One of the things that I have heard before is that funeral homes sell these new "sealed" caskets. Now, the problem with sealing caskets is that the gases generated through the process of decay of the body increase the pressure inside the casket over time, and many of them have been known to blow up in a rather noisy and (bad choice of words but I can't think of another adjective) awesome way.
People, tell your families not to spend money on these caskets, unless this blow-up action is part of your plan for leaving the world, one last final act! (I am not judging! Just informing).
I don't actually know, but most engines are using gas from outside of the fuel source. I suppose perhaps they use a stored gas, given that they'd need it in space, or perhaps couldn't "grab" enough for the huge amount of fuel they're using.
That said I'm aware of plenty of situations where similar things occur, I still find it very interesting.
Maybe I didn't understand it, but I read the whole thing. "I suppose perhaps" is pretty far from a statement of certainty, if that's the part you think I missed.
Rockets contains both oxidizer and fuel in liquid or solid forms, sometimes separated and sometimes even in one substance (monopropellants). Combustion products are gaseous, and gases tend to take more space than solids or liquids.
The key difference between a rocket engine and other types of engine is that rocket engines only use chemicals that are stored onboard. If it needs gas from outside then by definition it's not really a rocket.
Yes, for any substance and temperature, there are ranges of pressures where it's gas, liquid, or solid. Look up "phase transition diagram" to get a better idea. But it's basically going to be different for every substance and every mixture of substances, so it's probably hard to predict at what pressure the gases coming off a corpse are going to liquefy.
If you are into decay I'd also like to recommend the Rodale book of composting[0], you'll be making great compost soon enough (weather you read it or not).
It isn't sensational, which can be nice. They approach it from a gardeners perspective while still mentioning things like how blood has a high nitrogen content.
Warning: Misleading title. It is talking about what happens to your physical body, something everybody already knows what happens after you die, though perhaps not to that level of detail. NOTHING TO SEE HERE, move along now.
There is none. And death doesn't exist either (it is just an abstraction made up by humans). You are part of the universe, and as such will remain alive. When you "die" (note the quotes), the universe loses a bit of consciousness, but there is plenty of it remaining.
I don't know about made-up abstractions, but when your heart stops beating, your lungs stop breathing, your neurons stop firing, and all of your bodily tissues start to rot away... Surely there must be something different about being in that state?
It is just reasoning in favor of Occam's razor. It doesn't mean it is true (people here are sufficiently smart to figure that out for themselves). However, reasoning against the razor, now that's what I call silly!
If "alive" is some set of complex chemical reactions a system is experiencing then when they stop, that system is not alive by any standard definition of the word. "dead" would be a term applied to a pile of stuff that used to be doing the "alive" thing but isn't anymore. The pile keeps the term "dead" until the pile has reshuffled much of its original mater. For some reason living things face the Ship of Theseus paradox, and dead piles don't.
(I almost think I could make a board game from the above.)
But when we use the word "fox" it does not include the ground under the animal. And if I look at the moon and say "that is part of a fox" I am using the language incorrectly.
Of course the word "alive" is ambiguously defined semantics applying to a loose hodgepodge of phenomenon (is a virus alive?). It may be convenient to use, just like the term "sunrise" is useful. But looking for the real phenomenon behind it is like looking for the caloric fluid or the land north of the north pole, they are words for ideas invented long before we knew much about anything.
Your notion too might be useful, that everything is part of a single grouping like the observable universe. But I think we'd be in error to suppose there is something real to either of these groupings beyond being useful names.
People, tell your families not to spend money on these caskets, unless this blow-up action is part of your plan for leaving the world, one last final act! (I am not judging! Just informing).