HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 16, 2019, 12:56:39 AM

if you had 100$ in your bank.
and every day you took out 10$.
you are not BROKE until the 10th day (9th if you want to play games).

No you're not but you are negatively draining your bank account, not positively adding to it or even holding a set $100.

So
Think of the pressure gauge as a bank teller.
The teller will tell you what your balance is (regardless of direction of decrease/ increase).

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 16, 2019, 12:40:51 AM

scepti is clearly using definitions that differ from "conventional" and have yet to be determined.

because - HOW WOULD THE GAS KNOW IT"S IN A FLEXIBLE BALLOON VS A RIGID IMPERMEABLE CONTAINER?!

completely bonkers.

The gas doesn't have to know what it's in.
The actual containers and external atmospheric pressure are the deciding factors.

Both different set ups and both have to be dealt with in exactly that way.

Rigid container holds compressed air and is stopped from expanding by that rigidity.

A balloon holds compressed air but it expands the skin against the external atmospheric pressure and compresses that by what's inside the balloon.

Right
The container skin properties decide how the container will form and behave.
The air just wants to go out in all (in all) directions
Even if there is a breach, the air is still trying to go in all directions, its just those near the exit find it easy, and leave.
So it is NOT a different set up, as far as the air is concerned.

Quote from: Stash on November 15, 2019, 03:15:03 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2019, 02:28:22 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 15, 2019, 10:49:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2019, 08:56:50 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 15, 2019, 06:22:18 AM

If it isn't immediately released it is still applying pressure.

Answer the two questions:

If am travelling forward at 50mph and decelerate to 40mph, during that deceleration, I'm still moving forward.  Y/N?

Yes.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

I have a pressurized tire that is leaking air (decompressing).  It is at 32PSI and is leaking at a 1 PSI every 2 hours.  Does the tire still have pressure?  Y/N?

Yes.

How can the tire have pressure if it's all heading toward the opening.

Externally.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

  How is it maintaining it's rigidity and not going flat as a result of the air all heading toward the opening to decompress.

It's not.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

  To hold rigidity, the pressure must be pushing equally in all directions.

Exactly.

1) How does the 32PSI tire leaking at a 1 PSI every 2 hours still have pressure (You answered Yes it does) yet...
2) It's not maintaining its rigidity (You said it does not maintain its rigidity) yet...
3) It actually is maintaining rigidity because it won't be flat for about 64 hours (See your answer to #1) yet...
4) To hold rigidity, the pressure must be pushing equally in all directions (You answered Yes)

So you said that Yes, the tire does have pressure as its leaking and that pressure is pressing on all sides yet it is not maintaining rigidity.

If that were true, the tire would lose its rigidity immediately, immediately go flat, not take 64 hours to completely lose its rigidity and go flat.

You don't see that as a contradiction?

No contradictions whatsoever.
What I do see is a failure of you and others to understand what I put forward.
You change from a container to a tyre and believe it's the same scenario but it's not. There is a difference and it should be obvious.
This is why you're getting what you think are contradictions.

You have the same mental difficiency by thinking a traveling car horizontally vs vertical matters much when considering linear motion.
Or that thinking air in a balloon vs a pop can when considering air pressure.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 15, 2019, 04:01:18 PM

Why isn't it.  When I blow up a balloon, I'm pretty sure it expands in all directions.

The balloon skin does, yes.
We aren't dealing with the skin, we're dealing with the gas inside of it, but more im portantly we are delaing with a solid container at this moment.

Too many people are changing the set up from a balloon to a tyre and what not.
That's fine if you want to but add in a gauge because this is also what we're arguing at this point.

I'm sure you can see how it's going to get confusing for you all.
I have no issues in answering any but you'll definitely get mixed up.

Lets try this.

The ballloon is inside a popcan that is full sealed.
Blow up the balloon.
It fills to the size of the popcan.
Now what does the air think?
Its inside a balloon or its inside a popcan?
Oh dear... what to do.

Quote from: Stash on November 15, 2019, 04:07:43 PM

Ok:

I have a pressurized container with a gauge on one end and a valve on the other that is opened  (decompressing).

Correct.

Quote from: Stash

The container is at 32PSI and is ejecting through the valve at 1 PSI every 2 hours.  Does the container still have pressure?  Y/N?

Yes.

Quote from: Stash

After 32 hours, the gauge reads 16 PSI, does the container still have pressure?  Y/N?

Yes.


Now this is where you'll sit back and scratch your head and likely come back with " scepti you're contradicting yourself...can't you see."

Or something like that.


The container has pressure because it still has a gas fight on.
The container itself has its pressure releasing when the valve is open.

The gas is not directly pushing against the container with positive force. It's simply decompressing away from the container walls, even though the outer molecules are still touching.
And this is the key.

This is what you need to get around and understand why I explain what I explain.

I like how you deleted and completely ignored this part of a previous response
But i can repost for AAAAALLL to see what a dodger your are:


in conventional physics
the net positive force (FORCE = PRESSURE/ AREA) is acting in the direction of the opening.
the general pressure (PRESSURE = FORCE x AREA) inside the container is the amount of force the container requires to keep all that gas from breaching any one part of its skin.

and any number of value greater than zero, is a POSTIVE.
the DIRECTION of RATE of DECREASE may be dropping (calculus), but it is still a POSTIVE value.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2019, 12:49:55 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 16, 2019, 12:40:51 AM

scepti is clearly using definitions that differ from "conventional" and have yet to be determined.

because - HOW WOULD THE GAS KNOW IT"S IN A FLEXIBLE BALLOON VS A RIGID IMPERMEABLE CONTAINER?!

completely bonkers.

The gas doesn't have to know what it's in.
The actual containers and external atmospheric pressure are the deciding factors.

Both different set ups and both have to be dealt with in exactly that way.

Rigid container holds compressed air and is stopped from expanding by that rigidity.

A balloon holds compressed air but it expands the skin against the external atmospheric pressure and compresses that by what's inside the balloon.

Right
The container skin properties decide how the container will form and behave.
The air just wants to go out in all (in all) directions
Even if there is a breach, the air is still trying to go in all directions, its just those near the exit find it easy, and leave.
So it is NOT a different set up, as far as the air is concerned.

It is a different set up.

You have the same mental difficiency by thinking a traveling car horizontally vs vertical matters much when considering linear motion.
Or that thinking air in a balloon vs a pop can when considering air pressure.

I think you have one when you can't make up your mind what the hell you're trying to argue.

Lets try this.

The ballloon is inside a popcan that is full sealed.
Blow up the balloon.
It fills to the size of the popcan.
Now what does the air think?
Its inside a balloon or its inside a popcan?
Oh dear... what to do.

It doesn't think anything.
It's air pushed into a pop can with added rubber skin.
It's just a sealed pressurised container.

any number of value greater than zero, is a POSTIVE.
the DIRECTION of RATE of DECREASE may be dropping (calculus), but it is still a POSTIVE value.

Not against a gauge it's not.
It may be a positive value with gas on gas expansion but it has zero positive value against a gauge if the opposite end is open.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 16, 2019, 07:36:41 AM

any number of value greater than zero, is a POSTIVE.
the DIRECTION of RATE of DECREASE may be dropping (calculus), but it is still a POSTIVE value.

Not against a gauge it's not.
It may be a positive value with gas on gas expansion but it has zero positive value against a gauge if the opposite end is open.

So using your logic, if I'm driving at 50mph and decelerate to any speed greater than 0, I'm no longer moving forward.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 16, 2019, 07:33:05 AM

Lets try this.

The ballloon is inside a popcan that is full sealed.
Blow up the balloon.
It fills to the size of the popcan.
Now what does the air think?
Its inside a balloon or its inside a popcan?
Oh dear... what to do.

It doesn't think anything.
It's air pushed into a pop can with added rubber skin.
It's just a sealed pressurised container.

So is a balloon.
Its a flexible sealed pressurized container

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 16, 2019, 07:31:13 AM

You have the same mental difficiency by thinking a traveling car horizontally vs vertical matters much when considering linear motion.
Or that thinking air in a balloon vs a pop can when considering air pressure.

I think you have one when you can't make up your mind what the hell you're trying to argue.

No
The others would agree you cant keep your theory straight.

Last year pumps didnt exist and sponges grew and shrank, gobstopper style, within the container.

This time sponge people can exit off a bus which in theory means that vaccuums exist.
The cause of the bus movement is related to the exit of the people.
Meaning vacuums exist and rockets propell using mass flow.
But you deny you used such an anology.
So strange.

Heres another fluid-pressure example.

Water is a fluid.
Water inside a giant football jug with a spout pouring into a cup.
Are you saying because the spout is open, water is flow, that there would be no pressure on the bottom of the jug?
Remeber us duped people believe weight = pressure over an area.
Youre saying that magically there isbzero pressure resultong in zero weight of the jug?

And 10pg later.
You still havent answer what the relevance of water in a water rocket does.
You think you answered it.
But a "dissipative resistance to stack" is nonsensical.
We even went through a denP-definition exercise which you quickly abandoned when you realized what contradictions it was exposing.

No you're not but you are negatively draining your bank account, not positively adding to it or even holding a set $100.

But you still have money it in.
If we accept your nonsense, then there is no money it it, it is just expanded outwards towards the opening.

Do you realise just how foolish that kind of claim would be?
The money is still in the account, just like the pressure (which is acting outwards in all directions) is still in the container.
A decreasing number which is greater than 0, is still a positive number.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 16, 2019, 02:15:34 AM

How about this analogy:
Someone is pushing you against a wall, applying a significant force.
Then they slowly ease up on the force, gradually reducing the force they are applying to you.
Are they still pushing you?

Nope. They're resisting your expansion in to their back.

If that was the case, you would be free to move.
Instead you are still held back against the wall.
That means they are pushing you against the wall.
Again, you seem to just want to use different words.

In which case the same nonsense words can be used in the case of the rocket and so on.

It is a different set up.

While there are differences, it is the same principle, and the setup is not really any more different than any other container.
The gas continue to exert a force outwards in all directions.
This is what moves the rocket, keeps the pressure gauge reading a value, keeps the balloon inflated and so on.

Not against a gauge it's not.

A gauge is irrelevant.
A positive value is a positive value.
It doesn't matter how it got there.


And of course, after your non-answers are shown to be non-answers, you avoid the very simple questions yet again.
So here they are again:
What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move?
How does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?
How does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?

Remember, until you can provide simple consistent answers which are actually answers, YOU HAVE NOTHING!

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2019, 08:46:39 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 16, 2019, 07:36:41 AM

any number of value greater than zero, is a POSTIVE.
the DIRECTION of RATE of DECREASE may be dropping (calculus), but it is still a POSTIVE value.

Not against a gauge it's not.
It may be a positive value with gas on gas expansion but it has zero positive value against a gauge if the opposite end is open.

So using your logic, if I'm driving at 50mph and decelerate to any speed greater than 0, I'm no longer moving forward.

That analogy does not cover what I'm saying.
This is why you lot are struggling to understand.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2019, 08:44:15 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 16, 2019, 07:33:05 AM

Lets try this.

The ballloon is inside a popcan that is full sealed.
Blow up the balloon.
It fills to the size of the popcan.
Now what does the air think?
Its inside a balloon or its inside a popcan?
Oh dear... what to do.

It doesn't think anything.
It's air pushed into a pop can with added rubber skin.
It's just a sealed pressurised container.

So is a balloon.
Its a flexible sealed pressurized container

Yep, it's flexible and that is the key to why it's a different scenario.
If you want to argue balloons then stick to the balloon argument.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2019, 08:42:09 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 16, 2019, 07:31:13 AM

You have the same mental difficiency by thinking a traveling car horizontally vs vertical matters much when considering linear motion.
Or that thinking air in a balloon vs a pop can when considering air pressure.

I think you have one when you can't make up your mind what the hell you're trying to argue.

No
The others would agree you cant keep your theory straight.

My theory is perfectly straight.
Your interpretation of it is skewed on a regular basis and it feels deliberate....but, that's your issue.

Last year pumps didnt exist and sponges grew and shrank, gobstopper style, within the container.

Pumps did exist. Not sure what you're getting at with this.
Maybe explain it and quote my post on it.
As for sponges, they are a basic analogy for clarity which you and others struggle with.
Gobstoppers are for molecular density to show layers but that goes way above your head when you struggle to deal with a sponge analogy.
By all means keep typing this stuff and I'll pick out what's relevant and leave what's not.

This time sponge people can exit off a bus which in theory means that vaccuums exist.

I never mentioned sponge people. You did.

The cause of the bus movement is related to the exit of the people.

Yep, the exit of people into direct resistance of external people pushing back by resistance.

Meaning vacuums exist and rockets propell using mass flow.

Low pressure exists and mass flow exists.

But you deny you used such an anology.
So strange.

I'm not denying anything I've said. Your attempts to twist stuff to suit your needs because you're frustrated at not understanding, is entirely your issue.

Heres another fluid-pressure example.

Water is a fluid.
Water inside a giant football jug with a spout pouring into a cup.
Are you saying because the spout is open, water is flow, that there would be no pressure on the bottom of the jug?
Remeber us duped people believe weight = pressure over an area.
Youre saying that magically there isbzero pressure resultong in zero weight of the jug?

You'll need to be clearer on what you're saying here. A football jug? A spout pouring into cup? Spout is open? Water is flow? No pressure at bottom of jug?

Can you actually put a proper scenario to me because I can't make head nor tail of what you're saying here.

That analogy does not cover what I'm saying.

No, it still does.
You want to pretend that just because a value is dropping that it is magically not positive.
That is not how anything works.

This is why you lot are struggling to understand.

We are not struggling to understand.
The way you repeatedly need to avoid very simple issues shows that we are not the ones who lack understanding and instead your model is fundamentally flawed.
Again, realising you are wrong is not the same as not understanding.

Again:
What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move (which isn't the rocket and which the rocket can't push against)?
How does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?
How does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?

And 10pg later.
You still havent answer what the relevance of water in a water rocket does.
You think you answered it.
But a "dissipative resistance to stack" is nonsensical.
We even went through a denP-definition exercise which you quickly abandoned when you realized what contradictions it was exposing.

I'm abandoning nothing.
Your failure to understand is your issue and creates your own confusion.

You make out I said dissipative resistance to a stack. Where did I say that?
Try and understand and absorb what I do say and it'll make things a bit more clear to you.
Keep putting your shield up and you'll naturally miss out on a lot.

A decreasing number which is greater than 0, is still a positive number.

There is no definitive number on something decreasing, until it stops decreasing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2019, 08:46:39 AM

Not against a gauge it's not.

A gauge is irrelevant.
A positive value is a positive value.
It doesn't matter how it got there.

How do you know a positive value if there are no means to measure it?

What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move?

Itself.

How does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?

It follows a funnel like exit against lower pressure.

How does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?

It expands to wards the opening because the resistance of gas external to it is much lower or more expanded than the expanded gas coming out of the valve, which is then compressed to that in resistance by the stack of atmosphere directly below.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2019, 01:06:31 AM

That analogy does not cover what I'm saying.

No, it still does.
You want to pretend that just because a value is dropping that it is magically not positive.
That is not how anything works.

I'm not saying it's not positive. I'm saying there's no positive pressure against the gauge.
The positive pressure is still there but it's happening at the opposite end against resistant atmosphere.

Deal with one thing at a time and you won't get sidetracked by adding in stuff you clearly don't  fully understand about my theory.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 16, 2019, 01:05:15 PM

A decreasing number which is greater than 0, is still a positive number.

There is no definitive number on something decreasing, until it stops decreasing.

Whoa, what? What in the world does that mean in your world? A gauge measures a reading whether it's going up or going down. And your explanation is that there is no definitive number on something decreasing, until it stops decreasing? And yes, that's like saying something I just made up, there is no increasing as the increases occur increasingly. You have got to be kidding me that is your gobblegook explanation for anything.

There's a gauge. The gauge reads pressure. Whether that pressure is going up, or going down, it reads pressure. That's the sole purpose of the life of a pressure gauge. This "no definitive number" thing completely blows up your theory as it is asinine at best.

I think the issue is that you got into a bind regarding pressurized containers vexed by a Newtonian 3rd law and can't really find your way out unless you make up new things. New things that contradict old things, but attempt to get you out of the current jam you're in. Hence things like, "no definitive number on something decreasing", sponges, buses and expansion.

You can't get past the gauge argument without making up entirely new contradictory stuff. So I think it's kinda done.

Quote

I'm not saying it's not positive. I'm saying there's no positive pressure against the gauge.
The positive pressure is still there but it's happening at the opposite end against resistant atmosphere.

Again, what? The positive pressure is still there, but it is only selectively happening at one end. If it were doing so there would be a 0 reading on the pressure gauge at the other end. What magic keeps occurring that presses on the pressure gauge and shows a pressure reading yet there is no pressure present to do so? How can that be?

Quote from: JackBlack on November 16, 2019, 01:05:15 PM

A decreasing number which is greater than 0, is still a positive number.

There is no definitive number on something decreasing, until it stops decreasing.

And that is just more attempts at weaseling.
There is still a definitive number at any point in time. The fact that it changes over time does not change that.
It is still a positive number.
All the systems still have pressure being applied.
You just seem to want to pretend that while this pressure which is continuing to be applied is decreasing it is just expansion.

How do you know a positive value if there are no means to measure it?

There are many ways, as already explained.
The simplest is the gauge measuring it, or the container not collapsing.
We know what a balloon looks like when there is no pressure inside it. We know just how quickly it will return to its "default" size if there is no pressure to hold it open. This makes it quite apparent that there is still pressure.

Quote from: JackBlack

What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move?

Itself.

Again, if you want to go down that route, that means the rocket can push against itself and thus rockets work in a vacuum.
One of your arguments against a rocket is that things can't push against themselves to move.
So there you go contradicting yourself yet again.

In order for what you say here to count as an answer you either need to admit that rockets work in a vacuum or you need to provide something which wont work equally well for the rocket or have something equivalent that will.

Quote from: JackBlack

How does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?

It follows a funnel like exit against lower pressure.

How?
As you said, it is trying to expand. Why would it suddenly stop trying to do so in all bar one direction?

Quote from: JackBlack

How does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?

It expands to wards the opening because the resistance of gas external to it is much lower or more expanded than the expanded gas coming out of the valve, which is then compressed to that in resistance by the stack of atmosphere directly below.

And again you avoid the actual problem this question raises.
Even you admit motion is caused by push on push.
That means if the gas is pushing forwards, it moves backwards by the reactionary force pushing on it.

But with what you said, why should the resistance in any direction matter?
If it expands outwards it should be doing so in all directions.
The only way for that nonsense to make sense is if what you are saying really means that the gas is trying to expand outwards in all directions, and is pushing outwards in all directions, but the gas away from the opening is at a higher pressure and is pushing more than the gas towards the opening.

I'm not saying it's not positive. I'm saying there's no positive pressure against the gauge.

So you are contradicting yourself again, because before you said if it was positive there is pressure against the gauge.

The positive pressure is still there

Which means it will still be pushing against the gauge as there is literally no reason for it to not do so and all the evidence shows it is.

Deal with one thing at a time and you won't get sidetracked by adding in stuff you clearly don't  fully understand about my theory.

I have made it quite clear that I do understand.
Stop insulting to try and avoid the problems with your model.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2019, 01:38:12 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 16, 2019, 01:05:15 PM

A decreasing number which is greater than 0, is still a positive number.

There is no definitive number on something decreasing, until it stops decreasing.

Whoa, what? What in the world does that mean in your world? A gauge measures a reading whether it's going up or going down. And your explanation is that there is no definitive number on something decreasing, until it stops decreasing? And yes, that's like saying something I just made up, there is no increasing as the increases occur increasingly. You have got to be kidding me that is your gobblegook explanation for anything.

There's a gauge. The gauge reads pressure. Whether that pressure is going up, or going down, it reads pressure. That's the sole purpose of the life of a pressure gauge. This "no definitive number" thing completely blows up your theory as it is asinine at best.

My theory is consistent. There's no holes.
You appear to be trying to understand it but then place barriers in the way and end up having to take another two steps back to take one step forward, again.

I think the issue is that you got into a bind regarding pressurized containers vexed by a Newtonian 3rd law and can't really find your way out unless you make up new things.

I can easily find my way out because I know what my theory is.

New things that contradict old things, but attempt to get you out of the current jam you're in. Hence things like, "no definitive number on something decreasing", sponges, buses and expansion.

Nothing contradicts.
What does appear to be contradictory is your and others interpretation of the different scenarios you are placing before me and expect me to answer with the same theory when the scenarios are entirely different.
 

You can't get past the gauge argument without making up entirely new contradictory stuff. So I think it's kinda done.

You can't understand it but my argument is consistent, not contradictory.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2019, 01:42:33 AM

Quote

I'm not saying it's not positive. I'm saying there's no positive pressure against the gauge.
The positive pressure is still there but it's happening at the opposite end against resistant atmosphere.

Again, what? The positive pressure is still there, but it is only selectively happening at one end. If it were doing so there would be a 0 reading on the pressure gauge at the other end. What magic keeps occurring that presses on the pressure gauge and shows a pressure reading yet there is no pressure present to do so? How can that be?

Once the valve is opened the gauge ceases to have positive pressure applied to it. All the pressure is doing from that point is resisting the piston.
There is no positive push back which is why the reading on the gaue shows a consistent drop of the needle which in turn shows no definitive consistent positive pressure reading, only negative.

All the systems still have pressure being applied.
You just seem to want to pretend that while this pressure which is continuing to be applied is decreasing it is just expansion.

That's because it is just expanding, which is why the pressure inside the container shows a gauge decrease.
The pressure from this point on is only applied against a lesser pressure resistance to recreate a reactionary compression, externally.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2019, 01:38:12 AM

Quote from: JackBlack

How does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?

It follows a funnel like exit against lower pressure.

How?
As you said, it is trying to expand. Why would it suddenly stop trying to do so in all bar one direction?

To give you a simple analogy take a look at a sink and plug hole.

My theory is consistent. There's no holes.

If it was consistent and without holes you wouldn't be repeatedly contradicting yourself and avoiding very simple questions.
You wouldn't need to repeatedly insult people and say they don't understand or are putting up barriers.
Instead you would easily be able to answer the questions and explain these simple problems.

Once the valve is opened the gauge ceases to have positive pressure applied to it. All the pressure is doing from that point is resisting the piston.

i.e. it is applying a force to it (as if it wasn't it would offer no resistance and simply move out of the way).
This means it is applying a pressure to it.

Again, you have 2 very simple options.
One is to accept reality and accept that the gas is still applying a force/pressure to the gauge.
The other is to reject reality and say that no force is being applied and thus the gauge will almost instantly jump to 0.

That's because it is just expanding

If it was just expanding then the gauge would very rapidly go to 0 and the balloon would very rapidly return to its normal size.
THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN!
That means it isn't simply expansion.
That means the gas is still applying a force.
That is why the gauge still shows a positive reading rather than dropping to 0, because the gas is still applying pressure.

The pressure from this point on is only applied against a lesser pressure resistance to recreate a reactionary compression, externally.

i.e. a bunch of word salad to say the gas is still applying a pressure to the gauge?

And again, you avoid very simple questions almost as if you know that answering them shows you are wrong.

So far you are switching back and forth between giving the same non-answers or ignoring them entirely, including what has been pointed out as a massive problem with your non-answers.

Again:
What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move (which isn't the rocket and which the rocket can't push against)?
How does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?
How does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?

Until you have a rational, consistent answer to these problems which does not require the rejection of reality, YOU HAVE NOTHING!

Don't worry, I know you don't have an answer, as your model cannot explain reality and relies upon numerous contradictions to pretend to. But while you keep promoting your model and attacking reality I will keep on bringing up problems with it.

For the first question, "itself" is not an answer, as you say that objects can't push against themselves to move, and if the gas can, then so can the rocket.
It can't be the rocket, as that means the gas is pushing the rocket.
It can't be the gas in between, as that means that the rocket can push off it as well.

For the second and third, expansion is not an answer.
Expansion is in all directions.

For the third, you also need to address the fact that motion is the result of an interaction between 2 objects, where an object pushes in one direction and moves the other.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2019, 03:23:48 AM

My theory is consistent. There's no holes.

If it was consistent and without holes you wouldn't be repeatedly contradicting yourself and avoiding very simple questions.

The only question I avoid or delete from your quotes are those that you repeatedly ask after being given an answer to, time and time again.
Try using your loaf for once and stop saturating the post by dissecting bits and pieces to suit your own agenda. All it does it wastes your time and my time in order for me to delete the bits that I feel are worthless.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2019, 03:23:48 AM

Once the valve is opened the gauge ceases to have positive pressure applied to it. All the pressure is doing from that point is resisting the piston.

i.e. it is applying a force to it (as if it wasn't it would offer no resistance and simply move out of the way).
This means it is applying a pressure to it.

It can't move out of the way. It's behind all the other gas molecules and the gauge piston is now applying the dense mass to that already expanding towards the front, molecules, which were at one time pushing that piston back or stopping it from  pushing forward.

you say that objects can't push against themselves to move, and if the gas can, then so can the rocket.

All objects can push against themselves to move as long as there's a pressure applied to those objects.
You need to get on even ground here because you're skewing anything you try to get a grip of by changing the scenario.
We're talking about gas molecules because this is the crux of the matter with all things.

For the third, you also need to address the fact that motion is the result of an interaction between 2 objects, where an object pushes in one direction and moves the other.

I have no problem with an object pushing in one direction to move another. It's how and why it works which is the key.

Scepti:
"I have no problem with an object pushing in one direction to move another. It's how and why it works which is the key."





Great
Then many little tiny sponges of air or water pushing out to the left propell the rocket right.
Rockers work in a vaccuum.