[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Would a vacuum chamber in a gravity field have more suction or draw on the atmosphere then an identical vacuum chamber that is unaffected by any strong gravity field?

[Kryptid]

Vacuums don't actually suck on anything. It's the internal pressure of the gas that causes it to expand into the vacuum. As to whether gravity has any effect, I think that depends on the specifics. Is the gas contained inside of a container of fixed volume and temperature? Where is the nozzle relative to the gravitational field?

[puppypower]

Would a vacuum chamber in a gravity field have more suction or draw on the atmosphere then an identical vacuum chamber that is unaffected by any strong gravity field?

A gravitational field will add pressure to the gases outside the vacuum. This pressure increases with the strength of the field for any given amount of gas.

A vacuum, on the other hand, is deprived of matter/gas, so the gravitational field strength does not impact the vacuum. Therefore, the higher pressure, due to gravity field, will creates the highest pressure gradient with the vacuum; fastest and strongest appearing vacuum.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

A vacuum, on the other hand, is deprived of matter/gas, so the gravitational field strength does not impact the vacuum.

I admire your thinking puppypower. We need great thinkers to write us into a better future. However the gravity field still exists inside the vacuum doesn't it? So...

[Hayseed]

According to the modern theory, the gravity bends, curves, and distorts that vacuum.  It's like giving that vacuum a media gradient density.  So, the vacuum space has changed and any mass entering that space will change trajectory.  Gravity effects the space(vacuum), that the mass is in.  The line of scrimmage is not between two masses, it's between the mass and space.

If your intellect(gullibility) will allow such things.  I prefer an understanding of omnipresent time and length.   Without randomness and probability.   But that is just me.   Don't try it in class.

[Bored chemist]

If you had two chambers, connected by a tube, and with one of them in orbit in space (For example, on the ISS) but the other one near the surface of the Earth, the air would "fall" out of the upper one into the lower one.

I guess you could say that the one near the Earth "sucked" harder.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

I'm thinking the vacuum chamber in the gravity field has a more dense space medium within it that would create a stronger draw on an atmosphere then the one in space or free of a gravity field. This would be evidence for my theory that a gravity field is a region of denser space medium that bends light as it passes using refraction.

[Bored chemist]

evidence for my theory

It's not a theory.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

It's not a theory.

Back again ay Mr. spins? So let me get this straight according to you such a thing as gravitational waves exist that travel along the space medium, yet space doesn't have any qualities to it and is a nothingness. Is that right?

[Kryptid]

a region of denser space

What does your model predict the density of that space to be?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

What does your model predict the density of that space to be?

Haven't done any numbers, If the draw of the first vacuum chamber was double that of the second, then space would be twice as dense in the gravity field. I can't give any accurate numbers without the experiment, and I currently don't have access to a space station where I could perform such an experiment. The closer you are to the planet creating the gravity field the denser the space medium would be inside the vacuum camber. Maybe if I had high precision instruments I could do the experiment from say up top a mountain and down close to sea level. There might be enough of a difference to be measurable. I have seen that two precision clocks run at different rates a mere meter in difference in the earth's gravity field so perhaps that is evidence as well.

[Kryptid]

then space would be twice as dense in the gravity field

The density of empty space is zero and zero times two is still zero.

[Bored chemist]

space doesn't have any qualities to it

I never said that, did I?

For example, space has at least 4 well documented, and related properties.
A permittivity, a permeability, an impedance and a speed of light.


It also has a density which, as has been pointed out, is zero.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

then space would be twice as dense in the gravity field

The density of empty space is zero and zero times two is still zero.

I understand that density means the presence of a medium, and am saying that space itself is the medium that makes the vacuum chamber stronger. How would you account for the first vacuum chamber having more draw on an atmosphere then the second? What quality of space would you use to describe this?

[Bored chemist]

How would you account for the first vacuum chamber having more draw on an atmosphere then the second?

Did you actually show that it did?

I pointed out that gas molecules fall under the influence of gravity, but that's "not exactly rocket science".

[Kryptid]

I understand that density means the presence of a medium

Density is mass per unit volume. So what is the density of empty space, away from a gravitational field, in grams per cubic centimeter?

How would you account for the first vacuum chamber having more draw on an atmosphere then the second? What quality of space would you use to describe this?

Gravity. No need for space to have a density in order for there to be gravity.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Gravity. No need for space to have a density in order for there to be gravity.

What unit would you use to express the power of the vacuum draw difference however?

[Kryptid]

What unit would you use to express the power of the vacuum draw difference however?

None, because vacuums don't draw anything. It's the internal pressure of the gas that does the work. So what you are looking for is a difference in gas pressure (in pascals, for example).

[puppypower]

A vacuum, on the other hand, is deprived of matter/gas, so the gravitational field strength does not impact the vacuum.

I admire your thinking puppypower. We need great thinkers to write us into a better future. However the gravity field still exists inside the vacuum doesn't it? So...

If the vacuum contains no mass then the vacuum is not impacted by gravity. Gravity will impact the mass of the device, that is creating the vacuum. The net affect is more pressure outside the vacuum at the very beginning where here is a gravitational field compared to no gravitational field. There will appear to be more suction.

As materials collects within the vacuum, the vacuum will disappear faster where there is gravity, since less mass can create more pressure. This will reverse the suction situation, over time, but not at the very beginning.