One thing no one can disprove...

[Logos]

Well your logic is flawed   

Since there is no atmosphere large objects like a rocket or even a large bus sized satellite encounter no resistance from friction. So an Astronaut can literal push a huge satellite by hand  Sure. But you're talking about solid objects working against each other. However, gases behave a bit differently.

The "equal and opposite reaction" is the gas pushing away from the inside of the rocket which causes the rocket to move Ah... This is basically the NASA view that "rockets (more or less) push against themselves". That's tantamount to thinking people can leapfrog over each other without needing a solid surface that provides resistance to push against. In the vacuum of space the gases will not push against the inside of the rocket because there's nothing forcing them too. They can escape into space with absolutely zero resistance almost instantly. After all, energy takes the path of least resistance. Besides, this action is in harmony with "free expansion of gases" principle. It is NOT the gases pushing against the atmosphere that gives thrust. Exhaust gases pushing against the atmosphere provides some resistance which provides the opposite reaction (recoil), that being the rocket moving in the opposite direction of the exhaust. This is basically the same set of actions involved when a gun fires. If that WAS the case the rockets we launch would slow down and fall back as they reached thin air  and we KNOW that does not happen because we can see that with our eyes. NO! We do not know that happens because we do not see that happen with our own eyes supposedly waaay up there in the atmosphere. We are told that happens, that it's supposed to happen, thus we believe it. I think it is your logic which is flawed.
Theoretically an Astronaut could point a flashlight in one direction and eventually reach the speed of light (or near it)  Provided the battery did not run out or he ran out of air   But the light beam from that flashlight would given enough time be enough to move him I don't think the high priests of physics know enough about the nature of light to say that, but anyone can theorize. 

THAT is basically what an ION drive is a very big flashlight

Exactly--it's theory, and idle speculation does not fact make.

As I stated before, this discussion is mere conjecture as what NASA claims can be neither readily proved nor disproved. If NASA's claimed accomplishments could be proven or disproven there probably wouldn't be a need for forums like this.

[ArMaP]

Exactly--it's theory, and idle speculation does not fact make.

As I stated before, this discussion is mere conjecture as what NASA claims can be neither readily proved nor disproved. If NASA's claimed accomplishments could be proven or disproven there probably wouldn't be a need for forums like this.

Why do you speak only of NASA? Many countries have sent rockets into space.

[Logos]

A video of what appears to be a rocket launching on earth isn't proof that rockets are actually going into space.

[Logos]

That's true, but not really an answer to what I wrote, as you broke the sentence in two parts and replied to the first half, making it look like something different.

What I said was that, from what I could find, that "free expansion" is about the expansion of a specific amount of gas, not about the burning of some fuel to produce gas.

The burning of some fuel to produce gas is irrelevant. The point is that if a rocket engine is ignited in space the exhaust will escape out the exhaust cone w/o doing any work, i.e., there will be no force created pushing the rocket in the opposite direction.

Anyhow, we can go back and forth until we come down with carpal tunnel syndrome. As I've previously stated we cannot resolve this question because we can't prove it either way.

[Logos]

Why do you speak only of NASA? Many countries have sent rockets into space.

Anyone can say anything, but there is no proof. Cheap, easily faked--and demonstrably fake--video & still images do not constitute proof that rockets have gone into space.

[ArMaP]

Anyone can say anything, but there is no proof. Cheap, easily faked--and demonstrably fake--video & still images do not constitute proof that rockets have gone into space.

If the things that can prove you wrong are considered by you as fake then this discussion is useless, as it's only a way of you posting you unproven ideas as if they were true.

[zorgon]

The point is that if a rocket engine is ignited in space the exhaust will escape out the exhaust cone w/o doing any work, i.e., there will be no force created pushing the rocket in the opposite direction.

The proof is real simple  Just blow up a balloon and release it



So your claim is that all the images from space are fake?  Well you will need to prove that

[Wrabbit2000]

I think I am still kinda lost on where the differences in space vs. the atmosphere would cause physics to suspend in terms of action/reaction?

If chemical reactions can still create dramatic pressure increases despite a total lack of oxygen (and they can, as chambers on earth can show), then to continue down this kinda odd line of thinking..what else in space would be different to prevent the propulsion produced by the release of great pressure from an object? We can note the lack of gravity...but is it gravity as a required factor which causes a tube to move opposite from the direction which great pressure is being released?

What would make us think rockets can't function up there?

[zorgon]

What would make us think rockets can't function up there?

Not us only Logos

There are also still people who believe the Earth is flat

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[thorfourwinds]

Not us only Logos

There are also still people who believe the Earth is flat

Wait a dang minute ... what?
Are You saying the Earth isn't flat?   

However, We have photos acquired from Space Satellites (put there by teleportation, NOT rocket power, Sir Logos...) 

[Phedre]

Where are the elephants, holding  the diskworld up?   

[zorgon]

[Wrabbit2000]

Not us only Logos

There are also still people who believe the Earth is flat

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Of course you're right. I had a feeling I should have quoted on that to avoid any questoins. 

[Logos]

If the things that can prove you wrong are considered by you as fake then this discussion is useless, as it's only a way of you posting you unproven ideas as if they were true.

The same applies to you.

I haven't been proven wrong.

[Logos]

The proof is real simple  Just blow up a balloon and release it



So your claim is that all the images from space are fake?  Well you will need to prove that You're kidding, right? How does that prove rockets produce thrust in space?

So your claim is that all the images from space are fake?  Well you will need to prove that

I don't have to prove anything of the sort because I never said all the images from space are fake. That doesn't make sense anyway because to be fake images *from* space they would have to have been faked *in* space, the prerequisite being someone would have to have been in space to fake them in space. This prerequisite remains an assumption. 

Are you trying to derail the discussion? The issue here is not a question about the veracity of NASA's imagery but whether rockets will produce thrust in a vacuum. Please, let's stay on point.