How can you dismiss all the space footage?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 30, 2024, 06:19:58 AM

I know immediately that the entire rocket science is built upon fraud.

Because across at least three threads you ignored the repeated explanations and examples how rocket engines work, and how they carry their own fuel and oxidizer.  And how they create thrust.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on March 28, 2023, 09:18:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 28, 2023, 08:57:20 AM

Only then can it accelerate for a while whilst the fuel is thrusting against the atmosphere.

That bullshit again. 

Why does a rocket need atmosphere to thrust against.


The rocket produces thrust that pushes it forward by the created atmosphere of expanding gasses from burning fuel that pushes out the rocket motor nozzle. 

It’s been extensively covered here…

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 11, 2023, 07:26:34 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 11, 2023, 06:43:16 AM

It actually has everything to do with it.

Which of your BS statements?

You

Quote

No. That's incomplete combustion. With more oxygen, you may be able to get a complete combustion.  But combustion relies on three things: heat, fuel, and oxygen. But in space, two of the three are missing.

Back to the liquid nitrogen video..

We know from the videos the rocket motors are going through a complete burn because the motors are actuating their end of burn ejection charges.

Now.. look!






The fuel and oxidizer are having no trouble creating the reaction that is fire under the blanket of liquid nitrogen.

For about three seconds.

Have you watched the video?

They talk about oxidized fuel too.

The thing is, being able to burn fuel for a few seconds is far different from being totally surrounded by a vacuum on all sides. This is like if you said, "Look, I can make rocket fuel ignite underwater!" Bully for you! But is the underwater atmosphere suited for burning fuel? No, it is not. Just as maybe you can make vacuum ignition sorta happen for a few fractions of a second, when I put slow motion to 1/16 second. But when you burn it in real time and it fizzles out into smoke, is this an actual test? No, it is not! "I just need to add more oxygen." When you threw away the boosters, you invalidated everything. The boosters are your source of oxygen, and you can use them to press forward even if no other oxygen exists. That's not how any of this works, to quote an old lady in a kinda funny commercial. They burn all the reserves and putter around with sorta oxidized fuel.

Stop pretending as though you answered the question! Again, if space flight is real, in an airless environment, you would want to bring the boosters. They leave them behind. There simply isn't enough fuel to last them months in space, and when they run out, unlike a car, they can't walk to the nearest filling station. They are utterly stranded.

For about three seconds.

What.  The amount of time the rocket can “burn” is based on how much fuel it carries, at what rate the fuel is burnt.

There is no magical “three seconds” limit. 

Have you watched the video?

.

 Why.  Others and I have already extensively posted about rocket fuel and oxidizer.  You can’t even refute what’s already been posted and demonstrated.

The thing is, being able to burn fuel for a few seconds is far different from being totally surrounded by a vacuum on all sides.

Has nothing to do with the relatively large amounts of fuel carried into space where the fuel burns, filling the rocket nozzle with atmosphere/ gas / mass.

The rate of burn is based on how fast you can pump fuel and oxidizer into what size combustion chamber and the mass exits out through the nozzle.  Or the area of reaction for a solid fuel rocket engine. 

This is like if you said, "Look, I can make rocket fuel ignite underwater!" Bully for you! But is the underwater atmosphere suited for burning fuel?

How do you think they cut metal underwater.  They do it with a cutting torch for a long time with larger tanks of fuel and oxidizer which feed the cutting torch that can burn several minutes under water until the tanks run low on pressure.  Or the process is stopped.

Same principles as a rocket using a fuel and oxidizer. 

No, it is not. Just as maybe you can make ignition sorta happen for a few fractions of a second, when I put slow motion to 1/16 second.

If you’re referring to the model rocket engine, you have a complete misunderstanding of the model rocket engine.  The engine does an initial thrust.  Then burns a timer fuse that releases tracking smoke, then a charge at top basically explodes to push out a parachute in normal model rocket applications.  That means the rocket motor burnt from the bottom, toward the top through a timer fuse to ignite the ejection charge.  That means the whole rocket burnt through its entire matrix.  If the solid fuel matrix is damage, it will burn faster than normal.  Like this.





All it takes for the fuel matrix to be damaged is drop the rocket motor.


 

The boosters are your source of oxygen,

If you’re referring to the space shuttle.  The boosters are solid fuel rocket engines.

The large tank that is left after the boosters fall away still has liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.  It’s firing the large rocket engines behind the shuttle. 



like always, you butcher everything bulmabriefs144.

Did you watch a video?

There simply isn't enough fuel to last them months in space,

What are you referring too.  Take the space shuttle.  The launch system of solid boosters on each side of the large liquid tank fall away. Then after the large tank with compartments for liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fall away, the space shuttle is in free fall orbit around the earth.  It has momentum to maintain its orbit without burning fuel.  It has pressurized gas on the shuttle itself for orbit correction. And ultimately at the end of mission to decay the free fall orbit to place it in a course to return to earth. Why do you think re-entry into the atmosphere was at high speeds?

 This is like if you said, "Look, I can make rocket fuel ignite underwater!" Bully for you! But is the underwater atmosphere suited for burning fuel? No, it is not.

Are you referring to this video?





For this engine?




An Estes D12-5 motor.

This is the thrust time for the D12-5


https://estesrockets.com/products/d12-5-engines 

Not even 1.75 seconds.

But the 5 from D12-5 indicates the rocket engine has a time delay fuse of 5 seconds that burns then sets off the ejection charge at the opposite end of the rocket motor than the rocket nozzle.


This is the rough sequence of the rocket burn.  From start to ejection charge.











So,  start of burn before 2:41 in the video.  The the ejection charge broke the tank some time after 2:46 mark.

So the engine burn was at least 5 seconds long.  We know the engine did a complete burn because it did its initial thrust impulse, burnt through its 5 second delay fuse emitting that black tracking smoke, and ultimately ignited its ejection charge out the top end some time after 2:46 to break the tank.  All possible because the fuel and oxidizer are mixed together in the solid fuel matrix totally not dependent on atmospheric oxygen. And totally independent. 

Bulma talking about gish gallop is priceless

This is the fruit of university education. Inability to argue without ad hominem, inability to remember the simplest things, and inability to grasp concepts.

No, that is the fruit of your lack of education and intelligence.
See how you continually fail to grasp concepts, or just lie about them, and then throw out insults like you have done yet again.

That's exactly what it is.

Not quite.
You can call someone a moron without it being an ad hom.
The ad hom is when you call them a moron, to dismiss their argument.
Like you have done often.

Now again, care to stop with the insults and deflections and try defending your blatant lies, or being honest for once in your life and admitting they are lies?

On the contrary. The more I learn about ignition, thermodynamics, buoyancy, mass, propulsion, the more implausible the idea becomes.

You mean the more convoluted BS you think up while ignoring reality.

You cannot show anything implausible about it.
You were even provided examples of ignition in a vacuum, which you ignored.

The science of propulsion (quite literally rocket science) falls apart because it asks us to ignore what we see in reality

No, it doesn't.
Your objections do.

a simple balloon filled with helium has a height limit. Planes have a height limit.

This line of complete absence of reasoning is like saying cars drive along roads, so planes can't be real.

A rocket is not a balloon nor a plane.
It does not fly like them.
A limit on them says nothing for a rocket.

If space travel were actually real, the ship would use the main shuttle to very precisely boost itself and the reserves tanks into space.

No, it wouldn't.
This is not you making a rational objection, this is you spouting pure BS with no justification at all.

If sending objects to orbit in space is real, the object would be burning fuel very rapidly, and ditching as much useless weight as possible.
To get into low earth orbit, it requires the object to be going at roughly 8 km/s. That will require a quite substantial amount of fuel to do. And there is no point in carrying around empty fuel tanks when you do so.
And yes, that is the main energy cost.

Assuming it starts at the rotational velocity of Earth, some ~450 m/s at the equator, and goes to a LEO at 8000 m/s, that is change in specific energy of ~32 MJ/kg.
To get up into space at 400 km altitude, ignoring the reduction in g, is a mere ~3.9 MJ/kg, or ~10%.

So they are using that fuel to go fast.
And once the tank is empty, that is dead mass to carry around.

Without oxygen there can be no ignition.

And they carry their own oxygen supply, so here you are spouting BS again.

You have nothing to push off of.

Except the exhaust gas coming out of the engine at very high speed.
If you want to say there is nothing to push off in space, then that is saying that if you have a tube full of highly compressed air, with one end open, it will magically stay put because there is nothing to push off.

Yes, I know better.

Then why do you continue to spout this pathetic BS which could easily be refuted by a child?

But since they aren't used in space, I know immediately that the entire rocket science is built upon fraud.

Correction, you hate the idea of space because it shows your fantasy is wrong, so you look for pathetic BS to attack it, even though that BS has been refuted before.

If you know anything about space, it is that you are intentionally lying about it.
You have yet again demonstrated either your dishonesty or your stupidity.

I can change definitions of terms

No, you can't. That is just more dishonesty from you.

This is because my definition change is an expansion of original concept whereas yours is a distortion.

PURE BS!
Your pathetic attempt to change the definition goes directly against the original definition.

The original definition of buoyancy, which entirely matches the modern understanding complete with gravity, is an upwards force which is a result of weight.
Your delusional BS is nothing like that that and instead wishes to pretend that weight is just buoyancy.

You want to be able to change it, because you are a lying coward that cannot face reality.

For about three seconds.

Because of the limited fuel and oxidiser supply.
If your delusional BS was true, it shouldn't light at all.

Have you watched the video?

Why should we waste our time watching a crappy video likely full of already refuted lies, when you put no effort in at all?
How about this, admit all your claims have been blatant lies and then maybe we will?

is this an actual test?

Yes, it is.
It demonstrates that you don't need oxygen from the surrounding environment, and the vacuum tests demonstrate that you can ignite in a vacuum.

Again, if your blatant lies were true, they wouldn't ignite at all.

When you threw away the boosters, you invalidated everything.

No, they didn't.
They only thing invalid is your pathetic strawman.

The boosters are your source of oxygen

They are 1 source, not the only one.

you can use them to press forward even if no other oxygen exists.

Or you can use the fuel and oxygen in the main craft, ignite it and use that to push foward.

That's not how any of this works

Your strawman certainly isn't.

Stop pretending

The only one pretending here is you.

if space flight is real, in an airless environment, you would want to bring the boosters.

Why?
What point is there in bringing this dead mass?

There simply isn't enough fuel to last them months in space

What are they using fuel for months for?

Quote

Umm, don't you mean you can dismiss all space footage because you know less?

On the contrary. The more I learn about ignition, thermodynamics, buoyancy, mass, propulsion, the more implausible the idea becomes.

The science of propulsion (quite literally rocket science) falls apart because it asks us to ignore what we see in reality, that is that a simple balloon filled with helium has a height limit. Planes have a height limit. After a certain point, air is too thin for much of anything to fly.

If space travel were actually real, the ship would use the main shuttle to very precisely boost itself and the reserves tanks into space. But that's not what happens, is it? Nope, instead it guzzles all of its fuel from those big tanks to get into the thin air zone, dumps the big tanks to apparently slingshot into space...

AND THEN WHAT?

Without oxygen there can be no ignition. Without oxygen, you have no propulsion. Space is supposed to be a giant vacuum. You have nothing to push off of. You dumped the big tank when you could maybe use it to push off in empty space.

Yes, I know better.

This propulsion idea would be similar to heading to school on foot, and then tossing your books behind you to give you that "extra momentum" to get into class.

Teacher: Open your books to Chapter 5, page 115.
Student: Teacher, I don't have my books, I needed them for added propulsion.
Teacher: Oh, okay. I suppose it was difficult to reach escape velocity.

Those big tubes, were space travel possible, would be to boost you ahead when there is no air. But since they aren't used in space, I know immediately that the entire rocket science is built upon fraud.

This is exactly where education level has some bearing. Your inability to grasp how propulsion works just indicates a lack of practical insights and education.

From your argument, a propeller aeroplane flies because the propeller is pushing air against air and propelling the plane forward. This is exactly your definition for rockets, that the rocket exhaust is pushing against air in the atmosphere to propel forward or upward. This is simply a misunderstanding of propulsion due to lack of education, that's all.

It can be easily corrected.

Bulma talking about gish gallop is priceless

Data is doing the gishing.

So like, in science class we learned that solids, liquids, and gases (let's ignore plasma for now) are not only more energetic as we go up the state of matter, but less condensed.





This means if we were to drop a liquid (say: water) on a solid (say: metal), it would do a fairly good job of holding it, for awhile anyway.


As molecules get less and less dense, to quote the video, propulsion becomes more and more like "doing pushups on water." Are you Jesus? No? Then why should we take it on faith that you can manage this sort of propulsion on thin air? And when you get into an outright vacuum, we get into "Whatchu talking 'bout Willis?" territory when you suggest such a thing.

Now, what you could do after leaving the atmosphere is this...


Exported air pressing against other air (or other gas) to make a sort of step ladder in midair. But with no boosters (you tossed them), not enough gas to make this work. Even that is a stretch, but once you talk about "separating boosters" from the shuttle because you've used all the fuel, you are talking nonsense. It quite literally is leaving behind your only remote chance of moving in a vacuum.

You haven't been educated. You've been indoctrinated. If you were educated, you'd understand that this is a literal vacuum when ignition works for moments only, and propulsion works not much at all, and that you would be wasting oxidized fuel or concentrated oxygen like crazy. This same stuff you wasted and threw back to Earth.

You can create propulsion by increasing the density of air below you and decreasing density inside the boosters. But this is costly, and wouldn't get you very far outside Earth, as it's not like oxygen is a renewable resource in the vacuum of space. Short of being able to construct oxygen (which is impossible if the Conservation of Matter is correct), you have not enough oxygen gas to make it any great distance. Bigger boosters equals more mass to push towards space. Smaller boosters means less reserves. It isn't possible to continue once in space for any distance. It's impossible, short of God himself allowing it. There isn't enough thrust, there isn't enough fuel, there isn't enough molecules for contact.

What part about this is showing your superior education?

This is simply a misunderstanding of propulsion due to lack of education, that's all. It can be easily corrected.

I am under no such delusions that I can easily correct your thinking. Ignorance is something you can address simply by learning more. Arrogance refuses to correct any ignorance that exists, because it thinks it is right. You think you have been educated, but have not asked where those educators got their knowledge (other educators, other educators, all the back to... well, either it ends with "nowhere, they made it up" or it ends with someone legit figuring things out, but I am not hopeful).
I know that I don't know enough about propulsion, and probably could find out more. But this is quite different from trusting literal rocket scientists when even I can tell there isn't enough pressure to push against what you suggest. Big boosters or tiny thrusters? Yeah I'd pick the giant containers which increase surface area of the rocket emissions. Too bad they tossed them back to Earth.

I know what I know, and what I don't know. I am not misunderstanding anything. I am in total understanding that this model of propulsion, despite its fancy math, is talking about pressure away when there is air too thin to push against. And they proceed to tell us that certain satellites have been able to see distant stars and planets, when they have neither fuel nor momentum. Nope, they would have gone nowhere.

Once again, look at my signature. In the same way as you cannot get anywhere without books in a classroom, you would have to export oxygen into space (thereby starving humans living on Earth) to press hard against thicker areas of air, and then to press against previous air. It also might not be enough. You could not ever stop doing it, either, or you would run out of things to press against.

Education is overrated when you haven't learned how to apply what you know. This was a hard lesson for me, but I learned it from a dyslexic and somewhat abusive janitor who probably never went to college. What I learned is enough to convince me.

So like, in science class we learned that solids, liquids, and gases (let's ignore plasma for now) are not only more energetic as we go up the state of matter, but less condensed.





This means if we were to drop a liquid (say: water) on a solid (say: metal), it would do a fairly good job of holding it, for awhile anyway.


As molecules get less and less dense, to quote the video, propulsion becomes more and more like "doing pushups on water." Are you Jesus? No? Then why should we take it on faith that you can manage this sort of propulsion on thin air? And when you get into an outright vacuum, we get into "Whatchu talking 'bout Willis?" territory when you suggest such a thing.

Now, what you could do after leaving the atmosphere is this...


Exported air pressing against other air (or other gas) to make a sort of step ladder in midair. But with no boosters (you tossed them), not enough gas to make this work. Even that is a stretch, but once you talk about "separating boosters" from the shuttle because you've used all the fuel, you are talking nonsense. It quite literally is leaving behind your only remote chance of moving in a vacuum.

You haven't been educated. You've been indoctrinated. If you were educated, you'd understand that this is a literal vacuum when ignition works for moments only, and propulsion works not much at all, and that you would be wasting oxidized fuel or concentrated oxygen like crazy. This same stuff you wasted and threw back to Earth.

You can create propulsion by increasing the density of air below you and decreasing density inside the boosters. But this is costly, and wouldn't get you very far outside Earth, as it's not like oxygen is a renewable resource in the vacuum of space. Short of being able to construct oxygen (which is impossible if the Conservation of Matter is correct), you have not enough oxygen gas to make it any great distance. Bigger boosters equals more mass to push towards space. Smaller boosters means less reserves. It isn't possible to continue once in space for any distance. It's impossible, short of God himself allowing it. There isn't enough thrust, there isn't enough fuel, there isn't enough molecules for contact.

What part about this is showing your superior education?

Quote

It can be easily corrected.

I am under no such delusions that I can easily correct your thinking. Ignorance is something you can address simply by learning more. Arrogance refuses to correct any ignorance that exists, because it thinks it is right.

Bulma, you still erroneously are of the belief propulsion is like sitting on your office chair on wheels and pushing yourself away from a wall, using your legs. You seem to think a propeller plane moves forward by throwing air against a wall of air, a jet plane moves forward by throwing air against a wall of air, and likewise a rocket moves upward or forward by throwing exhaust against a wall of air.

The propeller plane and jet plane can only go so high because both rely upon sucking air in front of the aircraft through either the propeller blades or jet engine. If they go too high, the air is too thin to sufficiently suck through and expel out the back, to continue to propel the craft forward.

Rockets don't have the same limits because all the fuel being ejected and causing thrust, is contained inside the craft. This is why they can continue to propel upward at altitudes planes with propeller or jet propulsion cannot. This is also why a rocket can continue moving forward in the relative vacuum of space requiring less fuel to thrust, because it is no longer moving forward against the force of Earth's gravity or through air resistance.

The moment you grasp this, your inability to accept all space footage will begin to evaporate.

Familiarise yourself with Newton's third law of motion which says every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That's how planes fly and how rockets work in earth atmosphere and the vacuum of space.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense

Quote

A Chewbacca Defense is a way of "winning" a debate through methods other than logic and reasoned argument. The essence of it is that if you get your opponent to give up, then you "win".

The False Dichotomy: If the other side is wrong about anything, no matter how irrelevant, they're wrong about everything — and you're right about everything.
The Ad Hominem: If you can do anything to make the other side look bad, you win. This is usually accomplished by misrepresenting their side entirely. Extra effective if you can compare them to Hitler.
The Red Herring: If you can get your opponent to talk about something other than the key points, you win. It can be easily combined with the Ad Hominem attack by accusing your opponent of supporting or opposing something totally irrelevant to the argument, in such a way that they have to address it.
Quality by Popular Vote: If you can show that your side is the more popular argument, you win, regardless of whether your side is the correct argument.
The Broken Record: If you repeat the same point over and over again, you win — because obviously, the other side didn't address it if you won't shut up about it. Extra effective if you keep repeating a catchy soundbite or buzzword.
The "Gish Gallop": Hit your opponent with as many arguments as you can in as short a timespan as you can. If they don't address every single one to your satisfaction, you win. And it's practically impossible for them to do that because they have no time to prepare and are not going to pay attention to everything you're vomiting out there.

This is what you learned at university. Not how to employ real logic or reason, but a number of fallacies to employ instead of logic and reason. The Gish Gallop is particularly used, as FAS has a text limit after which I simply cannot post without a 503 error. "Well what do you think of my nine points over here?" I think that I have answered them in the past, will probably think for new answers, and that you probably aren't listening to my answers in the first place.

Quote

Even accusing your opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense is itself a form of Chewbacca Defense. This means it's bad form to make such an accusation, which in turn leads to what's known as "Chewbacca's Dilemma" — first, you can't defend yourself from an actual Chewbacca Defense, and second, no matter how intelligently and clearly you make your point, certain opponents will always perceive your argument as a Chewbacca Defense.

:giggles:

So are you hoping that if you go on repeating the same crap over and over again, that I'll believe you? Because it's not right, today, tomorrow, or ten years from now.

How can I dismiss all space footage? Because I know better. Simple as that.

Now I could answer your questions. But that would lead to more questions. So instead, let me reiterate: How would you, if you can, answer my question about forming an equation for a pendulum? Or have you completely and utterly given up on even attempting to anwser a question that could have been answered by anyone who studied in a university, and accept to the fact that your theories matter not to the universe for it continues to be as it has been since the beginning and agree that you haven't paid attention to any mathematics or physics classes since you were in school? And, if you take up problem with my wording, try refuting me not by arguments but answering my questions. Even if you cannot, try to, at the very least, come up with something with the meager intelligence someone who cannot explain a pendulum would possess.

P.S. dataoverflow, what browser are you using on android? I hope it's android.

Quote from: IceDragon on March 05, 2024, 12:27:14 PM

and why don't you try raising money to buy a rocket of your own to prove earth looks flat from space?
as pointed out in https://archive.is/umT7M, the first photograph of Earth from outer space was taken from a modified V-2 rocket in 1946.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_No._13
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1946-11-21_White_Sands_NM_V-2_rocket.ogg

I'm not in the practice of believing what is uttered through the idiot box. Are you?

Well, are you in the practice of believing what is told in the books?

Mass flow

If you sat on a wheely chair holding a bucket full of 1lb weights and you start throwing them ine at a time.
You will start to move.

So like, in science class we learned that solids, liquids, and gases (let's ignore plasma for now) are not only more energetic as we go up the state of matter, but less condensed.

And your lack of education is showing again.
This applies for a PARTICULAR SUBSTANCE at a particular pressure.

It is also only a general rule, which most people know is violated.
Have you ever heard of this substance called water?
Are you aware that when you freeze it, it expands?

So there goes that simple "education" of yours.

But all you are doing now is showing your desperation, and that you don't care about consistency at all.
Previously your complaint was there was no air, now you are indicating you can't push off air.

We know we can push off air.
That is how rifles work.
That is how small rockets work.
That is how planes work.
That is how fans work.

We know we can push off air, it is just a matter of how much.

Now, what you could do after leaving the atmosphere is this...

Continue pushing off the hot exhaust gas.

After all, how else does it leave?
What is it pushing off to accelerate out of the rocket?

Exported air

HOW?

once you talk about "separating boosters" from the shuttle because you've used all the fuel, you are talking nonsense. It quite literally is leaving behind your only remote chance of moving in a vacuum.

Why?
What magic allows it to push off that, without any source of propulsion, but not off the much greater mass of gas?

You haven't been educated. You've been indoctrinated. If you were educated, you'd understand that this is a literal vacuum when ignition works for moments only, and propulsion works not much at all, and that you would be wasting oxidized fuel or concentrated oxygen like crazy.

Quite the opposite.
You have been indoctrinated by FE conmen and yourself into believing so much utter BS you can't defend.

You can create propulsion by increasing the density of air below you and decreasing density inside the boosters. But this is costly, and wouldn't get you very far outside Earth

It accelerates you which allows you to continue moving.

which is impossible if the Conservation of Matter is correct

And another thing like that is conservation of momentum.
Unless something stops you, you keep going.
So with an initial push, you can go quite far.

What part about this is showing your superior education?

That it is vastly superior to yours given the BS you spout.

I am under no such delusions that I can easily correct your thinking.

Because you accept you are spouting pure BS and not even attempting to correct things?

Arrogance refuses to correct any ignorance that exists, because it thinks it is right.

And that's your problem?
You are too arrogant to admit you are wrong, even when you have been refuted countless times?

even I can tell there isn't enough pressure to push against what you suggest.

Except you can't.
You can only claim that.
You can't explain why and instead just need to continually assert the same refuted BS.

Yeah I'd pick the giant containers which increase surface area of the rocket emissions.

Because you have no idea what you are talking about.

I know what I know, and what I don't know. I am not misunderstanding anything.

So you know you are intentionally spouting BS?
Because if not, you don't know.

Once again, look at my signature.

You mean you lying pile of BS?
No thanks.

Education is overrated when you haven't learned how to apply what you know.

And that appears to be where you have entirely failed.
So much so you spout pure BS without any understanding.

So like, in science class ugh to convince me.

Holly cow, you still manage to butcher “science”.

The Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25, also known as the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME),[1] is a liquid-fuel cryogenic rocket engine that was used on NASA's Space Shuttle and is used on the Space Launch System (SLS).

Designed and manufactured in the United States by Rocketdyne (later Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne and Aerojet Rocketdyne), the RS-25 burns cryogenic liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants, with each engine producing 1,859 kN (418,000 lbf) thrust at liftoff. Although RS-25 heritage traces back to the 1960s, its concerted development began in the 1970s with the first flight, STS-1, on April 12, 1981. The RS-25 has undergone upgrades over its operational history to improve the engine's reliability, safety, and maintenance load.
The engine produces a specific impulse (Isp) of 452 seconds (4.43 kN-sec/kg) in a vacuum, or 366 seconds (3.59 kN-sec/kg) at sea level, has a mass of approximately 3.5 tonnes (7,700 pounds), and is capable of throttling between 67% and 109% of its rated power level in one-percent increments. Components of the RS-25 operate at temperatures ranging from −253 to 3,300 °C (−400 to 6,000 °F).[1]
The Space Shuttle used a cluster of three RS-25 engines mounted at the stern of the orbiter, with fuel drawn from the external tank. The engines were used for propulsion throughout the spacecraft ascent, with total thrust increased by two solid rocket boosters and the orbiter's two AJ10 orbital maneuvering system engines. Following each flight, the RS-25 engines were removed from the orbiter, inspected, refurbished, and then reused on another mission.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25

Once the boosters fell away.  The space shuttle being feed by an external tank had a supply of liquid oxygen and hydrogen through a controlled explosion feed three engines that each produced 418,000 lbf of thrust. 

The external tank could hold up to 146,181.8 US gal of liquid oxygen.  And hold 395,581.9 gallon of liquid hydrogen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_external_tank

Bulma, you still erroneously are of the belief propulsion is like sitting on your office chair on wheels and pushing yourself away from a wall, using your legs. You seem to think a propeller plane moves forward by throwing air against a wall of air, a jet plane moves forward by throwing air against a wall of air, and likewise a rocket moves upward or forward by throwing exhaust against a wall of air.

People do not risk their lives for a lie.

When Christians were found out by Romans and Jews, they were often subjected to harsh torture and death. Eaten by lions, crucified like Jesus, or in one case about 50 (former) Roman centurions was forced into a pool of ice cold water for hours.

Tell you what. We'll move you into a room totally devoid of air, and in the three minutes it takes for you to suffocate, you try to launch one of those bottle rockets.

Brilliant!

People need to breathe, therefore rockets cant exist.



People need to breathe, therefore edisons (patented) light bulb doesnt exist.

Tell you what.

That you’re self centered and have to literally lie.

And ignore everything from satellites in orbit in space, to lack of a better term gravity assist comets in orbit around the sun. 

As molecules get less and less dense, to quote the video, propulsion becomes more and more like "doing pushups on water." Are you Jesus? No? Then why should we take it on faith that you can manage this sort of propulsion on thin air? And when you get into an outright vacuum, we get into "Whatchu talking 'bout Willis?" territory when you suggest such a thing.

If you have a garden hose with the nozzle going wide open, does the nozzle push against your hand because the water is pushing off the air?

People do not risk their lives for a lie.

If they get conned/brainwashed hard enough, they will risk their life for that lie.
If they are in a group, and care about the other members of that group, and know they are already going to die, they would likely not give up that lie.

Tell you what. We'll move you into a room totally devoid of air, and in the three minutes it takes for you to suffocate, you try to launch one of those bottle rockets.

Or how about you use a real rocket, and try that in a vacuum.
You have had it explained to you how it works repeatedly.
You have had simple questions asked of you which show you are spouting pure BS, which you refuse to answer.

Quote

Bulma, you still erroneously are of the belief propulsion is like sitting on your office chair on wheels and pushing yourself away from a wall, using your legs. You seem to think a propeller plane moves forward by throwing air against a wall of air, a jet plane moves forward by throwing air against a wall of air, and likewise a rocket moves upward or forward by throwing exhaust against a wall of air.

People do not risk their lives for a lie.

When Christians were found out by Romans and Jews, they were often subjected to harsh torture and death. Eaten by lions, crucified like Jesus, or in one case about 50 (former) Roman centurions was forced into a pool of ice cold water for hours.

Tell you what. We'll move you into a room totally devoid of air, and in the three minutes it takes for you to suffocate, you try to launch one of those bottle rockets.

Bulma, I like to give credit where credit is due, and congratulations, this time you are right! Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were people, weren't they? They didn't risk their lives for a lie, did they? The Apollo 11 mission worked and they survived, in part because rockets don't propel forward by pushing off walls of air or walls of anything. That's partly why they were able to travel to the moon and return safely. Because Newton's third law of motion WORKS.

In a very large room totally devoid of air I'll do you two better. I'll release a fully inflated balloon with the end not tied so we can watch it fly around inside the vacuum, AND I'll turn on a hose at full bore and we can watch the hose dance around like a snake. All the while, the expelled air from the balloon and expelled water from the hose not hitting the walls of the very large room. Then I'll exit the room into a depressurisation chamber and breathe in the air with at least 2 minutes to spare.

You may need a vacuum chamber to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt rockets can work in the vacuum of space, but your bedroom will do just fine in proving a rocket dorsn't need a wall of air to propel off of. Just inflate a normal balloon while sitting on your bed, release it,  and watch it fly around your room. Unless of course you want to argue there are walls of air in your bedroom?

If your balloon doesn't need a wall of air to propel off, to fly, then it doesn't need an air environment to propel forward and fly, does it? Hence a rocket will work in a vacuum or near vacuum like outer space.

You just proved it using a cheap party balloon.

Are you now starting to see why you shouldn't be dismissing all space footage based off the untruth that rockets cannot work in a vacuum? Because now you can see how rockets can work in a vacuum, can't you?

Bulma, I like to give credit where credit is due, and congratulations, this time you are right! Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were people, weren't they? They didn't risk their lives for a lie, did they? The Apollo 11 mission worked and they survived, in part because rockets don't propel forward by pushing off walls of air or walls of anything.

You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set. Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.

Flying a space ship is extraordinarily dangerous even if the science did work. The odds of them risking their life is approaching 0%. At low pressure, you die from depressurization sickness. Then there's the fact that when this launch was supposedly done, the average computer was terrible.

And this involved rooms of this crap. Punchcards. Laborious coding. People mostly doing the calculations manually and then coding them into the computer, which had nothing approaching decent AI. As shown in Hidden Figures.

For comparison, a typical NES game cartridge can run actual games in real time, and has up to 1 MB of memory.

They absolutely never risked their lives for a lie. They didn't get into a shuttle (snuck out the back) they didn't go into space, and they weren't on the moon. They didn't risk their asses on the chance that the thing might explode, come crashing down, or not have enough oxygen. This is the gutlessness of this lie.

They talk big, but they didn't do any of this for real.

The director confessing that he helped make the moon landing look real.

I'll release a fully inflated balloon with the end not tied so we can watch it fly around inside the vacuum...

It is releasing the air pressure that is inside of it. That air is dispersing inside the room.  And the other one is releasing water under pressure. Once the pressure is gone, it will stop behaving like a regular hose/balloon and flop limply to the ground (notice how quickly that balloon is on the ground). Entropy takes over rather quickly in an airless room. Notice the guy said "it doesn't matter whether you fly a rocket..." when it clearly glided quickly to the ground, while a balloon in real air might even go linger awhile. Yeah, it kinda does. Action Labs, the guy is dishonest but the visuals usually don't lie.



I also noticed you didn't mention a fully closed helium balloon. Buoyancy doesn't really work in an airless room (helium is heavier than nothing) and propulsion works only until the supply is exhausted (you expect me to believe that a rocket ship has enough fuel to last for months, when only propulsion works because momentum is probably not as described for a vacuum).

Unless of course you want to argue there are walls of air in your bedroom?

More like a scattered matrix of air that other air particles hit against.

You haven't tried to launch the rocket in the vacuum, which has only the bottle itself, as all air inside the bottle was emptied of air in advance, so the only thing it has to press against is the bottle itself. It fizzles immediately after attempting to get out of the bottle. 

Then I'll exit the room into a depressurisation chamber and breathe in the air with at least 2 minutes to spare.

And you expect that if your charade works, that I'll release you.
No. I'm a rational person, but not a reasonable one. I don't make deals, and I don't play along with frauds. Actual honesty is the only way to impress me. That or an apology.
Under no circumstances will I let you out, whether success or failure. You have to be prepared to live and die for your words. You expect to convince me, you expect to be able to get out with two minutes to spare. But I will have locked the door on you, with only your recanting of your lie sufficing to release you. You expect to be able to leave after showing a quick trick of propulsion. Nope. Nothing you say will convince me, as I'm notoriously stubborn. You're not getting out unless you confess to your lie or apologize for trying to deceive me.

I'm a believer in Jesus, but I'm more jaded and flawed than many other Christians. I have about as much trouble with mercy as Jonah, which is why I so deeply love Jesus (because I utterly know that I am unworthy of it). If you are willing to recant, then I would open only the pressure normalization chamber. Any trick, and you get conveyor-belted back to the airless room. I might let you to the normalization room several times though. But I won't let you out, not without admitting your lies. Enjoy bathroom time!
 Are you prepared to die for it? No, you are not.

When Christ raised from the dead, 300 years of followers were willing to die for him, against people who would not abide any sort of easy "getting out of the room". Ruthless people, worse than me. Christians in many parts of the world are still willing to die for him, against such people.

Not one Freemason is willing to actually go into the airless void of space for globalism. They are plenty willing to fake doing so on a set. But that's hardly the same thing.

You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set.

Which is a lie by you.

Apollo 11

The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.[18]
A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" by Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969.[19]
At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik.[20] At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the uncrewed Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon.[21] In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.[22]
Larry Baysinger,a radio amateur (W4EJA) and a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and the Lunar Module.[23] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Kaminski, in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) in Houston, Texas, and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the Earth.[18][24]
The Arcetri Observatory near Florence, Italy, also detected transmissions coming from the mission[25][26] using a 10 meters dish.[27

 Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.

You can’t analyze yourself out of a paper bag.  You only have lies.  Sounds like a great thread.  You should make one.

Charming conspiracy theorist confused by reflections



Why the Moon photos could not be fake

Basically there was no way to fake the light of the sun on the moon.  A very far off, very strong single point light source.  And other items. 

I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.

Your idea of a BS test seems to be if it matches your fantasy or not.
You are yet to present any rational objection to any of it.

Flying a space ship is extraordinarily dangerous even if the science did work.

Yes, extraordinarily dangerous compared to more mundane things. But the overall risk of death is still quite low.

At low pressure, you die from depressurization sickness.

What?
The bends is a result of the nitrogen dissolved in your blood coming out as the pressure drops too fast.
This is only a problem if you are a complete moron.

Then there's the fact that when this launch was supposedly done, the average computer was terrible.

By today's standards, yes.
But that doesn't mean it couldn't be done.

They talk big, but they didn't do any of this for real.

That is just your fantasy.

Once the pressure is gone, it will stop behaving like a regular hose/balloon and flop limply to the ground

You mean once it runs out of pressurised gas inside it?
Which isn't a problem for a rocket continually generating that.

Buoyancy doesn't really work in an airless room

Considering it relies upon the surrounding medium to push upwards due to the pressure gradient due to gravity, no.
Not unless by "airless room" you mean one filled with another fluid.
But that isn't how rockets work.

propulsion works only until the supply is exhausted

So again, not a problem for a rocket with large fuel tanks.

you expect me to believe that a rocket ship has enough fuel to last for months

No.
That is your strawman, based upon blatant lies about motion.

Rockets don't need to continue burning for months.
They have an initial boost and then coast.
Unless there is something to slow them down, they keep moving.

You haven't tried to launch the rocket in the vacuum, which has only the bottle itself, as all air inside the bottle was emptied of air in advance

So your latest dishonest BS, is pretending a rocket is just a bottle. Entirely ignoring all the fuel and oxidiser inside it?

I'm a rational person, but not a reasonable one.

You are neither rational nor reasonable.
You just continually spout whatever dishonest BS you can think of to pretend your fantasy is true.
You are the fraud.

Under no circumstances will I let you out, whether success or failure.

So what you are really saying, is that because they show you are wrong, you want to kill them.

Nothing you say will convince me

Which further demonstrates you don't give a shit about the truth.
You have made up your mind and will use whatever dishonest BS you can think of to pretend you are correct.
No matter amount of evidence or rational arguments will have you change your mind, because you aren't an honest person. You are lying, cowardly scum.
All you are doing now is basically admitting that you are lying scum without any concern for the truth.

Not one Freemason is willing to actually go into the airless void of space for globalism.

Plenty of people have gone into space.
Your lies about that will not change it.

 and propulsion works only until the supply is exhausted (you expect me to believe that a rocket ship has enough fuel to last for months,

They only have to power their way until free fall orbit around earth.  Once in orbit, there is no need for continuous firing of rockets.

What keeps your sun in orbit in atmosphere above your delusional flat earth.

You haven't tried to launch the rocket in the vacuum,

Again.  A rocket literally releases its own atmosphere and mass to provide thrust.

Quote

Bulma, I like to give credit where credit is due, and congratulations, this time you are right! Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were people, weren't they? They didn't risk their lives for a lie, did they? The Apollo 11 mission worked and they survived, in part because rockets don't propel forward by pushing off walls of air or walls of anything.

You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set. Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.

Flying a space ship is extraordinarily dangerous even if the science did work. The odds of them risking their life is approaching 0%. At low pressure, you die from depressurization sickness. Then there's the fact that when this launch was supposedly done, the average computer was terrible.

And this involved rooms of this crap. Punchcards. Laborious coding. People mostly doing the calculations manually and then coding them into the computer, which had nothing approaching decent AI. As shown in Hidden Figures.

For comparison, a typical NES game cartridge can run actual games in real time, and has up to 1 MB of memory.

They absolutely never risked their lives for a lie. They didn't get into a shuttle (snuck out the back) they didn't go into space, and they weren't on the moon. They didn't risk their asses on the chance that the thing might explode, come crashing down, or not have enough oxygen. This is the gutlessness of this lie.

They talk big, but they didn't do any of this for real.

The director confessing that he helped make the moon landing look real.

Quote

I'll release a fully inflated balloon with the end not tied so we can watch it fly around inside the vacuum...

It is releasing the air pressure that is inside of it. That air is dispersing inside the room.  And the other one is releasing water under pressure. Once the pressure is gone, it will stop behaving like a regular hose/balloon and flop limply to the ground (notice how quickly that balloon is on the ground). Entropy takes over rather quickly in an airless room. Notice the guy said "it doesn't matter whether you fly a rocket..." when it clearly glided quickly to the ground, while a balloon in real air might even go linger awhile. Yeah, it kinda does. Action Labs, the guy is dishonest but the visuals usually don't lie.



I also noticed you didn't mention a fully closed helium balloon. Buoyancy doesn't really work in an airless room (helium is heavier than nothing) and propulsion works only until the supply is exhausted (you expect me to believe that a rocket ship has enough fuel to last for months, when only propulsion works because momentum is probably not as described for a vacuum).

Quote

Unless of course you want to argue there are walls of air in your bedroom?

More like a scattered matrix of air that other air particles hit against.

You haven't tried to launch the rocket in the vacuum, which has only the bottle itself, as all air inside the bottle was emptied of air in advance, so the only thing it has to press against is the bottle itself. It fizzles immediately after attempting to get out of the bottle. 

Quote

Then I'll exit the room into a depressurisation chamber and breathe in the air with at least 2 minutes to spare.

And you expect that if your charade works, that I'll release you.
No. I'm a rational person, but not a reasonable one. I don't make deals, and I don't play along with frauds. Actual honesty is the only way to impress me. That or an apology.
Under no circumstances will I let you out, whether success or failure. You have to be prepared to live and die for your words. You expect to convince me, you expect to be able to get out with two minutes to spare. But I will have locked the door on you, with only your recanting of your lie sufficing to release you. You expect to be able to leave after showing a quick trick of propulsion. Nope. Nothing you say will convince me, as I'm notoriously stubborn. You're not getting out unless you confess to your lie or apologize for trying to deceive me.

I'm a believer in Jesus, but I'm more jaded and flawed than many other Christians. I have about as much trouble with mercy as Jonah, which is why I so deeply love Jesus (because I utterly know that I am unworthy of it). If you are willing to recant, then I would open only the pressure normalization chamber. Any trick, and you get conveyor-belted back to the airless room. I might let you to the normalization room several times though. But I won't let you out, not without admitting your lies. Enjoy bathroom time!
 Are you prepared to die for it? No, you are not.

When Christ raised from the dead, 300 years of followers were willing to die for him, against people who would not abide any sort of easy "getting out of the room". Ruthless people, worse than me. Christians in many parts of the world are still willing to die for him, against such people.

Not one Freemason is willing to actually go into the airless void of space for globalism. They are plenty willing to fake doing so on a set. But that's hardly the same thing.

Bulma, I wasn't talking about the 1978 hollywood movie, "Capricorn One". That's a work of fiction. I was talking about Apollo 11 specifically, but might as well have referred to all the moon missions. Why don't you watch the documentary, "Apollo 11", and then tell us all it occurred on a movie set. The documentary showcases the thousands of NASA employees at work, and showcases the thousands and thousands of spectators who witnessed the Apollo 11 launch first hand. Then, there are the millions of tv viewers who watched the launch live on their tvs. Do you
consider the entire world to be a movie set?

Have you proven to yourself yet, how propulsion works, using a balloon in your bedroom? I see you admit there are no walls of air for the balloon to push off against, so I am getting somewhere. The expelled air from the balloon would just push the ambient air molecules in your room away. Again, no pushing involved.

As for buoyancy, don't try and change the subject. Buoyancy has nothing to do with this.

As for dying to prove this propulsion in a vacuum, if the science is sound, and I'm wearing a pressurised suit and helmet, what do I have to fear? Even if you were standing on the other side with murderous intentions, do you think I would be stupid enough not to bring my pistol in with me? I'm pretty sure the pressurisation glass isn't bulletproof.

Then, I could demonstrate to you how a gun can fire in a vacuum and a round can be propelled in a vacuum.

Jesus can't help you out of this one, no matter how hard you pray to him. You've lost this argument, haven't you?

Jesus can't help you out of this one,

Funny how an individual can invoke the name of Jesus and lie and bear false witness all at the same time.  It’s probably a misuse use of the lord’s name also. 

Quote

Bulma, I like to give credit where credit is due, and congratulations, this time you are right! Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were people, weren't they? They didn't risk their lives for a lie, did they? The Apollo 11 mission worked and they survived, in part because rockets don't propel forward by pushing off walls of air or walls of anything.

You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set. Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.

Flying a space ship is extraordinarily dangerous even if the science did work. The odds of them risking their life is approaching 0%. At low pressure, you die from depressurization sickness. Then there's the fact that when this launch was supposedly done, the average computer was terrible.

And this involved rooms of this crap. Punchcards. Laborious coding. People mostly doing the calculations manually and then coding them into the computer, which had nothing approaching decent AI. As shown in Hidden Figures.

For comparison, a typical NES game cartridge can run actual games in real time, and has up to 1 MB of memory.

They absolutely never risked their lives for a lie. They didn't get into a shuttle (snuck out the back) they didn't go into space, and they weren't on the moon. They didn't risk their asses on the chance that the thing might explode, come crashing down, or not have enough oxygen. This is the gutlessness of this lie.

They talk big, but they didn't do any of this for real.

The director confessing that he helped make the moon landing look real.

Quote

I'll release a fully inflated balloon with the end not tied so we can watch it fly around inside the vacuum...

It is releasing the air pressure that is inside of it. That air is dispersing inside the room.  And the other one is releasing water under pressure. Once the pressure is gone, it will stop behaving like a regular hose/balloon and flop limply to the ground (notice how quickly that balloon is on the ground). Entropy takes over rather quickly in an airless room. Notice the guy said "it doesn't matter whether you fly a rocket..." when it clearly glided quickly to the ground, while a balloon in real air might even go linger awhile. Yeah, it kinda does. Action Labs, the guy is dishonest but the visuals usually don't lie.



I also noticed you didn't mention a fully closed helium balloon. Buoyancy doesn't really work in an airless room (helium is heavier than nothing) and propulsion works only until the supply is exhausted (you expect me to believe that a rocket ship has enough fuel to last for months, when only propulsion works because momentum is probably not as described for a vacuum).

Quote

Unless of course you want to argue there are walls of air in your bedroom?

More like a scattered matrix of air that other air particles hit against.

You haven't tried to launch the rocket in the vacuum, which has only the bottle itself, as all air inside the bottle was emptied of air in advance, so the only thing it has to press against is the bottle itself. It fizzles immediately after attempting to get out of the bottle. 

Quote

Then I'll exit the room into a depressurisation chamber and breathe in the air with at least 2 minutes to spare.

And you expect that if your charade works, that I'll release you.
No. I'm a rational person, but not a reasonable one. I don't make deals, and I don't play along with frauds. Actual honesty is the only way to impress me. That or an apology.
Under no circumstances will I let you out, whether success or failure. You have to be prepared to live and die for your words. You expect to convince me, you expect to be able to get out with two minutes to spare. But I will have locked the door on you, with only your recanting of your lie sufficing to release you. You expect to be able to leave after showing a quick trick of propulsion. Nope. Nothing you say will convince me, as I'm notoriously stubborn. You're not getting out unless you confess to your lie or apologize for trying to deceive me.

I'm a believer in Jesus, but I'm more jaded and flawed than many other Christians. I have about as much trouble with mercy as Jonah, which is why I so deeply love Jesus (because I utterly know that I am unworthy of it). If you are willing to recant, then I would open only the pressure normalization chamber. Any trick, and you get conveyor-belted back to the airless room. I might let you to the normalization room several times though. But I won't let you out, not without admitting your lies. Enjoy bathroom time!
 Are you prepared to die for it? No, you are not.

When Christ raised from the dead, 300 years of followers were willing to die for him, against people who would not abide any sort of easy "getting out of the room". Ruthless people, worse than me. Christians in many parts of the world are still willing to die for him, against such people.

Not one Freemason is willing to actually go into the airless void of space for globalism. They are plenty willing to fake doing so on a set. But that's hardly the same thing.

But you are completely fleeing from my question since you can't answer with what knowledge you have. You haven't even attempted to answer it, except for posting a drawing of a pendulum.

Jesus can't help you out of this one, no matter how hard you pray to him. You've lost this argument, haven't you?

The addition of "haven't you" is probably an Britishism, but it strongly implies you aren't sure. Are you? Yes, you aren't sure.

As for dying to prove this propulsion in a vacuum, if the science is sound, and I'm wearing a pressurised suit and helmet, what do I have to fear?

You're getting pressure imported from the other side of the vacuum via tube (like the old time divers). Or you're getting it from a scuba tank (would not recommend with anyone who doesn't intend to let you out, as they will outlast you).

Also, it seems pretty clear that you have verified to me that you're not confident enough in your theory to stake your life on it.

And now you're firing bullets off in a vain attempt to get more air. Yes, as established by the previous video, some propulsion works. But if you're hoping for air pockets, the glass is tempered bulletproof with multiple layers. And in the absence of air, propulsion has a harder time defying "gravity" as shown from the drone and how quickly the balloon dropped.

The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”

Is this the one who relies on the LORD? Then let the LORD save him! If the LORD loves him so much, let the LORD rescue him!”

Jesus is defends me, and in fact you also. "Though a thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand, no harm will come near you."

 What then is your argument? You can indeed be allowed to wear a space suit with a steady pump  from outside (I'm going to allow it) as the science of air pressure is indeed sound. But not only have you proved that you aren't prepared to die for your science, but you are gonna have to have a damned good waste filtration inside that suit. Have you even seen the film Brazil? The guy in the suit has a blockage in his waste exhaust, and is literally suffocating in his own shit. You'd also need to deal with sweat and urine. You could open your suit, but the pressure difference might hurt you.

It's like Donald Trump said about the homeless. You're swimming in filth. This is the filth of sin of thinking you can exist without Jesus. You need him like... (wait for it) the air you breathe.

You hate donald trump but you start quoting him.


Mmmmm

And now you're firing bullets off in a vain attempt to get more air.

Mean like how the gunpowder supplies it own oxidized.  Similar how a cutting torch works underwater with a supply of oxygen feeding the reaction?

Will a Gun Fire in Space?
https://www.military.com/video/guns/gunfire/will-a-gun-fire-in-space/971339055001

Now.  Why would the opposite and equal reaction magically stop working in a vacuum where rocket propulsion would be impossible?