Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "Joe Rogan on the "Space is Fake" Conspiracy" video.
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Not_A_Tourist - You said "what's the point in retiring a rocket or technology when there's nothing in place to replace it?"
Because my friend, the Saturn V rocket was not built for space exploration or for scientific research, it was all about politics.
The USA needed such a rocket to get men on the moon before the USSR for the massive propaganda coup of capitalism vs communism.
Hence Congress gave NASA a massive increase in funding to make it happen, and once they were satisfied that the USSR can't match them (i.e. mission accomplished), Congress then withdrew all the extra funding for NASA, meaning no more Saturn V rockets could be built and so the planned Apollo missions 18 to 20 were cancelled.
You can see it clearly in NASA's budget over the years;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg
It costs as much today to develop such a massive rocket as it did back then, hence the SLS development costs has been spread over 10 years, where it uses booster rockets and updated versions of the Space Shuttle engines (proven reliability and saving cost).
Simply put, the Apollo program was not sustainable financially, it was never meant to be, instead it was part of the Cold War for which NASA used the opportunity to get as much research and science out of it as they could while it lasted :-|
The USA's return to the moon should be more sustainable this time, and even more so when the private rocket industry takes over with SLS size rockets of their own (and larger) for less cost in future, eg. Space X.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bamainatlanta
Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time ?"
Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money... ...is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...."
A rather convoluted answer? Yes! A slightly flippant answer at the start? Yes! Buzz saying they didn't land on the moon? No!
So why the quote mining all the time from conspiracy believers?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The problem with many conspiracy believers is that your bias causes you to put aside common sense, logic and fairness :-|
For example, go and accuse a clean athlete of being a drugs cheat and a liar and a coward, and demand he swears on the Bible to prove he's innocent of taking performance enhancing drugs... and then tell us which hospital you're in so that we can visit you :-)
According to you, it doesn't matter which athlete you approach to make that accusation, if the athlete is innocent then he would never EVER become angry much less punch you, no matter how much you harass him, which is complete nonsense.
So if you put your bias aside then it doesn't matter whether you believe men landed on the moon or not, it doesn't matter whether you believe Buzz was lying or not, Bart Sibrel was harassing Buzz Aldrin even as Buzz was trying to walk away from him and he eventually snapped upon being called a lair and a coward, and therefore Bart got what he deserved.
It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
...
"Now, nothing seems plainer to me than that the facts are opposed to the theories hence the theories must be wrong, and, if wrong, Zeteticism and the Bible is most likely right; if right, school children should no longer be compelled to believe that which astronomers have long known they cannot prove— a supposition to be a fact."
"We do find some, sorry to say, that cling to the popular error, at the sacrifice of the unpopular truth. While some are declaring that they have nothing to do with the matter, yet we still hear them preaching the Earth a Globe, and are teaching it from their high schools and colleges"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mynamemylastname7179 - Anyway, I have to address this claim from you;
"Mathews B' i,'b, 'l'e 1537 SAYS Flat Earth... 2Smauels 11 11"
No, that verse refers to flat earth meaning flat ground, i.e. earth as in soil, not Earth as in the world we live on.
Here it is in the King James Bible;
"And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing."
So what next? A gardener says he "dug up the earth" and you think he's claiming to have dug up the entire world?
What about grabbing a handful of earth? ;-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cactine No problem my friend :-)
I'll copy and paste part of a reply I posted to someone else recently;
"Getting people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.*
Back then, the American's built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
In contrast, the Soviets built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the Soviets didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program.
China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program and are working towards building their own Saturn V class rocket for their future manned moon landings."
Today America has that capability again with the SLS rocket, where it will take the Orion to the moon and back in a few months to test both the rocket and space capsule.
If that mission is successful, then the SLS will take people back to the moon by 2025. However if that mission is a failure, then depending on the issue they will be unlikely to return until years after 2025.
Lets see what happens this year :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And to others who may be reading this thread in future, here's some info that would clearly go over Sophies head.
To get people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history, which NASA achieved with the Saturn V thanks to increased funding for that purpose.
The key point is - the Saturn V rocket was not built for space exploration or for scientific research, it was all about politics!
The USA needed such a rocket to get men on the moon before the USSR for the massive propaganda coup of capitalism vs communism.
Hence Congress gave NASA a massive increase in funding to make it happen, and once they were satisfied that the USSR can't match them (i.e. mission accomplished), Congress then withdrew all the extra funding for NASA, meaning no more Saturn V rockets could be built and so the planned Apollo missions 18 to 20 were cancelled.
You can see it clearly in NASA's budget over the years;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg
It costs as much today to develop such a massive rocket as it did back then, hence NASA's new and more powerful SLS rocket (due to launch this year) has development costs spread over 10 years, where it uses booster rockets and updated versions of the Space Shuttle engines (proven reliability and saving cost).
Simply put, the Apollo program was not sustainable financially, it was never meant to be, instead it was part of the Cold War for which NASA used the opportunity to get as much research and science out of it as they could while it lasted :-|
The USA's return to the moon should be more sustainable this time, and even more so when the private rocket industry takes over with SLS size rockets of their own (and larger) for less cost in future, eg. Space X.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@duncanvantongeren4646 - As I expected, you typed a lot just to demonstrate that you have no basis to claim distances are wrong or even questionable :-)
Hence it was amusing to read the following from you about distances in flat Earth claims, quote "but this is not THAT BIG of a problem, since we are dealing with relatively short distances, that would therefore also be more easily checked by other means".
So here's some flat Earth distance videos;
Flat Earth: Chicago Skyline Proves The Earth Is Flat | A Must Watch!
(Uploaded by tayekenzy earth)
Flat Earth Proof: Oahu seen from Kauai more than 90 miles away
(Uploaded by Terry Robinson)
Does This Photograph Prove That The Earth Is Flat?
(Uploaded by okreylos)
And to quote Eric Dubay; "In fact, the record-breaking longest distance zoom photograph ever taken recently showed Pic Gaspard from Pic de Finestrelles a whopping 275 miles away, at a height of under 10,000 feet, where, based on correct curvature calculations, the entire mountain should be invisible behind several miles of curved Earth"
So above are distances of 60 miles, 90 miles, 197 km and 275 miles, ALL stated by many flat Earth theorists and believers to be FACT.
All those distances can be found and measured directly on a globe and they will be correct on that scale.
Now go ahead and name a flat map of a flat Earth where those distances are all correct on that map to scale :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@k9slife - You said "why do they dig through mountains and flatten all hills in front of them,"
Well duh! ;-) Because mountains represent a huge RISE in the land, and so if they can't find a safe and manageable route around the mountain for the train to travel (as some have), then they will blast through PARTS of the mountain instead of trying to go over it, hence carve out a path around the side or dig a tunnel through, or both.
So again, your argument is false.
Consider this. Take an A4 size map of an area with hills and mountains and valleys that you want to lay a train track. Imagine if the longest side of that A4 map represent 25 miles. If you lay that map on a perfectly flat table, then the curvature of the Earth would be the equivalent of raising the middle of your map by just 0.25 millimetres!
If you made a model of that same area based upon the A4 map, then a 1 mile high mountain on your map would be 12 millimetres high on your model!
Think about that please.
The mountain you have to deal with rises up 12 millimetres (1.2 cm) in a small section of your model, whereas the curvature of the Earth only raises your model up to a maximum of 0.25 millimetres at the centre!
So as I stated, when laying down railway tracks, the engineers are only concerned about the rise and fall of the landscape itself, not the curvature of the Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grant5392 - You said "planets are all CGI generated"
So NOW you are trying to claim that composite photos are CGI, which is not what you said before you posted your link, and hence that addition to your CGI claim is pure ignorance (and desperation :-)).
Photographs taken in space and broadcast back to Earth are DIGITAL, and ALL digital photographs are manipulated, INCLUDING EVERY DIGITAL PHOTO you've taken with your camera/phone! So are all YOUR digital photographs fake too? They must be by your logic!
The sensor in your camera only detects light intensity NOT colour.
I repeat, the sensor in your camera only detects light intensity NOT colour.
To produce colour, a special filter grid is used, where a software algorithm is run to calculate the colour of EACH pixel based upon a complex calculation from the surrounding pixels, resulting in the final colour image (Google Search: BAYER FILTER for example).
The problem with the above method is that some colour information is lost, making it useless for science which requires precise values.
So spacecraft use multiple filters instead to combine the images into one.
For example, a colour photograph of the Earth would consists of a photo taken with a red filter, then with a blue filter and finally with a green filter, where the 3 photos are then combined to produce the final colour image.
THAT is manipulation. It can't be avoided because CMOS sensors are not colour, therefore colour must be created by using filters, either as a matrix/grid for single photos, or as separate photos through different filters combined into one image.
*In other words, photographs from space are as fake, CGI, photoshopped as ALL the photographs you've taken with your phone or digital camera.
*
Fact matter, they really do :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roybutler9323 - Did you know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude? Of course you did!
At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with any vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 times less air compared to sea level, and at 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's a medium vacuum. At 50 miles up, there is 1 million times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theorists are willing to accept. In other words, there's a proven pressure gradient which results in ever increasing vacuum conditions.
After all, what's separating the crushing pressures of the ocean floor miles down from the low pressure of water at the surface of our oceans? The pressure is higher the lower we go down into the ocean, due to the weight of the sea above.
Likewise the pressure of our atmosphere is higher the lower we go towards the surface of the Earth, due to the weight of the air above.
So weight creates the pressure at lower levels, and that weight is caused by gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ZEUSILLZAU - It's amusing how you tried to pre-empt what I'm about to say ;-) Anyway...
Did you know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude? Of course you did!
At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with a cheap vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 times less air compared to sea level, and at 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's a medium vacuum.
At 50 miles up, there is 1 million times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theorists are willing to accept. In other words, there's a proven pressure gradient which results in ever increasing vacuum conditions, with no barrier in between and no closed container required.
Any questions? :-)
After all, what is separating the incredibly crushing pressures of the ocean floor miles down from the low pressure of water at the surface of our oceans? The pressure is higher the lower we go down into the ocean, due to the weight of the sea above. Again, no barrier in between and no closed container.
Likewise the pressure of our atmosphere is lower the higher up we go, and higher the lower down we go towards the surface of the Earth, due to the weight of the air above. Again, no barrier in between and no closed container required.
So no container or barrier is needed. Weight creates the pressure at lower levels, and that weight is caused by gravity.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@truthsauce - You said "But how can we know for SURE that he really WASN'T told to be quiet?"
How can we know for sure Joe isn't a trained assassin? :-)
Any of us can make accusations about others, but without evidence our accusations will be unfounded.
I understand that your problem is with Joe switching from being a moon landing denier to a moon landing supporter, but why should it ONLY be suspicious in one direction?
That is, no-one finds it suspicious when someone becomes a moon landing denier, a flat Earth believer, a vaccine denier, a covid denier, or a believer of other conspiracies.
But whenever a well known conspiracy believer changes his mind and stops believing the conspiracy, then others are quick to claim that the 'authorities' got to him to keep quiet, often with claims that there were threats to him or his family.
It appears to be based upon the assumption that once you go wack you never go back ;-) (Well, I thought that was funny...I hope you didn't take offense).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said "Was it when don petit said he'd go back to the moon in a heartbeat, but they 'lost' that 60 yr old technology, and cant get it back!?"
Oh come on, really? Are you really going to claim that you don't understand what Don meant by that? His words were really that difficult? :-)
You said "Or when the Italian astronaut's helmet filled up w water- in space?"
You do know that spacesuits are liquid cooled, right? What liquid do you think they use?
You said "Or was it the somersaults in the spacestation where fellow astronauts are pulling on their wires?"
Oh yes, the one where we can see the fellow astronaut catch the other's pocket with his finger, and where the claimed wires would by passing through the astronaut and through the microphone cable as if by magic. In other words, there are no wires!
Hence all you're proving here is that you blindly believe conspiracy claims without question.
So can you state your beliefs please? That is, do you think only certain space missions are a hoax, or all of them because you believe space is fake?
And if you believe space is fake, is that because you're a flat Earth believer? Or something else?
1
-
@blackhawklue - You said "Why dont you tell me what petit meant if its so obvious?"
It really isn't rocket science :-)
Don Pettit saying he would go back to the moon in a nanosecond but we've lost/destroyed that technology, means we no longer have a Saturn V rocket in SERVICE TODAY to get us there, because the Saturn V rocket is retired.
The USA were not able to send people up to the ISS from 2011 to late 2020 because they lost/destroyed that technology, i.e. they no longer had a Space Shuttle to get them there, the Space Shuttle is retired. Finally they have that technology back with Space X rockets.
The world hasn't been able to send 100 people across the Atlantic at supersonic speed since 2003 because we have lost/destroyed that technology, i.e. we no longer have a supersonic passenger plane, Concorde is retired.
Understand it now? Destroyed or lost doesn't mean EVERYTHING is destroyed/lost, it means we don't have it in SERVICE TODAY, i.e. it's gone, lost, destroyed, never to come back.
The Saturn V rocket and the Space Shuttle and Concorde will never go into service again, that technology is lost/destroyed (i.e. the infrastructure and services that built, maintained, launched/flew them are all gone).
If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques.
Hence we will soon have the SLS rocket, due to launch this year, which is as large and slightly more powerful than the Saturn V rocket it replaces, and the Orion space capsule which is larger and more sophisticated than the Apollo Command Module it replaces.
On its debut launch this year, the MASSIVE SLS rocket will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and back to Earth for its second test in space. And assuming all goes well, then in 2024 the SLS rocket will again take Orion to the moon but this time with astronauts inside.
Those are examples of the USA rebuilding the technology that was lost/destroyed, i.e. taken out of service, and hence in 2024 people will return to the moon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blackhawklue - We're talking about the wires claim right now. Where it goes after that is open for discussion, it's not for you to present a list of demands, especially when you haven't responded to my last replies about lost technology :-)
Anyway...
Lets take one of the moments you speak of, where this hoax video covers it;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-huF7fRlnA
So here's the problem with that claim - When stunt people do similar somersaults, they have a wire attached to each side of their waists to allow them to rotate.
However, because of the wires, they need to make sure they pull their legs and arms inwards to avoid hitting/catching the wires as they rotate.
You can see this in action on the following link;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlebgX5Uj8g&t=54
As you saw, if their legs or arms aren't kept out of the way of the wires, then they would catch the wires and stop rotating, so they need to bring their limbs inside the wires as they rotate.
Now watch the hoax claim again (but mute the sound to avoid distraction) and imagine there's a wire on either side of that astronaut's waist (the one in the blue t-shirt rotating);
www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-huF7fRlnA&t=14
Notice how during his somersault he doesn't move his arms in to avoid any so-called wires, instead his arms would have to pass through the claimed wires like magic, possibly twice!
And not only that, notice that the microphone he's holding has a long black cable attached, so if he is suspended by wires, how did the microphone cable pass straight through that wire as he rotated?
:-)
Finally, look again at the astronaut in the USMC t-shirt. Notice that he reaches out to grab the astronaut to steady him, but because he's not looking at him directly he almost misses, where he catches the pocket of the astronaut with his little finger and pulls (look carefully).
Hence the video maker, like many conspiracy believers, completely misinterprets what we're seeing in that footage, where he sees what he wants to see and therefore makes things up without checking if what he's saying is true, knowing that certain others would just accept the claims he's making :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did you know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude? Of course you did!
At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with any vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 times less air compared to sea level, and at 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's a medium vacuum. At 50 miles up, there is 1 million times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theorists are willing to accept. In other words, there's a proven pressure gradient which results in ever increasing vacuum conditions.
After all, what's separating the crushing pressures of the ocean floor miles down from the low pressure of water at the surface of our oceans? The pressure is higher the lower we go down into the ocean, due to the weight of the sea above.
Likewise the pressure of our atmosphere is higher the lower we go towards the surface of the Earth, due to the weight of the air above.
So weight creates the pressure at lower levels, and that weight is caused by gravity.
The law of entropy that you mentioned only applies to a gas when no external force is applied to the molecules. Gravity is the external force acting upon the gas molecules of our atmosphere.
1
-
1
-
@FlatzoidsPerspective - A vacuum chamber is containment because it is inside pressurized air, hence the SAME as being underwater surrounded by pressurized liquid.
You said "Second problem when you add gas inside a vacuum chamber its no longer a vacuum! "
WRONG. There's no such thing as a perfect vacuum, therefore even the best vacuum chambers you can access will still have gas molecules floating around.
Because of that, vacuums are categorized as I pointed out (low vacuum, medium vacuum, high vacuum, etc), for example;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Measurement
Hence a vacuum cleaner is not called that because it creates a perfect vacuum, it has that name because it creates lower pressure inside (a low vacuum) which causes the higher pressure air surrounding it to rush in, taking dust with it.
Not sure what point you think you're making about gravity, since it's effect would be irrelevant to the amount of gas in a vacuum chamber.
Either way, you have proven here that you don't understand what a vacuum is :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1