So if I took a can of compressed air or paint and tried to spray it in a vacuum chamber, what would you expect to happen?
inb4 a dodge "a can of air isn't a rocket"

This post was edited by russian on May 2 2017 12:24pm

a can of compressed air doesnt rely on 8500 degree combustion of multiple gases, bad comparison is bad.

Keep trying to move those goalpost so no one will notice, not even yourself

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 2 2017 01:22pm

you called me anti science which is nothing more than a blatant lie of semantics, thinking that all science is 100% true and unquestionable thereby proving all you do is lie. Questioning science is not even anti-science, questioning science IS science, in fact it is how we move forward unlike you being a stick in the mud working to prevent any forward progress believing we are at the absolute peak of understanding all things.

i never suggested you are anti science because you question something. that's just a strawman... and honestly a strange one. i said you're anti science because you mix in semantics with scientific discussions, then i gave a specific example to illustrate the point i was trying to make. do you know what semantics means? maybe u could define your idea of semantics and give an example, then i can help you out.

i stated i question the big bang, among other scientific theories, and now somehow a few posts later you're ignoring that simple fact in order to keep your biases about me. you're making my point for me, thanks? i never stated we're not supposed to question things, and i never stated we're at the peak of anything, you just made up those strawmen in order to argue against them. why did you do that?



interesting, before it was about compression and how that couldnt work in space. now its about combustion. i wonder if the next example you'll go back to compression not working in a vacuum. or maybe you'll just state that all vacuums are more powerful than gravity, without any citation or even common sense attached to that claim. It would depend on the strength of the vacuum, and the strength of the gravity.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 2 2017 01:41pm

you have the semantics of a common troller, now i'm not insinuating your a troller, its probably a coincidence.....



damn the semantics of the dictionary, i guess their making up definitions to confuse you

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 2 2017 02:01pm

funny, i cant find where anyone says can of compressed air is a rocket. i guess your advanced brain power made some connection no one else insinuated tho. its almost as if the comparison was of two objects with compressed gases in a vacuum, one using combustion to release the compression for thrust and the other a valve.

also is that a NASA definition? for shame sir. for shame

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 2 2017 02:06pm

Those mountains didn't prove a flat Earth, and the proof that they didn't was right in YOUR OWN VIDEO at the 20 minute mark. The video showed a photograph of multiple mountain peaks, noted their distances and elevations, and "taller" mountains in the distance were lower than "shorter" mountains in the foreground. Not possible on a "flat" Earth. Not only that, but it turns out that the videographer you think "proved a flat Earth" was also not in the place he claimed to be in when he made his unfounded claims with un-reproducible results.

Again, your gyroscope video used a gyroscope of insufficient mass and speed to overcome the friction experienced by its bearings, therefore it is incapable of detecting the minuscule motions of the Earth's rotation. Moving 1000 mph is also immaterial, because gyroscopes measure angular motion, not linear motion. There are however plenty of gyros that can do measure the Earth's rotation, and they're in regular use by the US Navy and airlines all around the world. There are also simpler machines that don't rely on moving parts that can demonstrate the Earth's rotation, which you consistently run the fuck away from: Foucault's pendulums.

LMAO rainbows. Explain exactly WHY rainbows are impossible on a globe. I already know how rainbows are formed, so this should be immensely entertaining. Maybe you can make up a new "scientific" term, like you did with "vibration density."

Rocket work in vacuum. The ONLY thing that has to happen to keep it running in a vacuum is that the fuel & oxygen + expansion from combustion have to exceed the rate at which exhaust can escape the nozzle. Rockets do this by orders of magnitude. It's absolutely amazing how you can't grasp such simple notions. It's almost like... you're stupid or something.



It's a perfectly valid comparison, dumbass. The only thing combustion does is SPEED and MULTIPLY the expansion of gases.

Maybe that's because a can of compressed air is not a rocket and your low brain power assumed i made that comparison when i didnt.

If your insinuating that the compressed air in a sealed chamber can still expel into a vacuum, i would agree - but the combustion would still need to take place in a vacuum - and since combustion cannot occur in a vacuum, rockets dont work in a vacuum. Are you try to insinuate their is some type of magic membrane that can withstand the 8500 degree temperature of rocket fuel combustion that would allow the transfer of that force but still allow an airtight solid seal, um ok - what is the name of this magic Nastard seal?

i know.



its a christmas miracle.



why do you think combustion can't work in a vacuum? what if you flood the vacuum with liquid oxygen for instance?

Shorter mountain are not possible then taller mountain? Wow only a dumbass would say something so dumb, also he is exactly at the height where he says he is - his altimeter proves it.

"The miniscule motions of the earths rotation" - a mass of 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg rotating at 1000 mph while flying 66,000 mph around the sun is "miniscule" and he showed his gyroscope was able to detect the procession of a much lesser force - your BS is totally worthless and destroyed.

Rainbows dont disprove a globe - what they do suggest is that their is a dome and that we live in a closed environment (which Nasa going to moon suggests that we dont) because no one can make a rainbow indoors with just a light and a few drops of liquid water, and you can easily do it outside.

So are claiming that a can of hairspray is working improperly if it does not combust - or that their is no combustion in a rocket so comparing it to a can of compressed air is valid?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof but since you mythbusters video was debunked, its rather sad you have nothing.