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:
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.
Last time: Rickets don’t need to “push” against anything. You’ve had multiple people tell you this, but you can’t/won’t wrap your head around it.
Rockets are a controlled explosion. Explosions release energy. All a rocket does is direct that energy in one direction. So yes, if such thing as an “atomless infinite vacuum” actually existed (it doesn’t), a rocket would still produce thrust.
In all sincerity, you need to crack a book...you are actually arguing that physics itself is incorrect.
Just. Stop.
Why did you quote "push" when I did not use that term? And ignore all three points I made?
Your reply is a strawman argument wrapped in gatekeeping ad hominem. For a scientist you really ought to know better.