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?