The only question I avoid or delete from your quotes are those that you repeatedly ask after being given an answer to, time and time again.
No, they are the questions that you have repeatedly avoided time and time again.
You are yet to provide an actual answer.
You either ignore it entirely or provide a non-answer which doesn't address the issue.
All it does it wastes your time and my time in order for me to delete the bits that I feel are worthless.
Perhaps you should stop considering things which show you to be wrong as worthless and instead try and respond to them?
It can't move out of the way. It's behind all the other gas molecules
The only way for those gas molecules to stop it is to provide a force back to it.
All objects can push against themselves to move
So rockets can push against themselves and thus rockets work in a vacuum. End of thread.
Before you complain about pressure, the gas is in the same condition. Either there is pressure and thus both can move or there is not and neither can move.
So like I said, you need to either accept that rockets do work in a vacuum, or provide a reason for why the gas can move but not the rocket.
You need to get on even ground here
No, I don't.
You are the one who is repeatedly contradicting yourself and trying to skew what you say and reality to try and prop up your fantasy.
I am pointing out what is wrong with it by using your own arguments against you.
That is not skewing anything.
I'm not changing the scenario either.
I am dealing with the same issue, the fact that gas exerts pressure in all directions.
I have no problem with an object pushing in one direction to move another. It's how and why it works which is the key.
But that isn't what was asked of you.
It was the object itself pushing in one direction and moving in one direction.
Or are you going to claim forces can magically arise from nothing and not have a reactionary force?
And if you really did accept that, you would rockets working in a vacuum.
The gas inside the rocket pushes it in one direction to move the rocket.
Or if you like, the rocket is just expanding and decompressing, moving it forwards.
Yep, as long as they hit a resistance, which your so called space vacuum does not provide
So you are back to the same problem.
What is your gas using as resistance?
Again, the gas and the rocket are in the same boat. Either both can move or neither can.
Any excuse you make for the gas to be able to move will work equally well for the rocket (or has an equivalent which does).
Any objection you raise for the rocket works equally well for the gas (or has an equivalent which does).
Either both can move and thus rockets work in a vacuum or neither can move and thus gas can remain trapped in an open container exposed to the vacuum of space.
If the gauge was ripped out to leave an opening and let's assume the opening was equal to the opposite end valve opening then you have an expansion out of both ends, all the way back to the middle.
Why?
The gas in your fantasy is already moving towards one end, just "expanding" towards it, with no desire to go in any other direction. Why would it then magically turn around?
Again, this only makes sense if you accept that the gas is pushing outwards in all directions.
If we deal with one thing, do not attempt to marry it up with another because all you do is skew the entire explanation them whine on that I delete it or bypass it.
No, we expose the contradictions.
If you need a different explanation for each scenario your model is garbage.
A single explanation should be capable of dealing with a rocket in a vacuum, the gauge on the tank, a balloon, a water rocket and so on.
They are based upon the same principles of how gas behaves.
So again, either answer the questions or admit that rockets work in a vacuum.