The Space Vacuum

Video Transcript:

Take a gas vacuum, a vehicle volume, and we're going to remove the bariter. You know what's going to happen spontaneously, right? The gas is going to fill the available volume. Is the expansion of a gas into a vacuum? I have one of these bulbs, some bromine, and in the other I have a vacuum. If I open the tap between these two, you will see spontaneously the bromine rush from one to the other. Now that is the simplest change we can have, perhaps, because all that happens is a change in entropy. In this case, the expansion into a vacuum, nothing else is involved. There's no energy change, there's no temperature change, there's no change except entropy. When you suggest that you have space, therefore, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply, it's a beg in the question fallacy. So often I will ask fundamentalist religious zealots, beyond your fundamentalist religious zealot belief that the sky is a vacuum, how can you have gas pressure without a container? Because the natural instinct of a fundamentalist globe believing fundee is to beg the question of the sky vacuum and then tell us that obviously the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply, because the gas isn't filling my presupposition at the skies of vacuum. Well, that's a beg in the question fallacy, to assume that you've got a sky vacuum and therefore not require a justification for its violation of that particular law, that would be an entropy increase, or standard gas law, the volume that you would calculate it with would be the volume of space the gas has to fill. And if the sky was a vacuum, that would be an availability of volume for the gas we breathe to fill. And fill it it must, that's what gas does it expands in all directions. So the gas we're breathing, which is at pressure, would fill the sky vacuum. Now, there are sponsors often to say, well, we have a gas pressure gradient, which is merely a delta of the original question and assertion when you've got a sky vacuum belief, how can you have gas pressure in the first instance without a container? And they would say, well, a delta of gas pressure, gas pressure gradient is something we experience. So, well, how did you achieve the gas pressure in the first place without containment? And the answer is, you can't. It stands directly in violation of several natural laws. Without the container, there can be no pressure. Therefore, if the sky was a vacuum, as asserted in the heliocentric rhetoric, then the gas we breathe would fill the space. Outer space, claim to be a vacuum, is fake. Therefore, any claims from that claim to be sky vacuum are automatically fake. But not limited to pictures of earth from space. The region is fake, second law of thermodynamics violation. Therefore, the pictures claim to have come from the fake region are also fake. Orbits in a sky vacuum, which is also a begging the question fallacy, which I won't detail now, is claim to take place in a fake place called space. Therefore, automatically fake. Name goes for satellites, all debunked by the second law of thermodynamics and several other laws of nature, descriptions of how things occur always. Standard gas law, boils law, avogadro law, these are all violated by the assertion that we have a sky vacuum. We don't. And any stage performance that comes from that region is also fake, including the ISS, making place on a stage, on earth, on high wire, not in a second law of thermodynamics violation sky vacuum. You can't have orbital mechanics without an assumption of the air value, and we've debunked it with the blacks one. But orbits is always going to be a begging the question fallacy to begin with. Nice that we can debunk it with one breath. We debunked our, bye bye, orbital mechanics, bye bye, globe earth. Nathan Oakley, 1980, follow his, he does flat earth debates every, you know, but Nathan Oakley is my favorite right now. I love Nathan Oakley. Yeah, me too. Demolish it.