Relative Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) In space, is there a physical pressure? http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/MimiZheng.shtml Is this link accurate? If in space, sweat can not even escape a human body, which is a physical pressurised body , which has acting force on the sweat to force out of the human body, why can sweat not escape? unless there is greater pressure? It does not make sense to me I can not understand why is it not P=F/E? And is it so hot in space, in sunlight, because there is no thermal barrier i.e Earth's atmosphere to protect you? Edited August 8, 2014 by Relative
Ophiolite Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 The link is partially accurate . You can surely see that the entries contradict eac other. There are particles in space so there is pressure , but it is in very, very low. I have no idea why you think you can't sweat in space , although the fact that you body fluids would likely be boiling might inhibit it.
Relative Posted August 8, 2014 Author Posted August 8, 2014 The link is partially accurate . You can surely see that the entries contradict eac other. There are particles in space so there is pressure , but it is in very, very low. I have no idea why you think you can't sweat in space , although the fact that you body fluids would likely be boiling might inhibit it. Yes I think the bodily fluid part lead me to believe that. You say there is pressure but very very low, which I would expect in a huge expansion. To have pressure, do we not have to have containment? the act of preventing the spread of something
Strange Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) If in space, sweat can not even escape a human body, which is a physical pressurised body , which has acting force on the sweat to force out of the human body, why can sweat not escape? unless there is greater pressure? Of course sweat can escape the body in space. It has nothing to do with pressure. Sweat is produced at the surface of the skin and would evaporate almost instantly in space. It does not make sense to me I can not understand why is it not P=F/E? What are F and E? Edited August 8, 2014 by Strange
Relative Posted August 8, 2014 Author Posted August 8, 2014 Of course sweat can escape the body in space. It has nothing to do with pressure. Sweat is produced at the surface of the skin and would evaporate almost instantly in space. What are F and E? Force and energy
Strange Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 Force and energy In which case, no. Presure is force / area.
Relative Posted August 8, 2014 Author Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) In which case, no. Presure is force / area. Ok thx, EP=F/A is there an energy pressure has such? Edited August 8, 2014 by Relative
StringJunky Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 Yes I think the bodily fluid part lead me to believe that. You say there is pressure but very very low, which I would expect in a huge expansion. To have pressure, do we not have to have containment? the act of preventing the spread of something Pressure is a function of the frequency of collisions on a surface so containment is not a requirement
Relative Posted August 8, 2014 Author Posted August 8, 2014 Pressure is a function of the frequency of collisions on a surface so containment is not a requirement Would the words pressurised system be more suitable for space?
Strange Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 Ok thx, EP=F/A is there an energy pressure has such? P = F / A What is "EP"? Pressure is equal to energy per unit volume (P = E / V) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/press.html
Relative Posted August 8, 2014 Author Posted August 8, 2014 P = F / A What is "EP"? Pressure is equal to energy per unit volume (P = E / V) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/press.html EP is energy pressure, I was asking if there was an energy pressure has such. Imagine space to be empty, complete blackness, a nothing, I add a sphere that releases energy isotropic. is there a comparison to how big the sphere and the output of the sphere would have to be to fill the expanse with energy compared to the nothing? I use a 40w light bulb in a space the size of a football pitch, the energy is absorbed by the volume of area?
studiot Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) To have pressure, do we not have to have containment? Not always, Liquids exert a vapour pressure, into volume above their surface. This may or may not be not enclosed (contained). Evaporation will continue if the pressure in this space is less than the saturated vapour pressure of the liquid. EP is energy pressure, I was asking if there was an energy pressure has such. Energy and pressure are different quantities. There is no such entity as 'energy pressure' Edited August 8, 2014 by studiot
Relative Posted August 8, 2014 Author Posted August 8, 2014 Not always, Liquids exert a vapour pressure, into volume above their surface. This may or may not be not enclosed (contained). Evaporation will continue if the pressure in this space is less than the saturated vapour pressure of the liquid. You mean like Humidity?
studiot Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 You mean like Humidity? It is a really counterproductive idea to keep introducing extra words that have a particular, well defined, meaning in Science. No, pressure, vapour pressure which is a particular form of pressure are connected with humidity by definitions they are not 'like' or the same. Note that the term humidity itself comes in more than one form. Please also look at my edit to my last post, where I commented on your making up another bogus science term.
Relative Posted August 8, 2014 Author Posted August 8, 2014 It is a really counterproductive idea to keep introducing extra words that have a particular, well defined, meaning in Science. No, pressure, vapour pressure which is a particular form of pressure are connected with humidity by definitions they are not 'like' or the same. Note that the term humidity itself comes in more than one form. Please also look at my edit to my last post, where I commented on your making up another bogus science term. I understand, thx, but i think I see a way you may be able to measure the universe maybe!. A bit more precise maybe. By using energy and volume.
studiot Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 So long as you put more effort into understanding what we already have and know than into wishful thinking and guesswork you will continue to make progress. Perhaps one day all that knowledge will enable you to make what we call 'inspired guesswork' and actually discover something new.
Relative Posted August 8, 2014 Author Posted August 8, 2014 So long as you put more effort into understanding what we already have and know than into wishful thinking and guesswork you will continue to make progress. Perhaps one day all that knowledge will enable you to make what we call 'inspired guesswork' and actually discover something new. Well I am trying, my main fault is I have a misunderstanding of meaning of words. So my sentencing often then do not make sense. Ty for your patience and help!. question all planets are pulled inwards towards the Sun? the outer physical bodies, are expanding? The asteroid belt stays in orbit?
Relative Posted August 9, 2014 Author Posted August 9, 2014 In classical Physics, it was thought that gravity was electromagnetism? Newtons laws of opposites attract, positive and negative attracting one another, based on this line of thought, the Sun would be a positive? Is the Earth's core a positive? Is the crust , mantle, and dust etc, more negative than positive? Does the positive of the Sun, repel the Earth's core positive, but also attracts the Earth's negative,mantle, crust etc, which stays fixed to the Earth's core by distance of attraction, and centripetal force in this circumstance of classical thought, which then creates an orbital elliptical orbit of the Sun?
ACG52 Posted August 9, 2014 Posted August 9, 2014 In classical Physics, it was thought that gravity was electromagnetism? No. They both obey different mathematical laws.
Strange Posted August 9, 2014 Posted August 9, 2014 (edited) In classical Physics, it was thought that gravity was electromagnetism? No Newtons laws of opposites attract, positive and negative attracting one another, based on this line of thought, the Sun would be a positive? You may be thinking of Faraday. Is the Earth's core a positive? No Is the crust , mantle, and dust etc, more negative than positive? No. Does the positive of the Sun, repel the Earth's core positive, but also attracts the Earth's negative,mantle, crust etc, which stays fixed to the Earth's core by distance of attraction, and centripetal force in this circumstance of classical thought, which then creates an orbital elliptical orbit of the Sun? No. Edited August 9, 2014 by Strange
Relative Posted August 10, 2014 Author Posted August 10, 2014 (edited) Thanks , but your No answers make me even more confused!. I will start with the Sun, how in any description is the Sun not a positive, when it emits constant positive energy?. Edited August 10, 2014 by Relative
Strange Posted August 10, 2014 Posted August 10, 2014 Thanks , but your No answers make me even more confused!. I will start with the Sun, how in any description is the Sun not a positive, when it emits constant positive energy?. I assumed when you asked if the sun was positive, you meant electrical charge. The sun is electrically neutral. It emits energy. This is just energy, not "positive energy" (there is no such thing as negative energy).
Relative Posted August 10, 2014 Author Posted August 10, 2014 I assumed when you asked if the sun was positive, you meant electrical charge. The sun is electrically neutral. It emits energy. This is just energy, not "positive energy" (there is no such thing as negative energy). Just energy, I do not understand that sorry, I thought all energy was a positive, or is energy like light and a product?
Strange Posted August 10, 2014 Posted August 10, 2014 Just energy, I do not understand that sorry, I thought all energy was a positive, or is energy like light and a product? What do you mean by "positive"? Energy is always a positive value (or zero). Light is a form of energy. This is the main energy the sun radiates. This does not mean that the sun is positive.
Relative Posted August 10, 2014 Author Posted August 10, 2014 What do you mean by "positive"? Energy is always a positive value (or zero). Light is a form of energy. This is the main energy the sun radiates. This does not mean that the sun is positive. The Sun emits isotropic energy, that has a positive value, so what happens to anything with a negative value? The centripetal force of the Sun, makes a North and South pole restriction of output of energy? and becomes an inlet of space?
Recommended Posts