You don't tell me how it works you just say that it does.
No, we have told you repeatedly and you just repeatedly ignore it and dismiss it as hogwash or nonsense.
Meanwhile, you actually haven't explained anything.
Why don't you tell us how the gas accelerates.
What is the gas pushing on to accelerate? Or is the gas magic which can just accelerate all by itself?
Time for me to grill you and see what you know from your own head.
Not until you have provided what you said you would.
Provide us a diagram showing how a rocket works, with a force acting on the rocket.
Tell us how the gas will accelerate, especially in my example where you have pressurised gas in a tube in a vacuum with one end of the tube open.
According to you, any motion (or change in motion) in such an environment is impossible as there is nothing to push off and no atmosphere. Yet you claim the gas will leave. HOW? How does the gas leave the tube? How does it accelerate? What is it pushing off?
It doesn't fit my narrative because they don't work in the space you're told of.
You mean because in your narrative they don't work in space.
i.e. it doesn't fit your narrative because it doesn't fit your narrative.
All this time and you still don't grasp ,it. Surely you must be playing games.
No, all this time and I still grasp it. I still understand you are spouting whatever pathetic BS you can to avoid admitting reality.
I don't care what semantics you want to play.
The gas, when it leaves the rocket, goes massively below the rocket, often many times the size of the rocket.
It is clearly not compressing the atmosphere and getting pushed back up.
Instead, it is going straight through.
If the nonsense you were spouting was true the gas would not fly down like that. Instead it would stay with the rocket, either being pushed out to the side or upwards in front of the rocket. But that would then cause more compression and force and so on. In fact, motion would be impossible.
Of course it generates more thrust. It generates more thrust against lesser pressure because it has less pressure to resist that thrust.
Which when extrapolated means the atmosphere is doing nothing except hindering it so in a vacuum it would generate more thrust and thus rockets would work in a vacuum.
However the thrust does not propel it any faster
It will accelerate it more. If it didn't, it wouldn't be greater thrust.
The higher thrust simply means the rocket can hold it's own mass
No, higher thrust means more force acting on the rocket, meaning more acceleration (and even more when you note that the mass has decreased).
Pretty simple when you understand the basics without being coaxed into nonsense territory
Yes, rockets are pretty simple when you actually understand the basics without any of your foolish nonsense.
Even a basic understanding based upon conservation of momentum is enough to understand the FACT that rockets work in a vacuum.
But rather than even attempt to understand these basics you just reject it all and cling to nonsense that you have coaxed yourself into believing.
The force to push it out is entirely by the decompression of the gas against itself, not against the rocket.
This makes no sense at all.
You objected to the rocket pushing itself but now you are asserting the gas is pushing itself.
This is pure nonsense and an extremely dishonest double standard.
The only time gas "pushes itself" is when the gas can go in multiple directions and the different parts of the gas push each other, effectively splitting it in 2.
This is why you have been repeatedly asked to draw a simple diagram and to actually explain what the gas is pushing against; because you are appealing to pure nonsense and directly contradicting yourself.
Literally the only thing available for the gas to push on to leave the rocket, is the rocket.
So like you have been repeatedly asked, draw a diagram, showing the forces, making sure you show the action-reaction pair.
Noting that this is the gas inside the rocket, being accelerated out of the rocket.
The reaction is the atmosphere resisting by compression.
No, that is an entirely separate force.
The action is the force accelerating the gas out of the rocket, acting downwards. The reaction needs to be a force on something else pushing it upwards.
Again, the only thing this can act on is the rocket.
As long as there's a medium, any non-anchored opposites will push against each other and move.
Why is a medium needed?
Just what do you think would happen if there is no medium and these 2 non-anchored objects push against each other? Do they just sit there, doing nothing?
It's not lifting it up from inside of it, is it?
Have you even bothered looking at the diagrams?
The is exactly what is happening.
The air directly below the hovercraft, inside the region contained by the skirt, being at a higher pressure than the air above the hovercraft, pushes the hovercraft upwards.
This also acts as a negative feedback loop maintaining the hovercraft at a fairly consistent altitude above the ground.
That is quite an important part, it shows arrows of force acting on the hovercraft to keep it up. That is what you are completely missing with your diagram for rockets. You are yet to show any force acting on the rocket to move it.
Compressed gas has zero requirement for a pump
There is a requirement, because unlike in your fantasy where compressed gases just move by magic instantly, back in reality the flow rate is based upon the pressure differential and a pump will allow you to pump the gas much faster. A pump also allows you to pump it into a higher pressure region, such as the combustion chamber.
to even contemplate putting two fuels together under the pressures we're told and then igniting them in such a small space would blow up the rocket.
No argument needed. It simply would.
No, an argument is most certainly needed. Otherwise you have nothing more than a pathetic baseless assertion.
There is absolutely no reason to conclude that it would blow up the rocket.
What you are suggesting is akin to suggesting a standard combustion engine in a car is impossible as when the fuel-air mixture is ignited it would blow up the engine.
Let me explain your rocket very simply. I mean a real rocket.
Again, try to actually explain it. You are yet to even attempt it.
Explain how the gas accelerates out of the rocket. What force is acting on it? What is the reaction to this force?
Then explain what is forcing the rocket forwards or upwards?
Draw a simple diagram with these arrows of force.
Oh wait, you refuse to because that shows you are spouting pure garbage and that real physics is correct.
If it has wings the engines are genuine and generally work as told.
The wings are irrelevant and have no bearing on how the rocket works.
If you are happy accepting real rocket engines when there are wings, what do you think would happen if the wings are removed?
That suddenly the engine, which was working perfectly fine until the wings were removed, suddenly blows up for no reason at all, just because you say it will?
That suddenly, the laws of physics drastically change to make the rocket function in a completely different way?
It's only essential to have a background knowledge of something that is entirely physically real.
You mean like space rockets?
Yes, it is very important to have background knowledge of them, especially when you repeatedly they are fiction, yet can mount no rational argument against them.
In fact, if you wish to assert anything is fictional, you will need a decent background knowledge on it, or else you have no basis to assert it is fictional.
You can't even give me a simple explanation as to why they work in your space, in your mind.
Stop lying. We have repeatedly given you explanations.
Explanations which actually provide an origin for the force on the rocket.
Explanations which you are completely unable to refute in any way.
Meanwhile, you provide us with nothing.
You are yet to explain how the gas accelerates out of the rocket.
You are yet to provide any diagram which shows a force on the rocket.
You have literally nothing except your pathetic, baseless dismissals of reality and pathetic, baseless assertions of pure nonsense.
My drawing's fine. Work out why it's fine.
It works fine because you are just a pathetic troll with no interest in the truth at all and weren't trying to make a diagram to describe reality?
Because if you were going for a diagram to describe reality it completely fails as you have no force acting on the rocket or balloon to move them to the left, and you have completely unbalanced forces, where you have an action without a reaction.
The initial diagram, which actually had them was fine, but you had to reject it because it meant rockets work in space.