Has someone a valid explanation for this?
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (96)
sorted by:
Yes, underwater rockets exist of course and the type of propellant isn't necessarily relevant to the argument.
It's that in a vacuum, devoid of any matter or molecules, that roman candle has nothing to push against.
It's like falling out of an airplane and trying to swim through the air to get to a lake (sort of a bad example because here we do have air resistance and it would work, but just to illustrate the idea.)
Wrong.
Sorry man, but you are out of your depth on this...inertial thrust doesn’t need an atmosphere.
Newton’s law applies in space as well.
Inertial thrust is science fiction / prototype science- certainly not around in the 1960s. Are you sure I'm the one out of my depth?
And you're begging the question by saying Newton's lawS apply in space.
Newton’s third law does.
And you are an utter moron...I think that’s pretty clear.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GxBRQXxBRic&feature=youtu.be
You're a fucking moron if you think we've ever been to space. What a stooge.
I don't want to deport you but that way of speaking is now allowed here.
Are you serious with this argument? Holy shit. This is not even remotely comparable.
Pumping air out is not the same as an ATOM-LESS INFINITE VACUUM. There are still particles inside that tube.
A tiny cylinder completely encapsulating the object is different from, again an INFINITE VACUUM