Something which I can't refute.
Well you are yet to refute anything. So far all you have done is dismiss it.
As an instance. If you show me a video of you eating 2 full sized cooked turkeys in 1 hour then I'm going to call bull on it.
If you show me the video and the stop watch is clearly showing it to be true then I would ask you to do it live as I was talking to you.
If After 1 hour you managed to do what you'd shown me in another video, I'd be convinced.
i.e. all your requests for physical evidence have been extremely dishonest and you will just move the goalposts when it is provided to demand a live launch showing everything?
Vertically I do not believe they do continue to accelerate
Again, your belief has no bearing upon reality.
Provide the evidence that they don't continue to accelerate.
After the fuel is spent it is a dead stick before accelerating down
And even "dead sticks" will keep going up rather than stopping instantly.
Again, you not liking physics doesn't mean physics is wrong.
I'm not discussing model planes
I don't care. I am showing you the massive flaw in your reasoning.
According to you, a model rocket using up all its fuel quickly shows that real rockets will do as well and can't possibly last for the few minutes required.
That is the same form as claiming that a model plane or car or fuel quickly shows that real planes and cars do as well and can't possible last the the hours required.
It shows your argument to be garbage.
It shows you can't use a model rocket lasting a few minutes to refute a full scale rocket
It makes them fake. The thrust to mass ratio has to be sufficient to push that rocket up at the immediate constant velocity and sustain that until the thrust, wanes.
No it doesn't.
Again, you not understanding how they work just means you are ignorant. It doesn't make them fake.
They do not need to magically accelerate to a specific velocity and hold it.
No rocket works like that.
A bullet is a projectile when it leaves it's tube (casing) after being compressed out of it and out of the barrel of the gun.
And a bullet has massively different properties to an ICBM.
The most significant for this are the surface area to mass ratio and the fact that ICBMs launch with air around them at a much slower speed than a bullet.
To eject a 20 odd foot fully laden ballistic missile out of a tube from a sub under 100 feet (example) of water would require that missile to be ejected at some force to negate the water friction and also clear the actual water surface.
And what force?
You are yet to do any math to show this is a problem at all.
As such, I will continue to dismiss your appeals to your own ignorance as ignorance.
I'm not lying.
No, you are lying.
You are claiming things as fact.
You are not attaching "in my opinion" or "I believe" to every statement you make and instead are rejecting reality with nothing to back you up.
That depends on what effects you're wanting.
Yes, it depends upon what you want.
If you want to go high, you want a high thrust which will keep you moving up quickly, but not so fast that air resistance will become a limiting factor.
If they wanted full thrust until it runs out, they would be launched with a bomb, which would likely destroy them.
It is actually better to not go "full thrust" and no rocket does that.
No I don't.
Yes you do.
You pretend that the fuel needs to be consumed at the same rate and thus it all goes in a few seconds.
You don't understand how scale works or the fact that fuel can be spent at different rates.
This leads to foolishly thinking that planes and cars can't be real because their fuel only lasts 10s of minutes, not the hours required to make them practical.
A so called slow launching rocket from a launch pad would be like balancing a stick on your finger.
No it wouldn't.
Again, for the stick, you are supporting its weight, not moving it.
I don't agree if you push something away from you it pushes back. It depends on what you are pushing against.
Why should it depend upon what you are pushing against?
The correct word is, if you push on something it resists your push with the same resistant force to your applied energy against it.
And other than intentionally confusing wording and mixing up force and energy, that is the same.
If you push an object, it pushes you back by "resisting" that push.
Regardless you end up with the same result.
The rocket pushes away its spent fuel and in the process it is pushed by that fuel.
If it pushes the fuel away quickly, it will be pushed more.
If you push away the fuel at a higher rate, there will be more getting pushed and thus the rocket is pushed more.
Ballistic missile submarine - Wikipedia.
Where?
The closest I can find is this:
"modern vessels typically launch while submerged at keel depths of usually less than 50 metres"
However that is less than, not greater than.
It is also the keel depth, not the depth at the top of the launch tube.
Based upon the length of the missile alone that puts the top at less than 36 m for the Trident II and less than 34 for the R-39. And that is without anything around it.
So I would say that based upon tht 100 m is getting to the high end of the range they launch from and they likely launch from a much shallower depth.
We have some problems here, don;t we?
No. You have problems with understanding.
You haven't shown any actual issues.
They would have a metal cover for cruising, and an additional membrane which would be ruptured as the missile launched.
They can either have it rupture with the air being compressed from the missile, or they can have it rupture from the missile itself by having a small vent to let the air out.
I'll accept anything that doesn't set off my alarm bells.
So you aren't sceptical at all and instead will happily accept any garbage which fits with your delusional model.
I have no wish to buy a rocket.
Then stop with the dishonest demands for physical proof.
If you want physical proof all it takes is for you to go and buy a model kit (or a few) and build some and carefully observe them (with instruments or even a camera, preferably high speed). But an altimeter and/or accelerometer would be better. You can also experiment with putting in different amounts of fuel or trying to set it up with different burn speeds, but the latter would be difficult without different geometries.