Firstly, you're quite the offensive individual and this is why no one will want to believe you.
Don't sit and give me that. Take a look at some of the bozo's attacking me with put downs. I'm almost pleasant to you people, so don't use that as a belief of no belief system.
If I said it as meekly as a kitten your stance would still be the same or worse, believing that I'm a soft toucj and easy pickings for ridicule, which you can see, I'm far from it and you like-minded peers get no change playing those games.
Next time you deal with me, cut this crap out because it also doesn't get you anywhere, either.
Second, in your scenario, in actual life, this balloon would simply lose all of its air without movement. A force in one direction also exerts a force in an equal and opposite direction. You're not stupid, but your explanation only would have a full-size rocket flying up to the length of its fire, and then the rocket would have nothing to push on and fall.
No; it's not just the length of its flame and then kaput. It's about continued full thrust to weight ratio in a changing environment of more to less atmospheric pressure.
As long as the rocket is thrusting against the atmosphere at full thrust then it becomes lighter as the fuel gets expended.
It still keeps it's speed constant because of this. It cannot build up acceleration because although it's at full thrust it's also thrusting against more expanded/less dense atmosphere as it keeps its vertical fight.
This means that the thrust still does the same thing against the atmosphere in less dense air as it moves up but it is counteracted by the loss of fuel as it does so, meaning it keeps a constant motion.
The only way that motion can be changed is by arcing towards the ground.
The very second that rocket takes off; it's at full power and if it doesn't spring into the air under that full power, it becomes a heap of scrap metal in short order.
The only reason a rocket can work to gain altitude is to lift off in this manner or it immediately loses stability.
A slow rocket like the NASA ones, etc would all be a mass of burning scrap at the launch pad.
Spring board lift off or dud rocket. There's no compromise.
End result? Space rockets are fantasy.
What I think you think I'm saying is that there is a magical force generated from the inside, but what I'm talking about is the force of ejection outside of the balloons or rockets forces the air particles still inside of the balloon to shuffle and rebound as they get knocked out of the balloon at awkward angles. This explains why a balloon doesn't go straight
No they don't at all. You have this totally wrong.
Once you open that balloon nozzle, the atmospheric pressure tries to force the balloon flat or back to its original form.
The problem is, it can't do it quick enough because of the small air nozzle it's ejecting the air through, against the air that is already closing in on it from outside as it deflates.
This pushed compressed air molecules inside into expanded molecules as they release, which push through the air outside, which naturally tries to fill the higher pressure by squeezing back which pushes the balloon away.
All that's happening inside is a last one out stinks, scenario.
Your bus doesn't work because people aren't fluids and science uses fluid dynamics to describe the movements
I see you're another one that just can't grasp analogies. I'd like to believe this is on purpose but somehow I just think that you people just cannot grasp basic stuff.
That's probably because your heads are getting filled with equations the minute someone says something and it stops you frm thinking rationally.