Sorry, but I cannot debate with liars.
I will not waste time dissecting sokarul's mighty shitpost point by point; anyone with the slightest knowledge of physics can see it is nonsense, full of non-sequiturs, false logic & bold-faced lies.
His main mistake though - a deliberate one, I can only conclude - is to keep up the fallacy that the propellant, P, in my below example can take the place of Object B, & somehow be Two things at Once.
A child can see that it can not, therefore my argument remains unrefuted.
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.
You REALLY want them spayze-rokkitz to 'push on themselves' (lol!), don't you, Mr. Sock?
It must also be noted that sock-a-drool simply skims over this next part with the words 'you lose'.
Well done, Einstein!
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...
Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.
Finally, note that sock-arul's most triumphant & emphatic crowing of victory is reserved for my little joke that 'round earthers' (lol!) 'suck like a vacuum'.
Of course I know that, strictly speaking, a vacuum does not 'suck', idiot; it's a JOKE.
What a loser... He sucks like a vacuum, in fact!
Oh, & he also blatantly lies when he says he has shown an air wrench will work in a vacuum; he has not.
& whether it does or not is irrelevant anyway, as - believe it or not, rocking socking psycho - a rocket is not an air -wrench!
So; presenting a Strawman wrapped within a Lie; great 'debate' work, socky-boy!
Of course, none of the above will convince our OCD sock-thing chum that he is anything but 'unndifeeetd'; nothing ever will.
But if you think his attitude stinks here, you should see what a foul-mouthed sociopath he is when trolling the far less censored environs of youtube comments...
As for markjo; nobody cares: gas can do no work in a vacuum.
Playing with numbers won't change this FACT.
I've told you this several times already, alzheimer's-face.
Perhaps you'd like to waste our time expounding on YOUR imaginary qualifications, as mainframes did?
I suggest that, like all intelligent neutral readers, you'd be better off learning the appropriate physical principles involved in our 'debate', so as to comprehend the iron-clad FACT that a gas-powered rocket simply cannot function in a practically infinite zero-pressure system...
But that is not the 'round earther's' (lol!) Nature, is it?
So; shitposting, time-wasting & imaginary qualifications it must be, I guess!
One last thing: LOL!!!