HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 1 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201342#msg2201342
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 2 :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201661#msg2201661
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 3 :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2202385#msg2202385
The best part comes last - The last thing to add is sugar - Save the best for last : REPLY #1200 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2203199#msg2203199
No, it is the same refuted spam.
No where in there do you actually address my question.
You either start with the gas magically accelerated, completely skipping my question; pretend it is a force and completely ignore the question; or just outright ignore it.
Again, keeping it simple by using the simplest type of rocket, a cold gas thruster, i.e. a tank of compressed gas:
We have the gas with the rocket. The gas is currently moving with the rocket.
We pick an inertial reference frame where the rocket and gas are stationary.
Now, we open the tank and expose the pressurised gas to the vacuum of space.
What happens?
Does the gas magically stay with the rocket, staying inside the tank, even though it is open to space and thus all rational thought demands the gas leaves?
Or does the gas leave? But that then means its velocity has changed. It has accelerated to leave the tank and now move outwards.
But by Newton's laws of motion, this demands a force.
You do accept that gas has mass right?
Furthermore, by Newton's laws of motion, and your own interpretation of it (which you have posted in this thread), this demands an interaction with another body with this other body also receiving a force and also accelerating.
The only other body around is the rocket.
That means that the rocket must interact with the gas, with the gas being forced and accelerated backwards while the rocket is forced and accelerated forwards.
That means that rockets must work in a vacuum.
This is what you have been repeatedly avoiding, such as by starting with the gas already accelerated so you can ignore the key part, the acceleration of the gas which demands the rocket is also accelerated.
If you disagree, state exactly which part you disagree with and what the alternative is, i.e. what you think.
Do you disagree that the gas will escape and instead think it will magically remain inside the open container exposed to a vacuum?
Do you disagree that the gas has mass?
Do you disagree that the gas must accelerate?
Do you disagree that the gas requires a force to accelerate it?
Do you disagree that a force requires an equal and opposite force and an interaction with another body?
Do you disagree that the rocket is the only other body?
If you can't provide an alternative, then admit rockets work in a vacuum.
Once you admit rockets do work in a vacuum, or provide an alternative which actually addresses the question/issue I have raised, I will fix up your straw-man of my position.
That makes NASA the ONLY institute/company/organisation in the history of mankind with an almost perfect track record.
Hell even the Red Cross can only dream of such a perfect history in which 'to serve the progress of mankind' is the only interrest.
But NASA supporters are a bit like 'Michael Jackson' supporters..... you simply can't discuss the supposed wrongdoings..... because no wrongdoings were committed ever.
Not in the slightest. They have made plenty of mistakes and gotten people killed and have been involved in military projects which were secret which likely also contributed to getting people killed. That is not an almost perfect track record, nor does it mean that serving the progress of mankind is the only interest.