The Moons Atomosphere

[Strange]

51 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Did I state that wrong? Is 30 in hg different from what I read on a vacuum gauge?

I just didn't understand what you wanted to compare it to.

Quote

So couldn't you put a chamber inside a chamber and drop the vacuum lower in the inner chamber?

I suspect the extra cost and complexity would be better spent just improving the vacuum in one chamber.

Note that achieving a good vacuum can be very hard (and potentially dangerous, if you don't know what you are doing).

I haven't done any work in this area for nearly 50 years so there are probably better people around to advise you!

[Theredbarron]

Is this information correct? anybody

https://www.windows2universe.org/spaceweather/sun_earth6.html

[Moontanman]

7 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Is this information correct? anybody

https://www.windows2universe.org/spaceweather/sun_earth6.html

yes

[Theredbarron]

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

yes

Thank you good sir. 

Other sites are saying that the planets are orbiting in the same direction as the suns rotation and around the area of the suns equator some higher some lower then others. Is this also true?

[Moontanman]

18 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Thank you good sir. 

Other sites are saying that the planets are orbiting in the same direction as the suns rotation and around the area of the suns equator some higher some lower then others. Is this also true?

yes

[Theredbarron]

So what if I told you that I made that wheel to use centrifugal force to push all the matter out and not let any back in as to make a zone of no electrons or a open space a like a vacuum which then would attract matter with electrons, would that make better sense?

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

So what if I told you that I made that wheel to use centrifugal force to push all the matter out and not let any back in as to make a zone of no electrons or a open space a like a vacuum which then would attract matter with electrons, would that make better sense?

 You'd have to elaborate because I have no idea what you mean or what it has to do with the Moon's atmosphere... 

[Ghideon]

8 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

 would that make better sense?

Better sense than what? 

[Theredbarron]

Sorry that wasn't supposed to be for here.

Ok so what I was thinking is that in order to attract matter, like a magnet, which has both protons and electrons you would have to have the opposite. which would be no proton or electrons. So in order to do that it would have to be a vacuum correct? we cant make that kind of vacuum with what we have really but if you stood next to a space with less matter in it then its more of an opposite charge of magnetism so it would attract matter. So I made this wheel  to use centrifugal force to push out all the matter and make an area with out electrons and proton's as to attract matter with them. Does that make any sense?

So I was trying to understand vacuum a little better and how planets collect is own gasses based upon the surface speed and the diameter of the planet.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Theredbarron

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Ok so what I was thinking is that in order to attract matter like a magnet which has both protons and electrons you would have to have the opposite. which would be no proton or electrons. So in order to do that it would have to be a vacuum correct? we cant make that kind of vacuum with what we have really but if you stood next to a space with less matter in it then its more of an opposite charge of magnetism so it would attract matter. So I made this wheel  to use centrifugal force to push out all the matter and make an area with out electrons and proton's as to attract matter with them. Does that make any sense?

I'm not even sure where to start with this. You have packed an enormous number of misconceptions into a few sentences...

Quote

attract matter like a magnet which has both protons and electrons

A magnet requires more than just the presence of protons and electrons. After all, not all materials are magnetic. You need either an electrical current (as in an electromagnet) or moving charges (as in a permanent magnet, where the magnetic moments of all the atoms are aligned).

And, of course, not all materials are attracted by a magnet. Mainly some types of metal.

21 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

So in order to do that it would have to be a vacuum correct?

A vacuum does not attract things (by magnetism or anything else).

Quote

we cant make that kind of vacuum with what we have really 

Why not?

22 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

if you stood next to a space with less matter in it then its more of an opposite charge of magnetism so it would attract matter

The absence of matter would mean the absence of magnetism not the "opposite charge of magnetism" (whatever that means).

So it would not attract matter.

Quote

So I made this wheel  to use centrifugal force to push out all the matter and make an area with out electrons and proton's as to attract matter with them.

It would not "push out all the matter" and certainly would not make an area without electrons and protons. After all, the air would rapidly flow back in to replace any that is pushed away by your fan.

But I am glad you have now realised that all you have done is design a fan to move air around (and hence make other things move).

25 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Does that make any sense?

No. It is complete nonsense. 

There is a saying about "a little learning is a dangerous thing". You have learnt a tiny amount and then huge leaps and filled the gaps with stuff you have made up.

Quote

So I was trying to understand vacuum a little better and how planets collect is own gasses based upon the surface speed and the diameter of the planet.

You appear to have failed in that goal.

[Theredbarron]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

A vacuum does not attract things (by magnetism or anything else).

Really 

Are you just going to contradict everything just because? This is speculations and I'm speculating. 

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Really 

Are you just going to contradict everything just because? This is speculations and I'm speculating. 

I only contradict things that are factually incorrect.

The rules of the Speculations forum require speculations to science based: ie. you should have a model and use evidence to support your idea. Just making up stuff that is contradicted by observation (like a vacuum attracting matter) is not going to work.

[Theredbarron]

the opposite of magnetism is no magnetism which means not protons or electrons which have magnetic properties and exists in all matter. 

that would be facts 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Theredbarron said:

the opposite of magnetism is no magnetism which means not protons or electrons which have magnetic properties and exists in all matter. 

You can have "no magnetism" in the presence of matter.

And "no magnetism" doesn't attract matter.

[Theredbarron]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

You can have "no magnetism" in the presence of matter.

And "no magnetism" doesn't attract matter.

What I'm referring to is the opposite of positive and negative at the same time which would be the no protons or electrons. Matter itself has positive and negative charges at the same time. How would someone move something that is charged with both to include air and all thing on the table of elements? You would have to create a space without any  of these properties to attract both the protons and electrons In matter. Much like vacuum would pull in matter is has a lower total charge due to the less total mass that is inside which would attract matter if its a great enough differential or strength is what I'm purposing. 

[Moontanman]

Just now, Theredbarron said:

What I'm referring to is the opposite of positive and negative at the same time which would be the no protons or electrons. Matter itself has positive and negative charges at the same time. How would someone move something that is charged with both to include air and all thing on the table of elements? You would have to create a space without any  of these properties to attract both the protons and electrons In matter. Much like vacuum would pull in matter is has a lower total charge due to the less total mass that is inside which would attract matter if its a great enough differential or strength is what I'm purposing. 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say gravity is what attracts uncharged matter... 

[Ghideon]

 

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

how planets collect is own gasses based upon the surface speed and the diameter of the planet

I think you first should ask, and understand, how planets collect gasses based upon the density and the diameter of the planet?

[Theredbarron]

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say gravity is what attracts uncharged matter... 

This is very possible yes

 

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

 

I think you first should ask, and understand, how planets collect gasses based upon the density and the diameter of the planet?

Yes is it initially static possibly or is it simple the motion as to how it collects its atmosphere?

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

What I'm referring to is the opposite of positive and negative at the same time which would be the no protons or electrons. Matter itself has positive and negative charges at the same time.

You seem very confused about electric charge and magnetism, which are different (although related) things. 

The mere presence of protons and electrons does not create magnetism.

5 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

How would someone move something that is charged with both to include air and all thing on the table of elements?

You can move things easily: pick them up and carry them for example. 

(In case it's not clear: I have absolutely no idea what you mean. It is trivially easy to move things.)

The reason we can pick things up and move them, is because we are also made up of protons and electrons, and our electrons interact with the electrons of the thing we are picking up.

8 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

You would have to create a space without any  of these properties to attract both the protons and electrons In matter.

Empty space does not attract. Positive charges are attracted by negative charges, and vice versa.

Empty space has no charge and does not attract protons or neutrons.

Normal matter is electrically neutral and is not attracted by positive or negative charges.

 

5 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Yes is it initially static possibly or is it simple the motion as to how it collects its atmosphere?

The movement of the planet is pretty much irrelevant 

[Ghideon]

 

27 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Yes is it initially static possibly or is it simple the motion as to how it collects its atmosphere?

To be honest I do not have enough knowledge about static. But movement, if you by that mean rotation, does not seem likely.

There is something with the way you ask the questions that make me wonder; is your idea that the planet does not have any gravity initially? First the planet must have an atmosphere and then the atmosphere creates the gravity? That's why you ask for me to choose between static and movement? 

34 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

You would have to create a space without any  of these properties to attract both the protons and electrons In matter.

I don't get this one. First you create an empty space.  Then matter is attracted = moves into the empty space you just created. Then what? No empty space and no attraction; everything falls apart? 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Ghideon

[Theredbarron]

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

 

There is something with the way you ask the questions that make me wonder; is your idea that the planet does not have any gravity initially? First the planet must have an atmosphere and then the atmosphere creates the gravity? That's why you ask for me to choose between static and move

No. It starts with very fast rotating mass that's inside the planet that creates this void that I'm going after. Weather or not its the start of gravity is up in the air to me right now.

 

7 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I don't get this one. First you create an empty space.  Then matter is attracted = moves into the empty space you just created. Then what? No empty space and no attraction; everything falls apart? 

It cant just enter the empty space is the idea. Its just attracted to it and if its going fast enough it may stick like in an orbit around it is what I picture or the correct trajectory like our atmosphere.  

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Theredbarron said:

It cant just enter the empty space is the idea. Its just attracted to it and if its going fast enough it may stick like in an orbit around it is what I picture or the correct trajectory like our atmosphere.

So you imagine that matter would orbit a void (empty space)?

A void has less mass and so would not attract things (not by magnetism, not by gravity, not by magic). Sorry.

[Theredbarron]

Just now, Strange said:

So you imagine that matter would orbit a void (empty space)?

A void has less mass and so would not attract things (not by magnetism, not by gravity, not by magic). Sorry.

Are you saying that if you stood next to a giant vacuum that it wouldn't attract you?

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Theredbarron said:

Are you saying that if you stood next to a giant vacuum that it wouldn't attract you?

Correct. (Assuming the vacuum is contained within a sealed container.)

If you are thinking of (with some sort of magic) creating a vacuum with nothing around it, then the surrounding pressure would force the air and other material towards it. This is a push cause by external pressure, not attraction.

[Theredbarron]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Correct. (Assuming the vacuum is contained within a sealed container.)

If you are thinking of (with some sort of magic) creating a vacuum with nothing around it, then the surrounding pressure would force the air and other material towards it. This is a push cause by external pressure, not attraction.

This is exactly what I'm Thinking.

The vacuum of space is not inside a container either.