There is no evidence. It cannot be explained.
We went through this before and you were stumped to explain.
You ignoring the evidence (just like you ignoring the rest of my post) doesn't mean it isn't there.
We have been over this before, and plenty of others. I was easily able to explain, and you repeatedly failed with your explanations severely lacking or just entirely absent, then because you can't explain you just resort to outright lies claiming that you have and claiming that others can't.
I told you what force was on the rocket. You chose to ignore it and pretend you weren't told.
You'll continue to ignore it no matter what, because that's what you people do.
The diagrams are there so take some time to understand them if you're genuine.
No, you repeatedly avoided saying what force was acting on the rocket, likely because you know that it refutes you.
Yes, your diagrams are there, which do not explain it at all.
As well as that, we have our diagrams, which do actually explain it.
A helicopter shows you the simple way a rocket works by using atmosphere.
No, a helicopter works using vastly different principles.
It works by redirecting air, moving it from above to below, generating lift a the air passes over the wing and is deflected downwards.
The force acts on the blade to push the helicopter up.
No ridiculous gas on gas fight.
The reason it needs the atmosphere is because it is using that atmosphere and changing its momentum.
A rocket doesn't need that because it has its own gas which it expels.
If you did, do you recall no change in measured weight because the blades pushed the atmosphere down to create a much larger compression of the atmosphere under that helicopter, meaning it could push into the atmosphere above by resting on this compressed air?
What the air does after it has left the helicopter is irrelevant.
The air is pushed down by the helicopter. The only thing to then change its momentum is the truck.
Again, this brings us back to the ball and skateboard example.
The person on the skateboard moves as the ball is thrown. The ball doesn't need to hit the wall to have the person move.
Yes, it is pretty simple to grasp, yet you keep either failing to grasp it or intentionally not grasping it.
Probably because grasping it would mean accepting that rockets work in a vacuum.
Now again, care to address the issues you have repeatedly avoided?
What force is pushing the rocket? Where is the arrow of force in your diagram?
What force is accelerating the gas? What is it pushing against?
You are yet to address either of these issues.
Yet our side has easily explained it.
So what would any sane person take?
We have your option of pure nonsense with no attempt at an explanation and instead continued avoidance and lies; vs conventional physics which easily explains it and doesn't rely upon rejecting mountains of evidence.
In reality, they are the same issue as they go hand in hand.
The only object that the gas can push off to accelerate out of the rocket/tube is the rocket/tube.
Everything else is in the opposite direction and would cause it to accelerate into the rocket.
This means the gas MUST be pushing off the rocket/tube and thus must be pushing the rocket/tube.
Of course, you wont admit that because it means the same applies in a vacuum, with the gas accelerating out and accelerating the rocket.
But I don't care.
Either admit it or clearly explain an alternative.
Clearly explain what the gas is pushing off to accelerate out of the rocket/tube (including in a vacuum), including providing a diagram showing the action-reaction pair.
Clearly explain what force acts on the rocket to accelerate it, including providing a diagram showing the force acting on the rocket.