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:
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.
Go ahead. You aren’t here to learn, nor consider you might not understand what you think you do..you’re here to argue. And the hilarious part is that you’re arguing against at least one scientist...it’s mind boggling. There’s been several people tell you what you’ve got wrong, but you’re absolutely certain you’re right.
I’m not part of some conspiracy designed to cover up space being fake...I’m sharing the benefit of my 12 years of university and 29 years of work in the field. What do you do? You know..,since you’re obviously smarter than anyone here ?
Appealing to authority eh? Science is about peer review, reproduceable results, isolating control and variables. If the best you can do is a couple of DIY guys on youtube, I think that says something.
Tell me, what was each experiment's dependent variable? Was there more than one? Should there be?
I watched the video, and they couldn't get it to work until the guy "sealed" the device to maintain atmospheric pressure.. so how much of that little bit of thrust was due to that? Could it sustain the thrust?
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
There’s no such thing as an “atomless infinite vacuum”...lol, where did you get that nonsense from??
And yes, pumping the air out of a chamber is, indeed, a vacuum...exactly the same as space. A vacuum is a vacuum....negative pressure means zero atmosphere ??♂️
Skip ahead to 12:08 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-BsrzO7aXNs
The vastness of space is by and large nothingness. Hence atomless. Just like an atom itself is by and large nothingness. If you can understand that about an atom, you can understand that about space.
"Air" is not the same as electrons, particles, etc. There are still plenty of atoms bouncing around in that chamber. It is A vacuum, but not THE vacuum that is said to be outside of our atmosphere.
Furthermore and most importantly, we don't know how much of the perceived thrust is from the fired atoms bouncing off the cylinder itself.