All of it.
i.e. you can't find a problem with any of it so you dismiss it all outright?
You even reject the gas leaving the rocket.
So now you say that the gas will remain inside the rocket, even when exposed to vacuum or extreme low pressure?author=sceptimatic link=topic=82434.msg2213997#msg2213997 date=1572962597]
No because your hair sort equalises because atmosphere is all over and under it, unlike your dense body which is pushing into atmosphere by it's own dense mass and also that same dense mass displacing that amount of atmosphere.
[/quote]
i.e. when we jump we shouldn't be pushed down. We should continue floating up or merely be stopped. Because when we are in mid-air, we have air all over and under us.
And of course, if we go up against a wall, then we should be pushed into that as there isn't the air between us and it. If you say there is still a small amount there to stop it, well don't worry, there is also that between us and the ground, so either it doesn't matter or we shouldn't be pushed to the ground either.
Lets try and keep this discussion to rockets, not your refuted denspressure nonsense.
Throwing the medicine ball allows the atmosphere to create a barrier by the medicine ball and your energy compressing it.
If the air was important you would get the same effect regardless of the mass of the ball. That is not observed.
If there was no atmosphere there would be no leverage and no opposite motion.
So the ball just magically moves away?
But how does that work?
What leverage is there for the ball to push against.
You seem to want to apply your nonsense one way only.
If what you are saying is true, and you need the air to push against, then the ball does not have the air to push against with the human and thus it will go nowhere.
The volley ball would be extremely minimal due to it already being mostly air
That doesn't matter, it still pushes the same amount of air. You can confirm this by pushing them through a tube which has the same radius as the ball, or just slightly larger.
The volume is what is important if it is pushing the air. The mass is what is important if the air has nothing (or very little) to do with it.
I do justify it.
You are yet to justify it in any way. The closest you have come to any justification is repeatedly contradicting yourself as you try to explain different things.
You pretending you have justified it does not mean anything.
To compress air you are simply compressing the molecules into smaller size due to that crushing force.
Repeating the same nonsense and ignoring the explaining that that is blatantly wrong wont help you.
When you compress air you are not compressing the molecules, you are removing part of the void between them.
While each molecule has on average less space, the physical size of the molecules is not shrinking.
An actual analogy would be balls on a pool table. If you shrink the size of the pool table, but keep the same balls on it, you are compressing the gas. It is the empty space between the balls that shrink, not the balls themselves.
Importantly there is a limit to how far you can shrink it. If you shrink it too much you then end up with no more space between the balls at which point you will have compressed it into a liquid and are unable to compress any more.
This is what happens in reality.
If it was just magically compressing molecules, this limit should not exist and you should be able to keep compressing it with it never becoming a liquid.
I tried to explain this a while back by using sponge balls as a great analogy.
By using a completely incorrect analogy.
Note that even with your sponge balls you are still removing the air.
What you are actually doing is changing the shape of the sponge balls so the air is removed from the inside of them.
There is no space between them.
And that remains yet another baseless assertion from you.
You are yet to justify this in any way. You are yet to refute the abundant evidence which shows you are wrong.
Anything compressed enough will become a liquid or a solid.
Only if you accept that you are excluding the free space between the molecules.
If you claim that everything is already connected, then there should be no difference between a liquid and a gas, and no clear boundary.
But that isn't the case.
There is a clear boundary between liquids and gases.
They are very clearly different.
Do you know the distinguishing feature of liquids and gasses?
Gases have a large space between the molecules.
The molecules do push but they push off each other.
And they push off the molecules of the rocket.
Each molecule uses the one behind as leverage to push into the one in front...and so on
i.e. the molecules at the opening of the container push against the molecules next to them as leverage.
Those then push against the ones next to them, and so on.
Eventually this goes all the way down to the rocket, where the molecules against the rocket push against it as leverage.
But then the rocket has no leverage to stop that push and thus gets pushed by those molecules.
In effect all the molecules in the middle are just acting as force carriers. You effectively have the gas molecules at the edge pushing through the intermediary molecules against the rocket.
This means the rocket goes one way, the gas goes the other.
So even using that line of reasoning, ROCKETS STILL WORK!
The only alternative is for there to be nothing to push against and thus the rocket and gas remains where it is.
That means you have compressed gas exposed to a vacuum, doing nothing.
A bomb will explode if it's encased and allows a burn expansion to shatter the shell which will allow that expansion to not only throw the casing a good distance
How?
It is not open. Why doesn't the gas just flow the crack?
The exact same situation is happening with the rocket.
Consider this hypothetical rocket:
You have an explosive contained in a chamber.
You detonate it.
This causes one end of the container to break open. What happens?
Does the air just leak out the crack, or does it force the container away?
No. The rocket cannot push off its own exhaust.
Why not?
You are perfectly happy with objects pushing off the air/gas.
The exhaust is gas. That means that the rocket can push off it.
If they can't, then that rules out all your claims about air.
Yep and atmospheric pressure provides this.
What atmospheric pressure?
We are talking about the rocket in a vacuum.
The only pressure (that is significant) is the air inside the rocket. The air you are claiming the rocket CANNOT push against.
What is there for the air to push off to be able to leave the rocket?
Nope. It's the actual gas itself being allowed to expand
As I stated before, it is only allowed to expand in one direction. This means its expansion will push the object trying to stop it out of the way, just like a bomb.
This means the gas must push off the rocket.
The atmosphere
Again, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A ROCKET IN A VACUUM!
There is no atmosphere.
What is the gas pushing off?
Imagine you are laid on the floor of a sky divers tube where air rushes in and pushes you up.
The closest this has to do with what we are disucssing is that the is air that is compressed below you, with this compressed air pushing you up.
Guess what is inside a rocket?
Compressed air, which by the same reasoning pushes the rocket.
Just which point do you disagree with here and why?
All of what you say.
So you reject the idea that gasses will equalise in pressure and instead claim that the gas will remain inside the rocket even when directly exposed to a vacuum/extreme low pressure?
Because it sure seems like you are agreeing with it.
You agree that the gas leaves the rocket.
You agree that this means the gas is accelerating.
You agree that this means that it is pushing against something. Where it is initially the gas next to it which pushes off the gas next to it and so on, until you reach the rocket with the gas pushing against the rocket.
So you are agreeing that the gas is pushing off the rocket, using the rocket as leverage.
This means the rocket is being pushed. So why doesn't it move?
If the rocket does this against zero resistance
You can never have 0 resistance. The gas itself provides resistance.
There are no mountains of evidence for what you're arguing for.
There's mountains of evidence that rockets fly. That's it.
This isn't just discussing rockets. It is very simple physics. Newton's laws of motion.
Action-reaction, etc.
Remember, without these laws you have no reason to say the rocket needs to push off anything to work.
That is entirely based upon the need for it to have a force to accelerate it, with that force requiring it to apply a force to another object and have an equal and opposite force applied to it.
I think I've reasoned quite well and justified my reasoning.
No, you have just repeatedly avoided the issues and contradicted yourself like you do so often.
You are yet to show a single problem with the line of reasoning I provided.
Instead you just stated you reject all of it (without showing any problem), and then proceeded to agree to basically every point.
I'd be like you and simply accepting what I'm schooled into.
It has nothing to do with just accepting what we have been schooled into.
If we were going to do that we would just accept your nonsense.
It has to do with being able to explain reality, including everyday observations, and thus if it is backed up by evidence or not.
What they teach in school is capable of explaining reality and is backed up by evidence. Your nonsense is not. Your nonsense contradicts itself.