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.PDFHere'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.