Simple Balloon "Rocket"...

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 20, 2014, 05:14:26 AM

Here's a NASA explanation as to how their rockets work.
Pay attention to it.

Note the part where they put a tablet in the water and close the lid. This is how they are pretending they work all the way up.
Can anyone see a problem with this?

Notice how the build up of pressure inside the little container forces the container up and leaves the lid on the desk.
Can anyone see any problem?

They are trying to tell you that the rocket uses action/reaction as if it was a bullet. Would this really power a rocket to accelrate into the sky or would this springboard a rocket into the sky in one fell swoop?

Here's the problem.
You see, in a way, this is what happens but the difference is the lid being left, because that lid is the ground as it's sat on the ground, or table.
Now what we have is a pressure build up that pushes against the top and the lid. Think of it like you being compressed inside of it and trying to force your head up by using your feet to push against the lid.
Naturally you can push the ground way, so the container gets pushed up by your head.
Makes sense, right?

So this is how you get duped into believing rockets work but do you see the problem?

The problem is the lid and your feet pushing against that lid in an ENCLOSED environment where pressure has to give.

Can anyone not see a problem though?

Ok, here's the problem. You see, the rockets we are told to believe work all the way to space constantly have this lid on and a ground to keep it put putting into space in an action/reaction way.


So why dont you test it out as it's easy to do.

Instead of this rocket container and tablet being on the ground. Let's use it as to how we are told it works.

Tie your container up on the ceiling from string. Put the same water in and then the tablet with the lid facing down as it hangs.
Now observe what happens when the pressure builds up and the lid blows off, then come back and try to tell me that rockets can kick themselves up their own arses into space.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

The funny thing is, scepti, rockets do work using pressure. You seem to think pressure can only come in the shape of closed enviroments, which, as someone who has built jet engines, I can confirm you it is not a requirement.

This conspiracy url, http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rktthsum.html, also shows common rocket thrust equations, which clearly take into account chamber pressure into it.

So go and do the test what I just mentioned and see if it works out for you.
Your jet like a rocket, works because of atmospheric resistance to it's released energy. It's as simple as that. You have either been duped or you know fine well I am right and are just a denier.

Quote from: Conker on December 21, 2014, 06:01:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 20, 2014, 05:14:26 AM

Here's a NASA explanation as to how their rockets work.
Pay attention to it.

Note the part where they put a tablet in the water and close the lid. This is how they are pretending they work all the way up.
Can anyone see a problem with this?

Notice how the build up of pressure inside the little container forces the container up and leaves the lid on the desk.
Can anyone see any problem?

They are trying to tell you that the rocket uses action/reaction as if it was a bullet. Would this really power a rocket to accelrate into the sky or would this springboard a rocket into the sky in one fell swoop?

Here's the problem.
You see, in a way, this is what happens but the difference is the lid being left, because that lid is the ground as it's sat on the ground, or table.
Now what we have is a pressure build up that pushes against the top and the lid. Think of it like you being compressed inside of it and trying to force your head up by using your feet to push against the lid.
Naturally you can push the ground way, so the container gets pushed up by your head.
Makes sense, right?

So this is how you get duped into believing rockets work but do you see the problem?

The problem is the lid and your feet pushing against that lid in an ENCLOSED environment where pressure has to give.

Can anyone not see a problem though?

Ok, here's the problem. You see, the rockets we are told to believe work all the way to space constantly have this lid on and a ground to keep it put putting into space in an action/reaction way.


So why dont you test it out as it's easy to do.

Instead of this rocket container and tablet being on the ground. Let's use it as to how we are told it works.

Tie your container up on the ceiling from string. Put the same water in and then the tablet with the lid facing down as it hangs.
Now observe what happens when the pressure builds up and the lid blows off, then come back and try to tell me that rockets can kick themselves up their own arses into space.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

The funny thing is, scepti, rockets do work using pressure. You seem to think pressure can only come in the shape of closed enviroments, which, as someone who has built jet engines, I can confirm you it is not a requirement.

This conspiracy url, http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rktthsum.html, also shows common rocket thrust equations, which clearly take into account chamber pressure into it.

So go and do the test what I just mentioned and see if it works out for you.
Your jet like a rocket, works because of atmospheric resistance to it's released energy. It's as simple as that. You have either been duped or you know fine well I am right and are just a denier.

As someone who has designed engines for model rockets I can tell you that to get an engine to work, you need to not just release gas but you need to release it going REALLY FAST.  That is why your experiment doesn't work, you need a controlled explosion to generate TONS of gas and then you need a parabolic nozzle to direct it down with as much velocity as possible.  The reason that your example works with the lid on is because it builds up pressure and releases it all at once which makes it powerful enough to lift off.

This is an easy "rocket" experiment tat you do with stuff from your kitchen;  it illustrates nicely the basic principals of rocket propulsion...

Water Bottle Rocket

I'd be interested to see if sceptimatic's prepared to give this a go to at least give him some idea of what we're talking about with rockets.

Or—as I'm guessing in advance—will he simply dismiss it because it proves a couple of simple science principles he refutes as being "bullcrap"?

The ball is in your court sceptimatic.

PS:  Can someone please quote this comment as he's got me on his "ignore" list.  Thanks.

This is an easy "rocket" experiment tat you do with stuff from your kitchen;  it illustrates nicely the basic principals of rocket propulsion...

Water Bottle Rocket

I'd be interested to see if sceptimatic's prepared to give this a go to at least give him some idea of what we're talking about with rockets.

Or—as I'm guessing in advance—will he simply dismiss it because it proves a couple of simple science principles he refutes as being "bullcrap"?

The ball is in your court sceptimatic.

PS:  Can someone please quote this comment as he's got me on his "ignore" list.  Thanks.

I am just quoting this so scepti will see it just like ausGeoff requested.

I am just quoting this so scepti will see it just like ausGeoff requested.

Thanks.   

Quote from: Conker on December 18, 2014, 08:52:23 AM

This isnt a boxing match, scepti. Even if I granted you that gravity was proven wrong (it hasnt), it tells us NOTHING about the truth of you claims.

The truth of my claims requires you to use s8imple logic and you'll find that truth. refusal to do so is not my problem.

Circular reasoning, I dont get it since I dont use logic and I dont use logic because I dont get it. Maybe I dont get it because it is not an evident proposition to me?.

Quote from: Conker on December 18, 2014, 08:52:23 AM

You provide NO evidence for your claims, and you havent answered to the challenges that you have been given.

I've provided plenty of evidence for you to try and you simply reject it like your likeminded peers. Again it's not my problem.

You haven't. My peers and I are usually in disagreement with many things. Please prove the experiment I showed you to be false.

Quote from: Conker on December 18, 2014, 08:52:23 AM

I have proven my claims of your hypothesis being wrong, and you havent disproven them.

No you haven't and yes I have.

Where have you explained why does denpressure's energy field generate more force when reduced?

Quote from: Conker on December 18, 2014, 08:52:23 AM

Your hypothesis cant explain pendulums in a vacuum (or, if you only believe in partial vacuum, you cant explain the ascense in the amount of energy conservated by the pendulum, for that matter), since the field that causes (acording to you) the pendulum's movement has decreased.

Show me a pendulum in a vacuum?

A nice thing about the quoting system is that I can just go and quote you the experiment we sent you:

I dont know why doesnt anyone call on the bs that scepti execrates. You all seem to be falling for the typical weight/mass trolling he likes to use.

The truth is, rockets can work, independently of the prescence of measurable gravitatorial pull or gasseous countermass (atmosphere, for example), thanks to momentum. As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation explains, rockets gain a deltaV based on the speed that fuel particles are expelled. This equation can be derived from Newton's laws and momentum. If scepti doesnt believe on momentum, I dare him to explain how Newton's cradle works BETTER at a vacuum:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/s4a30SDYSes

PS: Where's the youtube tag? I cant embed the player

Quote from: Conker on December 18, 2014, 08:52:23 AM

THE FORCE THAT PULLS THE BALLS DOWN IS DECREASING ON A VACUUM CHAMBER, acording to denpressure.

There isn't any force that pulls. It's all push against push or resistance against resistance. Get some manual kitchen scales that can read below zero or set them to a specific weight and then try it out.

What makes the balls loose both vertical and horizontal speed, that is gained again when transversing the route once again on the way back to the balls? If you are gonna say "A field", you are correct, but you must say WHAT field and WHAT causes that field. Equations, and proof of the existance of the field would be nice.

Quote from: Conker on December 18, 2014, 08:52:23 AM

When you address this clear challenge, your hypothesis cant be accepted, since evidence suggests it is false. Remember, this has NOTHING to do with RET being or not correct, or gravity. Your hypothesis is being evaluated on its own.

I'm not interested in whether you accept it or not. Anyone who cares to use their logic, it will help them understand how badly they've been duped by bogus science. What you decide is entirely up to you. You're a globalist so I expect nothing from you.

If you are going to start insulting me, we arent going to get along very well. By the way, you still havent addressed the field problem



PS: I thought I had sent this a long time ago, but aparently it didnt. I'll send it now

More proof.

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Shooting_the_Moon_with_Satellite_Laser_Ranging_999.html

This sort of attitude is typical of too many of sceptimatic's responses.....

I'm not interested in whether you accept it or not. Anyone who cares to use their logic, it will help them understand how badly they've been duped by bogus science. What you decide is entirely up to you. You're a globalist so I expect nothing from you.

It shows a completely closed mind;  a mind that's not at all open to diametrically alternate concepts;  an inflexible mind that refuses to even consider other peoples' points of view;  a mind that's totally locked rigidly into one narrow perspective;  an immature mind lacking the properties of rational thinking, logic, and reasoning.

Rather than think things through logically and methodically sceptimatic merely resorts to juvenile insults—like a petulant little kid stamping his foot—rather than doing the hard yards and coming up with any reasoned thinking to support his bizarre notions.

As a philosopher or a logician, sceptimatic would make a good house painter LOL.

More proof.

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Shooting_the_Moon_with_Satellite_Laser_Ranging_999.html

More bullcrap you mean. I proved the laser is garbage. I done it with the moon laser reflector and you people came out with a large heap of clap trap to get yourselves out of it.
I'm sure your memory hasn't gone as to when I showed the massive flaw.

I have never seen you prove anything. Why don't you go to Cavendish laboratory and start your dunny pressure rave. I think it's close to London nut farm. 

I have never seen you prove anything. Why don't you go to Cavendish laboratory and start your dunny pressure rave. I think it's close to London nut farm.

What for? to watch a bit of matter or whatever slowly move towards another larger piece or matter as in lead?

No wonder you people are easily fooled.

Looks to me that you are fooling yourself. If that is the case you need a giggle suit.

This sort of attitude is typical of too many of sceptimatic's responses.....

Quote

I'm not interested in whether you accept it or not. Anyone who cares to use their logic, it will help them understand how badly they've been duped by bogus science. What you decide is entirely up to you. You're a globalist so I expect nothing from you.

It shows a completely closed mind;  a mind that's not at all open to diametrically alternate concepts;  an inflexible mind that refuses to even consider other peoples' points of view;  a mind that's totally locked rigidly into one narrow perspective;  an immature mind lacking the properties of rational thinking, logic, and reasoning.

Rather than think things through logically and methodically sceptimatic merely resorts to juvenile insults—like a petulant little kid stamping his foot—rather than doing the hard yards and coming up with any reasoned thinking to support his bizarre notions.

As a philosopher or a logician, sceptimatic would make a good house painter LOL.

Scepti would be a terrible house painter.

"Can you please paint my house white?" - Owner

"How stupid are you? Clearly white is part of The Conspiracy(tm), only imbeciles with weak bladders and pee stained pants paint their houses white! I have 13 certifications from regionally recognized online tradeschools that tell me you are wrong. Clearly the house should be painted red!" - scepti

"No, I would really like it white." - Owner

"Would you like it white? How do you know you like it white? Who measured your 'like' of the color white? Only idiots trust that evidence! White doesnt even exist you sheep!" - scepti

"No, it exists, its right here, look." - Owner

<car door slams and scepti drives away in the face of concrete evidence>

Quote from: guv on December 23, 2014, 03:37:52 AM

I have never seen you prove anything. Why don't you go to Cavendish laboratory and start your dunny pressure rave. I think it's close to London nut farm.

What for? to watch a bit of matter or whatever slowly move towards another larger piece or matter as in lead?

No wonder you people are easily fooled.

I know right, who would fall for years of testing out physics?  Especially when all of the experiments came out in favor of the standard model.  The government is obviously altering physics and then teaching us the altered physics to trick us for no apparent reason.

Found a mate for septic, just maybe they will get on.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Streetcap1&oq=Streetcap1&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrom

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 23, 2014, 04:39:27 AM

Quote from: guv on December 23, 2014, 03:37:52 AM

I have never seen you prove anything. Why don't you go to Cavendish laboratory and start your dunny pressure rave. I think it's close to London nut farm.

What for? to watch a bit of matter or whatever slowly move towards another larger piece or matter as in lead?

No wonder you people are easily fooled.

I know right, who would fall for years of testing out physics?  Especially when all of the experiments came out in favor of the standard model.  The government is obviously altering physics and then teaching us the altered physics to trick us for no apparent reason.

The Governments are mere puppets. They don't control what we learn. They are controlled themselves to pass o; but that's another story.

Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.

It's about having the mind to see how it's done. Space rockets being a prime example of the dupe.

Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.

If the outcome is the same, then how can the physics be bogus? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 24, 2014, 05:30:15 AM

Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.

If the outcome is the same, then how can the physics be bogus? 

Let's take a rocket. We are told about Newtons law of action and reaction. In a space rocket it's equated to the rocket kicking itself up its own arse but the reality is different and it's heated gases are pushign against the atmosphere.
Same moving rocket, except the bogus physics oh why it works in space. That's what I mean.
Same with gravity. Everything works because of it but it's really atmospheric pressure but it is masked by bogus physics.

You know, stuff like that. Same goes for photons, scattered matter in space and a whole host of other absolute garbage.

I get a bad reaction when I read the shit you post septic.

I get a bad reaction when I read the shit you post septic.

There's an ignore button you can use. Go to your profile and you will be able to put me on it. This should cure your bad reaction. Good luck.

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2014, 07:07:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 24, 2014, 05:30:15 AM

Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.

If the outcome is the same, then how can the physics be bogus? 

Let's take a rocket. We are told about Newtons law of action and reaction. In a space rocket it's equated to the rocket kicking itself up its own arse but the reality is different and it's heated gases are pushign against the atmosphere.
Same moving rocket, except the bogus physics oh why it works in space. That's what I mean.
Same with gravity. Everything works because of it but it's really atmospheric pressure but it is masked by bogus physics.

You know, stuff like that. Same goes for photons, scattered matter in space and a whole host of other absolute garbage.

Im still waiting for you to disprove my job. Until then, stop claiming photon physics is wrong. Everything I do works. So put up or shut up. Your baseless claims are getting old.

Let's take a rocket. We are told about Newtons law of action and reaction. In a space rocket it's equated to the rocket kicking itself up its own arse but the reality is different and it's heated gases are pushing against the atmosphere.

Everything works because of it but it's really atmospheric pressure but it is masked by bogus physics.

You know, stuff like that. Same goes for photons, scattered matter in space and a whole host of other absolute garbage.

It never ceases to amaze me how effortlessly sceptimatic can reduce every known scientific fact to the nescient level of a 3-year-old pre-schooler.

I've often wondered if he's a kindergarten teacher, as their BA (Batchelor of Arts) qualification certainly doesn't include any science units whatsoever.  His misconceptions about rocketry are astounding.  Well, frankly, so is his knowledge [sic] of everything else scientific LOL.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 23, 2014, 10:50:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 23, 2014, 04:39:27 AM

Quote from: guv on December 23, 2014, 03:37:52 AM

I have never seen you prove anything. Why don't you go to Cavendish laboratory and start your dunny pressure rave. I think it's close to London nut farm.

What for? to watch a bit of matter or whatever slowly move towards another larger piece or matter as in lead?

No wonder you people are easily fooled.

I know right, who would fall for years of testing out physics?  Especially when all of the experiments came out in favor of the standard model.  The government is obviously altering physics and then teaching us the altered physics to trick us for no apparent reason.

The Governments are mere puppets. They don't control what we learn. They are controlled themselves to pass o; but that's another story.

Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.

It's about having the mind to see how it's done. Space rockets being a prime example of the dupe.

So you are basically saying that the laws of physics work perfectly on Earth but they are not true?  I have designed model rocket engines and I can assure you that they do not work because of exterior atmospheric pressure.  Why is it that the most efficient rocket nozzles are parabolic?  Maybe it's because parabolas have special properties that allow them to direct an incredible amount of force from an explosion in a single direction which makes the escaping gas go faster and resulting in maximum thrust for minimum fuel.  How do you explain this with your theory and for that matter, how does an absence of air pressure make a rocket not work?  Rocket engines actually become more efficient in lower pressures, how do you explain that?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 24, 2014, 05:30:15 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 23, 2014, 10:50:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 23, 2014, 04:39:27 AM

Quote from: guv on December 23, 2014, 03:37:52 AM

I have never seen you prove anything. Why don't you go to Cavendish laboratory and start your dunny pressure rave. I think it's close to London nut farm.

What for? to watch a bit of matter or whatever slowly move towards another larger piece or matter as in lead?

No wonder you people are easily fooled.

I know right, who would fall for years of testing out physics?  Especially when all of the experiments came out in favor of the standard model.  The government is obviously altering physics and then teaching us the altered physics to trick us for no apparent reason.

The Governments are mere puppets. They don't control what we learn. They are controlled themselves to pass o; but that's another story.

Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.

It's about having the mind to see how it's done. Space rockets being a prime example of the dupe.

So you are basically saying that the laws of physics work perfectly on Earth but they are not true?  I have designed model rocket engines and I can assure you that they do not work because of exterior atmospheric pressure.  Why is it that the most efficient rocket nozzles are parabolic?  Maybe it's because parabolas have special properties that allow them to direct an incredible amount of force from an explosion in a single direction which makes the escaping gas go faster and resulting in maximum thrust for minimum fuel.  How do you explain this with your theory and for that matter, how does an absence of air pressure make a rocket not work?  Rocket engines actually become more efficient in lower pressures, how do you explain that?

Who are you trying to kid here? You're wasting your time trying to kid me with your clap trap.
If rockets work better in lower pressure then ships work better  in lower pressures, meaning their propellers will work better pushing against air rather than water. Is this the case ?

Stop kidding yourself and especially don't try to kid someone who knows better.

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2014, 07:07:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 24, 2014, 05:30:15 AM

Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.

If the outcome is the same, then how can the physics be bogus? 

Let's take a rocket. We are told about Newtons law of action and reaction. In a space rocket it's equated to the rocket kicking itself up its own arse but the reality is different and it's heated gases are pushign against the atmosphere.
Same moving rocket, except the bogus physics oh why it works in space. That's what I mean.
Same with gravity. Everything works because of it but it's really atmospheric pressure but it is masked by bogus physics.

You know, stuff like that. Same goes for photons, scattered matter in space and a whole host of other absolute garbage.

The problem with your objection is that the "bogus physics" have the maths that give an outcome that match real world observations.  You have not provided any maths, so how can you say that your "real physics" give the same outcome?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 24, 2014, 07:37:19 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2014, 07:07:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 24, 2014, 05:30:15 AM

Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.

If the outcome is the same, then how can the physics be bogus? 

Let's take a rocket. We are told about Newtons law of action and reaction. In a space rocket it's equated to the rocket kicking itself up its own arse but the reality is different and it's heated gases are pushign against the atmosphere.
Same moving rocket, except the bogus physics oh why it works in space. That's what I mean.
Same with gravity. Everything works because of it but it's really atmospheric pressure but it is masked by bogus physics.

You know, stuff like that. Same goes for photons, scattered matter in space and a whole host of other absolute garbage.

The problem with your objection is that the "bogus physics" have the maths that give an outcome that match real world observations.  You have not provided any maths, so how can you say that your "real physics" give the same outcome?

They have made up maths to suit the bogus theory, that's it.
Just like your planet distances and what not. Just made up crap to make believe.
When asked how you get the calculations, it always comes down to the same old stuff of, " oh you don't know trig" and "oh you don't understand redshift"...you know, classic garbage like that.

Then you get your 9.81 m/s/s for your gravity, tested where? tested for what height?
You merely drop something from head height and time it and that's supposedly it.
It's basically sold to you as being a true representation and it's a lie.

Then you get your 9.81 m/s/s for your gravity, tested where? tested for what height?
You merely drop something from head height and time it and that's supposedly it.
It's basically sold to you as being a true representation and it's a lie.

I have personally tested the 9.8 m/s² value of g in a physics lab experiment and it seemed to work just fine.  If the experiment I did was a lie, then please show me how to do an experiment that reveals the truth. 

You keep going on about how everyone else is wrong and you are right, but you never offer a way for anyone else test the accuracy of your claims.  Why is that?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 24, 2014, 10:58:53 AM

Then you get your 9.81 m/s/s for your gravity, tested where? tested for what height?
You merely drop something from head height and time it and that's supposedly it.
It's basically sold to you as being a true representation and it's a lie.

I have personally tested the 9.8 m/s² value of g in a physics lab experiment and it seemed to work just fine.  If the experiment I did was a lie, then please show me how to do an experiment that reveals the truth.

Ok then, tell me how you did it and then tell me how it proved gravity.

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2014, 11:14:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 24, 2014, 10:58:53 AM

Then you get your 9.81 m/s/s for your gravity, tested where? tested for what height?
You merely drop something from head height and time it and that's supposedly it.
It's basically sold to you as being a true representation and it's a lie.

I have personally tested the 9.8 m/s² value of g in a physics lab experiment and it seemed to work just fine.  If the experiment I did was a lie, then please show me how to do an experiment that reveals the truth.

Ok then, tell me how you did it and then tell me how it proved gravity.

You posted the video that proved the value.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 24, 2014, 10:08:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 24, 2014, 05:30:15 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 23, 2014, 10:50:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 23, 2014, 04:39:27 AM

Quote from: guv on December 23, 2014, 03:37:52 AM

I have never seen you prove anything. Why don't you go to Cavendish laboratory and start your dunny pressure rave. I think it's close to London nut farm.

What for? to watch a bit of matter or whatever slowly move towards another larger piece or matter as in lead?

No wonder you people are easily fooled.

I know right, who would fall for years of testing out physics?  Especially when all of the experiments came out in favor of the standard model.  The government is obviously altering physics and then teaching us the altered physics to trick us for no apparent reason.

The Governments are mere puppets. They don't control what we learn. They are controlled themselves to pass o; but that's another story.

Yes the physics are altered. The real physics are masked by the bogus physics but both imply the same outcome.

It's about having the mind to see how it's done. Space rockets being a prime example of the dupe.

So you are basically saying that the laws of physics work perfectly on Earth but they are not true?  I have designed model rocket engines and I can assure you that they do not work because of exterior atmospheric pressure.  Why is it that the most efficient rocket nozzles are parabolic?  Maybe it's because parabolas have special properties that allow them to direct an incredible amount of force from an explosion in a single direction which makes the escaping gas go faster and resulting in maximum thrust for minimum fuel.  How do you explain this with your theory and for that matter, how does an absence of air pressure make a rocket not work?  Rocket engines actually become more efficient in lower pressures, how do you explain that?

Who are you trying to kid here? You're wasting your time trying to kid me with your clap trap.
If rockets work better in lower pressure then ships work better  in lower pressures, meaning their propellers will work better pushing against air rather than water. Is this the case ?

Stop kidding yourself and especially don't try to kid someone who knows better.

Rockets and props work on different principles. I want you to say you understand.