Rocket propulsion in vacuum

If the gun is in your fictional space, it would be useless. It wouldn't work. Your bullet relies on explosive compression to be propelled from the gun and to cause recoil. In your fictional space, you have no means for this to take place.
You can argue that the bullet has its own oxygen and powder charge and is sealed in the cartridge with the bullet but that's only fine in your mindset as far as where you are stood on Earth.
Take away atmosphere and you taker away the powder in the bullet due to free expansion into your fictional space.
Let's give you your space bullet, intact, with me being generous.

Ok, you now fire it. . For that bullet to move, it has to be compressed out of the cartridge by exploding the powder, creating?....heat...fire. This happens because the powder is made up of its own oxygen but that explosion still has to create the expansion to compress that bullet out of that shell.
The very nano second it did this, it would be rendered useless, because there's no atmosphere to encourage movement. All there is, is a free expansion area known as your space that simply accept all of the energy from that shell.
I know you can't get your head around it because you have been severely brainwashed, like we all were and most still are.

Here's something for you to ponder. Why in the hell would space rockets need to burn fuel in space? Why not just shoot it out the back, unburned? Explain why they burn fuel in space that is devoid of any matter to have any effect.
You see, one minute it expands in a combustion chamber and kicks the rocket. This is the bullshit you get told.
The next minute you can use compressed air to float your craft into all positions to dock with so called space stations or to put the brakes on when heading for whatever planet is decided by the bozo's who think this crap up.

So what's the point in burning fuel in space?
Can't you see how stupid this all is. Just because some dick wears a white overall and has a high forehead, does not mean he knows what's going on in your fictional universe, as told to you.

Exactly, on Earth. In your space there is no atmosphere inside the barrel and none outside of it like there is on Earth. It's this very reason as to why it all works, why can't you grasp this?
All the energy in your space would be lost immediately by free expansion. It has no resistance to it and no resistance means no end product which relates to no movement.
Let me put this in kids terms as to your bullet or rocket on Earth as opposed to space.
It's like you stood on a concrete floor and jumping up into the air. This is your energy on Earth. You expend energy and gain a jump because of it because you had something to aid that energy to push against, meaning, the concrete to aid you in overcoming air pressure above and around you.

Now then, what about space?
It's like you are dangling from a rope and trying to jump up using your feet as leverage. You're going nowhere, because there's nothing in space to use as leverage. No matter what you say or what you try and make up, or what the NASA/Newtonian bozo's make up, it aint happening mate, simple as that.

No man made rocket has ever been into space. Space does not exist. It's a fantasy that people buy into because they look up and see pretty dots of light and stuff.
The nearest man made space craft you'll ever see or get into, is the one's that fly at the highest altitude. My guess, maybe 60/70/80,0000 feet. I don't really know the answer so pick one of your own as long as it's inside this cocoon we are in because that's the ebst we have.

You're not taking in what I'm saying.
A gun is not a sealed object. A cartridge slides into the bore. It is open to atmosphere. It creates a very good resistance to that upon firing so as not to lose too much expansion of gases to shoot the bullet.

In your vacuum of space, this is negligible. There is no resistance at all. Once that bullet is fired. The very nano second that it detonates, all of that energy is immediately lost to your space because it has no resistance at all to it. The energy is expanded immediately into space in super quick time.
You can't or won't get your head around it because it goes against your indoctrination.

This is why I find it hard dealing with people like you. You just won't take in what I'm saying. Either that or it's deliberate. Let me try and get it into your nut and educate you on reality.
Once that bullet is fired. The very nano second that hammer hits the shell casing, that's when the expansion happens. After that it's merely slingshot time for the bullet followed by the expanded gases that caused the slingshot. I should really use punch shot but I'm sure people will grasp what I'm saying. I don't hold much hope out for you mind.

Anyway, in your fictional space vacuum, that initial bullet punch (slingshot) move from the explosive gas expansion attempt, will not happen. It will in atmosphere but not in space, because the energy of that expansion to punch that bullet, is lost to space because there is no RESISTANCE to it. It simply freely expands into space.

Oh but it does. The trouble is, you don't see it because you don't see it eject from the casing to gauge that speed. Bullets aren't cars or bicycles. They have no means of acceleration capabilities except for the immediate ejection at maximum punch.
I'm sure you'll argue this to death but you have to look deeply into what I'm saying if you're ever going to understand why you arebeing duped by science. Or I should say, youa re being duped by scientists when it comes to this stuff.

What the hell are you talking about now? Why change what I'm saying?
Who's talking about slow burning anything?
We aren't talking about a lighting of a long fuse to blow up dynamite. We are talking about a bullet that is placed inside a shell/cartridge that has gunpowder in it and a detonator to expel the weakly fitted bullet from that shell.
The very nano second that the bullet is dislodged from that shell by expansion of gas, it's at maximum speed.


Let me make this easier for you. If someone throws a baseball at you and you hit it with a baseball bat, the power you put behind that bat and the swing, to strike that ball, means you hit it and rebound it at maximum speed as soon as it leaves that bat.
The only way it gains speed is if you were to hit it on a downwards trajectory, which we will simply leave alone for now as I don;t want to confuse you any further.

Once your bullet leaves the shell on a horizontal path, it loses speed every nano second, by resistance of atmosphere on it.
It does not gain speed.
Stop living in their fantasy world.

I've made myself perfectly clear.

Look, the cordite is sealed in the shell by the snug fitting (but easily loosened) bullet. One the hammer hits the back of the shell, an explosion happens, except before  it does any damage, it propels the snug fitting bullet ratehr than explode the shell casing.
The chamber and the casing ensure that the bullet will eject under pressure.
If you were to weld that bullet into the casing, you have essentially got yourself a small grenade. This is getting a bit off track but I think you get my meaning.


Anyway. Once the cordite is ignited, it builds up it's maximum pressure to release the bullet from the casing. Once that bullet is released from that casing, it's at maxiumum speed.
And yeah, I know what they say about slow burning while the bullet is still charging up the barrel. It's not making the bullet any faster but you're free to go along with what the so called experts say because to be honest, either way it doesn't matter with what we are arguing about in terms of space.


Let me just ask you this to make it easier for the both of us. How rigid are you with this space travel and rockets in space. What I mean is, you have never been to space. You have never experienced space in any form apart from the lens of a telescope or whatever. You have never flown in a rocket.
Now, you are free to believe in it all, I accept that but my question is: are you so sure of space and space rockets, etc that nobody will ever make you think any different....or are you - or do you possess the ability to think for yourself without mainstream bias and regurgitating anything they put into text books.

If you tell me that you are a free thinker or words to that effect, then tell me what you do not follow about mainstream science, or what you class as extremely suspect.


The reason I ask this is becuase I came here to basically bounce thoughts off free thinkers. I've had enough of mainstream regurgitators and indoctrinates, plus shills, etc (not saying you're a shill) to last me a lifetime.
I'm hoping this is a free thinkers forum and we don't get overrun by the same crop of people who spout the same mainstream nonsense, because its silly.

I think I've over argued this bullet stuff, so let's get down to some of the things that mainstream science want us to believe and look perfectly viable to fool many people, against the actual truth.

Newton's supposed law. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This gets bandied about time and time again by people but most don't fully understand what the realism of it is. It's interesting if people allow themselves to grasp the real truth it but equally it will put you in the nut job category by the mainstream boffins and their peer pressured followers if you follow it.

Ok, so you throw a person who is your own weight one way and that person will exert an opposite force onto you.
To see the real effects of this, you can stand on an ice rink or sit on an office chair with wheels and throw a concrete ball one way and watch yourself move in the opposite direction.
Why does this happen?

Well, the space boffins will tell you it's not because of atmospheric resistance and guess what?... it's believed because it's too complicated for some people to grasp the reality of it so they just go with the mass and inertia carry on and simply discard atmopspheric pressure and instead add gravity into the equation if they want to go the whole hog.

You see, by admitting atmospheric pressure being involved, they kill off the whole premise of space and also every mission told to us since the 50's to do with it... not to mention all the rest of the bullshit about space we've had to swallow. So I can't be right, can I?
I'm just a mug on the internet who's spouting off nonsense. After all, millions of scientists can't be wrong. Hundreds of thousands of NASA employees who've seen all this stuff, can't be wrong. The crap is endless to be honest, because this is the answer we get time and time again when we question this stuff. It's a classic sidestep and hope it goes away carry on.

Did you know that nobody or anything moves unless there is a atmospheric resistance present?
Do you know that atmospheric pressure is your life giving pressure?
Did you know that if you reduce atmospheric pressure to your body by a reasonable amount, your body will basically expand and you can die?


So let me start to put some reality into people's brains. Let me make you use the parts of your brain that is exempt from brainwashing by unscrupulous street magicians and gift of the gab talkers that washed the parts we allowed them to.
You see, you possess free thought. You possess a mind to invent. To think logically to solve puzzles, as long as you are part of puzzle solvers or at least on your own without the diversion of people who come bearing gifts of puzzles with no picture on the box and coax you into fruitlessly trying to solve it.


Ok, so here's the reality check.
Go and take a bit of time to look up Apollo and their saturn V massive rocket. Do this in a logical manner and without gawping like a kid at the marvelous achievement of engineers, because you lose if you do this.

Ok, now look up the tonnage. Look up the engines and what power they give out.
Now imagine what the rocket is built with, as in the shell. Remember it has to be as light as possible.
Now imagine it filled and I mean FILLED with fuel, including unstable hydrogen, we are told.

Ok, now this huge skyscraper space rocket sits on a launch pad and it's engines fire; then hoses and such just fall off, then whoosh, it RECOILS like a machine gun into the air, we are told. lol

Now watch as it slowly moves up the tower as fast as you can peddle your bicycle. It never loses stability in this slow bicycle climb with machine gun rat a tat tat hammering inside and outside of it with it's bullet like spitting fuel.
All that huge fire under it gushing about and what's sitting above it?...yep, UNSTABLE hydrogen. Who cares, right? Armstrong doesn't. Buzz?.....nah, it's just a walk in the park.
These people are navy test pilots, it's meat and drink. Haha

Now the thing is; the major problem for people is; they just can't quite figure out if it's real of not because although I've just asked them to look up the size and the so called power etc and the skin of it all, their minds just can't quite tell them it's all bullshit, because they can't get a feel for what a space rocket is actually like.

I agree. This is the killer isn't it? We don't know what and actual space rocket is like other than to see it on TV or to see a big mock up model in a museum.
The real supposed launches are too far away for anyone to make out what the hell is being launched.

The crap launches of missiles that are supposed to be space rockets start arcing into the sea a minute or so after lift off and yet people still shout and scream that they have to arc to get out of Earth's atmosphere. They just can't fathom out that Earth is supposed to be a frigging ball by their reckoning and yet this rocket starts to arc a few miles up and some-how can leave Earth's atmosphere by doing this and won't come down into the big ocean. Nope, not this space rocket. It jettisons it's tank and goes right into space.

Has nobody ever thought that the tank being jettisoned is the actual missile itself that was televised as the hollywood saturn?...come on, surely some of you must have thought this?

It's perfect isn't it?
"Well what's that missile I saw hit the ocean?" ..." Oh that's just a segement of saturn." or " oh that's just a solid rocket booster from the shuttle."
Pathetic, I know... but here we are still believing in stupid space travel.

Vacuums that can't exist. Low pressure that will kill humans, suited or not.
Man made craft that cannot fly in too thin an atmosphere.


For every ACTION, there MUST be an EQUAL and OPPOSITE REACTION. It's law. It's life. It cannot happen any other way.
If you breathe in, the atmosphere forces you to breathe out. Did you know this?

Why?
Because you expand your chest and create a larger mass against that pressure by taking a certain amount of air in...but what has the atmosphere just done? It's made you equalise it by squeezing it back out. Now you have to use energy to breathe back in. Bingo, this is your life and this is your easy way to understanding equal and opposite reaction to action.

So why is this pertinent?

Well, if you understand what I'm saying, youll also understand that putting a man in a space suit into an environment that we are told is NEAR zero psi pressure... and yet they tell us his suit is pressurised to around 5psi in that space...ask yourself a massive logical question.

How can a person survive after living under 15 psi of pressure in an equalised environment....I'll explain. Meaning, his body and the outside atmosphere equalise each other as a push on push.

Ok, so now this person is in space in a suit that is pressurised to 5psi and yet outsaide his suit there is no eqialisation of pressure. There is no reactionary pressure to keep that suit from simply inflating as well as him inflating into the zero psi. For every action there has to be a reaction. Where do we get it?

Instant death if we could magically put someone there.
They tell you that the space station is pressurised to 14.7 psi so the astrnot's can survive easy. Does this make any sense,seriously?
Can you imagine the immense structural pressure pushing the inner walls outwards with no counteracting force outside the ship to equalise it?

It doesn't require a lot of thought to see this bullshit for what it is. All it requires is a rookie detectives mind and some basic logic to sift through the small bits of nonsense that simply do not, nor cannot add up.

I ask you people to seriously delve into this and see this shit for what it all is. Don't be put off by those that jump in and reel of a boat load of nonsensical equations about space. Just tell yourself for sure that none of these equation makers have been to space to give out anything other than wild figurative speculation at best and absolute utter rigged up fantasy nonsense at the other end of the scale.

Happy thinking.

There is no physics - none whatsoever- that supports space travel.

A Gun is not a Rocket; any analogy comparing the 2 is wrong, wrong, wrong.

This is kid's stuff ffs, just learn to apply what you learnt in high school to stuff you see in the real world.

It's not hard!

Here's a question for 'alive&kicking'; do you see any problems with the design & functioning of the SRB's of the space shuttle?

Beyond the usual challenger disaster crap...

Run us through their specifications & tell us how they work.

Without referring to wikipedia, please; I'll know if you do, so don't even try it.

Come on; show us your rocketry expertise...

'alive&kicking' is a disgusting liar who knows nothing of rocketry & I have no respect for his efforts or opinions, nor any desire to read more of his lies.

There is an aspect of the space-shuttle's SRB's that is vital to their functioning yet not included in any specification I could find; if he does not mention this anomaly I will know for sure he is a lying spammer.

But if he does mention it I will know he has access to data the general public does not, so is a NASA insider; either way he is busted.

See how I roll?

Don't fuck with me when it comes to rocketry!

I am sure you know about rocketry, but now there can be no debate with aliveandkicking, given that you have already returned a guilty verdict. This reminds me of Eric Dubay, still expecting answers from Mark Sargent on his forum, when he has told him so many times he is a "shill".

In both cases, we are missing that mutual respect we would like to see.

You could say instead: "I totally disagree with your assertions, and I believe I am much more knowledgeable about rockets than you, and I will prove it to you".

Same meaning, but no one gets offended.

So you are not concerned about mutual respect? I thought we agreed on this. I thought we agreed that we were against "ad hominem" attacks. That's why I asked everyone to join this forum. I hope you are not going to let me down after all this work I have done for this forum.

You don't spend a word against personal attacks, and if I do, you call it "spamming"?

My approach is "let's agree to disagree" with those who disrespect me. But that doesn't mean I should not fight for others to respect even those who were disrespectful to me. Instead I keep debating with respectful and tolerant people.