HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

Quote from: mak3m on September 03, 2019, 05:07:32 AM

Yeah but the papers had very little to do with your subject and many of your links actually disprove flat earth... well played.

Still to move an object you need to talk about force not speed. Nobody is disputing that water vapour is being jettisoned, but what is the force of the jet, can it move a moon?

Even if it couldn't move a moon out of it's orbit around Saturn, it would certainly cause very substantial effect to the rate (speed) of it's rotation :

There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
This is precisely why the geocentric system is more stable for us earthlings, whereas [color=purple]Venus has changed its rotation by 6 minutes over the years it has been studied[/color].

THE QUESTION No 1 :

Geokinetics is not the best way to understand the physics. In fact, the geocentric
system makes more sense. For example, in the geokinetic system, the Earth has to rotate
exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds to keep sidereal time. How can it do so when so
many  inertial  forces  (e.g., earthquakes,  tsunamis,  volcanoes, etc.) are  impeding  its  rotation?
Venus, which does rotate, has slowed its rate by 6 minutes in the last few years. 
Likewise,  in  the geokinetic system, the Earth has  to revolve around the sun exactly  in 365.25
days. How does it do so in the face of the inertial forces it undergoes internally, as well as the
cosmic forces and planetary perturbations it incurs externally?

Geocentrism has a much better explanation. The sidereal rate can stay exactly as it is
due to the tremendous momentum that a massive rotating universe will produce. Like a giant  flywheel,
the universe keeps  turning at the same rate year after year, and nothing is able to slow it down.
(Later we will address the claims that the Earth has slowed its rotation).

As for Newton and Einstein, geocentrism can use both a rotating Earth in a fixed universe
or a fixed Earth in a rotating universe, if desired, since all we need to do is invert the equations, as Einstein himself did.

READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80229.msg2158366#msg2158366

In March 2007, it was found that the variation of radio emissions from the planet did not match Saturn's rotation rate. This variance may be caused by geyser activity on Saturn's moon Enceladus. The water vapor emitted into Saturn's orbit by this activity becomes charged and creates a drag upon Saturn's magnetic field, slowing its rotation slightly relative to the rotation of the planet.

THE QUESTION No 2 :

If variations in Saturn's rotation rate can be assigned (at least theoretically) to geyser activity of Enceladus, what consequence should we expect (from the same cause - geyser activity) to the rate of rotation of Enceladus itself??? Extreme consequences???

Wiki quote :

Enceladus is tidally locked with Saturn, keeping the same face toward the planet. It completes one orbit every 32.9 hours within the densest part of Saturn's E Ring.

THE QUESTION No 3 :

If variations in Saturn's rotation rate can be assigned (at least theoretically) to geyser activity of Enceladus, and if it is more than reasonably to assume that geyser activity would have extreme consequences to the rate of rotation of Enceladus itself, isn't it more than reasonably to assume that Enceladus in these circumstances couldn't remain tidally locked with Saturn due to it's changed rate of rotation?

As I noted earlier, there is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between
space and Earth.  It  is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds. This is precisely why the
geocentric system is more stable for us earthlings, whereas Venus has changed its rotation by
6 minutes over the years it has been studied.
   
Invariably,  when  major  earthquakes  or  tsunamis  occur  we  are  inundated  with  newspaper
articles declaring that the Earth, as a result of the force coming from these catastrophes, was
slowed  in  its  rotation  rate  and/or  its  axis moved.  The  rotation rate is said to decrease by
microseconds and the axial tilt by inches. The 2011 tsunami that hit Japan produced numerous
articles. This one is from the New York Times:
 
The magnitude-8.9 earthquake  that struck northern  Japan on Friday not only violently shook
the ground and generated a devastating tsunami, it also moved the coastline and changed the
balance of the planet.

...Meanwhile,  NASA  scientists  calculated  that  the  redistribution  of mass  by  the  earthquake
might have shortened the day by a couple of millionths of a second and tilted the Earth’s axis
slightly. On a  larger  scale,  the unbuckling and  shifting moved  the planet’s mass, on average,
closer to its center, and just as a figure skater who spins faster when drawing the arms closer,
the Earth’s rotation speeds up.

Richard S. Gross, a scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, calculated that the length of the day
was shortened by 1.8 millionths of a second.

The earthquake  also  shifted  the  so-called  figure  axis of  the  Earth, which is the axis that the
Earth’s mass is balanced around. Dr. Gross said his calculations indicated a shift of 6.5 inches in
where the figure axis intersects the surface of the planet. That figure axis is near, but does not
quite align with, the rotational axis that the Earth spins around.
 
Earlier  great  earthquakes  also  changed  the  axis  and  shortened  the  day.  The magnitude-8.8
earthquake in Chile last year shortened the day by 1.26 millionths of a second and moved the
axis by about  three  inches, while  the Sumatra earthquake  in 2004  shortened  the day by 6.8
millionths of a second, Dr. Gross said.

From the Jet Propulsion Laboratory report, Gross and Chao added more:

Dr. Richard Gross of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and Dr. Benjamin Fong
Chao, of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., said all earthquakes have some
affect on Earth’s rotation. It’s just they are usually barely noticeable.
 
“Any worldly event that involves the movement of mass affects the  Earth’s  rotation,  from
seasonal  weather  down  to  driving  a  car,”  Chao  said.  Gross  and  Chao  have  been  routinely
calculating earthquakes’ effects  in changing the Earth’s rotation  in both  length-of-day as well
as changes in Earth’s gravitational field. They also study changes in polar motion that is shifting
the North Pole. The “mean North pole” was shifted by about 2.5  centimeters  (1  inch)  in  the
direction of 145 degrees East Longitude. This shift east is continuing a long-term seismic trend
identified in previous studies.

All  of  this  sounds  very  technical  and  convincing,  but we  shall  go  through  it  line  by  line  to
determine  its  validity.  First,  if we  add  up  all  the  earthquakes  occurring  on  an  annual  basis,
there  are  on  average  1,450,000  per  year.  About  90%  are  in  the  2 – 2.9 Rictor scale range;
about 9% in the 3 to 3.9 range; and the rest between the 4 to 9.

 Let’s say for the sake of argument about 25,000 significant earthquakes occur per year that affect
the Earth’s rotation and figure axis the way Dr. Gross claims. Let’s say we take the estimates back
10,000 years to 8000 BC.  That means 250 million noticeable earthquakes occurred  since 8000 BC.

Let’s also assume,  based  on  present  data,  that  Earth’s  rotation  changes  by 0.5 microseconds for
significant earthquakes. This means the Earth would have changed its rotation by 125 seconds
or  2.08 minutes  since  8000  BC.  If we  go  beyond  8000  BC  to  108,000  BC, we  now  have  the
rotation  of  the  Earth  decreased  by  20.8 minutes, which  yields  a  rotation  of  23  hours,  36.2
minutes.  If we use 1 million years,  it  lessens the rotation by about 200 minutes.  If 10 million:
2000  minutes.  If  100  million:  20,000  minutes.  If  200  million,  then  40,000  minutes,  which
means  the  Earth  would  have  been  rotating  in  about  12  hours.  Anything  beyond  86,400
minutes, the Earth will rotate once every second or less. If we use 4.5 billion years  (which  is
the  time modern science  says  the Earth has been  in existence),  the Earth would be spinning
about 10 times every second.

while Enceladus ejects a minute fraction of its mass which probably falls back onto Enceladus - so there is simply no comparison.

It cannot fall back, read the references.

Your reference

http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~manga/goldsteinetal2018.pdf

The observed erupted grains can be separated into three regimes based on their ejected velocity. The slowest group rises out of vents and falls out of the plume in close proximity to the tiger stripes. These particles tend to be large (Degruyter and Manga, 2011). Another, faster-moving group, distributes itself broadly over the surface (Kempf et al., 2010). A third group has velocities greater than the escape speed of Enceladus and leaves the satellite altogether.

I was not addressing you, but the fellow from Australia who posted an estimate using the 1000kg/s figure.

We would need to know the exit pressure, perhaps even the free stream pressure of the plume to reach some final conclusions on the force exerted.


Supply the maths please.

You don't trust me?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241127178_Total_particulate_mass_in_Enceladus_plumes_and_mass_of_Saturn's_E_ring_inferred_from_Cassini_ISS_images

These are the images provided by Nasa:





A nice 500 km rocket, with plenty of thrust provided by the plume/water vapor being ejected at some 600m/s.

No offence but not so far.

From your link

We estimate that 9% of these particles are escaping from Enceladus, implying lifetimes of ∼8 years for the E ring particles.

The gas jets provide no significant force to the moon.

But they have to, since the geysers are distributed over a huge area, encompassing an entire hemisphere.

Imagine this: a 500 km rocket (in length) with full-blown exhaust in the form of water vapor.

And nothing happens?

Who are you kidding?

Just a quick reminder you are arguing that there is indeed no affect on the moon, to prove that rockets dont work in a vacuum

Very well done.

In March 2007, it was found that the variation of radio emissions from the planet did not match Saturn's rotation rate. This variance may be caused by geyser activity on Saturn's moon Enceladus. The water vapor emitted into Saturn's orbit by this activity becomes charged and creates a drag upon Saturn's magnetic field, slowing its rotation slightly relative to the rotation of the planet.

Now, there is no escape for the RE.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228339175_Enceladus_A_significant_plasma_source_for_Saturn's_magnetosphere

Gravity is only a partial description of the overall interaction between Enceladus and Saturn; electromagnetic forces must be included to obtain a much better understanding.

These terms, the electromagnetic potential, have to be included in the relativity equations, since Einstein's original equations do not have a bounded dynamic solution (i.e., can only be applied to static situations).

In either case, Enceladus is clearly implicated as a significant, if not dominant, source of Saturn's magnetospheric plasma.

Material blasted into space by Enceladus feeds Saturn’s giant E ring and is a major source of material (plasma) fueling Saturn’s magnetosphere.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/cassini/science/magnetosphere/

Very well done.

Quote

In March 2007, it was found that the variation of radio emissions from the planet did not match Saturn's rotation rate. This variance may be caused by geyser activity on Saturn's moon Enceladus. The water vapor emitted into Saturn's orbit by this activity becomes charged and creates a drag upon Saturn's magnetic field, slowing its rotation slightly relative to the rotation of the planet.

Now, there is no escape for the RE.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228339175_Enceladus_A_significant_plasma_source_for_Saturn's_magnetosphere

Gravity is only a partial description of the overall interaction between Enceladus and Saturn; electromagnetic forces must be included to obtain a much better understanding.

These terms, the electromagnetic potential, have to be included in the relativity equations, since Einstein's original equations do not have a bounded dynamic solution (i.e., can only be applied to static situations).

In either case, Enceladus is clearly implicated as a significant, if not dominant, source of Saturn's magnetospheric plasma.

Material blasted into space by Enceladus feeds Saturn’s giant E ring and is a major source of material (plasma) fueling Saturn’s magnetosphere.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/cassini/science/magnetosphere/

Nobody is discussing this or disputing it?

Round Earth is finished as plasma creates aurorae around the pole of a spherical planet.

Evidence from titan, cassini and ISS including imagery of a spherical saturn and spherical moons, all of which you categorically state do not exist.

as plasma creates aurorae around the pole of a spherical planet.

You haven't done your homework on the Aurora Borealis.

The Aurora Borealis cannot be explained by an external stream of plasma/ions that are injected into the Earth's magnetic field.


http://hollowplanet.blogspot.ro/2007/09/earth-weaves-its-own-invisible-cloak.html

NASA Scientists Agree — Polar Ion Fountains Fill the Earth's Magnetosphere

http://www.ourhollowearth.com/Earth_weaves_its_own_invisible_cloak.pdf

"The perception started to change in the mid-1980s following the Aug. 3, 1981, launch of two Dynamics Explorer satellites designed to study the magnetosphere near the Earth. DE-1 carried Chappell's Retarding Ion Mass Spectrometer (RIMS), designed to measure the population of the plasmasphere, a torus or donut of low-energy in the inner magnetosphere.

To Chappell's surprise, the real find was around the north pole where RIMS measured gases flowing upward from the ionosphere into space."


Here is a PEER-REVIEWED paper:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006JA012086

The velocity required to eject a water molecule upward from the surface of Enceladus to a distance of 1000 km is ≳ 225 m/s, slightly less than the escape velocity of 250 m/s. It seems probable, therefore, that a significant fraction of water in the plume escapes entirely from Enceladus.

Now, here is another reference on the speed of the water vapor molecules:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5610430/

The CO2 E3 and E5 data show an approximate inverse square decay of the plume density with distance from the south polar terrain, which is consistent with collisionless vapor expansion from Enceladus well in excess of the 240 m/s escape speed.

The expression assumes radial expansion of the gas from the surface sources at constant speed, neglecting gravity since the mean molecular speed in the jets significantly exceeds (by at least a factor two) the 240 m/s Enceladus escape speed.

"The perception started to change in the mid-1980s following the Aug. 3, 1981, launch of two Dynamics Explorer satellites designed to study the magnetosphere near the Earth. DE-1 carried Chappell's Retarding Ion Mass Spectrometer (RIMS), designed to measure the population of the plasmasphere, a torus or donut of low-energy in the inner magnetosphere.

Why are you citing information from satellites in a thread that is trying to prove that rockets can't fly in a vacuum?

The moon Enceladus leaves a "footprint" in Saturn's electromagnetic field.
Credit: NASA/JPL/University of Colorado/Central Arizona College

During the August 11, 2008 flyby, Cassini’s plasma sensors found ion and electron beams propagating from Saturn’s northern hemisphere. Their variability was something of a puzzle until it was noted that time-variable emissions from Enceladus’ south polar vents could correspond with the footprint’s brightness variations in Saturn’s aurora.



https://phys.org/news/2018-07-electromagnetic-energy-saturn-enceladus.html

During the August 11, 2008 flyby, Cassini’s plasma sensors found ion and electron beams propagating from Saturn’s northern hemisphere. Their variability was something of a puzzle until it was noted that time-variable emissions from Enceladus’ south polar vents could correspond with the footprint’s brightness variations in Saturn’s aurora.

So, in you're typical, long winded, roundabout manner, you're saying that rockets can fly in a vacuum?  Thanks for that (I think).

as plasma creates aurorae around the pole of a spherical planet.

You haven't done your homework on the Aurora Borealis.

The Aurora Borealis cannot be explained by an external stream of plasma/ions that are injected into the Earth's magnetic field.

Who is talking about the Aurora Borealis?

You are quite slippery but again I stress you provided the link with the peer reviewed paper to prove the point that mass was being ejected by Enceladus. This proof did this by demonstrating aurorele on the pole of saturn wrapped around the sphere.

I was pointing out that again your evidence provided was completely contradictory to your stance earlier in the thread that all celestial bodies were discs

The moon Enceladus leaves a "footprint" in Saturn's electromagnetic field.
Credit: NASA/JPL/University of Colorado/Central Arizona College

During the August 11, 2008 flyby, Cassini’s plasma sensors found ion and electron beams propagating from Saturn’s northern hemisphere. Their variability was something of a puzzle until it was noted that time-variable emissions from Enceladus’ south polar vents could correspond with the footprint’s brightness variations in Saturn’s aurora.



https://phys.org/news/2018-07-electromagnetic-energy-saturn-enceladus.html

hemisphere

Just going to leave that there mate, let it sink in

Quote from: sandokhan on September 03, 2019, 09:13:38 AM

During the August 11, 2008 flyby, Cassini’s plasma sensors found ion and electron beams propagating from Saturn’s northern hemisphere. Their variability was something of a puzzle until it was noted that time-variable emissions from Enceladus’ south polar vents could correspond with the footprint’s brightness variations in Saturn’s aurora.

So, in you're typical, long winded, roundabout manner, you're saying that rockets can fly in a vacuum?  Thanks for that (I think).

Sandy copy pastas so heavily his "proofs" always disprove his other "proofs".

As I said from the start, Enceladus has huge cavities inside, a fact corroborated by the research done at the University of Nantes.

https://scitechdaily.com/new-research-into-saturns-geologically-active-moon-enceladus/

Choblet and co-authors found that a loose, rocky core with 20 to 30 percent empty space would do the trick.

According to these first estimates, Enceladus' cavities amount to a third of its total volume.

This, coupled with the fact that all of the geyser jets escape to outer space, means that the thrust provided by the plume does not interact with the vacuum.

As I said from the start, Enceladus has huge cavities inside, a fact corroborated by the research done at the University of Nantes.

https://scitechdaily.com/new-research-into-saturns-geologically-active-moon-enceladus/

Choblet and co-authors found that a loose, rocky core with 20 to 30 percent empty space would do the trick.

According to these first estimates, Enceladus' cavities amount to a third of its total volume.

This, coupled with the fact that all of the geyser jets escape to outer space, means that the thrust provided by the plume does not interact with the vacuum.

You literally posted a few hours ago that only 9% escaped?

Also avoided so far calculating the thrust required from the plumes to move a small moon

Those calculations require a precise value for the pressure. Furthermore, Enceladus might be a hollow satellite, a fact which makes any calculations superfluous.

Those calculations require a precise value for the pressure. Furthermore, Enceladus might be a hollow satellite, a fact which makes any calculations superfluous.

You have the mass and acceleration of the plume so the force in KN =

Its then basic algebra to have some discussion on Enceladus, you have already supplied a peer reviewed paper with its mass included.

At the very least we could compare the force of the plume to say a rocket and get back to the topic

Cassini passed within 175 km of Enceladus’
 Sandokhan
Your acceptance of Cassini orbiting Saturn, and fly by of Enceladus, I find strange.
Just how did Cassini get to Saturn and Enceladus, without rockets working in space?
If all of NASA is fake how can you use it as a reference?
You can't have it both ways.

We are discussing here the official data as put forth by Nasa.

And Nasa knew all along that there was something very peculiar about Enceladus (very low density).

Here is the declassified note written by F. Dyson at CalTech in 1958:



In fact, HE proponents are saying that Enceladus is hollow (while mainstream science is stating that cavities make up a third of the core volume):

http://hollowplanet.blogspot.com/2008/04/enceladus-south-polar-plume-fills.html

We are discussing here the official data as put forth by Nasa.

And Nasa knew all along that there was something very peculiar about Enceladus (very low density).

Here is the declassified note written by F. Dyson at CalTech in 1958:



In fact, HE proponents are saying that Enceladus is hollow (while mainstream science is stating that cavities make up a third of the core volume):

http://hollowplanet.blogspot.com/2008/04/enceladus-south-polar-plume-fills.html

A reference to [ by F. Dyson at CalTech in 1958:] is certainly outdated it's not worth considering,
and doe's not answer The question.
Just how did Cassini get to Saturn and Enceladus, without rockets working in space?

Once again, you choose not answer, I am waiting for an answer, Will like it?

We are discussing here the official data as put forth by Nasa.

And Nasa knew all along that there was something very peculiar about Enceladus (very low density).

Here is the declassified note written by F. Dyson at CalTech in 1958:



In fact, HE proponents are saying that Enceladus is hollow (while mainstream science is stating that cavities make up a third of the core volume):

http://hollowplanet.blogspot.com/2008/04/enceladus-south-polar-plume-fills.html

This a really low quality manipulation. Almost everything about Enceladus before Voyager missions was a wild guess.
It would be fair to include a comment from George Dyson about this note:

Note that the .618 density for Enceladus was not a transcription or arithmetic error, it is due to the mass and radius of the outer planet satellites being known only approximately at that time. (I believe Thomas “Tommy” Gold was brought in as a consultant on the question of selecting landing sites.) These calculations were made to determine the best destination both in terms of an optimum velocity match and highest probability of being able to obtain water ice or hydrocarbons on the surface to replenish the vehicle’s propellant mass.

But they have to, since the geysers are distributed over a huge area, encompassing an entire hemisphere.

No, they don't have to as the product of the mass flow rate and the velocity of it is tiny compared to the moon.

Again, if you wish to disagree, DO THE MATH!
Show the force is significant.
Tell us the mass of the planet, the mass flow rate of the ejected matter, the velocity of the ejected matter, and from that the expected force, and from that the expected acceleration.

Until you do that you have nothing.
I have already done that and demonstrated the force is insignificant.

Stop running away from the issue.

If you want to reject my numbers, from your own paper (there was only one in the post I directly responded to, so it is quite clear which one), then provide your own, with a valid reference.

Are you referring to this?
Plume intensity figure (emission strength): 1000kg/s.
Then, your figure is MEANINGLESS unless we have the TOTAL MASS being ejected.

And what does it say?

The total plume intensity, between 100 and 1000 kg/s, is also stochastically variable

That sure sounds like it is talking about a TOTAL!
So no, my figure is not meaningless.

I estimate this mass to be at least 1.5 x 10⁵ kg

Your estimate is worthless.
You have provided absolutely nothing to substantiate it.
But even with that large increase, it is still basically NOTHING!.
To express it in terms of a portion of the mass of the moon, even being generous and pretending the moon has a density of 1000 kg/m^3 (remember, it is higher), it is a "massive" 0.000000000000001 times the mass of the moon, or 0.0000000000001 %, i.e. it is tiny. It will not have a significant effect.
As you just multiplied my generous figure by 100, the same effect will happen to the acceleration. So instead of the 9 fm/s, you will end up with 900 fm/s, almost 1 pm/s.
It is still basically nothing and should not have any significant effect.

And of course, now you run off into mountains of off topic garbage to escape yet another failure of yours.

Again, I have done the math to show no significant acceleration occurs from the ice. Even using your ridiculously over estimated mass flow rate, still no significant acceleration should occur.
You have nothing to support your claims that anything should occur.

Now like I said, do the math, with valid references for any numbers you use.
Until you do, you have absolutely nothing and these jets in no way indicate rockets can't work in a vacuum.

Even if it couldn't move a moon out of it's orbit around Saturn, it would certainly cause very substantial effect to the rate (speed) of it's rotation :

And that is just another baseless claim. Like for the claim of it having an effect on the orbit, do the math. Show it should have a substantial effect, and then show that no substantial effect occurs.

As for your claims about Earth, they have already been dealt with in the prior thread on the subject.
Go back there if you want to discuss it again.

This thread is for discussing rockets in space.
Perhaps you can finally answer the question you have been avoiding since the start:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

Will you claim pure magic with gas magically being held inside an open container exposed to a vacuum?
Will you claim pure magic of an object being accelerated without a force?
Will you claim pure magic of an object having a force applied with the corresponding reactionary force?
Or will you be rational for once and accept that rockets will work in a vacuum?

But Enceladus does not have a density of 1000kg/m^3, in fact it is mostly hollow, that is why your calculations are useless.

In order to calculate the thrust, with the new figures (at least 33% cavities), we need the pressure (as I have said from the start).

We are discussing here the official data as put forth by Nasa.

And Nasa knew all along that there was something very peculiar about Enceladus (very low density).

Here is the declassified note written by F. Dyson at CalTech in 1958:



In fact, HE proponents are saying that Enceladus is hollow (while mainstream science is stating that cavities make up a third of the core volume):

http://hollowplanet.blogspot.com/2008/04/enceladus-south-polar-plume-fills.html

Seriously we are talking about rockets working in a vacuum, you have made definitive statements which you have failed to back up in anyway.

Flim flam and links you dont read, contradictory posts etc etc Im really not sure what you are getting at now, Enceladus is the 2nd most dense of the major satellites of Saturn.

Start a new thread

Im really not sure what you are getting at now

Here is the biggest rocket in vacuum of them all:



And things don't look good at all for the RE.

But Enceladus does not have a density of 1000kg/m^3, in fact it is mostly hollow, that is why your calculations are useless.

In order to calculate the thrust, with the new figures (at least 33% cavities), we need the pressure (as I have said from the start).

you are correct it is not 1000 its 1610 kg/m³

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/saturniansatfact.html

Im really not sure what you are getting at now

Here is the biggest rocket in vacuum of them all:



And things don't look good at all for the RE.

So rockets in a vacuum do work?

No.

The latest research is very clear: Enceladus has at least 33% cavities in the core. And that core is not rocky, but is composed of ice.

The data you posted refers to the old research, which is now totally outdated.

Please read the references provided.

OK. For the people arguing if rockets wont work in a vacuum, is there any thing an astronaut can do to 'move' in space?

Lets say you are all by yourself not gravitationally bound to anything nearby, so you are completely motionless. The only thing you have on you is your oxygen tank. If one were to pierce it (causing a sudden escape of all the oxygen very quickly) would the astronauts position move at all?