1. Joined
    21 Jun '06
    Moves
    82236
    06 Oct '13 19:3413 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    There is no refraction of light in a vacuum. By definition, the index of refraction for a vacuum is 1. .........

    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Light follows the path of space .... bla .... bla .... bla
    🙂 🙂 Let's resume where we were. Ignore me. And. Let's ignore this post. 🙂 🙂

    Taking on the moderator hat. NO! - NO! - NO! - NO! He is KIDNAPPING this thread. (I do that as well now). Make sure that: - your brain - is - connected ! Before you post next time. I hate to be a bitch. With your unfortunate post I felt I had to.

    Shame sonhouse. Shame on you.
    Sonhouse: I really really hate to bitch. But you make me have to, kind of.

    Don't quote, then I assume you have something so say regarding the quote. In this case no. Therefore don't quote like that.

    You are quoting, hinting that you want to say something that adds to that statement. Then you are KIDNAPPING the thread. Adding a fact about THE SUN. And. BLACK HOLES theory. If you want to discuss that, start a thread about "black holes" or "the sun" or "light and gravity"

    Your post make me think: As before. I READ INTERNET THREADS , THEREFORE I AM.

    I VERY MUCH SO am a fan of ''' threads which stick to ''' only one subject ''' I am angry with you sonhouse, since I find you beeing irresponsible. Don't make me be angry on you. Also don't post and say that you are sorry. I already know you are. If you find these, in your post, things worth discussing. THEN START A NEW THREAD accordingly! No I am not overreacting, so please not say I am. 🙂 🙂
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    06 Oct '13 20:016 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    A true vacuum is space containing nothing. Man can only cause a partial vacuum, because we do not have the ability to evacuate all matter from a space. Therefore, man can only approximate the speed of light.

    The Instructor
    A true vacuum is space containing nothing.

    False:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
    Man can only cause a partial vacuum, because we do not have the ability to evacuate all matter from a space.

    False. I have no idea where you got that from. What physical barrier is stopping us from eliminating every gas particle from a vacuum chamber thus creating a total vacuum?
    Therefore, man can only approximate the speed of light.

    False inference as implied from your totally arbitrary use of the word “Therefore”: although all measurements of non-discrete variables i.e. continuous variables are approximations, not only is your premise false but that conclusion, although true, does not logically follow from your premise since we could, if we really wanted to, measure the speed of light in the vacuum of outer space.
    In addition, we can deduce the speed of light in a total vacuum from our measurement of the speed of light in air simply by taking into account the refractive index of air although that would still be an approximation because the measurement in either would be approximate.
    The correct reason why "man can only approximate the speed of light" is simply because the speed of light is a continuous variable and a physical one and thus impossible to measure with infinite accuracy and this has nothing to do with our ability to produce a vacuum:

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_continuous_variable

    (Also note that we have made extremely accurate approximations of the speed of light although that is a trivial point in comparison to the ones I just made above )
  3. Joined
    21 Jun '06
    Moves
    82236
    06 Oct '13 21:283 edits
    Originally posted by humy
    [b]
    .... Man can only cause a partial vacuum, because we do not have the ability to evacuate all matter from a space.

    False. I have no idea where you got that from. What physical barrier is stopping us from eliminating every gas particle from a vacuum chamber thus creating a total vacuum? ....
    [quote]
    RJHinds: Please stop adding "the instructor" after your posts. Because. That does NOT add any information. And makes you look ARROGANT. I do not think you want to look arrogant. "Word noice" I call that.

    Besides,

    I mentioned previously in this thread that I did not want to discuss Vaccum in this one. And. That if someone want to do that, person in question has to start a thread about Vaccum. (Does that make me a dictator, probably?).

    Why?

    Because the definition of vaccum is problematic.

    If we construct a true "Vaccum", then follows that. How far away must the particles be? 10^(-2000) m? 10^(4000) m? Gosh! That's a big chamber!

    Since no one else is doing this. I hereby start a thread for people wanting to discuss diffrent aspects of "Vaccum". I call it "About Vaccum". Perhaps that is a lousy name - then start another thread, PLEASE.

    VACCUM IS PROBLEMATIC. NOW YOU GUYS HAVE YOUR OWN THREAD ABOUT IT
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    06 Oct '13 22:074 edits
    Originally posted by bikingviking
    [b]RJHinds: Please stop adding "the instructor" after your posts. Because. That does NOT add any information. And makes you look ARROGANT. I do not think you want to look arrogant. "Word noice" I call that.

    Besides,

    I mentioned previously in this thread that I did not want to discuss Vaccum in this one. And. That if someone want to do t ...[text shortened]... ther thread, PLEASE.

    VACCUM IS PROBLEMATIC. NOW YOU GUYS HAVE YOUR OWN THREAD ABOUT IT[/b]
    RJHinds: Please stop adding "the instructor" after your posts. Because. That does NOT add any information. And makes you look ARROGANT.

    I could not agree more. I don't know why he insists on doing that. He once said he was an 'instructor' in the military but then he said he no longer is so that isn't even half an explanation of why he keeps adding "the instructor"!!!
    bearing in mind he has a delusional mind, perhaps because he was an 'instructor' in the military, he seriously thinks that qualifies him to be an 'instructor' in science!?

    He once said he does it to keep "reminding himself" that he was once an 'instructor' but that makes no sense for surely he would not forget it if he stopped postfixing his posts with "the instructor"! And why would it be important to keep "reminding himself" of it anyway? I think that is nonsense and the real reason is delusional arrogance.
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    07 Oct '13 18:322 edits
    Originally posted by humy
    A true vacuum is space containing nothing.

    False:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
    Man can only cause a partial vacuum, because we do not have the ability to evacuate all matter from a space.

    False. I have no idea where you got that from. What physical barrier is stopping us from eliminating every ga ...[text shortened]... he speed of light although that is a trivial point in comparison to the ones I just made above )
    You apparently know nothing about servicing air conditioning and refrigeration systems. Even though we often refer to total evacuating of the system before adding freon, it is known that no pump can remove all air.

    http://fierychill.com/how-to-evacuate-a-refrigeration-or-air-conditioning-system

    The Instructor
  6. Joined
    08 Aug '09
    Moves
    708
    07 Oct '13 18:36
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You are apparently know nothing about servicing air conditioning and refrigeration systems. Even though we often refer to total evacuating of the system before adding freon, it is known that no pump can remove all air.

    The Instructor
    He didn't say anything about a pump.

    I thought you were an engineer not a simple HVAC loser.
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    07 Oct '13 18:43
    Originally posted by MISTER CHESS
    He didn't say anything about a pump.

    I thought you were an engineer not a simple HVAC loser.
    One must use a vacuum pump to evacuate a system. We still have not made a pump that can evacuate all air from a system.

    The Instructor
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    07 Oct '13 20:362 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    One must use a vacuum pump to evacuate a system. We still have not made a pump that can evacuate all air from a system.

    The Instructor
    You apparently know nothing about servicing air conditioning and refrigeration systems.
    ….We still have not made a pump that can evacuate all air from a system


    So I take it you mean an “ air conditioning and refrigeration systems” by “ system “. Well, I wasn’t talking about conditioning nor refrigeration systems either.
    A total vacuum in the lab can be made in a vacuum chamber by first pumping nearly all the air out using a powerful conventional vacuum pump so to leave just a few air molecules and then ionizing the remainder of the gas molecules in the chamber by zapping it with ionizing radiation (UVC would do ) and then use high voltage to push those now electrically charged ions to a side-chamber which can then be closed off and what we have left in the main vacuum chamber is a total vacuum with no gas molecules nor stable ions -simple. But, remember, what I mean here by “total vacuum” is a volume with no atoms or stable ions and that does NOT include virtual particles else we are simply not talking about the same thing.
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    08 Oct '13 00:061 edit
    Originally posted by humy
    You apparently know nothing about servicing air conditioning and refrigeration systems.
    ….We still have not made a pump that can evacuate all air from a [b]system


    So I take it you mean an “ air conditioning and refrigeration systems” by “ system “. Well, I wasn’t talking about conditioning nor refrigeration systems either. ...[text shortened]... and that does NOT include virtual particles else we are simply not talking about the same thing.[/b]
    You forgot an intermediary step: The cryopump. Vacuum is something I know a great deal about, having been in this field for over 30 years. The cryopump removes air by literally freezing the molecules as they come into an activated charcoal cold head cooled down to 10 to 12 degrees Kelvin (just a few degrees above absolute zero) and like the roach motel, the molecules check in but they don't check out, getting totally stuck somewhere on the huge surface area of the charcoal. Eventually there are such a low number of molecules there is chaotic flow and it's a matter of statistics since now the mean free path to collisions gets longer and longer.

    THEN you can zap the rest with UV, and BTW, the UV gets the molecules hidden in the somewhat porous nature of the stainless steel walls, no matter how much electropolishing you do the surface still stores a certain amount of molecules and the UV helps to drive them out.

    The vacuum level on the moon is something like 10E-18 torr. That is about ten orders of magnitude lower than what my sputtering machine or ion implanter can do. I have on VERY rare occasions seen vacuum in the minus 9 region but that is with an extremely tight system where there are a lot of VCR fittings as opposed to O rings, like Buna N or Viton. They both diffuse a small but measurable amount of atmosphere directly through the rubber stuff of the O ring. The only certain seal is the conflat seal, a copper gasket squished down between two crimping seals held in place with a bunch of bolts. VCR fittings are used for small shafts and they work well.

    I see really dumb stuff, like the machine I am presently refurbishing at work, an MRC sputtering machine, where they have a capacitance manometer for reading in the millitorr roughing vacuum range using a VCR fitting but the flange that actually contacts the vacuum system has an O ring! Kind of silly. Just another O ring would have worked just fine. A bit of overkill.

    But in practice, the best even the big boys get at Cern is something like 1E-14 torr, something like that, 10,000 times dirtier than the atmosphere level of the moon.

    For one thing, they have this humungusly energetic particle beam slamming around and when it tries to go in a circle some of that beam will inevitably keep going straight and slam into the inner walls of the accelerator and that adds to the general background vacuum. It takes something like 2 months to get that bird down to the minus 14 level with no beam slamming around inside.

    Even the level of vacuum on the moon isn't all that great from a zero vacuum level, where there are zero particles, something you can't have even a million light years away from the milky way in the depths of intergalactic space. Even there you will find a few molecules in a cubic meter of space.

    There is just too much crap floating about in space, clouds a million light years in diameter in intergalactic space, nebulae in galactic space, and the local clouds in our own interstellar region.

    It's amazing we can detect neutral hydrogen clouds in space! They can't usually even be imaged with visible light telescopes but can be seen in microwave frequencies and sometimes in IR.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    08 Oct '13 06:52
    Originally posted by humy
    But, remember, what I mean here by “total vacuum” is a volume with no atoms or stable ions and that does NOT include virtual particles else we are simply not talking about the same thing.
    And unless you have cooled it to absolute Zero, it will have photons going through it.
  11. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    08 Oct '13 07:50
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    And unless you have cooled it to absolute Zero, it will have photons going through it.
    Oh yes! So I must define a total vacuum as a volume that has no atoms nor stable ions but ignoring virtual particles and photons inside (and probably ignoring any dark matter as well ) .
  12. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    08 Oct '13 08:062 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You forgot an intermediary step: The cryopump. Vacuum is something I know a great deal about, having been in this field for over 30 years. The cryopump removes air by literally freezing the molecules as they come into an activated charcoal cold head cooled down to 10 to 12 degrees Kelvin (just a few degrees above absolute zero) and like the roach motel, the ...[text shortened]... aged with visible light telescopes but can be seen in microwave frequencies and sometimes in IR.
    Thanks for that 🙂

    I take it that it is extremely difficult to make a total vacuum in the lab although it must be possible since the number of gas molecules/ions in a vacuum chamber must generally be a discrete veritable and it must be possible to remove just one last gas molecules/ions from a vacuum chamber! Although, even when you have done that, you may have the problem of not knowing it when you have done it! -I mean, even when there isn't in reality a single molecules/ions left in a vacuum chamber, how can one be absolutely sure that you have not a single molecules/ions left in a vacuum chamber when, at least I presume although I may be wrong here, we are necessarily talking about probabilities here and not absolute certainties.

    (obviously, this has nothing to do with our inability to infinitely accurately measuring c as RJHinds claimed since we could not infinitely accurately measuring c even if we measured c in a total vacuum which we could be absolutely sure is a total vacuum! )
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    08 Oct '13 08:48
    Originally posted by humy
    Oh yes! So I must define a total vacuum as a volume that has no atoms nor stable ions but ignoring virtual particles and photons inside (and probably ignoring any dark matter as well ) .
    And possibly dark energy, whatever that is.
    And I am not sure if neutrinos are technically 'dark matter' so we must mention them too.
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    08 Oct '13 08:56
    Originally posted by humy
    I take it that it is extremely difficult to make a total vacuum in the lab although it must be possible since the number of gas molecules/ions in a vacuum chamber must generally be a discrete veritable and it must be possible to remove just one last gas molecules/ions from a vacuum chamber!
    I got the impression from sonhouse that no, it is not possible.
    According to Wikipedia, the pressure on the Moon (which I believe sonhouse says we cannot achieve) still contains 4×10^5 molecules per cubic centimetre.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Examples
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    08 Oct '13 08:581 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The vacuum level on the moon is something like 10E-18 torr.
    Wikipedia says: 10E-11 torr.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Examples
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree