Space Flight

I have a few specific questions that I couldn't seem to answer through wiki or previous forum questions.

1) What is considered space flight? At what altitude or layer of the atmosphere is it considered 'space'?
2) I see a lot of responses about seeing the ISS via telescope from "there's no possible way to know what it is" to "it's a hologram". I have to ask, have any FE believers grabbed their telescope and looked up through it to check out the ISS? Why is it difficult to believe ones own eyes? How do you think they put a hologram in everyone's telescope (including a home-made one if some hard-core backyard astronomer made one him/herself)
3) Why do FE believers accept a 'blue earth'? I see this argument a lot, saying Earth is special because it is blue. But wouldn't you need to travel outside of earth to verify that it is, indeed, blue?
4) Live feeds of astronaut re-entry, personal videos on phones, and first-person accounts of such events. This would be very hard to fake if indeed, if the conspiracy theory holds. Can I get an explanation from a FE believer on such events? How did they 'make it look like' a re-entry pod came from the ISS for re-entry?
5) what about 'space junk' that has fallen back to earth? Conspiracy? Well-made props?

Trying to get some good answers please. Please don't answer back with "How do you know it is/isn't, it isn't known" etc. I would like legit answers with thought put behind them. I don't want this to become an argue-fest contradicting theory, but I would like them to be thought-out answers. "it just is" is not a well thought out answer.

Thanks everyone, lets keep this a clean, educated discussion.

well....

1) "There is no firm boundary where space begins. However the Kármán line, at an altitude of 100 km (62 mi) above sea level,[3] is conventionally used as the start of outer space in space treaties and for aerospace records keeping" - Type in Kármán line in Google for multiple sources

2) If I show you a picture, there'll be "it's photoshopped" ringing throughout the corners, and thus we have met in full circle. This is why I have asked if ANY FE believers have actually looked through a telescope with their own eyes to see it for themselves...

3) If you look up at the sky at night, it's black. Ocean is not blue, water is not blue, but it is reflecting the sky. Thus at night again, it's black. So, why is Earth not theorized black since our sky is black half of the time?

4)"Can you show me a realistic re-entry"
I don't know how much more real you want it other than live feeds and first person viewing which is why I said these specifically. I know that "Well if you saw it on TV, it must have been pre-recorded in Hollywood" would have been used as an answer if I did not specify.

5) Your reply to my number five is a logical fallacy, not an answer: See Argument from ignorance (I'm not calling you ignorant for the record, that's just the name they gave it): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
And not only do I refer to seeing it fall or getting impaled with space junk, but the manner in which it falls. Take for example a bullet at a crime scene. Later, police find a gun on a suspect. They fire a bullet from that gun. Forensic scientists study the bullets and see the same patters from coming out of the barrel. Thus, the mystery bullet from the scene came from the suspect's gun. Similarly, various ways space junk enters similar to a meteor could be used to prove that the space junk actually came from space.

Again, not looking for (here I go using this term again) logical fallacies. This just sends us in a circle and gets us no where.

Space doesn't start anywhere in that sense. There is no clear line where air just stops being there and space begins. The air just gets thinner and thinner, until, very far away from Earth, there's basically no air in any practical purpose.

Well, for your reply to number one, I suppose that makes everything else a moot point doesn't it? From reading the wiki, i've deduced that is 98% of FET. And since it doesn't count, I guess the conversation is over. Can't argue against something that doesn't count right? Guess I should probably stop working on my Ph.D in physics if that's the case too... unproven theories in science rely heavily on things like that, things that are not fully proven, speculation or cannot going to the be proven. Guess I should start going to the gym so I can make good money add a stopper since the world doesn't make sense anymore lol.
Thanks for replying to my questions by the way, seriously thanks. You were the only one who really answered anything.
Good talk.

Space doesn't start anywhere in that sense. There is no clear line where air just stops being there and space begins. The air just gets thinner and thinner, until, very far away from Earth, there's basically no air in any practical purpose.

Nasa gives astronaut wings for going 62 miles up, used to be 50 miles

To earn an astronaut badge, a military officer must complete all required training and participate in a space flight more than 100 kilometers (62 miles) above the Earth. This boundary, known as the Kármán line, comes from the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. However, in the 1960s, the United States Department of Defense awarded astronaut badges to military and civilian pilots who flew aircraft higher than 50 miles (80 kilometers).[1] Seven USAF and NASA pilots qualified for the astronaut badge by flying the sub-orbital X-15 rocket spaceplane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut_wings

Well, for your reply to number one, I suppose that makes everything else a moot point doesn't it? From reading the wiki, i've deduced that is 98% of FET. And since it doesn't count, I guess the conversation is over. Can't argue against something that doesn't count right? Guess I should probably stop working on my Ph.D in physics if that's the case too... unproven theories in science rely heavily on things like that, things that are not fully proven, speculation or cannot going to the be proven. Guess I should start going to the gym so I can make good money add a stopper since the world doesn't make sense anymore lol.
Thanks for replying to my questions by the way, seriously thanks. You were the only one who really answered anything.
Good talk.

Clearly by "add a stopper" I meant "as a stripper". Silly phone

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 27, 2013, 01:23:52 PM

Space doesn't start anywhere in that sense. There is no clear line where air just stops being there and space begins. The air just gets thinner and thinner, until, very far away from Earth, there's basically no air in any practical purpose.

Nasa gives astronaut wings for going 62 miles up, used to be 50 miles

To earn an astronaut badge, a military officer must complete all required training and participate in a space flight more than 100 kilometers (62 miles) above the Earth. This boundary, known as the Kármán line, comes from the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. However, in the 1960s, the United States Department of Defense awarded astronaut badges to military and civilian pilots who flew aircraft higher than 50 miles (80 kilometers).[1] Seven USAF and NASA pilots qualified for the astronaut badge by flying the sub-orbital X-15 rocket spaceplane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut_wings

The Kármán line is an entirely arbitrary line, decided upon by humans, as you said, the FAI. Of course, such a spiritual delimiter is needed for bureaucracy purposes.

But understand that in the real world, there is nothing special about the Kármán line. Nothing physically happens there. There's just rarefied air below it, and more of the same rarefied air above it. If you were floating right on the Kármán line, it wouldn't feel any different from being slightly under or above it (hint: it would feel like dying).

I heard (or read, can't remember which now) somewhere that the Kármán line is the average altitude at which an aircraft's wing is no longer able to generate sufficient lift at any speed lower than orbital speed (to put that another way, you might as well not have wings at this point, because you'll continue to orbit without them).

I know that'll attract some derisive comments from the flatties! Go for it guys, doesn't change the fact it's how the line is defined.

Quote from: Scintific Method on May 28, 2013, 02:39:10 AM

I heard (or read, can't remember which now) somewhere that the Kármán line is the average altitude at which an aircraft's wing is no longer able to generate sufficient lift at any speed lower than orbital speed (to put that another way, you might as well not have wings at this point, because you'll continue to orbit without them).

I know that'll attract some derisive comments from the flatties! Go for it guys, doesn't change the fact it's how the line is defined.

How would you continue to orbit? surely you would have to be doing a far far greater speed than the fake ISS in order for this to happen, going by the bull crap we are treated to I mean.

He means that an aircraft would need to have at least orbital speed for its wings to generate lift. Orbital speed by definition is the speed at which, at a given altitude, you are in orbit. Yes, at that altitude it would be way faster than the ISS is going, and it would be basically impossible (and pointless) to achieve. It was not a practical suggestion, just a thought experiment. He said that above a certain height there is no more point for wings, because they don't work without speeds greater than the orbital speed, and if you do have orbital speed, you don't need wings anymore.

The point was just to illustrate why aircraft don't work above a certain height.

anyone with a cheap telescope can tell that space flight is possible.
instead of posting 50 times a day, scepti, maybe you can buy one, and perform Zetetic experiments,
and report back to us.
Remember, this is a Zetetic forum and not a conspiracy theorists one.

"Please list the number of experiments you have performed to determine that this is actually, "bull crap".
I myself have performed many, its called the Zetetic Method.
Or have you been force fed into believing only what the FAQ tells you?

According to you people, anyone with partial sight can tell that space flight is possible, because all that comes out of you lot are fabrications and a belief that something is up there, so it must be in space or a space station or satellite.
Once you lose the atmosphere, you lose the rocket.
Understand this and you are half way there to figuring out the bull crap you have been saturated with.

I don't understand... Are you saying you believe rockets don't work when not in the atmosphere? By the way, they do. Nothing about the mechanics of a rocket demands an atmosphere. In fact, they work a lot better outside the atmosphere, since the atmosphere tends to, you know, cause aerodynamic drag.

Quote from: icanbeanything on June 02, 2013, 01:40:50 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 02, 2013, 08:10:59 AM

According to you people, anyone with partial sight can tell that space flight is possible, because all that comes out of you lot are fabrications and a belief that something is up there, so it must be in space or a space station or satellite.
Once you lose the atmosphere, you lose the rocket.
Understand this and you are half way there to figuring out the bull crap you have been saturated with.

I don't understand... Are you saying you believe rockets don't work when not in the atmosphere? By the way, they do. Nothing about the mechanics of a rocket demands an atmosphere. In fact, they work a lot better outside the atmosphere, since the atmosphere tends to, you know, cause aerodynamic drag.

Not a chance can a rocket work in space, I'm sorry but it's 100% true.
You have been duped, sadly.

I just wanted to pop in and say what an incredible ignorant idiot you are sceptimatic. Return to your previous state of fool's paradise now.

Not a chance can a rocket work in space...

Tell us, in your own words, exactly why a rocket cannot work in space.

Also...

What experiment have you performed that shows space flight is possible?

...tell us what experiments you have done to show it's not.

Please note: "I just know", or any variation thereof, will not be considered as an acceptable answer.

Not a chance can a rocket work in space, I'm sorry but it's 100% true.
You have been duped, sadly.

You claim it's 100% true, but can you give at least a reason why you believe that?

I don't mean "Have there been space flights?", that is another topic, the question is "Why wouldn't a rocket work in a vacuum?".

Quote from: icanbeanything on June 03, 2013, 02:02:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 02, 2013, 01:43:44 PM

Not a chance can a rocket work in space, I'm sorry but it's 100% true.
You have been duped, sadly.

You claim it's 100% true, but can you give at least a reason why you believe that?

I don't mean "Have there been space flights?", that is another topic, the question is "Why wouldn't a rocket work in a vacuum?".

Simple answer is, there is nothing for the fuel to push against.

The fuel is pushing against the rocket, not the air. That's how rockets work. Fuel comes out one end, so it is pushing the rocket the opposite way. The presence of air only works against the rocket, slowing it down (it is pushing from the opposite side, the front of the rocket).

With all due respect to you. This is what they would have you believe but if you search your mind, you will know that this is absolute nonsense.

If the fuel comes out in a vacuum, it's doing no work. It's simply expanded into that vacuum.

Let me try to explain what my mind is telling me:

Yes, the gas resulting from the burning of the fuel would be released into the vacuum. But as it expands in all directions, it is also expanding in the direction of the rocket. The gas itself from the fuel is NOT vacuum, it is a pretty dense gas, full of fast particles. It is this gas that does the pushing, in all directions, including the direction where there's a rocket in the way.

Think of it like this: If you were in a vacuum, and a hand grenade exploded right next to you, would it not affect you? Air or no air, the stuff coming out of the grenade would expand in every direction, including the one you're in, and it would certainly hurt you. This is what basically happens in a rocket too.

Quote from: icanbeanything on June 03, 2013, 02:27:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 03, 2013, 02:17:26 AM

With all due respect to you. This is what they would have you believe but if you search your mind, you will know that this is absolute nonsense.

If the fuel comes out in a vacuum, it's doing no work. It's simply expanded into that vacuum.

Let me try to explain what my mind is telling me:

Yes, the gas resulting from the burning of the fuel would be released into the vacuum. But as it expands in all directions, it is also expanding in the direction of the rocket. The gas itself from the fuel is NOT vacuum, it is a pretty dense gas, full of fast particles. It is this gas that does the pushing, in all directions, including the direction where there's a rocket in the way.

Think of it like this: If you were in a vacuum, and a hand grenade exploded right next to you, would it not affect you? Air or no air, the stuff coming out of the grenade would expand in every direction, including the one you're in, and it would certainly hurt you. This is what basically happens in a rocket too.

The grenade is a sealed unit. The rocket is not.

It is sealed up to the point when it explodes. The rocket is not sealed before because you don't want it to perform like a grenade (explode). It allows the gas to escape one way, thus pushing the rocket the other way. If you put a hole in a grenade, you could theoretically make a rather poor rocket out of it.

Quote from: Scintific Method on June 02, 2013, 06:29:43 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 02, 2013, 01:43:44 PM

Not a chance can a rocket work in space...

Tell us, in your own words, exactly why a rocket cannot work in space.

Also...

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 02, 2013, 01:41:45 PM

What experiment have you performed that shows space flight is possible?

...tell us what experiments you have done to show it's not.

Please note: "I just know", or any variation thereof, will not be considered as an acceptable answer.

I've already been through all of this but in a nutshell, a rocket cannot and will not and never will, work in a vacuum, which we are told space is.

I'm well aware that Newtons laws will immediately get brought in here and that the old medicine ball and chair trick or ice skates and ball trick will get used but it's false and a con and does not represent space if it is the vacuum we are told it is.

Rockets do not work in a vacuum in terms of propulsion. It's impossible.

Sorry scepti, but my shoulder agrees with Newton every time I fire a shotgun; his third law of motion ("for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"), which is what rockets work on, definitely holds true. There is nowhere near enough pressure pushing on the atmosphere to generate the amount of recoil felt when firing a buckshot load, it can only be the reaction to accelerating the mass of lead down the barrel. Come to think of it, if all you had in space was a shotgun, you could propel yourself along quite well! (Silly I know, but it would be kind of fun!)

Quote from: icanbeanything on June 03, 2013, 02:42:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 03, 2013, 02:39:00 AM

Quote from: icanbeanything on June 03, 2013, 02:27:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 03, 2013, 02:17:26 AM

With all due respect to you. This is what they would have you believe but if you search your mind, you will know that this is absolute nonsense.

If the fuel comes out in a vacuum, it's doing no work. It's simply expanded into that vacuum.

Let me try to explain what my mind is telling me:

Yes, the gas resulting from the burning of the fuel would be released into the vacuum. But as it expands in all directions, it is also expanding in the direction of the rocket. The gas itself from the fuel is NOT vacuum, it is a pretty dense gas, full of fast particles. It is this gas that does the pushing, in all directions, including the direction where there's a rocket in the way.

Think of it like this: If you were in a vacuum, and a hand grenade exploded right next to you, would it not affect you? Air or no air, the stuff coming out of the grenade would expand in every direction, including the one you're in, and it would certainly hurt you. This is what basically happens in a rocket too.

The grenade is a sealed unit. The rocket is not.

It is sealed up to the point when it explodes. The rocket is not sealed before because you don't want it to perform like a grenade (explode). It allows the gas to escape one way, thus pushing the rocket the other way. If you put a hole in a grenade, you could theoretically make a rather poor rocket out of it.

If you put a hole in the grenade, you then render it useless as it's explosive would be basically a burn and expanded "immediately" into the vacuum.

Yes, but it would push the grenade the other way, just like a rocket. Think of it this way: when there's no hole in the grenade, the explosive just makes its own holes in it, and this is what makes the grenade explode. It's the same thing, but one is controlled, creating a rocket, and the other is uncontrolled, creating a bomb. You can just as well make a bomb out of a rocket by sealing the exit.

When rockets fire lead shot or ball bearings or even bowling balls from an enclosed chamber, then we can discuss that.
For now, we need to concentrate on rockets "burning" fuel.

And why do you think there's a difference? The burning of the fuel produces gas, this gas has mass just as a lead shot has mass. This is what causes the effect, it doesn't matter if its a single ball or lots and lots of little balls that make up a gas.

Quote from: icanbeanything on June 03, 2013, 03:00:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 03, 2013, 02:55:15 AM

When rockets fire lead shot or ball bearings or even bowling balls from an enclosed chamber, then we can discuss that.
For now, we need to concentrate on rockets "burning" fuel.

And why do you think there's a difference? The burning of the fuel produces gas, this gas has mass just as a lead shot has mass. This is what causes the effect, it doesn't matter if its a single ball or lots and lots of little balls that make up a gas.

It doesn't matter how much mass it has. The vacuum will willingly accept it all and beg for more, because it's a fast eater, as in milliseconds to render your rocket empty.

Your rocket doesn't empty that fast because it has a huge fuel tank that is constantly feeding it, creating more gas. The vacuum can only "eat" it just as fast as it is produced. Why is it different from firing a gun in space? The vacuum will just as willingly accept your bullet, so why would the bullet give you propulsion and the gas not?

Really, this is again one of those things that can be very easily tested with a tiny model rocket and a vacuum chamber.

Here's a vacuum chamber test of a rocket engine. Notice how the exhaust doesn't behave in any way differently. If you're wondering where the sound is coming from, since it doesn't travel in a vacuum: it does travel through the engine and the scaffold holding the engine. It's also why it is so high-pitched, because the speed of sound is much greater in metal.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SpaceX Testing - Draco Thruster Vacuum Firing

When rockets fire lead shot or ball bearings or even bowling balls from an enclosed chamber, then we can discuss that.
For now, we need to concentrate on rockets "burning" fuel.

Don't you get it? It doesn't matter what is being accelerated, it's a case of how much and how fast.

Rockets expel a far greater mass of gas than a shotgun does of shot, and they expel it at far greater speed too. To achieve that speed, the gas has to be accelerated, which happens inside the rocket (just like the shot is accelerated inside the shotgun). The gas is accelerated toward the exhaust, as that is it's only means of escape, so the rocket is accelerated by a proportional amount in the opposite direction.

Yes, the gas expands rapidly into the vacuum, but it has already done it's work, so that expansion is irrelevant.

If it's a question of retaining the fuel so that it can burn, then all you need to realise is that it takes time for the burnt gasses to expand out of the way, in the meantime they act like a plug, allowing the remaining fuel to burn at a steady rate. When the rocket is not required, internal valves shut off the flow of fuel.

If rockets do this, then rockets work in space and I'm wrong.
Do they do this?

Yes, the plate would fly away in opposite direction of the rocket. The rest of the fuel would also expand into space, but this expansion would also push the rocket, too. I don't see why you don't understand that it does.

For instance, blank shots fired from a gun (no bullet, just the propellant) also create recoil. There's no bullet leaving the chamber, only the expanding gas from the ignition of the propellant. The recoil is generated just as it would in a rocket.

Quote from: Scintific Method on June 03, 2013, 03:25:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 03, 2013, 02:55:15 AM

When rockets fire lead shot or ball bearings or even bowling balls from an enclosed chamber, then we can discuss that.
For now, we need to concentrate on rockets "burning" fuel.

Don't you get it? It doesn't matter what is being accelerated, it's a case of how much and how fast.

Rockets expel a far greater mass of gas than a shotgun does of shot, and they expel it at far greater speed too. To achieve that speed, the gas has to be accelerated, which happens inside the rocket (just like the shot is accelerated inside the shotgun). The gas is accelerated toward the exhaust, as that is it's only means of escape, so the rocket is accelerated by a proportional amount in the opposite direction.

Yes, the gas expands rapidly into the vacuum, but it has already done it's work, so that expansion is irrelevant.

If it's a question of retaining the fuel so that it can burn, then all you need to realise is that it takes time for the burnt gasses to expand out of the way, in the meantime they act like a plug, allowing the remaining fuel to burn at a steady rate. When the rocket is not required, internal valves shut off the flow of fuel.

On earth, the work is done when it pushes against the atmosphere, "expanding" into it and the atmosphere pushes right back.

That is not how a rocket works. It's not the pushing against air that does it. That effect does nothing, since the same atmosphere is pushing on the front of the rocket. The work is done by the expanding gas pushing on the rocket itself, otherwise the rocket wouldn't move at all, there would be a tug of war of equal force between the air behind and in front of the rocket, that wouldn't do a thing.

Blank shots are still powder charges inside a "sealed" chamber.

The chamber is "sealed" until the gunpowder is ignited. When this happens, the pressure inside creates a rupture on the seal at the front (since this is deliberately made weaker), thus there now is an exit for the expanding gas. It is exactly like a rocket engine, only with a very short fuel reserve. That's what gives you the recoil.

It's the rockets hot gases "expanding" the air and the surrounding air rushing into to replace it.
Rockets do not work like bullets.

The air is not rushing in to replace it. No air goes inside while the rocket is firing. The pressure of the gas inside is greater than outside air pressure.

If the air from the back of the rocket rushed into the rocket's chamber, that would mean there was smaller pressure inside the chamber, this would also pull the rocket back, not push it forward!

The pressure inside is greater, gas is going out, nothing is going in (except the fuel from the tanks, but that's from inside the rocket).

Quote from: Scintific Method on June 03, 2013, 03:25:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 03, 2013, 02:55:15 AM

When rockets fire lead shot or ball bearings or even bowling balls from an enclosed chamber, then we can discuss that.
For now, we need to concentrate on rockets "burning" fuel.

Don't you get it? It doesn't matter what is being accelerated, it's a case of how much and how fast.

Rockets expel a far greater mass of gas than a shotgun does of shot, and they expel it at far greater speed too. To achieve that speed, the gas has to be accelerated, which happens inside the rocket (just like the shot is accelerated inside the shotgun). The gas is accelerated toward the exhaust, as that is it's only means of escape, so the rocket is accelerated by a proportional amount in the opposite direction.

Yes, the gas expands rapidly into the vacuum, but it has already done it's work, so that expansion is irrelevant.

If it's a question of retaining the fuel so that it can burn, then all you need to realise is that it takes time for the burnt gasses to expand out of the way, in the meantime they act like a plug, allowing the remaining fuel to burn at a steady rate. When the rocket is not required, internal valves shut off the flow of fuel.

Oh, I get it. No offence to you but you do not get it.

The fuel in your rocket does no work at all until it is expelled from the rockets rear end. On earth, the work is done when it pushes against the atmosphere, "expanding" into it and the atmosphere pushes right back.
In space, you can have a billion ton rocket and it's fuel will expand into space, doing no work, because space will just accept it and beg for more.
The rocket in a vacuum is useless.

Ok, you don't get it. Let me try putting this another way:

Yes, the burning fuel expands into space. Rapidly. But space is only available in one direction: the exhaust. In all other directions, there is the rocket's nozzle. Here's a nice simple diagram of a combustion chamber and nozzle:



The arrow pointing right represents the escaping gas, the little arrows all around represent the pressure exerted by the gas on the inside of the combustion chamber and nozzle, and the arrow pointing left represents the net resultant force pushing the rocket along.

Actually, I have a question for any actual rocket scientists on here: given that rockets work on a pressure differential, wouldn't that make them more effective in a vacuum?

Quote from: icanbeanything on June 03, 2013, 03:47:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 03, 2013, 03:44:48 AM

It's the rockets hot gases "expanding" the air and the surrounding air rushing into to replace it.
Rockets do not work like bullets.

The air is not rushing in to replace it. No air goes inside while the rocket is firing. The pressure of the gas inside is greater than outside air pressure.

If the air from the back of the rocket rushed into the rocket's chamber, that would mean there was smaller pressure inside the chamber, this would also pull the rocket back, not push it forward!

The pressure inside is greater, gas is going out, nothing is going in (except the fuel from the tanks, but that's from inside the rocket).

You've misunderstood what I said.
I meant the rockets gases expanding the air and the air,"under" that expanding air, rushes up and in to fill the void, action/reaction.

I hope I understood well what you said, but what I said in response was that at no point is any void created for air to fill.

Quote from: icanbeanything on June 03, 2013, 04:00:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 03, 2013, 03:57:24 AM

Quote from: icanbeanything on June 03, 2013, 03:47:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 03, 2013, 03:44:48 AM

It's the rockets hot gases "expanding" the air and the surrounding air rushing into to replace it.
Rockets do not work like bullets.

The air is not rushing in to replace it. No air goes inside while the rocket is firing. The pressure of the gas inside is greater than outside air pressure.

If the air from the back of the rocket rushed into the rocket's chamber, that would mean there was smaller pressure inside the chamber, this would also pull the rocket back, not push it forward!

The pressure inside is greater, gas is going out, nothing is going in (except the fuel from the tanks, but that's from inside the rocket).

You've misunderstood what I said.
I meant the rockets gases expanding the air and the air,"under" that expanding air, rushes up and in to fill the void, action/reaction.

I hope I understood well what you said, but what I said in response was that at no point is any void created for air to fill.

When you go swimming and you are doing the breast stroke, what are you doing?
You are acting pushing the water behind you against a barrier of water that's already filled the part where your body is moving in and it propels you forward.
It's a crude way of explaining why rockets work in an atmosphere.

Try and do the breast stroke in an empty pool.

Like I said for the fifth time, that's not how rockets work. If you really want a comparison with water, this is how rockets work:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Water Jet Pack: Get High with Jetlev!

This is basically a rocket with water as a propellant. You can see it has nothing to do with water filling any void.

And please, don't say this is fake too.