Again, if all of this is too long because of just how much nonsense you have said sinse I last posted, feel free to focus on the key issue, every rocket denier has been avoiding:
What accelerates the gas out of the rocket? What is it pushing against to accelerate? (Including in a vacuum, unless you want to claim that gas will remain trapped in an open container.)
And then what is in contact with the rocket which accelerates it?
I'm still waiting just for a continuous video of going from launch pad to turn round and look at the whole world without any cuts.
Then go make your own rocket.
Everyone is.
No, only those looking to deny reality.
I would have thought this would be simple given their funding.
How?
That would involve multiple stages which typically include fairings. So either the camera is jettisoned with an earlier stage, or hidden by the fearing for a significant part of the journey.
Please find that video for me.
No. It has no bearing on the discussion at hand.
There's probably something in here...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337460709_Aerodynamic_Thermodynamic_Modeling_and_Simulation_of_Turbofan_Engine
"An engine component model is established by means of the gas flow path of the engine. "
That means you can't fly without gas. In thermodynamics at least.
No, that means a turbofan engine wont work without the atmosphere.
Again, what you are claiming is pure nonsense.
Just because a turbofan engine wont work in a vacuum doesn't mean no engine can.
Is it stated anywhere in your texts that this is possible?
There are plenty of texts regarding rocket flight, including in space.
Because two opposing pressures is key to thermodynamics working at all isn't it?
No, it isn't.
The key to thermodynamics, is the flow of energy, i.e. the dynamics of heat.
In the context of rockets, it is the combination of the fuel and oxidant to produce high pressure gas, which then acts on the rocket, specifically doing work on it.
You don't need 2 opposing pressures for motion, you need a net force.
This can come from a single source of pressure, or from 2 different pressures acting on each side.
According to wikipedia "In chemistry, an oxidizing agent (oxidant, oxidizer) is a substance that has the ability to oxidize other substances."
Yes, like I said before.
Notice how it is nothing to do with creating oxygen?
The pressure changes need to be opposing from an exterior and interior system to create thrust in the body of the vehicle. Is how I understand it.
And your understanding has a significant flaw. One of these pressures can be 0. There is no need for both to be a significant pressure.
All you need to do is consider the pressure acting on the rocket.
You have the vacuum of space, providing effectively no pressure in front of it. You then have the engine and nozzle burning fuel to create very high pressure gas, which applies a pressure to the back of the rocket.
So we now have 2 different pressures. One is effectively 0 (the vacuum) and one is very high.
This should make the rocket move.
Flat earther's did not claim you can't create thrust in a vacuum, that was the scientific consensus up until the moon landing proved them wrong. Not my words, the words of https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
No, they certainly did. They objected to all the pictures from space clearly showing Earth being round, so to attack it they claimed that rockets can't work in space.
Some other conspiracy people also want to claim they can't so they can deny the moon landings.
But there was no scientific consensus that they can't work in a vacuum.
If anything, the scientific consensus was that they can. What some scientists objected to was going all the way to the moon due to the massive distance involved.
Newton's third law shows that quite easily, and directly relates to the issue you and every other FE or rocket denier in this thread has avoided.
You start with the gas and the rocket together, moving at the same velocity.
Then the gas leaves the rocket. This means it must accelerate and thus must have a force applied to it.
That means that there must be an equal and opposite reaction.
That means that there must be a force on the rocket that accelerates the rocket.
The only other option is for the gas to remain trapped in an open container.
Please tell us what the gas is pushing off to accelerate out of the rocket, unless you want to claim it will remain magically trapped inside an open container?
That is actually crucial to the thread, and is a point that your side has been ignoring or avoiding ever since it was brought up.
It seems that everything else being brought up is just to try and distract from this key issue.
This is because honestly answering it shows that rockets MUST work in a vacuum.
No-one on the internet was saying global earth theory was accepted even before the 1940's until about 5 years ago when history was revised again.
That is pure nonsense, even for FE standards.
If that was the case, why did FEs high prophet Row Boat make a book trying to claim Earth is flat and trying to disprove the real Round Earth much earlier?
At the point the ball is released, no motion is in effect.
Look harder. There clearly is motion then.
Feel free to try the experiment yourself with no ball and see how far you can go.
Or even better, do it in a more controlled way where a rigid mechanism shoots out a ball.
All that will happen is the trolley containing the spring and ball will shift to the amount the center of the combined weight of the ball and aparatus is moved by the spring up until the point the ball is no longer affecting the apparatus by it's contact at which point the apparatus will come to a halt.
No, it will keep moving.
What magic force is there to bring it to a halt?
Try it and record it because I an't be bothered. I don't think I can do any more here.
You are the one that seems to need help. You are rejecting reality based upon nothing more than wild speculation.
Also, are you one of the fake FEers you are complaining about? Spouting pure nonsense which is easily debunked?