- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Gene, where did you get “space pressure” at 33 psi?
T8, you seem to have to always go to the atheist to make your points. Curious.
To be clear, the vacuum at the ISS is said to be 10(-7) torr which is not below zero. It is 0.0000001
Can you understand how much more pressure there would be in just 1 psi? Here’s a question, is it more than double?
T8, could answer that question? Is 1 psi greater than double 0.0000001 psi?
Can you now see that your tire example does not hold air? pun intended
To make this point more pronounced and to compare apples with apples you need to remember that standard atmospheric pressure = 760 Torr!
Now is 760.0 torr more than double 0.0000001 torr?
Still say it’s like a car tire? Still having trouble with the math? Try this number, 7,600,000,000 give or take a torr or two. This number kind of leaves you flat, does it not?
Dig4truth. ….why not just stay with PSI, 14.69 PSI, is atmospheric pressure. That is universally understood. But what you people do is try to switch things around to try to make it appear like it different,when in fact it is not. Your deception is like a big shell game, or a switch and bate game.
There is no apsolute zero pressure, that exists. It is impossible to go below zero psi. No matter what language or terms you use.
Space has no pressure, compared to the 14.69 psi on earth. While water will boil off and freeze at the reduction of pressure, solid metals would take much, much, much, more , and can easely remain solid in space as have been proven over and over every day. In order to achieve space travel we only have to maintain a 14.69 psi in the cabin of a space craft. That is easely obtainable in space, even with a presurized body suite.
The weight of 14.69 psi on us is because of the atmospheric weight on us, on this planet. What I was referring to by 33 aprox differential pressure was, space with near zero draw on a space craft and the inside cabin pressure taken into account would require a metal that could withstand the sum difference of the two. Which would probably be around 33 psi.
Peace and love to you and yours. ………gene
Gene, this is why I said the negitive number is NOT below zero. It simply means that it is on the right side of the decimal. This is the way math is expressed. There is no shell game, it’s called math. I can’t help it that the professionals measure vacuum in Torr but you could try to understand the math.
For example; half of 750 torr is 375 torr. Half of 375 torr is 187.5 torr. Half of 187.5 torr is 93.75 torr and we already have 4 times less of the pressure of sea level atmosphere. Is 4 times greater than 2? We haven’t even got close to the decimal point! And then we have to go to seven more places! See where I’m going with this?
I’m not making this up but it is interesting that I can be accused of that when you can easily check this out. Don’t be lazy, do the research and do the math.
And if you refuse to investigate for yourselves then at least answer the question that Mike and I have asked repeatedly; “why does NASA need 8′ thick concrete walls reinforced with steel for their vacuum chamber”? (Why not just make it out of recycled car tires?)
Gene:The weight of 14.69 psi on us is because of the atmospheric weight on us, on this planet. What I was referring to by 33 aprox differential pressure was, space with near zero draw on a space craft and the inside cabin pressure taken into account would require a metal that could withstand the sum difference of the two. Which would probably be around 33 psi.
Apparently NASA has a different value for the “pressure” or lack there of for space. It is NOT near zero as you suggest, it is rather 11 decimal places on the right of zero! It would take a lot of pressure to bring that number up to one!
But let’s keep it simple. Can you have a half of something? Yes, and it can be expressed by the formula 0.5 Can you have a quarter of something? Of course, and it can be expressed by the formula 0.25 Can you have 100th of 1, or 1,000th of 1, or even 1,000,000,000th of 1? Absolutely! [0.001, 0.0001, 0.0000000001]
Notice that these “lesser than one” numbers are expressed on the right side of the decimal but they are perfectly allowed in math. Because of the number at the end of the long line of zeros it is not zero but a small fraction of one. In math they are described as negitive numbers but again, they are a small fraction of one and I didn’t make the rules. Any questions?
The only place for you to go is to say that these are not NASA’s numbers but you can check that too.
If an Atheist, Mormon, or criminal tells the truth, I will quote it if it is beneficial.
The Bible doesn’t teach a flat earth and science doesn’t support it.
I wonder how many people disbelieve the Bible because of Christian Flat Earthers?
Sad that you cannot see how you discredit the Word of God with your own lack of understanding.
T8, could answer that question? Is 1 psi greater than double 0.0000001 psi?
Can you now see that your tire example does not hold air? pun intended
I see that you have not understood my rebuttal at all. I am not sure I can help you if you cannot grasp what percentages really mean.
I will give it another go and make it as simple as possible.
15 is 15 times greater than 1 and 30 is double 15, but in the real world, that doesn’t mean the first example is many times greater than the second. In both examples, there is an equal disparity of 15 and this is what matters when it comes to air pressure or lack of it.
why does NASA’s vacuum chamber need 8 foot thick concrete and steel walls?
Concrete is generally porous in nature so I googled it and apparently the concrete is used for structural purposes as there is a leak-tight steel containment barrier embedded within. Inside this container is the separate Aluminum Test Chamber at 100 ft. in diameter and 122 ft. high. The outer concrete chamber serves as a primary vacuum barrier from atmospheric pressure, but it is the steel barrier that is the real seal in the outer container. Given that and the fact that the inner container is made of aluminium, imagine a space craft made of steel or aluminium and it is not hard to understand that space flight or vacuum flight is possible given our current technology and even possible back in the 1960s because metal and computers existed back then.
Now imagine a 100 ft diameter car tyre. I am sure it would need to be a lot thicker than the tyres on my car even if it had the same 14.7 PSI of pressure Now think of the atmosphere and how big that is or the ocean compared to a tanker, sub, or can of coke. Perhaps now you can see why your understanding is flawed regarding this. But then again, maybe you can’t see what I am saying. Science is not for everyone right.
Hey guys, I’ve been following the discussion, but have been unable to respond. I will catch up soon. D4T, you have me rolling. 🤣 T8, in the meantime, this just came out today and had you written all over it (less than 2 minutes of a big boat disappearing over the horizon)…
What part of disappearing from the bottom do you guys not understand. The train just got smaller but the boat disappeared from the bottom as you would expect an object to do if going over a curve.
Further the rebuttal that the video is doctored is redicilous. You could replicate this yourself if you really cared for the truth.
T8: The outer concrete chamber serves as a primary vacuum barrier from atmospheric pressure, but it is the steel barrier that is the real seal in the outer container. Given that and the fact that the inner container is made of aluminium, imagine a space craft made of steel or aluminium and it is not hard to understand that space flight or vacuum flight is possible given our current technology and even possible back in the 1960s because metal and computers existed back then.
Thanks for doing the research and answering the question! However, I believe you have come to the wrong conclusion.
From article: The concrete chamber enclosure serves not only as a radiological shield but also as a primary vacuum barrier from atmospheric pressure. 130 feet (40 m) in diameter and 150 feet (46 m) in height, the chamber was designed to withstand atmospheric pressure outside of the chamber at the same time vacuum conditions are occurring within. The concrete thickness varies from 6 to 8 feet (1.8 to 2.4 m) and contains a leak-tight steel containment barrier embedded within. The chamber’s doors are 50 by 50 feet (15 by 15 m) and have inflatable seals. The space between the concrete enclosure and the aluminum test chamber is pumped down to a pressure of 20 torrs (2.7 kPa) during a test.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Power_Facility (emphasis mine)
The first point is that this 6-8′ concrete barrier is necessary to achieve the vacuum in the chamber.
The question that comes to mind is why doesn’t the ISS need this concrete barrier? This barrier essentially drops the outside pressure from 750 torr (normal atmospheric pressure) to 20 torr! Then and only then can the aluminum chamber achieve a high vacuum.
Another point is that we don’t know how thick the aluminum walls are (5083 aluminum). We are only told what the thickness of the aluminum plating is (3003 aluminum). It’s important that just the plating is thicker than the lunar lander was! And keep in mind that we are told the lunar lander was in a way more extreme vacuum with thinner walls and no 6-8′ concrete with steel barrier!
T8: 15 is 15 times greater than 1 and 30 is double 15, but in the real world, that doesn’t mean the first example is many times greater than the second. In both examples, there is an equal disparity of 15 and this is what matters when it comes to air pressure or lack of it.
But can you understand that 30 is more than double 0.00015?
You cannot seem to grasp that our atmosphere is said to be more than double that of the vacuum of space. These are not my numbers. I have tried to explain this to you over and over and over. Do you understand this?
In order for the atmospheric pressure to be only twice of what we are told the vacuum of space is, the vacuum of space would need to be 375 torr (half of the atmospheric pressure of 750 torr). But we are told that it is not 375 torr but 0.00000000001
Here’s your question, is 375 more than twice of 0.00000000001? It’s a simple yes or no. If it’s yes then the only place for you to go is to claim that NASAs numbers are wrong. I can’t wait to hear your answer!
But can you understand that 30 is more than double 0.00015?
Yes of course I understand that. If you actually read my posts you would know that because I have repeatedly said this and pointed out that it means nothing. Maybe you shouldn’t be getting involved in a science debate because to do that, you need to understand what is going on and what others are actually saying. Are you having difficulty keeping up or are you just not reading my posts? Which is it?
Again, to demonstrate a point which you haven’t obviously grasped.
If I travel from 0 to 30 mph and another car travels from 30 mph to 60 mph, is the former example really that different to the latter in the amount of fuel spent?
No. Even despite the latter example only increasing speed twice while the former has increased speed infinitely in a philosophical sense.
Comprehendo, yes or no?
Me: can you understand that 15 is more than 0.00015?
t8: “Yes of course I understand that. If you actually read my posts you would know that because I have repeatedly said this and pointed out that it means nothing.”
It means nothing! Really?! How much more than double is it t8? Does it matter? Do you know the math? What kind of bunk are you suggesting that it doesn’t even matter about decimal places?
Here’s your challenge; how much more is 30 than 0.00015?
I just want you to admit there is a number that is greater than double another number because that is the only recourse you have been using and it is obviously lame and apparent you are not doing the work to support your fairy tail. How much more is it?
How much more is it? Can you even answer the question? I doubt it!
30 and 0.00015
If you can answer the question, which I doubt, you will immediately see that what you have been saying is a load of garbage! So put up or shut up. How much more is it? We all want to know! Is it more that double? I wonder!
Hey t8,
What if a car went from 5 to 10 mph? You would say that is double the speed, right? What about 0.5 to 10 mph, would you still say that is double?
5 to 10 mph = 2 x or twice the speed
0.5 to 10 mph = 20 x or twenty times the speed
Can you grasp the math here?
Here’s a test, can you find the answer?
0.05 mph to 10 mph = ?
What is the speed increase on the above problem? (bet you didn’t know there would be homework)
Oh dear. That is the point I’m exactly making which applies to your PSI models. As you point out the difference in percentage, what I’m pointing out is what does this does mean in real terms. It means little because does the latter example use 10 X times the gasoline? No. Even though one is twice and the other twenty times, it doesn’t mean you are using 10 times the amount of gasoline compared to the other. Gasoline usage is better reflected by the actual increase in speed, not the percentage. The same applies to PSI and structural integrity.
Comprehendo?
Now look at this.
0.05 to 10 mph = 200 x times the speed. So is that a fair reflection of the gasoline used? What about
0.000000005 to 10 mph = 2, 000, 000, 000x or two billion times the speed. Does that mean a billion or two billion times more gasoline consumed. If so, then no one could afford to start their car.
Again, apply this to your PSI model and you can plainly see you are spouting BS, whether you are doing it intentionally or not.
Strange thing to say if NASA was part of a conspiracy
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the First Amendment. Or maybe, after the spat over a speech by NASA’s Jim Bridenstine, it does.
Thanks to the double standards of secularism, public officials can’t even talk about faith without making headlines. It’s no wonder, then, that when the head of America’s space program gave remarks at a Christian ministry, even he had trouble finding signs of intelligence in the criticism that followed.
Capitol Ministries, the organization that Bridenstine has supported for years, is hardly controversial. Nine of the president’s 15 Cabinet officials are sponsors of the ministry—whose aim is simple: influencing government with biblical teachings.
During his talk, Bridenstine even talked about the importance of that goal and what it means in the context of these times. “I love what Ralph said earlier: We’re not trying to Christianize the U.S. government. We believe in an institutional separation, but we also believe in influence. And that’s a big distinction and an important distinction, and that’s why I love this ministry.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
