You can't say I didn't warn you.
You haven't warned me about anything.
You have just repeatedly avoided simple questions, lied and insulted me and others.
I gave you a chance to just deal with the one issue and you just threw it back at me, still refusing to answer simple questions. Instead you just provided the same non-answers which were already refuted and then just repeated the same lie that you had already answered.
This shows that even those statements where you claimed that you would be happy to just deal with the 1 issue were a blatant lie. You are not happy to deal with anything that shows you are wrong. Instead you will use whatever dishonesty you can to get out of it.
Your continued avoidance of this very simple question shows you have no case.
Until you answer it you have no justification for your claim that rockets can't work in a vacuum.
Again:
What is the gas PUSHING off to allow it to move? What is it using as LEVERAGE? And why doesn't the equivalent work for the rocket to allow it to move.
Can you even attempt to answer it?
Telling me it can't stay in the tube because there is a vacuum is not answering the question as that does not identify what the gas is using as leverage to move.
Telling me it is expanding is not answering the question as that does not identify what the gas is using as leverage to move.
Saying what happens in the atmosphere is not answering the question as that is talking about a completely different issue.
Providing a one or two word response is not answering the question as that does not explain why the equivalent doesn't work for the rocket.
Until you actually tell me what the gas is pushing off in this situation to allow it to move out of the rocket and into the vacuum, and also address why this doesn't work for the rocket or also result in the rocket moving you have failed to answer the question.
To remove everything would be to create the free space you people say exist which means a nonexistence of anything and logically we can forget about that....or I can, for obvious reasons.
No, it means the non-existence of matter there, not anything.
Logically we can't just ignore that.
But yes, you can ignore it, for obvious reasons as it shows you are wrong, nothing to do with logic.
Because you release the pressure of a layer.
And why would that cause it to expand? You have reduced the size.
At best the layer inside which move out very slightly to produce a size smaller than the original.
And again, is this meant to be a single molecule made up of layers, or are these layers of molecules?
And again, where does this layer go? Where does it come from when it is compressed.
No point going down this route to be honest.
Yes there is as it shows you have no idea.
It shows you rely upon pure nonsense and wild speculation/ignorance.
Basically just avoid this type of questioning as it just goes nowhere.
I have told you, so heed what Jackblack cannot heed.
I can heed it, I'm just not going to give you the satisfaction of kissing your ass as you spout mountains of BS.
The only reason this type of question goes nowhere is because you have no idea what you are talking about and are relying upon wild speculation to try and prop up the complete failure you call a model.
Go and look in your sink full of bubbles and notice the massive difference in bubble size and then think what's inside that bubble and what happens when the big bubble pops.
Air is inside the bubble. When it pops, that air is free to intermingle with the air outside the bubble.
The thin film that made it up will go a few places. A small portion will be aerosilised, some may splatter outwards and some will fall back onto the other bubbles.
No layer BS required.
It might seem over simplified by what I'm saying but it's only because we cannot physically see what's happening , even with microscopes to get right down to the nitty gritty, but we can observe what happens with what we can see.
With electron microscopes we can get atomic resolution. So try again.