Let's not forget that this entire fairy tale requires a complete rewriting of the laws of physics...
Yes, your fairy tale does, so we reject it.
Correct definition of conservation of momentum:
https://physics.info/momentum-conservation/summary.shtml
That is a summary, not a definition.
There are various definitions which can be used.
But yes, that one does sum it up fine.
Notice a key part:
sum of momentum at start=sum of momentum at end.
And hey, look at what one of them is:
Two objects collide and stick together
p1 + p2 = p1+2′
m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 + m2)v′
Sure seems quite similar to what others have said, just the other way around.
So it seems like what we have been saying is correct, that real space rockets operate on the correct definition of conservation of momentum.
Meanwhile, your continued dismissal of it is fantasy, and quite silly, based upon false ideas of conservation of momentum.
When you go to the problem section, you see some far more akin to a rocket:
https://physics.info/momentum-conservation/problems.shtmlA ten year old boy (26 kg) sits on a wheeled office chair (16 kg) holding a fire extinguisher (18 kg when empty). He points the discharge horn to the right and ejects 9 kg of carbon dioxide at 20 m/s. What is his speed and direction after the fire extinguisher is emptied (assuming friction is negligible)?
A nucleus of uranium 238 (3.95292599 × 10−25 kg) ejects an alpha particle (6.64465675 × 10−27 kg) transmuting into a nucleus of thorium 234 (3.88638509 × 10−25 kg). If the alpha particle is ejected to the right at 1.421 × 107 m/s, determine the speed and direction of the recoiling nucleus.
As I just proved btw.
All you have proven is your own dishonesty.
You linked to a page and then spouted a bunch of crap which the page does not support at all.
The notion of a massless spring somehow providing a force has no place in educated scientific discourse..
No it isn't.
If the mass of the spring is negligible compared to the 2 objects the spring is between, its mass and momentum can be ignored.
It also works to construct an analogy, where the spring is used to represent somethign else which doesn't have mass.
What with force being MASS times acceleration and all.
Which every educated person knows btw, hence space rockets being nonsense aimed at uneducated plebs.
No. There is no "hence" here.
That is a massive, unjustified logical leap.
In what way does a massless spring relate to a rocket?
Providing links that disagree with you is pretty dumb.
Then why did you do it?
Ah look, the answer was on this board all along:
You mean more baseless unsubstantiated claims with you getting your ass handed to you there as well.
Grow up.