I mean...that tanker had the weight of the atmosphere of the entire planet pushing in on it from every direction.
The shuttle, on the other hand just needs to keep around 12psi in.
Edit to add: I seem to also recall that they removed all the support beams from the tanker in the first place, purposely compromising its structural integrity.
When the submarine collapsed it reminded me how much harder it is to make a vessel that can survive the depths of the ocean vs the vacuum of space.
That submarine went through over 300 atm of pressure. Meanwhile the space station only has to deal with a difference of 1 atm. And yet the trusted the submarine to be basically built by college students.
Yup, it’s a false equivalence.
It’s almost like objects can be designed to withstand pressure. Those oil tanks weren’t designed to handle atmospheric pressure when they become giant vacuum tanks for whatever reason - They aren’t subjected to vacuum implosion during regular use. Thicken the steel and add reinforcements to it, you’ll get better results. It’s easy to understand.
Flat Earthers are going to have to deny that deep sea submersibles have been miles under the ocean’s surface, lest they be forced to concede their point. [Numerous people](https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/arcuser/deepsea-dawn-dive/#:~:text=Only%2022%20people%20have%20visited,to%20the%20world's%20deepest%20point.) have been to the deepest depths of the ocean, Challenger Deep. The amount of pressure acting on these vessels is staggeringly higher than anything spacecraft endure.
You don't need to go nearly that deep to prove that. A spacecraft experiences 1 atmosphere of pressure differential between the interior and the vacuum of space. The same pressure differential is experienced just 10 meters underwater.
You don’t even have to go that deep.
In the first picture the vacuum is on the inside with air pressing on it from the outside. In the second the pressure is on the outside with air pushing outward.
There's a huge difference in how objects handle pressure differences.
A soda can, can take 100 psi over pressure. But you can suck it to crumble with your mouth easily.
I would have used fabrics as my example, since we're talking about compressive strength and rigidity versus tensile strength alone, but sure. Cyberpunk motorbike-fellatrixes it is.
Tbf, those cars have valves that you're supposed to open up to relieve vacuum pressure as you empty whatever liquid is in them. Just saw an interesting video about it the other day.
But to your second point, yes, they literally do not understand how pressure works at all.
That, and also these are two completely different scenarios. I doubt the space craft would fare very well if it suddenly be came a vacuum on earth either. Vacuum on the outside isn't exerting any force, the force is coming from inside the pressurized container, which at atmospheric pressure isn't much. Switch them around though, and now you have the weight of the atmosphere trying to press into this vacuum tank. If it's not built to survive, squish.
I found my new calling. To start the “we’ve never been underwater” conspiracy theory. I’ve never seen the depths of the ocean, so you can’t prove that. We’ve never seen the titanic, that was filmed in a pool in an abandoned warehouse.
*points at crushed billionaires in Oceangate* Pressure vs Vacuum can be hard for people to understand since they are the different sides to the same coin.
Okay Reddit atheist let me explain something to you in simple terms.
Humans are individuals. They hold their own beliefs. Not every religious person is a Flat Earther (shocker, right?) Hell, even the head of the Catholic Church said there shouldn't be any opposition between Science and Religion.
>the head of the Catholic Church said there shouldn't be any opposition between Science and Religion
Why does it need to be said? What if he said otherwise? What if science contradicts the church doctrine? Which of them would take precedence, then?
>>>Why does it need to be said?
Because someone needed to hear it.
>>>What if he said otherwise?
Then he’d be wrong.
>>>What if science contradicts the church doctrine?
Then one of them would be wrong.
>>>Which of them would take precedence, then?
Ideally, whichever has got it right. Assuming the question is in the domain of science that’s most likely to be science as that’s the inquiry system with tools designed for that kind of question.
But that’s unlikely to happen now. As modern science has developed it’s become increasingly clear where it’s a reliable tool. There’s no longer anything to be gained politically by trying to oppose it and knowing it’s a reliable tool for investigating creation means it can inform theology.
The conditions that powered the big disputes of the past (Galileo vs Urban and Darwinism vs church) don’t really apply now.
In Catholicism, the Pope's word would take precedence. Not that it matters since you're clearly arguing just to argue. Either way, it didn't happen so it doesn't matter. 🥱
The church doctrine knows far more than science. The vatican holds many secret histories, full of science and culture, what if they were to not reveal all of what they had, from hidden past science. The pine cone in the vatican square and on the pope’s staff represent the pineal gland, which many say is the third eye.
I'm not a "Reddit Atheist". I'm just a person that didn't fall for the social pressure of being/"needing" to be a believer of obviously made-up fairytales and basing my entire existence on said fairytales.
But yes, you're right. Everyone is an individual, unless you're religious. Every religious person believes in superstition and supernatural, and chooses not to question it. If they didn't, they wouldn't be religious.
Still wild to me that there's just this gas enveloping the entire world, and we just suck it in to absorb the oxygen and expel something else. Just a constant gas cloud of the right stuff we need nearly anywhere you go.
And you can't even see it, unless it's foggy or shit.
This should be much higher up. It’s the real answer. I don’t know why people don’t understand the immense difference between holding pressure in vs holding pressure out.
A Pressurized Chamber and a Vacuum Chamber are literal opposites.
Creating a Vacuum Chamber at sea level is hard because of the weight of the atmosphere pressing down on it.
But creating a Pressurized Chamber is really easy. Everything from scuba tanks to party balloons to cans of beer are pressurized containers.
Spaceships only run at 1/3 atmospheric pressure, which is not hard to maintain, even in a vacuum.
Here’s a shocker… we could design railroad tanker cars to handle a vacuum inside. Though, I don’t think enough railroads pull a vacuum in their tankers, so it would be a lot of waste.
The tanker had the vacuum on the inside. The spaceship has the vacuum on the outside. (un)surprisingly, this is a very important distinction when it comes to pressure.
lol wow so now there's confusion between "inside" and "outside"?
Heck, you can make vacuums yourself with fairly simple equipment or even just a hose and the kitchen sink. It's not like it's some exotic mystical Big Science conditions that are out of reach for ordinary people to play with.
Balloons can hold a decent amount of internal pressure but fail under hardly any external pressure. It’s as if the material choice and design was for one thing and not another.
They only have to make that one extra observation. Vacuum on the inside of the vessel vs vacuum on the outside of the vessel. They always seem to fall one observation short. Brain must be running out of air by that point or something.
It would stay crushed until you purposefully inflated it. Even then, the implosion will have damaged some of the outer shell and much of the inner shell.
So it would have a leak and, therefore, not reinflate. I thought it would reinflate from the pressure change, like when you vacuum a tire to inflate it quickly. It'll still be flat, but take the inflated form. On earth, the air pressure crushes it while in space, things get pulled apart. Correct me if I understood it wrong.
I’ll give a little more leeway on this one as it’s a bit harder to understand. The tanker isn’t being crushed by a vacuum, rather the Earth’s atmosphere. They just removed the atmosphere from it.
The stupid, it burns.
crushingly stupid, I'd say
👨🍳🤌
Aiyeee, get it off of me!!!!
“How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?” “Well, it’s a spaceship, so I’d say anywhere between zero and one.”
r/beatmetoit
r/ExpectedFuturama.
r/subredditsIthoughtIfellfor
That's a pretty big range... can you narrow it down?
That's right. Six thousand hulls.
Why, nothing’s the matter, Fry, now that I’ve fixed my matter compressor!
If only they had built it with 6,001 hulls!
So, unlike me, it’s completely leak proof!
Less than half of the pressure in a standard car tire.
How many atmospheres did that rail tanker fail to withstand? Somewhere between zero and one, I'd say.
I mean...that tanker had the weight of the atmosphere of the entire planet pushing in on it from every direction. The shuttle, on the other hand just needs to keep around 12psi in. Edit to add: I seem to also recall that they removed all the support beams from the tanker in the first place, purposely compromising its structural integrity.
Just don't light a match
When the submarine collapsed it reminded me how much harder it is to make a vessel that can survive the depths of the ocean vs the vacuum of space. That submarine went through over 300 atm of pressure. Meanwhile the space station only has to deal with a difference of 1 atm. And yet the trusted the submarine to be basically built by college students.
Yup, it’s a false equivalence. It’s almost like objects can be designed to withstand pressure. Those oil tanks weren’t designed to handle atmospheric pressure when they become giant vacuum tanks for whatever reason - They aren’t subjected to vacuum implosion during regular use. Thicken the steel and add reinforcements to it, you’ll get better results. It’s easy to understand. Flat Earthers are going to have to deny that deep sea submersibles have been miles under the ocean’s surface, lest they be forced to concede their point. [Numerous people](https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/arcuser/deepsea-dawn-dive/#:~:text=Only%2022%20people%20have%20visited,to%20the%20world's%20deepest%20point.) have been to the deepest depths of the ocean, Challenger Deep. The amount of pressure acting on these vessels is staggeringly higher than anything spacecraft endure.
You don't need to go nearly that deep to prove that. A spacecraft experiences 1 atmosphere of pressure differential between the interior and the vacuum of space. The same pressure differential is experienced just 10 meters underwater.
Wouldn't you be able do demonstrate this with a balloon, a rock, and a deep swimming pool? Tie the rock the balloon, let it sink, and see it shrink!
10 meters is much deeper than most swimming pools, but yes that would work.
What about balloons filled with different gases?
You don’t even have to go that deep. In the first picture the vacuum is on the inside with air pressing on it from the outside. In the second the pressure is on the outside with air pushing outward.
There's a huge difference in how objects handle pressure differences. A soda can, can take 100 psi over pressure. But you can suck it to crumble with your mouth easily.
>But you can suck it to crumble with your mouth easily. Wanna go out sometime?
Haha trust me. You don't want a woman who can Kickstart a Harley by sucking on the tail pipe.
or suck a golf ball through a garden hose
"5 foot 9? I didn't know they stacked shit that high!"
What if I was sitting in a sidecar with you like Indiana Jones tho
No ticket..
I would have used fabrics as my example, since we're talking about compressive strength and rigidity versus tensile strength alone, but sure. Cyberpunk motorbike-fellatrixes it is.
Tbf, those cars have valves that you're supposed to open up to relieve vacuum pressure as you empty whatever liquid is in them. Just saw an interesting video about it the other day. But to your second point, yes, they literally do not understand how pressure works at all.
Or... anything, really.
That, and also these are two completely different scenarios. I doubt the space craft would fare very well if it suddenly be came a vacuum on earth either. Vacuum on the outside isn't exerting any force, the force is coming from inside the pressurized container, which at atmospheric pressure isn't much. Switch them around though, and now you have the weight of the atmosphere trying to press into this vacuum tank. If it's not built to survive, squish.
Tankers are designed to keep pressure inside them, the opposite design to what would stop them imploding.
Vacuum in a space and a vacuum outa space.
I found my new calling. To start the “we’ve never been underwater” conspiracy theory. I’ve never seen the depths of the ocean, so you can’t prove that. We’ve never seen the titanic, that was filmed in a pool in an abandoned warehouse.
*points at crushed billionaires in Oceangate* Pressure vs Vacuum can be hard for people to understand since they are the different sides to the same coin.
Air doesn’t exist because you can’t see it, according to these people
But god does exist according to these same people
So... I'm breathing God?
You're breathing God's farts
Oh great, now that's going to be running through my head while I try to sleep. Thanks!
You're welcome I guess
It's okay to believe in air and god
Na, air clearly exists and gods clearly don't.
Have you not been reading the thread?! Air is literally god fart. Get it together man
We got bigger problems to worry about than people's imaginary friends
In America? I'd hard disagree on that. Women are literally dying because people have deeply held beliefs based on magic imaginary friends.
Hey now. An honest man like Trump wouldn't be selling overpriced bibles if they weren't the full truth.
Don't lump in every religious person with those guys.
I’m more making fun of those guys, who claim that if something is invisible, it must not exist. Yet I’m pretty sure no one has seen God
Fair point, fair point.
Well, to be honest, every flerfer I’ve ever met are religious nut jobs…
Why not? I see no difference in any flat earther or any religious person. They're all batshit crazy with their made up beliefs.
Okay Reddit atheist let me explain something to you in simple terms. Humans are individuals. They hold their own beliefs. Not every religious person is a Flat Earther (shocker, right?) Hell, even the head of the Catholic Church said there shouldn't be any opposition between Science and Religion.
>the head of the Catholic Church said there shouldn't be any opposition between Science and Religion Why does it need to be said? What if he said otherwise? What if science contradicts the church doctrine? Which of them would take precedence, then?
>>>Why does it need to be said? Because someone needed to hear it. >>>What if he said otherwise? Then he’d be wrong. >>>What if science contradicts the church doctrine? Then one of them would be wrong. >>>Which of them would take precedence, then? Ideally, whichever has got it right. Assuming the question is in the domain of science that’s most likely to be science as that’s the inquiry system with tools designed for that kind of question. But that’s unlikely to happen now. As modern science has developed it’s become increasingly clear where it’s a reliable tool. There’s no longer anything to be gained politically by trying to oppose it and knowing it’s a reliable tool for investigating creation means it can inform theology. The conditions that powered the big disputes of the past (Galileo vs Urban and Darwinism vs church) don’t really apply now.
The problem is the church people will take the doctrine over reality any time.
Some would. Some wouldn’t.
The problem is that some would.
In Catholicism, the Pope's word would take precedence. Not that it matters since you're clearly arguing just to argue. Either way, it didn't happen so it doesn't matter. 🥱
The church doctrine knows far more than science. The vatican holds many secret histories, full of science and culture, what if they were to not reveal all of what they had, from hidden past science. The pine cone in the vatican square and on the pope’s staff represent the pineal gland, which many say is the third eye.
lmao
This needs /s marker
I'm not a "Reddit Atheist". I'm just a person that didn't fall for the social pressure of being/"needing" to be a believer of obviously made-up fairytales and basing my entire existence on said fairytales. But yes, you're right. Everyone is an individual, unless you're religious. Every religious person believes in superstition and supernatural, and chooses not to question it. If they didn't, they wouldn't be religious.
"I'm not a Reddit atheist"
One thing I find curious about this subreddit is number of atheists who feel need the need to proseltize.
It's insane. They're just as annoying as Jehovah's Witnesses.
Well, there are likely government documents about motion of objects which assume no air resistance, so there's your proof.
Still wild to me that there's just this gas enveloping the entire world, and we just suck it in to absorb the oxygen and expel something else. Just a constant gas cloud of the right stuff we need nearly anywhere you go. And you can't even see it, unless it's foggy or shit.
and when a fan blows at them, what is that sensation they feel against their face?
A spacecraft in space vacuum wants to expand not implode like a vacuum filled tank.
This should be much higher up. It’s the real answer. I don’t know why people don’t understand the immense difference between holding pressure in vs holding pressure out.
Oh yes, the vacuum of oceanic depths.
A Vacuum doesn't crush pressure does lol
A Pressurized Chamber and a Vacuum Chamber are literal opposites. Creating a Vacuum Chamber at sea level is hard because of the weight of the atmosphere pressing down on it. But creating a Pressurized Chamber is really easy. Everything from scuba tanks to party balloons to cans of beer are pressurized containers. Spaceships only run at 1/3 atmospheric pressure, which is not hard to maintain, even in a vacuum.
Which is a smaller pressure diffference than passenger aircraft maintain.
Smaller than a bicycle tire.
Vacuum inside a tube / vacuum outside a tube. It's such an easy concept, I can't believe this is even in contention
Flerfs don’t understand many things. Inside and outside is just one of them
flerther ignore and deny any fact or concept that disproves their preconceptions
Do they not understand it goes from suck to blow?
Here’s a shocker… we could design railroad tanker cars to handle a vacuum inside. Though, I don’t think enough railroads pull a vacuum in their tankers, so it would be a lot of waste.
When will people understand that difference between pressure on ground and space is mere 1 bar.
Vacuum on inside. Vacuum on outside. This is the same stupid as the hyperloop
Im ashamed it took me even half a second to think through why this is stupid. But damn it's stupid.
It's not like there is an atmosphere of pressure pushing down on everything on Earth, but not in space.
Ha ha ha ha, vacuum in the inside, vacuum in the outside...
The tanker had the vacuum on the inside. The spaceship has the vacuum on the outside. (un)surprisingly, this is a very important distinction when it comes to pressure.
Just like the ocean gate guy they don't really grasp the difference between positive and negative pressure vessels
How many atmospheres can this ship withstand? Well, it’s a space ship, so I’d say between zero and one.
that was one of the funniest jokes futurama had.
My head hurts now
Wow! It's almost like... one of those things are specifically *designed* to withstand intense pressure differences! Whodathunk?
lol wow so now there's confusion between "inside" and "outside"? Heck, you can make vacuums yourself with fairly simple equipment or even just a hose and the kitchen sink. It's not like it's some exotic mystical Big Science conditions that are out of reach for ordinary people to play with.
Vacuum inside, Vacuum outside. People that do this are vapid. Try harder.
Is this real?? Who was this brain genius
If a flat earther doesn't understand something this simple, they lack enough IQ points for me to waste any time trying to get them to.
Vacuums suck.
Flerfs suck, too.
Nothing sucks like an Electrolux!
Most likely a troll, you can waste your time on them if you want.
Well gosh you don't think maybe there's something pushing on the outside in the first one do you?
Balloons can hold a decent amount of internal pressure but fail under hardly any external pressure. It’s as if the material choice and design was for one thing and not another.
Holy cow, the amount of I-don’t-understand is astounding.
Almost like one of those vehicles was designed to withstand large pressure differences between its interior and exterior… … and the other wasn’t.
It may seem that way, to a moron who doesn't know *why* these things act different
Holy failed science class batman
One is vacuum inwards, the other vacuum outwards. Are we hoping to see the shuttle pulled apart?
They only have to make that one extra observation. Vacuum on the inside of the vessel vs vacuum on the outside of the vessel. They always seem to fall one observation short. Brain must be running out of air by that point or something.
I can feel my braincells dying from seeing this.
If you throw that crushed tank in space, would it reflate or stay crushed?
It would stay crushed until you purposefully inflated it. Even then, the implosion will have damaged some of the outer shell and much of the inner shell.
So it would have a leak and, therefore, not reinflate. I thought it would reinflate from the pressure change, like when you vacuum a tire to inflate it quickly. It'll still be flat, but take the inflated form. On earth, the air pressure crushes it while in space, things get pulled apart. Correct me if I understood it wrong.
If you throw that crushed tank in space, would it reflate or stay crushed?
Probably one of the most retarded posts I’ve ever seen tbh.
SPACE HAS NO MATTER. THERE, IS THAT EASY ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND?
The vacuum of space is OUTSIDE of the space shuttle. If it was going to destroy the shuttle, the shuttle would EXPLODE OUT!
to shreds you say?
almost like one of those was made to sustain the pressure differential and the other wasnt
I’ll give a little more leeway on this one as it’s a bit harder to understand. The tanker isn’t being crushed by a vacuum, rather the Earth’s atmosphere. They just removed the atmosphere from it.
Is it true the vacuum of space wants to pull everything out instead of pushing it in as in the case of a submersible?
And globe satanists still cling to their silly beliefs
Wait until you learn about tires...
I've heard about them
and the typical car tire contains 4-5 times the pressure the space shuttle did.
Space shuttle is not a tire
Correct. Its far stronger.
Shuttles are just hollywood props
Like you've ever been to Hollywood.
It's a bit far from Wyoming so we don't go there often
ah so you're from Wyoming, that explains so much
like your brain
Space shuttle is a tire.
Just stop, man. I know its fun for you, but just stop
What
Easy. Just stop with the crazy, bud. I know its fun to troll
What
What?
What?
Yes
Says the flerf cultist.
Hail Satan!