Yep it rises quite slowly and that should be all you ever need to know about how it's a gimmick because a real rocket would certainly not rise slowly.
Why not?
You are yet to substantiate that claim in any way.
For a simple example, look at your balloon car video. It uses similar principles to a rocket, but look at how slow it goes.
it's pretty clear as to what that is.
Yes it is, real rockets. There is no indication it is CGI at all.
Gimmicks would naturally be able to be set up to do this in various ways for the enjoyment of those looking on from miles away or on TV, etc..
Then explain how they work if they aren't rockets.
Anyway on a more serious note, you're describing a car engine with regular explosions to move pistons. Mechanical movement.
Your rocket has none of this. It requires none of this.
A rocket works on very similar principles. In the car engine you have high pressure gas pushing outwards which causes the piston to move. In a rocket you have the same situation, and it cause the rocket to be move. The main difference is that in a car the explosion is contained so there is no overall movement of the engine directly from the explosion, but in a rocket it isn't contained so the hot gas flies out.
Thew only real efficient way for a rocket to do what is needed is for it NOT to have engines but to actually mix fuel and oxidiser as a solid fuel which creates a huge BURN for thrust.
Again, that would be a solid rocket engine. It is effectively an explosion.
But perhaps more importantly, why use solid fuel?
If you have 2 substances, with the same mass of each, and burn them (or explode them) they can (and typically do) release significantly different amounts of energy.
The same applies when you take the mass of oxygen into consideration as well.
A good example of this is ethane vs ethanol or methane vs methanol. That is because the alcohol is already partially oxidised and thus has already lost some of that energy.
Or as an extreme example, hydrogen and water. Hydrogen releases a lot of energy when it burns. Water can't burn.
You then have other concerns as well. You don't want it to all ignite at once, and instead want a fairly constant burn.
That means a high explosive (at least when acting as a high explosive) would not be good, but a low explosive might be, as would gasses you can pump in. Solid fuel also has the issue of needing a binder.
Hydrogen is one of the best fuels for a rocket in terms of energy density, and oxygen is one of the best oxidisers. The extra weight needed for the tanks is offset by the higher energy density.
You need the nozzles for control of the rocket and to provide more efficiency.
The medicine ball displaces a lot more atmosphere than the beach ball which is made up of mostly atmosphere.
As we have been over repeatedly, if the atmosphere was the issue the ball would stop dead as soon as you release it.
It clearly isn't.
Additionally, every object would have the same terminal velocity and would stop just as fast when thrown in air.
You see, this wouldn't work against a stack under the ball if you were to throw the ball down
It would work the same.
There's no magical push from inside the balloon.
That's right. That is because it isn't magic.
The pressure inside the balloon is greater than outside the balloon. This results in a force on the skin of the balloon trying to push it outwards.
With the balloon sealed, this is balanced and the net force is 0.
When you have a hole in the balloon (including the opening and/or through a straw, but only a single opening) then the force is certain to not be balanced, and this results in a net force on the balloon. No atmosphere is required and there is no means for the atmosphere to magically push the balloon forwards.
The open nozzle results in an unbalanced system which is how it can move in the first place.
Ok so in the so called space analogy if we released our fingers fully to allow the spring to expand, you will clearly notice there is no recoil back to your hand. The spring will simply expand out in front by whatever distance it can stretch and your hand is in the same position without any force upon it.
No. We notice the spring is forcing our hand, and we are acting against this force. It no longer applies that force.
Ok now for the same scenario but this time we will use a resistance to the spring.
But you claim the atmosphere is the only source of resistance. So why should we need anything else?
Now let go of the spring and watch it hit the sponge and compress it. What happens?
Assuming the sponge isn't fixed in place it feels basically the same.
If the sponge is fixed in place, it then depends on the strength of the sponge, with a solid enough sponge it will feel between holding it in my hand and having the spring relaxed.
This all matches what mainstream physics indicates.
It is also quite a poor analogy. The force from the spring is insignificant compared to your mass.
For a valid comparison you need a spring which produces a lot of force compared to the mass of the object touching it.
The best easy to make setup I can think of at the moment:
You have a cap with a stick attached, and another stick/straw.
Then get a spring, attach a thin string to the spring, to the cap and then back down.
This allows you to hold it nice and tight.
Then let go (or if it wont melt, hold it in a fire to have the fire burn the string.
If your analogy is valid, and what you say is true, the spring should just sit there and expand. and the cap should just sit there.
But given as in reality springs released like that will go flying, I highly doubt a little cap will stay put, especially with the law of action and reaction.
Of course I've had it explained. The explanation is 100% wrong.
If it was wrong you would be able to explain why it is wrong. But you can't. Instead you just repeatedly assert that it is wrong.
I've explained what really happens.
No. You have asserted what you think should happen and it has actually been explained why it is wrong.
You are yet to explain how the gas can leave the rocket at such high velocities without imparting an equal and opposite reaction to the rocket, nor how it would remain in the rocket if the atmosphere wasn't there, nor how the atmosphere pushes back on the rocket.
There's no way real rockets are going to leave a launch pad at bicycle speed. They require the atmosphere to stabilise them in flight.
You have absolutely no basis for either of these claims.
But just remember, you're saying this based on following a narrative of something you have no real clue about other than what you're told or reading.
Basically speaking you're calling me what you are displaying yourself.
No. We are nothing like you.
We say it based upon an understanding of the constant laws of physics which we can see in our lives, and the mountains of evidence for it.
You say it based upon nothing more than your own assertions combined with magic changing physics and dismissing all the evidence.
I've done enough simple experiments to prove rockets do not work as you people say.
What experiments?
You have previously stated you don't want to launch rockets, and that all you ever watch is the initial launch.
If you wanted to, you could easily carry out the simple experiments described, including varying the size and shape of the rocket, or its thrust to weight ratio and seeing what effect it has.
My tests destroy gravity.
Again, what tests? You are yet to provide any test which destroys conventional physics.
Meanwhile plenty of experiments have been provided which refute denpressure.
As for Newton's 3rd law. The law of action and equal and opposite reaction is only true if there's a resistance for action and a resistance for reaction. It has to start by using applied energy which requires a resistance in itself then the resultant equal reaction to that resistance which is the result of that energy applied.
The resistance can be the object itself.
As we have already been over, it takes energy/force to accelerate an object, with this not being directly linked to the air. If it was, as soon as that energy input/force is removed, the object would stop.
You even admit this with an accelerating object, where this transfers energy/something to the object in the form of momentum which allows it to continue through the air.
This is enough to provide resistance and thus demand an equal and opposite reaction.
Without any resistance there would be no force, and thus no action and thus no movement and no reaction.
There is no need for the atmosphere.
And as I have pointed out before, if the atmosphere is your only source of resistance, then you have nothing to stop the rocket from just accelerating.
So, if the laws just apply to this with nothing else added then I have no issues with it.
As has been said repeatedly, if that was the case when you release the object it would stop dead. It would need a force to keep it moving.
Edit: fixed image tag.