I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.
Care to actually bother reading what has been said and responding to that?
It is quite clear the atmosphere magically stacking has nothing to do with it.
Why should you need a nozzle to magically capture the atmosphere in a way which is never observed?
If it is just about pushing into the atmosphere and having it push back, then it shouldn't matter how you do it.
The nozzle only makes sense with conventional physics.
It only has to compress the atmosphere enough to create a barrier in the stack.
And as clearly observed from how the exhaust behaves, it never does that.
I keep saying time and time and time again for people to pay attention
All the while you keep your eyes closed and avoid as much of reality as possible.
Just because we don't accept your BS doesn't mean we aren't paying attention.
Let me try and help you out.
Then do so, rather than appeal to more pathetic distractions.
If you want to help it is quite easy. Actually provide the diagram you said you would.
Show us a diagram which actually has an arrow of force acting on the rocket to move it upwards.
Or you can actually explain what is wrong with the explanations already provided, rather than just dismissing it as hogwash.
Or you could deal with the issue that was raised before you even joined this thread and explain what happens in a vacuum. Tell us how the gas manages to leave the tube, without moving the tube or allowing it to move.
Picture a massive water tank.
Put a nozzle underneath that water tank and open it up.
Tell me where the forces are acting in that flow of water in terms up pushing the water tank up.
You can clearly see the water being expelled from the tank to the ground but where is the opposite push, vertically up into the tank?
If there is none then how in the hell do you expect your rocket to produce the same opposing force?
See, this is unhelpful. Rather than deal with the issues you just appeal to a completely different situation.
The water tank isn't pressurised. It is just gravity pulling it out. The equal and opposite reaction is on Earth, and the water tank doesn't go flying up.
So how do you expect your refuted rocket idea to work, when you have no force acting on the rocket?
If it did that it would cancel everything out.
Come on for crying out loud, surely you can see this.
WHY?
Don't just baselessly assert garbage and claim that "surely you can see this".
There is absolutely no basis for your claim.
Just look at the rocket. What force is acting on it?
It has a net force from the gas pushing it upwards.
The only way it could possibly work is if it has an opposing resistance to the mass expansion of that burning fuel.
It does....it's called
inertia, because the gas requires a force to move it, and that creates the reactionary force on the rocket.
Again, don't just dismiss things which show you are wrong as nonsense, actually explain what is wrong with it.