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:
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.
Your words:
“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.)”
Now go away.
That was a different comment. The comment you replied to had 3 points, none of which you refuted, so my point stands. I'll be here all day.