You didn't answer my question about dependent variables so I assume you're conceding that point.
And you misunderstood my other question, so I'll rephrase. Would the TECHNIQUE sustain past the point at which the device is no longer insulated with atm? i.e. it can only work once. Boosters on the Lander fired repeatedly so I ask again, do you think this method is sustainable?
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?
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.
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
Bounce off of what?
Which of Newton's laws are you referring to? Because his first "law" as we refer to it requires an EXTERNAL force in order to change momentum.
And the third law requires a force EQUAL IN MAGNITUDE in the opposite direction.
Where, pray tell, do you expect to find forces to satisfy these laws in a vacuum?
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.)
The Hitler / Stalin false dichotomy is as bad as people arguing over whether Bush was better than Obama.
Just because one guy was worse in your opinion, doesn't make the other guy a saint.
They're each responsible for millions of deaths.
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.