In order for combustion to occur, there must be oxygen.
You mean like that provided by the tank often full of liquid oxygen?
The difference in air pressure is what would cause perpendicular momentum in a foreign object. Without air, there cannot be combustion or a difference in air pressure.
You mean like the large difference in pressure between the engine of the rocket and the vacuum of space?
You don't need air in the sense of an atmosphere. You need gas in the sense of the rocket fuel and oxidant.
An oxidant (or oxidizing agent) is something which creates oxygen, which is present in air.
No, an oxidant is something which causes oxidation to occur. This is a chemical process where electron are lost from one species (the species being oxidised) and gained by another species (the species being reduced, the oxidising agent).
Oxygen is a common oxidant, which makes no sense under your definition, as it is oxygen, it doesn't create it.
An even more fun one is fluorine, which is a more powerful oxidant that oxygen.
Because if rockets are not real, there is no proof for a globular earth or even space and therefore gravity, on which all the physical sciences are based upon.
Wrong, and all counts.
Even without rockets, there is still plenty of proof for a round Earth. Earth was known to be round thousands of years ago.
The massive distance between objects would demand some kind of space between them, and the fact that objects (like the moon) can stay in orbit for so long, necessitates no significant friction.
Gravity was proven on Earth, long before rockets existed.
And plenty of science doesn't care about the shape of Earth, space or gravity.
For example, what part of that is required to know how things burn?
You mean 1 atmosphere which is sea level air pressure. If you are saying there is less air pressure the farther up you travel then air pressure will decrease steadily until you leave the atmosphere in which there is no air pressure so no possibility of thrust.
You have already admitted a gradient is required. i.e. a difference in pressure.
If you have a pressure greater than 1 atm, then the higher up you go, the more thrust you get.
The guy with the medicine ball is just jerking his body a bit - the ball is not in effect at all.
No, the ball is crucial, without it, he won't move much at all.
You can even try this yourself. Try it with no ball, then with balls of various weight.
Then try it with those same balls, but keeping a hold of them.
What you are seeing is the counter motion on an axis (his shoulder) of a dense object moving from being close to his chest to being moved to away from his chest then released. The release does not generate thrust, but the movement of the dense object at speed via his arm muscles, repositioned the center of his body & trolley slightly, causing it to move a few inches backwards.
Yes, it is the acceleration of that object which requires a force and thus an equal and opposite force.
The release itself doesn't cause it.
However, if it wasn't released then it would require another acceleration to stop it moving, which stops the motion.
I just remembered that 'mass' is a meaningless term that relies on gravity for explanation which is as far as I'm concerned, an unproven quantity. The actual term I should have used is 'weight'.
No, you have it the wrong way around.
Weight is the force acting on a mass due to the very real phenomenon of gravity.
Mass does not rely upon gravity at all.
"...accelerate the burn propellent." is not a meaningful or logical sentence. Why would you want to apply a motion to the fuel itself?
No, it is quite logical and meaningful, at least the version without your typos.
It is accelerated for the same reason airplanes accelerate the air. Doing so requires a force and demands a reactionary force which is used to accelerate the rocket.
Your ideas about it sitting on a cusion of air have been refuted countless times in this thread.
Perhaps you can meet the challenge where all your budies failed.
Tell us what force acts on the gas to accelerate it so it can leave the rocket.
Then also tell us what the reactionary force to this is.
Then see if you can tell us what accelerates the rocket, specifically what is providing the force to the rocket.
Think about this. This would only generate tension within the fuselage walls, pushing the container from the exit point to the front end, resulting in the vessel tearing apart.
How?
It is open at one end. That means the gas isn't pushing on that section of the exit point.
Your claim only makes sense for a closed container, not one with one end open.
With one end open there is an unbalanced force, which accelerates the rocket, without any need for the atmosphere.
That's my best guess.
Perhaps you should stop guessing then?
By the same absence of reasoning one would "conclude" that electric motors are impossible.
Thermodynamics in no way indicates rockets are impossible.
The numbers don't add up.
Care to provide the numbers and show how they don't add up?
If air is required for movement or flight on earth
And that is a MASSIVE if.
In reality, it is not needed.
It has been repeatedly asserted, because if people like you admitted it wasn't needed on Earth it would raise the question of why it is needed in space; but no one has ever been able to demonstrate it.
The best they have been able to show is that rockets need gas, such as that from the burning fuel and oxygen, not the atmosphere.
In all other explanations of aerodynamic flight
a difference in air pressure results in propulsion. But in space, this condition is no longer required.
Technically it is still there in space.
In front of the craft you have effectively 0 pressure.
In the engine/nozzle, you have the high pressure of the burning fuel/oxygen mixture.
Why can't that accelerate the rocket?
My conclusion to Newton's Laws of Motion is that they are divisive and deliberately opaque. That is, he could not have believed them himself. They simply defy understanding or explanation.
Your inability or unwillingness to understand them has no bearing on others.
They are extremely simple and easy to understand.
The first indicates that objects will continue with whatever motion they have and that you need to do something (i.e. apply a force) to change it.
The second indicates that this force is proportional to the mass times the acceleration, or perhaps more easily understood as:
If you apply a greater force to the same object it will accelerate at a faster rate. If you apply the same force to a more massive object (i.e. one with more mass) it will accelerate slower.
The third law indicates that if you apply a force to something, it applies a force back.
Again, they are very easy to understand.
Just what do you find difficult?
But again, perhaps you can address the issue plaguing the FEers (and other reality deniers) in this thread?
You have a tube of compressed gas in a vacuum, one end is opened.
What will happen?
Will it all just sit there doing nothing, with compressed gas contained in an open container?
Or will the gas leave? If it leaves, that means it needs to accelerate. That means it needs a force and something to push against to provide a reactionary force to.
The only object available is the tube, which means that it will push against the tube.
That means the tube will accelerate.
That means rockets will work in a vacuum.
Or from using pressure:
You have pressurised gas in the tube. On the side walls you have an equal pressure pushing in each direction and thus no net force.
But you have one end having pressure applied while the other end is missing so no pressure is applied.
This results in a net force on the object.
Why wouldn't this accelerate the object?