Please excuse for asking so bluntly, but are you trying to be dense on purpose?
If you understand the word dense to mean specific and to the point, then yes.
Actually I was thinking of
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dense 2a: "slow to understand"
I'm still waiting for a "specific and to the point" reaction to most of my arguments.
You stated earlier you understood what a closed system is, but it seems I erroneously allowed that claim to go unchallenged, as you are now revealing your claim of understanding to be false.
In what way? Please be specific ...
What does a car have to do with rockets?
Answer - nothing...
Correct answer: It was a simile for how systems can be defined.
A car needs the intake of air to operate and is not a closed system.
Well ... so what, if it gets the air from a container inside the car?
So what is your definition of "rocket"? Which parts a part of it (pun intended) and which aren't?
I posted my source.
You posted your source, but what you are posting is in conflict with that source.
Please try to gain a semblance of understanding of that source before asking superfluous questions.
Source: "If we define our system to be the rocket + fuel"
You: "A rocket is all a rocket is."
Please stop doubting my understanding without substantiating that claim (which is a cheap trick, shame on you), when you're obviously misquoting your own source at the same time.
Of course you didn't...
...except to CLAIM those videos, which clearly prove rockets do not work in an environment CLOSE to a vacuum...
...somehow PROVE rockets will work in a vacuum...
...because of...
...reasons...
Please reread my postes, it would seem you have misunderstood them.
I didn't say the videos prove rockets would work in a vacuum: I said, they show that rockets work in very low pressure and that indicates, they would work in a vacuum as well.
I have given "specific and to the point" reasons in the respective posts.
Defining he system IS science.
It is. And systems can be defined in different - valid - ways. Same science, different perspective/approach.
Of which you need further education.
I do embrace livelong learning, that's why I enjoy this discussion despite your aggressive and impolite manner.
I have substantiated my claims, you haven't - once again, I recommend you take your own advice.
Whatever your definition is, it is apparent it doesn't match the actual definition.
"Whatever" could be exactly the actual definition. So, care to share, what you perceive as the "actual definition"?
This would be a great opportunity to be "specific and to the point".
Case closed...next victim...
If it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself that you closed the case and you were in the right.
The rockets won't care, they'll just keep working.
By name iCare, because it is sad to see you clinging to misinterpretation and error in judgement, when several people are going above and beyond to explain things in a sensible manner.
iC
Edited to remove potentially offensive quote/wording