Bring up each supposed law and let's go through it. You'll soon understand the so called laws are not laws at all, because they do not exist as a reality in terms of explanation of what is happening.
That has been done, and then you fled, because you know you cannot rationally refute these laws of motion.
But why bother, regardless of if you accept them or reject them, you end up with rockets working in space.
You have accepted the key point regardless. In order for an object to accelerate it needs something to use as leverage, i.e. something to push off, which it pushes.
That is effectively the key law of motion explaining how rockets work.
That is what you have been repeatedly avoiding because it destroys your fantasy of rockets not working in space.
There is but it's overlooked
No, there isn't, as there is clearly no arrow on the rocket at all.
You just need to repeatedly lie and say there is because if you admit the truth, that will mean admitting you have no explanation for how rockets work, other than the mainstream one of the gas pushing on the rocket.
If you wish to disagree, clearly highlight a single arrow which you claim is acting on the rocket to provide a force to move it forwards.
If you can't do that then it is quite clear that you are lying.
It allows the gas to expand
Allowing something to happen is not providing a force.
Try again.
You need to tell us what magical object external to the rocket is somehow accelerating the gas TOWARDS it.
We have been over this repeatedly, with you repeatedly failing to address the actual issue and instead doing whatever you can to avoid it.
By having the rocket simply sit on top of the gas on gas fight,a s explained aplenty in this topic and also the above quote.
No, as pointed out plenty of times, THIS EXPLAINS NOTHING!
Tell us what is actually providing the force on the rocket.
Is it the atmosphere pushing it up? Or is it the gas leaving the rocket which is?
Where is this force being applied? To the nose cone of the rocket? Inside the bell of the rocket nozzle? Along the side of the rocket? Where?
I'm giving you a reality
Your complete inability to provide an explanation which actually addresses the issues shows you are clearly not giving us reality.
You are the one adhering to fantasy here.
Like I said, if you wish to refute that, you need to provide an actual explanation for the issues raised, rather than repeatedly avoiding them or just lying and saying you have.
There's no self contradictions, at all.
You merely saying it means nothing.
Good thing I'm not just merely saying it and instead have provided examples of these contradictions repeatedly.
For example, in this thread, you can't even make up your mind if something needs to push against something else to move or not, or if something can push against itself to move. Nor can you decide if an atmosphere is required for motion.
You repeatedly switch back and forth. You claim that an atmosphere is needed for motion and that you need to have something external to push against to try and dismiss the reality of rockets working in space, yet go and directly contradict that by claiming the gas can magically accelerate out of the rocket by pushing on nothing or just by pushing on itself.
As pointed out plenty of times with my example, in order to be consistent (i.e. not contradict yourself), either the rocket works in space because both the gas and the rocket can accelerate in opposite directions (for one of several reasons depending upon which choice you make), or neither can move and the gas will remain magically trapped inside an open container exposed to the vacuum.
If you have one being able to move but not the other then you have a direct contradiction.
And that is ignoring all the other contradictions raised by your nonsense which are irrelevant to this thread.
You merely lying and saying there are no contradictions means nothing except you have no integrity and no interest for the truth.
Again, if you wish to disagree and instead claim there are no contradictions then you have to very clearly and specifically address this issue, telling us what the gas is pushing against which allows it to move which doesn't work equally well for the rocket.
You are yet to even attempt that, likely because you know you can't.
Until you do, all you have is a pile of self-contradictory garbage.
I'll make this simple for you.
Give me a perfect analogy of what would be happening in your space with a container of compressed gas and losing the entire lid from one end.
There is no perfect analogy, and why bother with pathetic analogies when there are much better explanations?
I have already given a very clear explanation which you were unable to find a single fault with.
If you don't like it, go back and deal with it.
Over to you.
How about over to you?
You have repeatedly had it explained to you.
You then just completely ignore these explanations or just dismiss them out of hand.
All you are doing is trying to get out of explaining it yourself. This is because you know you cannot explain it without having rockets work in space.
Now quit with the pathetic BS.
Quit with the pathetic distractions.
Either provide an explanation to these issues that have been plaguing your side since before you joined this thread or admit that rockets do work in space, or just leave.
Once you do this I'll be happy to amend it.
Cut the BS.
You have been provided plenty of diagrams. Your idea of "amending" it, is to completely strip out all the forces acting on the rocket and make it completely unbalanced with no reactionary forces.
You already have plenty of diagrams to work with.
Why not try to correctly amend one of them.
Make sure you have a force on the rocket if you are trying to show how the rocket works in the atmosphere.
Regardless, make sure you have action-reaction pairs. This means you can't just have an arrow sitting by itself pushing in one direction with no reactionary force.