechanical alarm was placed in a bell jar and the air evacuated.
After a while when no air remained in the jar the alarm though still operating,the hammer was still beating the bell, no sound was heard.
Now while a perfect vacuum was not created it was as near for practical purposes.

No, it wasn't near. It was a lower pressure than atmospheric pressure external to it.
The pressure in the chamber lowers by natural decompression of the molecules but only if the pump can hold back what it lets out on top of what it's pushing against in terms of atmospheric external pressure in the first place.

Why do you think an absence of air in a given volume is not possible?

Because there can never ever be an empty space in the true meaning of the word, empty, meaning zero matter, meaning a true meaning of the word vacuum which in itself ceases to actually be a real describing word because it actually describes something that can never happen.


BUT........we don't really need to go down that route.

9.8 m/s^2!  It is a constant acceleration and so easily observable that even you can’t deny it exists.

You cannot prove it exists.
You can make approximate guesses for it that are exactly that. Estimates that are close enough over a short height and that's it.
You see you can argue this all day long about you being correct or the science world being correct but the reality is there's no way to test the reality of what's being said because the 9.8m/s/s is based on the vacuum nonsense.

A ten year old with a ball and a ramp can prove it.  You can predict how fast the ball will be moving at any point on the ramp.  If that ramp keeps going and turns upward, you can predict how far up the other side it will go.  You can use 9.8 m/s^2 constant acceleration to predict all of that.  You can even do it the other way around and use the ball and ramp to find 9.8 m/s^2.

No...a 10 year old with a ball and ramp can not prove what I've just argued.

I had at least some respect for you for sticking to your guns and explaining your theory.  You claim to be open minded; one the most open minded here.  You claim to use observation and logic to describe how the world around you works.  Then you deny a constant acceleration that is so easily observable even exists.  At best it makes you look like a hypocrite.  At worst it makes you a common troll.

I'm not interested in gaining your respect. I'm not interested in whether you think I'm correct or a nutter or a troll.
I'm interested in finding the truth of lies and misinformation.
I understand that people like you will gate keep it all whether it's deliberate or whether it by simple indoctrinated naivety and gullibility that we all suffer and will no doubt continue to do so in all aspect of all things when dealing with those who write the fictional stories and pass them out with a big red FACT stamped on them.

It is an undeniable fact that there is a constant acceleration in our world of 9.8 m/s^2.

In your world there maybe that undeniable fact.

Guess what?


I do not live in your fantasy world.


 

Whether it’s caused by gravity, denpressure, or fuckin’ midi-chlorians makes absolutely no difference.

It makes a hell of a difference because denpressure ensures that the difference can never allow acceleration to ever become a constant.

It exists, is easily observable, and proves constant acceleration is not only possible but easily achieved.

Magicians magic is easily observable and look to be what people think it is, which is magic.
The problem is that most would rather accept it as that than look a bit closer to try and figure out if there is some discrepancy in that magic.
The logical people will always search for the sleight of hand or the gift of the gab that takes the audience away from what's really going on.
It's a lot like the abuse of natural science that we are all subjected to to be replaced by that magic trick.

If you’re going to make your theory viable, you’re going to have to stop ignoring these basic observations you claim to use as a basis for that theory.

Mike

I'll look at natural science and I'll try and make natural observations to it wherever I can.
I will then try my best to use the simplest form of explanation for what I believe is the truth or closer to the truth than anything the globalist magicians tell us.

Quote from: Nightsky on November 29, 2017, 03:02:22 AM

Did you never do the bell jar and alarm experimentation in school?
A ringing mechanical alarm was placed in a bell jar and the air evacuated.
After a while when no air remained in the jar the alarm though still operating,the hammer was still beating the bell, no sound was heard.
Now while a perfect vacuum was not created it was as near for practical purposes.

No, it wasn't near. It was a lower pressure than atmospheric pressure external to it.
The pressure in the chamber lowers by natural decompression of the molecules but only if the pump can hold back what it lets out on top of what it's pushing against in terms of atmospheric external pressure in the first place.

Quote from: Nightsky on November 29, 2017, 03:02:22 AM

Why do you think an absence of air in a given volume is not possible?

Because there can never ever be an empty space in the true meaning of the word, empty, meaning zero matter, meaning a true meaning of the word vacuum which in itself ceases to actually be a real describing word because it actually describes something that can never happen.


BUT........we don't really need to go down that route.

Are you saying that the remaining molecules expand to fill the entire space?  I know I am bringing things you've said in other posts with this, but I'm just trying to be clear on your meaning.

Are you saying that the remaining molecules expand to fill the entire space?  I know I am bringing things you've said in other posts with this, but I'm just trying to be clear on your meaning.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Quote from: Badxtoss on November 29, 2017, 07:07:45 AM

Are you saying that the remaining molecules expand to fill the entire space?  I know I am bringing things you've said in other posts with this, but I'm just trying to be clear on your meaning.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Interesting.  So why does the pressure drop?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2017, 07:27:51 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on November 29, 2017, 07:07:45 AM

Are you saying that the remaining molecules expand to fill the entire space?  I know I am bringing things you've said in other posts with this, but I'm just trying to be clear on your meaning.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Interesting.  So why does the pressure drop?

Decompression of molecules due to dwindling amount.

Quote from: Badxtoss on November 29, 2017, 07:33:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2017, 07:27:51 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on November 29, 2017, 07:07:45 AM

Are you saying that the remaining molecules expand to fill the entire space?  I know I am bringing things you've said in other posts with this, but I'm just trying to be clear on your meaning.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Interesting.  So why does the pressure drop?

Decompression of molecules due to dwindling amount.

Sorry but I don't really understand that sentence or how it explains lower pressure.

Quote from: RocketSauce on November 28, 2017, 12:07:25 PM

So, do satellites exist in a denspressure reality?

Space as we are told does not exist so take from that what you need to in terms of understanding what I think about any of that stuff.

So, what does your model say that the space is between our ground and the bright dots we see at night?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2017, 07:41:56 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on November 29, 2017, 07:33:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2017, 07:27:51 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on November 29, 2017, 07:07:45 AM

Are you saying that the remaining molecules expand to fill the entire space?  I know I am bringing things you've said in other posts with this, but I'm just trying to be clear on your meaning.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Interesting.  So why does the pressure drop?

Decompression of molecules due to dwindling amount.

Sorry but I don't really understand that sentence or how it explains lower pressure.

No problem.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 11:48:52 PM

Quote from: RocketSauce on November 28, 2017, 12:07:25 PM

So, do satellites exist in a denspressure reality?

Space as we are told does not exist so take from that what you need to in terms of understanding what I think about any of that stuff.

So, what does your model say that the space is between our ground and the bright dots we see at night?

Potentially one self contained cell among however many numbers.

Quote from: Nightsky on November 29, 2017, 03:02:22 AM

Did you never do the bell jar and alarm experimentation in school?
A ringing mechanical alarm was placed in a bell jar and the air evacuated.
After a while when no air remained in the jar the alarm though still operating,the hammer was still beating the bell, no sound was heard.
Now while a perfect vacuum was not created it was as near for practical purposes.

No, it wasn't near. It was a lower pressure than atmospheric pressure external to it.
The pressure in the chamber lowers by natural decompression of the molecules but only if the pump can hold back what it lets out on top of what it's pushing against in terms of atmospheric external pressure in the first place.

Quote from: Nightsky on November 29, 2017, 03:02:22 AM

Why do you think an absence of air in a given volume is not possible?

Because there can never ever be an empty space in the true meaning of the word, empty, meaning zero matter, meaning a true meaning of the word vacuum which in itself ceases to actually be a real describing word because it actually describes something that can never happen.


BUT........we don't really need to go down that route.

But how do you account for the alarm becoming silent.....No air no sound?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2017, 06:15:42 AM

Quote from: Nightsky on November 29, 2017, 03:02:22 AM

Did you never do the bell jar and alarm experimentation in school?
A ringing mechanical alarm was placed in a bell jar and the air evacuated.
After a while when no air remained in the jar the alarm though still operating,the hammer was still beating the bell, no sound was heard.
Now while a perfect vacuum was not created it was as near for practical purposes.

No, it wasn't near. It was a lower pressure than atmospheric pressure external to it.
The pressure in the chamber lowers by natural decompression of the molecules but only if the pump can hold back what it lets out on top of what it's pushing against in terms of atmospheric external pressure in the first place.

Quote from: Nightsky on November 29, 2017, 03:02:22 AM

Why do you think an absence of air in a given volume is not possible?

Because there can never ever be an empty space in the true meaning of the word, empty, meaning zero matter, meaning a true meaning of the word vacuum which in itself ceases to actually be a real describing word because it actually describes something that can never happen.


BUT........we don't really need to go down that route.

But how do you account for the alarm becoming silent.....No air no sound?

Decompression of molecules leading to a more expanded state by evacuation of some which severely hinders the travel of vibrations from the source to the hammer in our ear to vibrate the drum.

So we detect very little to evaluate as noise .