What do you think would happen to that tank if pressurised and placed in an extreme low pressure environment and punctured?
It would vent, over a considerable time depending on how large the hole is and how much gas is in there. As this gas has changed velocity it would necessitate a force to act upon it and thus a reactionary force and thus it would also move the tank.
What do you think would happen?
According to you, motion requires the atmosphere and something to push off. You also claim that isn't there in the vacuum of space. So according to you, all the gas needs to remain inside as it can't leave the tank as it has nothing to push off and there is no atmosphere around it.
Repeatedly asserting your fantasy as fact will not help you.
Gas has mass. That means it will resist motion. That means it can't just magically accelerate out of a container. That means the gas itself will provide resistance.
There is also a simple way you can test this.
Try getting a tank of compressed gas, placed in a very large pressure container (such that the release of gas from the tank wont significantly change the pressure) where you can change the pressure.
Then go and try different combinations of pressures inside the tank and container, and see what effect it has on the release of the gas.
If you do you will find the pressure differential is what is important as that determines how much gas needs to flow, and also how the gas will accelerate.
Also, do you not notice the hypocrisy? You object to the high flow rates of fuel for rocket engines, yet you are fine pretending that the gas should leave almost instantly?
Tanks like that can hold 26000 l, yet you claim it all leaves extremely quickly, where if we assume it takes 1 second, that would be a flowrate of 26000 l/s, all through a tiny pinprick.
Your rejection of space will remain a fantasy.
Nobody's asking for it to be broken from the inside. It's irrelevant at this point of argument.
No, you are. You are acting like this shows a massive problem for the ISS because it is exposed to a vacuum. The only way for it to be a problem is if you are suggesting the vacuum will cause it to fail, as the vacuum inside the tank did in the video.
But unless you are claiming the vacuum will crush it that means the gas inside will cause it to be broken from the inside.
So unless the video is just irrelevant garbage, you are asking for it to be broken from the inside.
Pay close attention to it.
Still no arrow of force acting on the rocket or balloon to push it forward.
It was a very simple request.
Draw a green arrow clearly indicating where the force is being transferred to the rocket and balloon to move it to the left.
Note:
This must be an arrow which touches the rocket.
If you don't like it just observe and say nothing.
No, I will continue to call out your BS, even if you continually ignore me. It just shows that you really have no case, and that you know you are here lying to everyone. You know your claims are pure garbage which cannot withstand any form of rational scrutiny, yet you continue to spout them, knowingly lying to everyone here.
You people need to sort out your own because none of yours makes any sense of reality.
If none of it makes any sense, why is it capable of explaining so many observations?
Why are you completely unable to show any problem with it?
All you seem to be able to do is dismiss it as false and assert fantasy instead, fantasy which is easily contradicted by actual experiments?
It is your nonsense which makes no sense at all.
You repeatedly contradict yourself.
You claim that motion requires something to push against and the atmosphere, yet you then go straight out and reject that and claim that things can still move without that.
You try to have motion with no force acting on the object, yet pretend there is no problem.
Try to actually come up with a coherent model which can actually explain things and which doesn't contradict itself.
Again, try telling us what happens to a tube, open at one end, filled with compressed gas, in a vacuum.
Does the gas stay put?
If so, then by your own claims it will be exerting pressure against the tube and thus push the tube away.
If not, then how does it leave when you claim such motion would require the atmosphere and something to use as leverage? The only thing available to use as leverage is the tube, meaning the tube would move.
Either way, it clearly shows rockets MUST work in a vacuum.
If you wish to disagree come up with an idea of what happens with a clear and simple explanation which does not contradict itself and clearly explains why the gas can leave but the tube can't move, or how the gas stays trapped in an open container and how that doesn't then push the rocket away.
Until you have such an explanation, you have literally nothing to back up your insane claims and nothing to challenge the reality of rockets working in space.