[GreatATuin]

Illustrating a story about the damage caused by orbital debris with a picture showing the damage caused by orbital debris? That's much worse than lying, that's treason. He should be shot on the spot, no trial.

[stack]

Timeline:

1984: The photo was taken.
2006: The photo was first published by NASA.
2006: The photo was uploaded to Wikipedia.
2014: Remedy Drive released “Commodity” using the photo as the album’s artwork.
2018: Chris Hadfield tweeted the original photo, but misinterpreted by flat-Earthers as stolen from the album “Commodity”.

Chris Hadfield’s Tweets:

The problem appears to be that Chris Hadfield implied in his post that it was a recent photo from the space station incident. The previous album art from years prior still shows Hadfield to be a liar, even if the album appropriated it from a prior NASA source.

Hadfield days later posting that it's an example doesn't absolve him of being deceptive.

Your interpretation is neither here nor there. The fact remains that the image example was not taken from some band's album cover as some FE claim. The fact is that the band took the image that was published by NASA in 2006 and 8 years later used it for their album art. Facts are facts and the FE claim is incorrect.

[Tom Bishop]

I don't see anything to support your suggestion that it's an "FE claim". It was something that Twitter users pointed out when Hadfield made that post.

The previously existing album cover claim was made in response to Chris Hadfield's twitter post, and suggested that he was being deceitful about his implication that it was the picture of the ISS event. The album cover indeed shows that Chris Hadfield did not post a picture of the ISS event. Your argument that "well, it came from NASA anywayyy..." is irrelevant.

[stack]

I don't see anything to support your suggestion that it's an "FE claim". It was something that Twitter users pointed out when Hadfield made that post.

The previously existing album cover claim was made in response to Chris Hadfield's twitter post, and suggested that he was being deceitful about his implication that it was the picture of the ISS event. The album cover indeed shows that Chris Hadfield did not post a picture of the ISS event. Your argument that "well, it came from NASA anywayyy..." is irrelevant.

Do you speak for all FE proponents? I said some FEr's claim...

Your interpretation is neither here nor there. The fact remains that the image example was not taken from some band's album cover as some FE claim. The fact is that the band took the image that was published by NASA in 2006 and 8 years later used it for their album art. Facts are facts and the FE claim is incorrect.

"Remedy Drive issued an unlikely statement this week in response to flat earthers connecting their album cover to a blog by astronaut Chris Hadfield...Soon both Hadfield and Remedy Drive were receiving social media feedback from flat earthers who believed the old image’s pairing with the next blog post to be a part of ongoing NASA cover-ups. Remedy Drive singer David Zach posted a statement to the band’s pages, saying “I am disappointed for you that our album cover photo is not the smoking gun against NASA that you all hoped for. We used a Creative Commons photo for our Commodity album signifying the first lyric on the first song ‘I don’t need a bandaid for my bullet hole.’ We’re a rock and roll band that using our songs and our time to combat human trafficking.”

Zach went on to graciously offer the flat earthers free copies of the Commodity album, also offering an email address where he welcome ongoing conversation. “I still think the earth is really really old and I think our planet is spherical. I’d love for you to change my mind though. I’m david@remedydrive.com. I have a lot of respect for you all and wish you the best.”
https://rockonpurpose.live/2018/09/06/remedy-drive-album-cover-becomes-topic-of-flat-earthers-debate/



Stick to the facts.

[Tom Bishop]

I don't see anything to support your suggestion that it's an "FE claim". It was something that Twitter users pointed out when Hadfield made that post.

The previously existing album cover claim was made in response to Chris Hadfield's twitter post, and suggested that he was being deceitful about his implication that it was the picture of the ISS event. The album cover indeed shows that Chris Hadfield did not post a picture of the ISS event. Your argument that "well, it came from NASA anywayyy..." is irrelevant.

Do you speak for all FE proponents? I said some FEr's claim...

Well, it has to be something that all or a majority of FE'ers claim. If I picked out some incorrect or wrong RE claim that you made on a forum, and then went around parading that it was the "RE Claim," that would be an unfair and duplicitous assessment.

You have not quoted the person who originated this claim and under what context. It was clearly in response to Hadfield's twitter post, and which does correctly show Hadfield's implication to be incorrect.

[Pete Svarrior]

It is a common RE claim that acceleration and velocity are one and the same - they use the terms interchangeably, and struggle to remain consistent with their units. Since they are not the  same, we know that RE must be false.

^^^ stack, the above illustrates the problem with your logic. Argue honestly, it'll make you feel better in the long run.

[stack]

It is a common RE claim that acceleration and velocity are one and the same - they use the terms interchangeably, and struggle to remain consistent with their units. Since they are not the  same, we know that RE must be false.

^^^ stack, the above illustrates the problem with your logic. Argue honestly, it'll make you feel better in the long run.

Just showing the facts and responding to what the original poster wrote. The guy from the band responded to some FEr's (He mentions FEr's specifically) that were claiming that the image that the astronaut posted was taken from his band's album cover as the 'source'. If the guy from the band responded to some "NASA deniers", stating that specifically instead and never mentioning FEr's, then I would never have mentioned FE. But he was specific. And I said "some" not all. I find nothing dishonest about that at all. If you don't agree with the facts as laid out, fine.

[Pete Svarrior]

And I said "some" not all.

You didn't. You said "2018: Chris Hadfield tweeted the original photo, but misinterpreted by flat-Earthers as stolen from the album 'Commodity'" - your use of "flat-earthers" is analogous to my use of "RE'ers" - no ifs, no buts, no somes. You only started trying to inject the word "some" into the conversation once it was pointed out to you that you're blatantly propagandising.

Why are you desperately trying to retcon your own statements? If you're as honest as you claim, wouldn't it be common sense to simply acknowledge your error and correct your claim? Is there any particular reason why you erroneously cling to calling some guy on the Internet "flat-earthers" rather than "some guy on the Internet"?

[stack]

And I said "some" not all.

You didn't. You said "2018: Chris Hadfield tweeted the original photo, but misinterpreted by flat-Earthers as stolen from the album 'Commodity'" - your use of "flat-earthers" is analogous to my use of "RE'ers" - no ifs, no buts, no somes. You only started trying to inject the word "some" into the conversation once it was pointed out to you that you're blatantly propagandising.

Why are you desperately trying to retcon your own statements? If you're as honest as you claim, wouldn't it be common sense to simply acknowledge your error and correct your claim? Is there any particular reason why you erroneously cling to calling some guy on the Internet "flat-earthers" rather than "some guy on the Internet"?

Ok, agreed, my statement was an outlandish and horrible misrepresentation of the flat earth community. I am truly devastated that I may have caused any undue harm to any within and beyond this society who self identify as a 'flat earther' or 'FEr'. In an attempt to make amends, I will revise my earlier statement that was so egregiously inept and hurtful to read:

"2018: Chris Hadfield tweeted the original photo, but misinterpreted by some flat-Earthers as stolen from the album 'Commodity'"

And if that is not enough, even though the singer from the band specifically addresses "flat earthers", I will refrain from doing so:

"2018: Chris Hadfield tweeted the original photo, but misinterpreted by some as stolen from the album 'Commodity'"

There, as requested, I have acknowledged my error and corrected my claim.

[Ptolmey]

@james38

Models are meta-scientific tools.  They are not for explanation or understanding.

I disagree.  The model of a spherical Earth, along with all the other planets, and all liquids forming into spheres when floating, is a great model for understanding and explaining, and has been for about 2000 years.

[Longtitube]

Well, now the origin of the notorious photograph has been settled, we can each decide who the joke is on. Good grief!

You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of. It's like saying things fall to earth because of gravity. 'Gravity' is just the name of a phenomenon that we have no scientific explanation for.

You may not know this, but science doesn't have a full and exhaustive explanation for every phenomenon under the sun. Magnetism, for example – there is still no complete explanation for that. On a more mundane level, ordinary mechanics doesn't have a full theoretical explanation: the lecturer facing another year's undergraduates made the point that there is no grand theory to explain the basics of forces exerted on a stationary body. The students are taught that the sum of all horizontal forces on a stationary body is zero, the sum of all vertical forces is also zero and all rotational forces on that same stationary body also sums to zero, but this is drawn from observations, not a grand theory.

Scientific vacuum chambers on earth require extremely complex processes to create. They need mechanical displacement pumps, ion pumps and often the chamber needs to be baked to 600+ degrees to remove any contaminants or moisture in the chamber.

And even after doing all this, the vacuums are so powerful that leaks through seals aren't the only problem, you have diffusion leaks through the steel itself! This is a quantum physics problem, not a school mechanics problem. You have to take molecular bonding and vibration into account. In the lowest vacuums in space you have 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter but even this can become more unstable depending on the excitation/vibration of the proton.

Mark, you repeatedly state that these vacuums are "so powerful" and can supposedly do all sorts of things. What is your basis for these claims? What do you know about these phenomena that "we have no experience of"? Have you a book you have read? Maybe a web article? YouTube video? Other people have provided links and quotations to support their case – Tom Bishop usually posts tons of links, f'rinstance – but you just make unsupported claims about excitable vibrating protons and whatnot. Where's the beef, Mark?

[james38]

I'm obsessed with keeping these conversations a little organized so first here's the short list again of the side conversations that we never really finished:

• My questions to Jack
• rockets and newtons laws

You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of.

Honestly, this comment took me by surprise. Your giant syringe example was your attempt to take a basic physics principle and apply it to your understanding of the physics of space, not mine. And it was your misunderstanding of that basics physics principle that, as you explained yourself, made the concept of space absurd to you.

I gave your giant syringe example some serious thought. I approached it with an open mind. To be honest, I thought it was an incredible point. I'm not a physics guy, and I actually thought you were right at first. I never really thought about it... if you pull on a syringe the pulling force does rise exponentially, doesn't it? So I took your point seriously and looked into it a bit more and discovered Boyles law, etc. After I discovered why we were both actually wrong (because I believed you at first), then I tried to walk you through exactly where your understanding of pressure was wrong in my mind.

The fact that you merely pushed the whole thing aside without even acknowledging that you misunderstood the way pressure works made me feel discouraged from continuing the conversation. I will try to continue for now, but only as long as we can agree that open-minded debate is a two-way street. We both have to be willing to admit when we are wrong.

And even after doing all this, the vacuums are so powerful that leaks through seals aren't the only problem, you have diffusion leaks through the steel itself!

Can I ask you your source on this one? I just want to read more so I understand where you are coming from.

This is a quantum physics problem, not a school mechanics problem. You have to take molecular bonding and vibration into account. In the lowest vacuums in space you have 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter but even this can become more unstable depending on the excitation/vibration of the proton.

So when you say "this is a problem", I think you mean the problem of how to understand the physics of space from the surface of the Earth? I agree it's a fascinating question. Maybe you are correct that the effects of quantum physics become non-negligible at this level of a vacuum. This is probably way beyond what I can do with my freshman college level of physics understanding, but I'd definitely be down to try for fun.

But let's stay focused here: this conversation is centered around your thesis that spacesuits could not possibly work in space due to the high pressure. That's why my response to your syringe problem was so important because whether you admit it or not, your thesis seems to be now unfounded.

I hope I'm not coming off as overly aggressive. I'm just stating the fact here that your thesis as stated above, as it currently stands in this conversation, is based on no evidence or argument. If you still stand by the syringe example, why? If you think quantum physics would cause the spacesuits to not work in a vacuum, why? Just because quantum physics might become non-negligible is not on its own supporting your thesis that the spacesuits would not work in space.

And yet all of these problems have been miraculously solved in the ISS, lunar modules, space suits but not on earth?

Again, what problems? I'm sincerely trying to understand. Because your first problem (the giant syringe) wasn't really a problem. Now you seem to bring up quantum physics but you haven't connected it back to your whole thesis; you haven't stated why quantum physics would prevent the spacesuits from working, and what your basis for your understanding of quantum physics is.

I find it quite funny actually that this is coming back to burden of proof. If the burden of proof is on the claimant, and your claim is that "spacesuits could not work in space", then it is your burden to prove this. This isn't because I'm trying to force you to do more work or anything, it's because that's the way critical thinking works.

If you have a claim, either support it with evidence and arguments or drop it. That goes for both sides. Fair, right?

So I second Longtitube's question for you: Where's the beef, Mark?

In 2018 there was a 2 mm hole in the ISS that they covered with duct tape  . In an incredibly embarrassing gaffe, Chris Hadfield posts an SEM image of the hole which turned out to be the album cover for the band Remedy Drive!

Thankfully a bunch of other people responded about this so I can take a break 

Magnetism, for example – there is still no complete explanation for that

I did not know that. What do you mean exactly? Very interesting.

no grand theory to explain the basics of forces exerted on a stationary body.

This is the debate about a "theory of everything" right? Or is it a more specific hole in our understanding of forces?

[Longtitube]

Magnetism, for example – there is still no complete explanation for that

I did not know that. What do you mean exactly? Very interesting.

no grand theory to explain the basics of forces exerted on a stationary body.

This is the debate about a "theory of everything" right? Or is it a more specific hole in our understanding of forces?

Some subjects are almost completely “done” in science, like chemistry: when an unknown form of carbon (buckminsterfullerine) was discovered some years ago, its bond energies, molecular size and other properties were rapidly calculated from theory by chemists who had not actually seen the stuff - and found to be accurate. Magnetism (and gravity), although understood quite well, lacks the “theory of everything” to fully explain it. There is no theory, however, for the basis of mechanics: things are as we observe, not as predicted by Klausowitzensky’s Principia Mecanica Universalis.

But if you want an example of something we really don’t fully understand, try to come up with a theoretical explanation of adhesion which allows predictions of which substance makes the best glue. Last I heard, that one was nowhere to be found, but the glues still work. Just as well for the ISS astronauts, eh, Mark?

[Tumeni]

What happens after the rocket goes out of sight?

Out of sight of ... whom? Those at the launch site?

Well, in the case of many launches, they are seen by folk in other countries, shortly after launch. In the case of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy debut, it completed almost two orbits, having been launched Eastward from the Florida coast, and was seen from the California coast (West of the launch site) executing the exit burn to take it out of Earth orbit. 

For this we are completely reliant on what NASA shows us.

No, we're not. You and I can simply look up, with telescope or binoculars, to see man-made objects, exactly where they are predicted to be.

I believe the rocket crashes in the ocean and what we are shown by NASA is nothing more than an artists impression of what space is.

Once again, it's not all about NASA. What about SpaceX? JAXA? Roscosmos? ESA?

Also, what about the launches from Baikonour, which is not. on. the. coast.

[Tumeni]

My, oh my where do I even begin.

Now hold onto a fire extinguisher and release its contents - you'll move in the opposite direction to where you pointed the nozzle.  None of this has anything to do with air pressure or pushing against air, and everything to do with mass being ejected. 

How can you say so definitively that it has nothing to do with pushing off air?

... because we can see clearly, from every rocket launch and engine test, that the air is not providing resistance to the rocket exhaust. The exhaust drives air away from the craft, resulting in exhaust product and steam (due to water being boiled in the flame trench) being driven at high speed away from the craft. The movement of large volumes of air, again away from the craft, results in huge sound waves, and lots of noise, for nearby observers.

If the air provided resistance, it would not be driven away from the craft.
Since the air is being driven away from the craft, it cannot be providing resistance.

[Tumeni]

I will 100% hold my hands up if someone can show the fundamental principal that allows rockets to work in space.

OK, let's start.

Do you accept the principle that explosives and fuels, when detonated or ignited, generate rapid and significant expansion of gas product, from the chemical reaction initiated by detonation or ignition?

[Tumeni]

Lets say you have a syringe like below:

img as above

For arguments sake, the barrel is 20miles long and the plunger is pushed in as far as it can go so only a very small amount of air is in the tip. You plug the tip and get someone to pull the plunger as hard as they can. That person is only going to get so far before the strength of the vacuum is just too much to go any further.

No. The vacuum has no 'strength', no force, no motive power. The person is working to overcome the atmospheric pressure which is working on the plunger to push it back in. The vacuum is not dragging the plunger back in, the atmosphere is pushing it.

Lets say you then get a horse to pull it further. At some point the barrel will collapse so you will have to replace it with steel to withstand the vacuum. The horse can go no further so you get a 16 wheeler truck to pull the plunger. The truck pulls the plunger further .... There is still only 1atm outside but the differential is growing immensely.

The limitation is the material strength, given each application is exposing more and more of the barrel to the atmospheric pressure. It's an issue of material strength over a progressively larger area, not of variance in pressure differential.
 

Unlike the confined volume inside the syringe, space is sold to us as being a vacuum of immense magnitude but also at an infinite scale. There are no materials that exist that could cope with this vacuum, be it at 5psi, 1psi or 0.001psi inside - makes no difference. The wikipedia scale above tells us that a vacuum in outer space is 1000 to 1 000 0000+ times stronger than a "high vacuum".

Again, the vacuum has no "strength". It cannot act upon anything without matter to act. The varying "strengths" you cite are merely progressions away from vacuum.

EDIT



The last column reads, in plain English

1 atmosphere
0.987 to 0.03
0.03 to 0.000000987
0.000000987 to 0.000000000000987
etc progressively smaller, to
0

The other columns merely express the same with different units of meaurement

1 atmosphere = approx 15psi at sea level. Each value in this column, and in the others, is some value less than 15psi, down to zero. The relationship between them is immaterial. They're all less than 15psi.

[Mark Antony]

Well, now the origin of the notorious photograph has been settled, we can each decide who the joke is on. Good grief!

What do you mean this has been settled? Defend them all you want, the truth is that a prominent NASA figure posted a picture giving the impression it was the very hole in the ISS when in reality it was nothing of the sort and what's worse is that it was years old and one that had even been used by a band on their album cover. All the subsequent twitter posts were clear backtracking. If he was comfortable with what he did then there would have been no need for backtracking. Embarrassing gaffe for an organisation that chews through billions of dollars annually.

Also, who cares what the band says? Their statements are immaterial.

You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of. It's like saying things fall to earth because of gravity. 'Gravity' is just the name of a phenomenon that we have no scientific explanation for.

You may not know this, but science doesn't have a full and exhaustive explanation for every phenomenon under the sun. Magnetism, for example – there is still no complete explanation for that. On a more mundane level, ordinary mechanics doesn't have a full theoretical explanation: the lecturer facing another year's undergraduates made the point that there is no grand theory to explain the basics of forces exerted on a stationary body. The students are taught that the sum of all horizontal forces on a stationary body is zero, the sum of all vertical forces is also zero and all rotational forces on that same stationary body also sums to zero, but this is drawn from observations, not a grand theory.

Mark, you repeatedly state that these vacuums are "so powerful" and can supposedly do all sorts of things. What is your basis for these claims? What do you know about these phenomena that "we have no experience of"? Have you a book you have read? Maybe a web article? YouTube video? Other people have provided links and quotations to support their case – Tom Bishop usually posts tons of links, f'rinstance – but you just make unsupported claims about excitable vibrating protons and whatnot. Where's the beef, Mark?

Contradictory post here. You are telling me that science doesn't have an exhaustive explanation for everything yet you expect all my arguments to be sourced and established scientifically? I'm still waiting for the scientific explanation for how rockets work in a vacuum without violating Newton's 1st law. 

Unfortunately for you it is well known in the scientific world that vacuums are difficult to achieve, unpredictable and generally a pain to work with. Industrial vacuum chambers, spectrophotometers, particle accelerators, x-ray machines all need careful and sophisticated designs. But guess what? They all only have 1atm exerted on them.

Here's an image taken from a paper on photon chamber design in which the author ponders over limitations of cross sectional shape in terms of deflection under a vacuum (with 1atm externally). He mentions that while rectangular cross sections are preferred, they deflect more than the less desirable elliptical shape. Even the elliptical shape deflects more than 0.1mm on both sides of the chamber despite the aluminium being 1mm thick! That is unprecedented:


Trakhtenberg, Brajuskovic, Wiemerslage New Insertion device vacuum chambers at the advanced photon source (2003)

Scientific journals are plagued with engineering problems of this nature.

And yet we have coke cans (also made from aluminium) that are one tenth the thickness of the above and yet they contain 2-3 atmospheres of pressure (sometimes twice this) with negligible deflection! This is why we can't apply basic pressure vessel mechanics to high vacuums because the science doesn't fit - there are phenomena that we simply don't understand whether you like it or not.

Incredible isn't it?
Here's an interesting informational article describing the strength of vacuums and the kinetic theory of gases which looks at the molecular element: https://vacaero.com/information-resources/vac-aero-training/170466-the-fundamentals-of-vacuum-theory.html


I'm reluctant to put the effort in to give you the science because I don't believe you sincerely want to be convinced.

[Tumeni]

Again, vacuum has no "strength". The table you use to illustrate the "strength" of vacuum is merely cataloguing the density/strength of the atmosphere present. Any presence of air or gas particles leading to a less-than-perfect vacuum merely leaves you with the category closest to atmospheric pressure having more "strength" than those categories below.

This is not "strength of the vacuum", it is merely the presence of more and more atmosphere influencing anything with less.

[Longtitube]

Well, now the origin of the notorious photograph has been settled, we can each decide who the joke is on. Good grief!

What do you mean this has been settled?

The photo originates from NASA and was originally published to Wikipedia on 15 November 2006. These are facts.

You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of. It's like saying things fall to earth because of gravity. 'Gravity' is just the name of a phenomenon that we have no scientific explanation for.

You may not know this, but science doesn't have a full and exhaustive explanation for every phenomenon under the sun. Magnetism, for example – there is still no complete explanation for that. On a more mundane level, ordinary mechanics doesn't have a full theoretical explanation: the lecturer facing another year's undergraduates made the point that there is no grand theory to explain the basics of forces exerted on a stationary body. The students are taught that the sum of all horizontal forces on a stationary body is zero, the sum of all vertical forces is also zero and all rotational forces on that same stationary body also sums to zero, but this is drawn from observations, not a grand theory.

Mark, you repeatedly state that these vacuums are "so powerful" and can supposedly do all sorts of things. What is your basis for these claims? What do you know about these phenomena that "we have no experience of"? Have you a book you have read? Maybe a web article? YouTube video? Other people have provided links and quotations to support their case – Tom Bishop usually posts tons of links, f'rinstance – but you just make unsupported claims about excitable vibrating protons and whatnot. Where's the beef, Mark?

Contradictory post here. You are telling me that science doesn't have an exhaustive explanation for everything yet you expect all my arguments to be sourced and established scientifically? I'm still waiting for the scientific explanation for how rockets work in a vacuum without violating Newton's 1st law. 

Others have answered about rockets and Newton's three laws already. I have quoted and supplied links to substantiate things and yes, it's expected you can also back up your scientific claims with scientific facts, so thank you for the link, but the smaller figures in the diagrams you show are illegible, so here's a link to the source of those diagrams:–

https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/p03/PAPERS/MPPB003.PDF

Here's an image taken from a paper on photon chamber design in which the author ponders over limitations of cross sectional shape in terms of deflection under a vacuum (with 1atm externally). He mentions that while rectangular cross sections are preferred, they deflect more than the less desirable elliptical shape. Even the elliptical shape deflects more than 0.1mm on both sides of the chamber despite the aluminium being 1mm thick! That is unprecedented:


Trakhtenberg, Brajuskovic, Wiemerslage New Insertion device vacuum chambers at the advanced photon source (2003)

If you read the article more carefully, you'll see the deflection wasn't as you claim:–

All  previous  ID  VC  had  an  elliptical  aperture.  The  deflection  under  atmospheric  pressure  for  such  a  shape,  even with 1 mm wall thickness, is below 100 μm per wall. (my emphasis)

How is a chamber wall deflection of around one tenth of a millimetre "unprecedented"?

And yet we have coke cans (also made from aluminium) that are one tenth the thickness of the above and yet they contain 2-3 atmospheres of pressure (sometimes twice this) with negligible deflection! This is why we can't apply basic pressure vessel mechanics to high vacuums because the science doesn't fit - there are phenomena that we simply don't understand whether you like it or not.

Incredible isn't it?

I suggest a small experiment: buy yourself a Coke can and let it warm to room temperature; or if you're more adventurous, let it warm in the sun or above a radiator. Measure distance between the top rim of the can and the surface of the top face of the can. Then open the can and measure the distance between top rim and top surface again. Let us know how negligible is the difference, if any, between the two measurements.

Here's an interesting informational article describing the strength of vacuums and the kinetic theory of gases which looks at the molecular element: https://vacaero.com/information-resources/vac-aero-training/170466-the-fundamentals-of-vacuum-theory.html

I read the article through and it is a good summation of the problems of getting the gas pressure down to high vacuum. I've seen some of the diagrams used elsewhere, I know about the application of kinetic gas theory to the problems, but I'm still no wiser as to quantum effects, oddball chemistry or the "immense power" of such regimes? As for diffusion through the chamber wall, the article instances helium as being able to penetrate to a degree, but helium is not a substantial part of our atmosphere, nor is it used in spacecraft breathing atmospheres that I'm aware of, so why should that be relevant to the "strength" or "power" of a vacuum?

What I did notice in the article is confirmation of my point about some things in science being based on experiment and observation, rather than derived from theory:–

The above is related to the principle in classical mechanics where kinetic energy = 1/2 m v2, developed by Leibniz and Bernoulli and originally described in 1722 by Gravesande in a series of experiments in which brass balls were dropped from varying heights onto a soft clay surface. Gravesande found that a ball with twice the speed of another would leave an indentation four times as deep, from which he concluded that the force generated by a body in motion is proportional to the square of its velocity. This same principle applies to the kinetic gas theory where the force of the molecules impacting the walls of the vessel is what generates the gas pressure, in proportion to the square of their speed.

So kinetic energy being proportional to velocity squared is not derived from grand theory, but experiment. That finding is subsequently included in the theory and taught to school students and others as part of mechanics, but you will search in vain for a theoretical origin for it.

I'm reluctant to put the effort in to give you the science because I don't believe you sincerely want to be convinced.

I enjoy learning new things, so I ask you to reconsider that remark.