I make no such claim .
You claim, that rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Rockets work because of Newton's 3rd Law.
Newton's 3rd Law works in a vaccumm.
=> You claim Newton's 3rd Law is invalid ... prove your claim.
The laws of physics in vacuum or under pressure are clearly known .
I did hope so.
But even if they were clearly
known, it seems they are - as you keep demonstrating - not clearly
understood by everyone.
Where is the experiment that violates the known laws of physics ?
I wouldn't know, as I'm not in violation of the laws of physics; that's why I asked you - as your claim (rockets don't work in a vacuum) violates Newton's 3rd Law, you should be able to point to such an experiment.
The laws of physics predict that a bomb or bullet ( both pressurised containers ) will explode in a vacuum . Testable by experiment in a vacuum chamber . Not under dispute.
Agreed, they will explode if the explosive force is greater than the containing force of the container - regardless of vacuum or no vacuum.
Which laws are you referring to, specifically?
The same laws of physics predict that a rocket engine ( which is not a bomb) will do no work in a vacuum .
While a rocket is not a bomb, they pretty much do the same thing: A chemical reaction creates (among other things) gas and heat.
They differ insofar, as a explosion happens in a short period of time, is (once it starts) uncontrolled and the explosive force goes "everywhere", whereas a rocket burns fuel over a longer period of time, can be controlled and is directed in a specific direction.
So why would one work and not the other?
What would happen if an explosion occurred in a deep bowl at the end of a "rocket"?
As you agree that explosions work in a vacuum, it would work and the "bowl" would direct its effect in one direction, away from the rocket => the rocket would be accelerated the other way.
Not smoothly as with the controlled burn of a rocket engine, but accelerated nevertheless.
=> Doesn't really matter, if you call it bomb or rocket ... it works in a vacuum.
Testable by experiment in a vacuum chamber and known to science - Joules
Joules experiment is/was not performed in a vacuum chamber (it could be, but that's not relevant).
And it still doesn't apply to rockets ... see below.
iCare is unable to provide the definitive repeatable scientific experiment and it's results showing that a rocket engine can work in a vacuum .
You cannot tell, if I'm
unable - but I can assure you, that I see no need to provide a "definitive" experiment to prove laws, that are already proven, while you're not even able to provide a simple experiment proving your claim.
This is because it cannot be done .
No, it is because it has been done over and over again.
While the experiments shown in the videos postet in this thread before (and many others readily available online) may not have reached complete vacuum, they did get close enough as to make no difference.
If the lack of resistance would have a (negative) impact, that would also show in very low pressure - it doesn't.
In order to protect the fallacy that rockets work in the vacuum of space he provides a wall of waffle , garbage , shoite or whatever description .
I think shooting your mouth off like this ... makes it quite obvious, that you are the one who is trying hide his fallacy behind a wall of waffle - not me.
He has to do this - I mean dig through the annals of science and provide the requested scientific proof - it's a straight forward request .
Rest assured, I do not have to do this.
I have already done a lot of research and laid out the scientific proof (e.g. Newton's 3rd Law) repeatedly and in detail.
In contrast you still haven't addressed any of the questions I asked, instead resorting to repetition and bluster.
ICare says that a law derived from repeatable scientific experiment in a vacuum should not apply to the vacuum of space but cannot show why and refuses to provide the scientific basis for his claim .
No, he doesn't.
I said, that an a law and an experiment, that are based on specific circumstances (Joule: constant amount of gas, no change in temperature, closed container) do not apply to a completely different situation (rocket: increasing amount of gas, increasing temperature, open container).
I have provided ample scientific basis for this, which actually isn't a claim but simply the presentation of known facts.
I think it would be a good idea for you to review those facts, as you still fail to understand what Jule's Law is about, how it is set up and when it can (and when it cannot) be applied.
iC