Do rockets work in space?

IF you read it then you didn't understand it.
It will try to fill it but it will STILL do the following

gas is not a magical ethereal substance that instantly vanishes in a vacuum, but a collection of individual molecules or atoms, each of which behaves just like a tiny solid object. It keeps going in the same direction at the same velocity until it hits either another gas molecule or the walls of the rocket engine. Since they're all going in random directions to start, the only way to get most of them to leave the rocket through the nozzle is to let them bounce repeatedly off the inside walls and each other until they finally go in the right direction and leave. It's those bounces -- otherwise known as gas pressure -- that impart(s) thrust. Most of them cancel each other, but that very last bounce is the one that does nearly all the work that molecule will do for us.

The only reason no work is done with a closed container is because all the forces are balanced. Without some walls the forces will not be balanced so work WILL be done and of course it is no longer a closed system.

If you are trying to claim that the entirety of all space is your container, aside from being absurd, it still doesn't prevent your original container from moving. It is not attached to your new theoretical container. If you notice all the times free expansion is discussed it is about increasing the size of the container, NOT expanding into a completely new separate container.

Thank you for proving you didn't read AGAIN.

You ever explain how all the satellites got up there? Or the ISS? Or STEREO?

Gas is not a magical ethereal substance but it does move from high pressure to low pressure quite rapidly. Given a vacuum is the ultimate low pressure, gas will move very rapidly to fill in the empty space. The "suction" you speak of is only gas moving towards low pressure. Nothing is required to push the air to move toward low pressure and therefore there is no push back as per newton's third law.

Once again.
There are four fundamental interactions.
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Which one forces each individual molecule of gas to go into vacuum and in what way?

and that movement is caused by the gas pressure which WILL push back on the rocket.

If you claim there is no push back then SOMETHING has to change the direction of the gas molecules that would be traveling in the direction of the rocket and bouncing against it. A vacuum can't do that.

So how does a vacuum cleaner pick up garbage if air isn't forced into the vacuum? It is called entropy of gases. Matter in general does not require energy to lower it's overall entropy. That is why gases move from high pressure to low pressure without any energy input. I have already explained that this is also random movement.

So when you breathe, do you physically push the air into your lungs. When you create low pressure in your lungs by expand them (PV=nRT), why does the air magically move into your lungs without pushing it?

So when you breathe, do you physically push the air into your lungs. When you create low pressure in your lungs by expand them (PV=nRT), why does the air magically move into your lungs without pushing it?

So you are still dodging this quite simple question?

Entropy is not a fundamental interaction. There's more - it's not even a force.

The fundamental interactions also does not explain gas pushing off the rocket. Entropy is real and it does not require energy to lower the entropy. Energy is required to increase entropy. Entropy can be thought of as potential energy. The energy from combustion increase entropy but the movement of gas to lower the entropy does not require work.

Electromagnetic interaction is the answer.
Because everything happening can be led down to fundamental interactions. Your refusal to even try to explain your "theory" with this terms betrays lack of knowledge and understanding.

electromagnetic interaction is attraction and repulsion. this is irrelevant to your argument of gases pushing off the rocket due to kinetic energy. you are just going off on a tangent because you have no other rebuttal. Please stay on topic. Yes water molecules like to stick together due to electromagnetic attraction more than carbon dioxide and that is why water is liquid at room temperature. Or maybe you are trying to say that water condensing on the rocket surface propels the rocket (lol)?
Oh yes I remember you have no degree in science or engineering. You should try to get your PhD in rocket science because you seem to know a lot about it

I may just try it. I'd have to go to Canada though, because for Russia my level is on the high school level.

So, you don't even aware that collision of molecules (including gas molecules between themselves and with solid objects) is a form of electromagnetic fundamental interaction?

what is temperature and volume. Why does temperature increase pressure? is it because of electromagnetic forces? By definition, temperature is the kinetic energy of the molecules. We as humans feel the kinetic energy of certain molecules as hot or cold. Like absolute zero, where all thing cease to exist. Maybe you should come to Canada because yes, high school is equivalent to university in some countries.

Yeah, temperature is a kinetic energy - i.e. speed - of the molecules. I've been explaining this precisely some pages ago.
But raising temperature - speed of the molecules - can't change their direction. Directions are changed due to collisions. Which are the reason why finally the gas goes into vacuum when you are looking at rocket engine.
But collisions are a field of mechanics - that what we've been telling you from the very start. Only a meager number of molecules that had a correct direction from the start will escape the combustion chamber without collisions - all the rest MUST have at least one collision before escaping. And if they have this collision, there's momentum conservation at work.

You are using a formula that ignores the movement of container by definition, because in all Joule etc. experiments they had a container that was completely closed. That's why at some point of time I began using sail as a analogy.
You are trying to replace a complex field of physics that was created on the intersection of several other scientific fields by one very narrow one, only applicable in a very few real cases. That's your mistake. And that's the thing classical Germano-Prussian educational system that I had in my school eliminated in me, like, by the 8th grade.

[link to lessons.chemistnate.com]
So you are calling chemistnate a liar? Because a balloon and the atmosphere is certainly not a closed container.

Every law assumes a closed system to eliminate any possibility of interference. Even thee conservation of momentum which you propose how rockets work.

"In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant. This fact, known as the law of conservation of momentum, is implied by Newton's laws of motion.[4] Suppose, for example, that two particles interact. Because of the third law, the forces between them are equal and opposite"

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Where does it say on your chemistnate link that the air is expelled from the balloon? In fact, since it says the air is compressed and the volume is going down it shows it is NOT being expelled.

So how do think the volume of gas decreases?

If the balloon was expelling air then it wouldn't be compressed much, if at all and the equation presented wouldn't apply. This was mentioned the last time the chemistnate link was posted just two pages ago.

The atmosphere is the external pressure.
"Pext is the external pressure ... the amount of pressure that the surroundings are applying to the system."

The atmosphere is not a closed system but it is still part of the equation.

The atmosphere is the external pressure.
"Pext is the external pressure ... the amount of pressure that the surroundings are applying to the system."

The atmosphere is not a closed system but it is still part of the equation.

but the atmosphere (matter) still influences the balloon as per the equation.

"closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces"

Also I noticed that you didn't respond when I mentioned that the conservation of momentum only applies to a closed system as per the definition.

Because it applying pressure. It could be the atmosphere or it could be some other mechanism applying pressure. It still doesn't say any air is being expelled.

That has also been covered in the last few pages.

So if the atmosphere is applying pressure then how can it be a closed system? As per the definition of closed system.

Your explanation was insufficient and didn't really answer the question.

Tough shit.

Are you angry? Looks like you want to forfeit the discussion? And yes closed system has only one definition.

"a closed system is a physical system which doesn't exchange any matter with its surroundings, and isn't subject to any force whose source is external to the system."