I too was wondering about the feasibility of vacuum for buoyancy, to help with flying cars. My intuition jumped to the presumption, posted above, that no material can surmount the pressure challenge. But two thoughts: 1) Isn't the real question, then, what the percentage gain (space saving?) from vacuum compared to helium, since helium is already feasible. 2) Compared to other technological miracles, wouldn't it seem that merely finding a material solution that can withstand a vacuum, would be rather pedestrian compared to for instance editing DNA? Maybe a bad example, but you get my point. I read the conclusion that even diamond wouldn't do it. But it the problem seems an odd one to have a status of "metaphysical illogicality," while granted, a vacuum is a special, spacial, spatial thing.
Relative buoyancy benefit of vacuum vs helium?
I too was wondering about the feasibility of vacuum for buoyancy, to help with flying cars. My intuition jumped to the presumption, posted above, that no material can surmount the pressure challenge. But two thoughts: 1) Isn't the real question, then, what the percentage gain (space saving?) from vacuum compared to helium, since helium is already feasible. 2) Compared to other technological miracles, wouldn't it seem that merely finding a material solution that can withstand a vacuum, would be rather pedestrian compared to for instance editing DNA? Maybe a bad example, but you get my point. I read the conclusion that even diamond wouldn't do it. But it the problem seems an odd one to have a status of "metaphysical illogicality," while granted, a vacuum is a special, spacial, spatial thing.