Flat Earth

[notbatman]

WikiLeaks Said To Drop *Bombshell* On Moon Landing Hoax*
-- https://youtu.be/3clULqgpwbI




Source of leak rumor:

http://www.inquisitr.com/3837966/julian-assange-wikileaks-to-release-documents-that-prove-moon-landing-never-happened-rumor/

[BADecker]

Flat Earth ?
When i first heard this I CRIED  
The level of stupidity in humanity is simply astounding and it makes me sad.
I had tears rolling down my eyes !

The worst part about all this, is I'm confused if they are fully dedicated trolls, or if they honestly believe this Flat Earth / Hollow Earth lunacy.

We are just trolls that dont believe a saints from Nasa. Youve got us. We repent the Nasa for disbelieving it. Would they forgive us?



Why do you keep persisting that nasa tell all lies and are devils or they are angels and tell always truth? Are people retarded? World is a little more complicated than that.

You just proved my point. You people are like entrenched on your positions by politics. Further dialog is futile.

Boys, have fun by putting dicks in each others ass. Its not for me. My last words are:

How long is it going to take to question your conclusions?   

[TooQik]

I have one question for those who believe what they've been taught or shown at school or by their government is wrong or simply lies; where do the lies stop to allow you a point to build your argument from?

Let me put this another way, if you feel that all the science, mathematics, language and history classes you ever took were manipulated by your government to further their agenda, how can you trust anything that you say you know? If you can't trust anything you know, then how can you use your knowledge as a basis for an argument against anything?

Having looked at many of the flat Earth, moon landing hoax, rockets don't work in space etc videos, I'm amazed at how many people simply throw away the collective knowledge of mankind simply because they are disillusioned by their governments. I can't help but feel that as a species we are starting to go backwards in regards to sharing knowledge.

Or maybe it's just that with the advancements allowed to us by technology and its availability these days to pretty much everyone, that we're seeing a misrepresentation of knowledge by those who can find it but not understand it or know how to apply it.

[notbatman]

I have one question for those who believe what they've been taught or shown at school or by their government is wrong or simply lies; where do the lies stop to allow you a point to build your argument from?
...[clip]...

'''Government''' is not the source of all knowledge.

[TooQik]

I have one question for those who believe what they've been taught or shown at school or by their government is wrong or simply lies; where do the lies stop to allow you a point to build your argument from?
...[clip]...

'''Government''' is not the source of all knowledge.

And if you choose to use your grey matter for something other than meme creation you might comprehend that no where in my post did I state that governments were the source of all knowledge.

So let me ask a more personal question of you notbatman, where did you learn to read, write and count? And how do you know that these skill sets you were taught are correct?

[Przemax]

I have one question for those who believe what they've been taught or shown at school or by their government is wrong or simply lies; where do the lies stop to allow you a point to build your argument from?

Let me put this another way, if you feel that all the science, mathematics, language and history classes you ever took were manipulated by your government to further their agenda, how can you trust anything that you say you know? If you can't trust anything you know, then how can you use your knowledge as a basis for an argument against anything?

No. Its not all lies. Just mostly a half truths. A little truth here and there to justify a lie. Its like a Newton is made saint in the school. The guy has made great statement of his mechanics. But thats it. All rest what he said is just a justification for a lie. For example his constant number of gravitational acceleration is just a gimmick (no proof other than fake moon landing. Yes is ok on earth but its justify some weird maths and thats just weird). You make Founding Fathers as gods. You make theory of evolution viable (no proofs) only because its seems rational because there are proven rules of heredity. Rules of heredity of some traits is not a rule to create a new species. To the contrary most of the hardcore mixes are infertile so there your theory of evolution is debunked.

Its like a lot of lies are mixed with some little truths. You throw pearls infront of a swines. Children are too stupid to figure out you make fools out of them so thats should be their parents responsibility to teach them not being a fools.

Those are all just examples. I could wrote a whole book how school is mixing truth to justify lies or at least unproven stories that are justifying some larger scam. And I dont state that Newton lied or someone else is a scammer. People make mistakes. Its ultimately those who combine together the material taught in school are responsible for everything. You can make me for some conspiracy theorist, but take my word on this. Every school program on the world now to smaller or bigger degree is being developed by a Jesuits. It always was depending on them in the middle ages and its still is in the XXI century.

You dont know that? History is taught in schools as well, so if you only have knowledge from schools you will never ever think thats the case. For example a Jean A.N de Condorcet was writing in the middle of French revolution how to make an education system other than Jesuits. Guess what happened to the man? Yes you have guessed it right he was killed and his model is never tought or mentioned in any school. Ever. Condorcet is only tought in few universities, but only as of his abused concept of a progress. Just to justify another lies about gender and other utter bs science. I can asure you that Condorcet would be utterly shocked and disgusted that a woman could be a man. He would for 100% disagree. How do I know it? I could read his works and his biography. He was mostly been in a company of woman and still he had not became a woman. Maybe a little less muscular from a lack of sport activities, but still a man. He was stating a lot of a stuff about the gender differences as well that does not change in culture, rather shape the culture itself.

Having looked at many of the flat Earth, moon landing hoax, rockets don't work in space etc videos, I'm amazed at how many people simply throw away the collective knowledge of mankind simply because they are disillusioned by their governments. I can't help but feel that as a species we are starting to go backwards in regards to sharing knowledge.

How about instead you making people look stupid, listen to this. Why do you throw pearls infront of the swines? People have intelligence to tell the difference if something is worthwile or bs. By having to agree on everything, you treat me as I would have no Inteligence at all. Thats not ok.

P.S rockets dont accelerate in vacuum for fuck sake! You know how they work? Particles of matter hits the other particles of matter create a force and force create an acceleration. If there is no matter to hit a matter with how could rockets work? You see? Ofcourse they could still have the momentum so stating that rockets dont fly in vacuum is just a halftruths that flat earthers love. Those who state that rockets dont accelerate in space have to aknowledge something from school.

Im not defending the flat earthers. I just defend their attitude of progress by questioning. If they dont question their own thesis something is utterly wrong here and it looks like a psyop to discredit the idea of questioning everything.

Thats what Condorcet was mainly talking about the way to decrease the influence of Jesuit order on the public education and make it a different model pupils should be first able to question the traditions of everything. It was like 200 years ago. Forgotten sadly, but need to be remembered.

How long is it going to take to question your conclusions?    Cool

What conclusions? Question all you want what ever you want until you find undeniable axioms. If you want to believe in arguments not build on axioms its your choice to be vulnerable to the utter bs. Its not my choice.

[BADecker]

I have one question for those who believe what they've been taught or shown at school or by their government is wrong or simply lies; where do the lies stop to allow you a point to build your argument from?

Let me put this another way, if you feel that all the science, mathematics, language and history classes you ever took were manipulated by your government to further their agenda, how can you trust anything that you say you know? If you can't trust anything you know, then how can you use your knowledge as a basis for an argument against anything?

No. Its not all lies. Just mostly a half truths. A little truth here and there to justify a lie. Its like a Newton is made saint in the school. The guy has made great statement of his mechanics. But thats it. All rest what he said is just a justification for a lie. For example his constant number of gravitational acceleration is just a gimmick (no proof other than fake moon landing. Yes is ok on earth but its justify some weird maths and thats just weird). You make Founding Fathers as gods. You make theory of evolution viable (no proofs) only because its seems rational because there are proven rules of heredity. Rules of heredity of some traits is not a rule to create a new species. To the contrary most of the hardcore mixes are infertile so there your theory of evolution is debunked.

Its like a lot of lies are mixed with some little truths. You throw pearls infront of a swines. Children are too stupid to figure out you make fools out of them so thats should be their parents responsibility to teach them not being a fools.

Those are all just examples. I could wrote a whole book how school is mixing truth to justify lies or at least unproven stories that are justifying some larger scam. And I dont state that Newton lied or someone else is a scammer. People make mistakes. Its ultimately those who combine together the material taught in school are responsible for everything. You can make me for some conspiracy theorist, but take my word on this. Every school program on the world now to smaller or bigger degree is being developed by a Jesuits. It always was depending on them in the middle ages and its still is in the XXI century.

You dont know that? History is taught in schools as well, so if you only have knowledge from schools you will never ever think thats the case. For example a Jean A.N de Condorcet was writing in the middle of French revolution how to make an education system other than Jesuits. Guess what happened to the man? Yes you have guessed it right he was killed and his model is never tought or mentioned in any school. Ever. Condorcet is only tought in few universities, but only as of his abused concept of a progress. Just to justify another lies about gender and other utter bs science. I can asure you that Condorcet would be utterly shocked and disgusted that a woman could be a man. He would for 100% disagree. How do I know it? I could read his works and his biography. He was mostly been in a company of woman and still he had not became a woman. Maybe a little less muscular from a lack of sport activities, but still a man. He was stating a lot of a stuff about the gender differences as well that does not change in culture, rather shape the culture itself.

Having looked at many of the flat Earth, moon landing hoax, rockets don't work in space etc videos, I'm amazed at how many people simply throw away the collective knowledge of mankind simply because they are disillusioned by their governments. I can't help but feel that as a species we are starting to go backwards in regards to sharing knowledge.

How about instead you making people look stupid, listen to this. Why do you throw pearls infront of the swines? People have intelligence to tell the difference if something is worthwile or bs. By having to agree on everything, you treat me as I would have no Inteligence at all. Thats not ok.

P.S rockets dont accelerate in vacuum for fuck sake! You know how they work? Particles of matter hits the other particles of matter create a force and force create an acceleration. If there is no matter to hit a matter with how could rockets work? You see? Ofcourse they could still have the momentum so stating that rockets dont fly in vacuum is just a halftruths that flat earthers love. Those who state that rockets dont accelerate in space have to aknowledge something from school.

Im not defending the flat earthers. I just defend their attitude of progress by questioning. If they dont question their own thesis something is utterly wrong here and it looks like a psyop to discredit the idea of questioning everything.

Thats what Condorcet was mainly talking about the way to decrease the influence of Jesuit order on the public education and make it a different model pupils should be first able to question the traditions of everything. It was like 200 years ago. Forgotten sadly, but need to be remembered.

How long is it going to take to question your conclusions?    Cool

What conclusions? Question all you want what ever you want until you find undeniable axioms. If you want to believe in arguments not build on axioms its your choice to be vulnerable to the utter bs. Its not my choice.

Any of your conclusions.

Rockets accelerate by the inertia of their fuel.
The fuel is suddenly accelerated by its controlled detonation in the rocket engine.
The detonation pushes against the rocket (its engine).
Forward motion for the rocket.
Backward motion for the detonated fuel.

A similar thing happens when a gun kicks as the shell powder detonates, and the slug is sent out the barrel (the barrel is like a rocket engine).

[Przemax]

Any of your conclusions.

Rockets accelerate by the inertia of their fuel.
The fuel is suddenly accelerated by its controlled detonation in the rocket engine.
The detonation pushes against the rocket (its engine).
Forward motion for the rocket.
Backward motion for the detonated fuel.

A similar thing happens when a gun kicks as the shell powder detonates, and the slug is sent out the barrel (the barrel is like a rocket engine).

Wow. You realy believe you could fire a gun in vacuum? Just wow. You are just full of shit arent you? Not to mention you need oxygen to burn stuff.
Why do you think the "star wars" program involves using lasers not rockets or machine guns huh? Oh yeah. Because you cant fire a gun or shoot a rocket Einstein.

What pushes what? Detonation is just a rapid burnout creating a huge movement of the air by creating heavy air pressure. What air in the vacuum? Similiarly you cant have sound in the vacuum because its all a movement of air. There could be only an implosion aka the big boom speaking the kinds of you to the inside where there is an air on the spaceship.

Explosion and Implosion is just a matter of extreme pressures upon density of the air.

For blind Nasa believers, Nasa and its physics is just some magic. No its not magic I can assure you.

[notbatman]

...[clip]...
Rockets accelerate by the inertia of their fuel.
...[clip]...

Rockets accelerate via pressure and pushing against the atmosphere.

[nomad13666]

Nice one lol  

Good ol' Shitfly-bait BADecker.

At least he's fun to point to and laugh at.

Kinda like this goofball.

[BADecker]

Any of your conclusions.

Rockets accelerate by the inertia of their fuel.
The fuel is suddenly accelerated by its controlled detonation in the rocket engine.
The detonation pushes against the rocket (its engine).
Forward motion for the rocket.
Backward motion for the detonated fuel.

A similar thing happens when a gun kicks as the shell powder detonates, and the slug is sent out the barrel (the barrel is like a rocket engine).

Wow. You realy believe you could fire a gun in vacuum? Just wow. You are just full of shit arent you? Not to mention you need oxygen to burn stuff.

If the air in the unfired shell was allowed to escape carefully, as the shell entered a vacuum, so that it didn't disrupt the shape of the shell, the shell would fire easily in a gun.

Why do you think the "star wars" program involves using lasers not rockets or machine guns huh? Oh yeah. Because you cant fire a gun or shoot a rocket Einstein.

Actually, it's because Star Wars is movie stuff... all fictional.

What pushes what? Detonation is just a rapid burnout creating a huge movement of the air by creating heavy air pressure. What air in the vacuum? Similiarly you cant have sound in the vacuum because its all a movement of air. There could be only an implosion aka the big boom speaking the kinds of you to the inside where there is an air on the spaceship.

The gasses formed inside the detonation in a gun shell, don't have anything to do with outside air. They explode because of reactions among the materials that make up the "gunpowder." The instantaneous conversion of gunpowder solids into super-hot gasses (including CO²), is what creates the sudden pressure. The slug moves because it is the easiest part of the process that can be moved by the expanding gasses. The pressure is so extremely great that, if the slug is not allowed to move, the gun will most likely rupture, explosively.

Outside air only serves to slow the slug down. Because of this, the gun will actually fire better in a vacuum.

Explosion and Implosion is just a matter of extreme pressures upon density of the air.

For blind Nasa believers, Nasa and its physics is just some magic. No its not magic I can assure you.

The pressure of the air to withstand explosion pressure is almost nil. This knowledge was being used for hundreds of years before NASA was around.

Please don't start experimenting on gunpowder to see if all this is true. We wouldn't want you to blind yourself or worse, now, would we?

[TooQik]

I have one question for those who believe what they've been taught or shown at school or by their government is wrong or simply lies; where do the lies stop to allow you a point to build your argument from?

Let me put this another way, if you feel that all the science, mathematics, language and history classes you ever took were manipulated by your government to further their agenda, how can you trust anything that you say you know? If you can't trust anything you know, then how can you use your knowledge as a basis for an argument against anything?

No. Its not all lies. Just mostly a half truths. A little truth here and there to justify a lie. Its like a Newton is made saint in the school. The guy has made great statement of his mechanics. But thats it. All rest what he said is just a justification for a lie. For example his constant number of gravitational acceleration is just a gimmick (no proof other than fake moon landing. Yes is ok on earth but its justify some weird maths and thats just weird). You make Founding Fathers as gods. You make theory of evolution viable (no proofs) only because its seems rational because there are proven rules of heredity. Rules of heredity of some traits is not a rule to create a new species. To the contrary most of the hardcore mixes are infertile so there your theory of evolution is debunked.

Its like a lot of lies are mixed with some little truths. You throw pearls infront of a swines. Children are too stupid to figure out you make fools out of them so thats should be their parents responsibility to teach them not being a fools.

Those are all just examples. I could wrote a whole book how school is mixing truth to justify lies or at least unproven stories that are justifying some larger scam. And I dont state that Newton lied or someone else is a scammer. People make mistakes. Its ultimately those who combine together the material taught in school are responsible for everything. You can make me for some conspiracy theorist, but take my word on this. Every school program on the world now to smaller or bigger degree is being developed by a Jesuits. It always was depending on them in the middle ages and its still is in the XXI century.

You dont know that? History is taught in schools as well, so if you only have knowledge from schools you will never ever think thats the case. For example a Jean A.N de Condorcet was writing in the middle of French revolution how to make an education system other than Jesuits. Guess what happened to the man? Yes you have guessed it right he was killed and his model is never tought or mentioned in any school. Ever. Condorcet is only tought in few universities, but only as of his abused concept of a progress. Just to justify another lies about gender and other utter bs science. I can asure you that Condorcet would be utterly shocked and disgusted that a woman could be a man. He would for 100% disagree. How do I know it? I could read his works and his biography. He was mostly been in a company of woman and still he had not became a woman. Maybe a little less muscular from a lack of sport activities, but still a man. He was stating a lot of a stuff about the gender differences as well that does not change in culture, rather shape the culture itself.

Having looked at many of the flat Earth, moon landing hoax, rockets don't work in space etc videos, I'm amazed at how many people simply throw away the collective knowledge of mankind simply because they are disillusioned by their governments. I can't help but feel that as a species we are starting to go backwards in regards to sharing knowledge.

How about instead you making people look stupid, listen to this. Why do you throw pearls infront of the swines? People have intelligence to tell the difference if something is worthwile or bs. By having to agree on everything, you treat me as I would have no Inteligence at all. Thats not ok.

P.S rockets dont accelerate in vacuum for fuck sake! You know how they work? Particles of matter hits the other particles of matter create a force and force create an acceleration. If there is no matter to hit a matter with how could rockets work? You see? Ofcourse they could still have the momentum so stating that rockets dont fly in vacuum is just a halftruths that flat earthers love. Those who state that rockets dont accelerate in space have to aknowledge something from school.

Im not defending the flat earthers. I just defend their attitude of progress by questioning. If they dont question their own thesis something is utterly wrong here and it looks like a psyop to discredit the idea of questioning everything.

Thats what Condorcet was mainly talking about the way to decrease the influence of Jesuit order on the public education and make it a different model pupils should be first able to question the traditions of everything. It was like 200 years ago. Forgotten sadly, but need to be remembered.

How long is it going to take to question your conclusions?    Cool

What conclusions? Question all you want what ever you want until you find undeniable axioms. If you want to believe in arguments not build on axioms its your choice to be vulnerable to the utter bs. Its not my choice.

Przemax, I appreciate that English is not your first language but sometimes I have a hard time understanding what you are trying to convey in your posts, your post above is one of them.

I will respond to the parts that I can understand by saying that the first part of your reply highlights the point I was making, if what you're taught is half-truths how do you know where the lies stop and the truth begins? You can't pick and choose based on how you feel about a particular subject, rather there has to be a point where you trust the information that is being presented to you. This trust is generally born out of a general consensus that the knowledge being presented is tried, tested and accepted as being correct, having withstood scrutiny from peers in their respective fields.

I agree with your sentiment of questioning things. We learn a great deal through questions, but at the same time we cannot simply ignore answers because they don't fit with our own understanding. If we disagree with the answer but the answer given was born out of our collective knowledge as a species, then it's up to the individual to prove that the answer given is incorrect. You can't simply dismiss this collective knowledge of mankind as being some conspiracy by a government or some agency of one specific country as this knowledge has been gleaned from many people of many nationalities over a long period of time, and the current politics you're applying to base your dismissal on are not relevant.

Regarding both your and notbatman's comments in relation to rockets, it's clear that neither of you have an understanding of the physics involved. It's a misconception made by many that a rocket's thrust comes from pushing against the atmosphere that surrounds it, hence why you think that a rocket won't work in a vacuum. Here's a very basic explanation from, of all places, an oceanography website:

http://oceanbites.org/321liftoff-squid-can-launch-out-of-water-like-rockets/

You can stop reading once you get to the anatomy of a squid picture.  

[Gleb Gamow]

You can stop reading once you get to the anatomy of a squid picture.

But therein lies the brains of ... (do I really need to spell it out?)

[Przemax]

Przemax, I appreciate that English is not your first language but sometimes I have a hard time understanding what you are trying to convey in your posts, your post above is one of them.

Great. Just point out my grammar or syntax errors so that I can improve my english skills. Thanks.

I will respond to the parts that I can understand by saying that the first part of your reply highlights the point I was making, if what you're taught is half-truths how do you know where the lies stop and the truth begins?

Its easy. You just need to use critical thinking. Lets look at the globe earth theory and their half truths. Globe theory aknowledges the karman line on the altitude of 100km, where meteorites burn out. They explain it as if a bug fly into a wind shield. To make it happen there would need to be a very dense particles like sodium. As they claim there is. Sodium is way too heavy to be on that heights so its a lie. Its some of the truth (karman line and the burnout of asteroids there) to justify a lie (mechanics of a wind shield).

Now you can argue with me based on the fact that Karman line exists. Concave earth/flat earth model suggest its solid object and globe theoretists suggest its not solid. But the Karman line/Glass sealing/dome what ever you call it exist. Its a fact. Some things are proven and some things are not proven. You should separate one from another.

You can't pick and choose based on how you feel about a particular subject, rather there has to be a point where you trust the information that is being presented to you.

Its not about feelings. Its all about critical thinking. Someone have it and others dont.

This trust is generally born out of a general consensus that the knowledge being presented is tried, tested and accepted as being correct, having withstood scrutiny from peers in their respective fields.

Every scientists should be distrustful. Even to themselfs. If you think scientists should just trust someone without doublecheck, then someone has lied to you what science is. Consensus is such an abused word now. Word consensus just smells rotten like.... Jesuits . It should be a long dead word like Jesuit order should not be ressurected. If everyone would agree to cut off your head and piss on your deformed corpse, would you agree to the "consensus"? Right is right and no voting make it otherwise.

I agree with your sentiment of questioning things. We learn a great deal through questions, but at the same time we cannot simply ignore answers because they don't fit with our own understanding. If we disagree with the answer but the answer given was born out of our collective knowledge as a species, then it's up to the individual to prove that the answer given is incorrect. You can't simply dismiss this collective knowledge of mankind as being some conspiracy by a government or some agency of one specific country as this knowledge has been gleaned from many people of many nationalities over a long period of time, and the current politics you're applying to base your dismissal on are not relevant.

I dont dismiss the collective knowledge of a humankind. I just state that some of the knowledge is a bs. Dont spread lies ok? Just because I see some things as not true does not mean that I see everything as untrue. How could you spawn such a logical error?

Regarding both your and notbatman's comments in relation to rockets,[...] [...]. It's a misconception made by many that a rocket's thrust comes from pushing against the atmosphere that surrounds it, hence why you think that a rocket won't work in a vacuum. Here's a very basic explanation from, of all places, an oceanography website:

Thrust in other words is a rapid push. You know what a push force is? You push something against something. Why do you spread a misconception. Its not that complicated that to push you need to have something to push against.

Squid is pushing the water against the water by creating a massive pressures.

You cant push something against nothing. How could you came up with such an absurdal idea?

it's clear that neither of you have an understanding of the physics involved

They are like:

The gasses formed inside the detonation in a gun shell, don't have anything to do with outside air. They explode because of reactions among the materials that make up the "gunpowder." The instantaneous conversion of gunpowder solids into super-hot gasses (including CO2), is what creates the sudden pressure. The slug moves because it is the easiest part of the process that can be moved by the expanding gasses. The pressure is so extremely great that, if the slug is not allowed to move, the gun will most likely rupture, explosively.

Ok maybe a gun could fire up. My bad, but rocket fuel is another story. Its mainly a hydrogen.

[BADecker]

Ok maybe a gun could fire up. My bad, but rocket fuel is another story. Its mainly a hydrogen.

Actually, standard rocket fuel is mainly oxygen. The combining of the oxygen with hydrogen produces steam. Because both of these elements are highly reactive in the presence of each other, the reaction is explosive. the explosion produced in the rocket engine is so violent that the inertia produced by the suddenly moving steam is what pushes the rocket ahead. It doesn't need any atmosphere. In fact, the atmosphere slows the rocket down.

[notbatman]

You can stop reading once you get to the anatomy of a squid picture.

But therein lies the brains of ... (do I really need to spell it out?)

[notbatman]

Ok maybe a gun could fire up. My bad, but rocket fuel is another story. Its mainly a hydrogen.

Actually, standard rocket fuel is mainly oxygen. The combining of the oxygen with hydrogen produces steam. Because both of these elements are highly reactive in the presence of each other, the reaction is explosive. the explosion produced in the rocket engine is so violent that the inertia produced by the suddenly moving steam is what pushes the rocket ahead. It doesn't need any atmosphere. In fact, the atmosphere slows the rocket down.

^^^ This is garbage, the reaction produces pressure that pushes against the atmosphere and that's what moves the rocket.

[BADecker]

Ok maybe a gun could fire up. My bad, but rocket fuel is another story. Its mainly a hydrogen.

Actually, standard rocket fuel is mainly oxygen. The combining of the oxygen with hydrogen produces steam. Because both of these elements are highly reactive in the presence of each other, the reaction is explosive. the explosion produced in the rocket engine is so violent that the inertia produced by the suddenly moving steam is what pushes the rocket ahead. It doesn't need any atmosphere. In fact, the atmosphere slows the rocket down.

This is garbage the reaction produces pressure that pushes against the atmosphere, that's what moves the rocket.

This is garbage. The inertia of the exploding fuel pushes the rocket forward. Atmosphere gets in the way and slows things down.

[MiSKLaCH]

Ok maybe a gun could fire up. My bad, but rocket fuel is another story. Its mainly a hydrogen.

Actually, standard rocket fuel is mainly oxygen. The combining of the oxygen with hydrogen produces steam. Because both of these elements are highly reactive in the presence of each other, the reaction is explosive. the explosion produced in the rocket engine is so violent that the inertia produced by the suddenly moving steam is what pushes the rocket ahead. It doesn't need any atmosphere. In fact, the atmosphere slows the rocket down.

This is garbage the reaction produces pressure that pushes against the atmosphere, that's what moves the rocket.

Here we come... physics for dumb people (read: you!)  

Newton's Third Law: «For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction»
One of the many sources about the subject: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law

That means that a rocket can travel into void, no need for atmosphere... hmm... wait, you keep talking about atmosphere, stratosphere etc... to be coherent with your flat earth rants you'd better call it atmoplane, stratoplane!  

[notbatman]

Ok maybe a gun could fire up. My bad, but rocket fuel is another story. Its mainly a hydrogen.

Actually, standard rocket fuel is mainly oxygen. The combining of the oxygen with hydrogen produces steam. Because both of these elements are highly reactive in the presence of each other, the reaction is explosive. the explosion produced in the rocket engine is so violent that the inertia produced by the suddenly moving steam is what pushes the rocket ahead. It doesn't need any atmosphere. In fact, the atmosphere slows the rocket down.

This is garbage the reaction produces pressure that pushes against the atmosphere, that's what moves the rocket.

Here we come... physics for dumb people (read: you!)  

Newton's Third Law: «For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction»
One of the many sources about the subject: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law

That means that a rocket can travel into void, no need for atmosphere... hmm... wait, you keep talking about atmosphere, stratosphere etc... to be coherent with your flat earth rants you'd better call it atmoplane, stratoplane!  

I bet you're so technically inept you can't even tie your own shoelaces.