Each of the videos presented here definitively show none of the rockets working until such time a pressurized environment exists.
That may be what
you want to see in them, but it cannot validly be concluded from those videos.
First of all, those experiments are more "proof of concept" on an enthusiast level than reliable scientific experiments. (No offence to the creators; I appreciate their effort and the experiments do illustrated some aspects well.)
We don't really know enough about the setup and all parameters in detail to tell if what you believe to see is a direct result of pressure rising or just coincidence.
You are ignoring this fact.
No, I'm critically evaluating that fact - and those Videos do not show what you claim they do.
No, I understand a rocket is a closed system.
My source states a rocket and its fuel are a closed system.
Weren't you the one, who said one couldn't have it both ways?
Now, is it a rocket or is it a rocket and its fuel?
My both ways are both valid; yours aren't. As the exhaust definitely leaves the rocket (=> exchange of mass), it can't be a closed system.
And what type of closed system are you talking about? As used in physics, chemistry, engineering or colloquial language? Are you aware, there is a difference?
A rocket does not exchange energy with an outside source.
Although this isn't really the point here, a closed system in
physics may exchange energy with the outside.
It must not exchange mass, which is why your source made that definition/assumption: For the calculations to be made the way they did, the total mass in the system needs to be constant, i.e. rocket & fuel & exhaust.
For Joule's experiment on Free Expansion in contrast, an isolated system is required.
I did not disagree with your source, which does not state that a rocket is a closed system; it did - for a specific circumstances/parameters and a specific purpose - define rocket & fuel as a closed system.
Again with the contradictions.
My source states a rocket and its fuel are a closed system.
You write a rocket is not a closed system and then quote the source stating it is a closed system.
If you would pay attention to the details (which is highly advisable in science), you would see that there is no contradiction.
You keep ignoring, that talking about "a rocket" and "a rocket and its fuel
(and the resulting exhaust)" is not the same thing.
You have no clue regarding science...at all.
See above. You could only credibly conclude that, if you had more or at least the same clue regarding science that I have.
The reasoning you have brought forward so far, makes that highly unlikely.
Yeah, pointing to the clear evidence in the videos, all showing that pressure is required for gas to do work...
Let me see ...
You link your understanding of science to homemade videos from some enthusiasts on youtube. (No offence, I appreciate their effort, but are they a valid scientific source?)
I link my understanding of science to the actual and commonly accepted scientific laws.
Which confirms my impression: highly unlikely.
I see how reason fails to be a consideration for your thought process...
How do you see that?
I have provided reasons and details on the logical deduction for what I stated. Obviously reason is an integral part of my thought processes.
Try pointing to something else you can physically grasp and equate it with a mass of gas...go ahead...try a banana...not = gas.
It's really a pity that you fail to recognize which aspects of science can be transferred between different "experiments" (gas and balls are masses, so e.g. Newton's Laws will apply) and which can't (results from an isolated system to an open/closed system).
Spare me and the rest the false equivalencies.
They only seem false, if one doesn't understand them.
I you think you do, please point out why you doubt the equivalency as far as the point I made is concerned: That you
do not need to apply force,
does not automatically mean, that
cannot apply force.
My god, all gas is energized by the process of placing it into a container. When that container opened to a vacuum, the gas does no work.
Actually, it is not.
Take an open container full of air, put an airtight lid on it ... the energy of the gas in the container will not change.
What happens when you open that container depends on how it is opened.
The direction of the plume determines the direction of the rocket.
Actually, it doesn't.
The plume will simply continue in whichever direction it was expelled from the rocket - which is, in deed, usually opposite to the direction the rocket is acceleration in.
But taking your example of the gimballed rocket, the plume will to a degree point in the direction the rocket is turning. And that direction can be changing constantly due to the gimbal.
Also, when starting jets from an aircraft carrier, their plume will be deflected upwards to protect people/equipment behind them. This has no effect on the direction in which the jets accelerate.
You don't even know what a closed system is...this could be an issue.
Indeed, but see above ... it is not me who doesn't know what a closed system is and how do utilize the clever definition of systems in science.
Science agrees that rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Let me come back to your source:
"If we define our
system to be the rocket + fuel, then this is a closed system (
since the rocket is in deep space, there are no external forces acting on this system); as a result,
momentum is conserved for this system."
Your source obviously believes rockets work in a vacuum (I am sure in "deep space" there is a vacuum.).
Also it states, that the vacuum is a requirement for the definition of "the rocket + fuel" as a closed system.
And "rocket & fuel" are only a closed system, if defined that way. => Defined another (valid) way, they need not be.
In this thread "Conservation of momentum" has been decidedly opposed as not being a reason for why rockets would work in a vacuum.
So you agree, that conservation of momentum is part of why rockets work?
As evidenced by the videos presented here.
Those videos provide no such evidence, just as your source doesn't.
iC