it has fuel and oxidizer just like a bullet

Yeah but thats system thats part of the gun

It requires energy imput

But not air to push off to move

what is the gun pushing off of to recoil

NASA claims to have had that technology back when they ‘landed on the moon.’ But they destroyed it. However, the problem now that mainstream scientists are arguing, is that the moon is actually in earth’ atmosphere.

not the air

Meaning, if that’s true.

The same force as the bullet

Off of the bullet

There was never a reason to need that tech in the first place.

Which means they’re lying.

By default.

@the21cat see how he changed teh topic?

it's b/c he knows he lost

I’m not changing the topic.

then you can answer the question : what is the gun pushing off of to recoil

Yeah because hes being dumb for whatever reason. He was winning

I’m sorry if you’re so desperate to try and provide a point you can’t even explain.

why can't you answer an easy question

You didn’t even establish the point.

A bullet has air in the casing.

Rendering your entire point, null.

so woudl it still recoil in a vacuum?

Not according to what we know. Cody’s science lab did an experiment where he tried to burn gun powder by itself in a vacuum, and it didn’t work. Later, he did an experiment where he supposedly made it work by using a casing. However, he didn’t prove if that casing was airtight, or not.

yes, youtube is the entirety of human knowledge

Well, if we make our own vacuum chamber, we could establish these kinds of things ourselves.

And I for one, unfortunately, do not currently possess the means.

lets do a simpler example

Perhaps in a few years or so.

imagine you're on an ice rink on a little sled, no friction

For me.

and you push off the wall of the rink, do you go backwards

Yes.

what if you push off the zamboni

I don’t see a problem with that.

what if you push off a refridgerator, that is also on a sled like you

Sounds like you would knock the fridge over, or you wouldn’t go anywhere.

how about a large rock then

The latter.

you wouldn't go anywhere?