The problem with all of this, and one of the many things you've never explained, is that you falsely assume that thrust from the rocket pushes against the atmosphere. Something that is contrary to reality and that you can't support. However, you can test it but we all know you never will so there's that.
The thrust from the rocket does push against the atmosphere which pushes back.
AAMOF, the atmosphere actually acts against the motion of the rocket. The exhausting gases exerts a force on the bottom of the rocket and that's the only thing that makes it move.
Explain to me how the burning rocket fuel can exert a force on the bottom of the rocket and managed to push it up. It's ridiculous and it baffles me why people fall for this clear nonsense.
It boggles the mind that you believe the engine exhaust exerts zero force on the rocket...boggles the fuckin’ mind.
It’s only ridiculous to you because you don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s not just burning rocket fuel. If want you want to know why, look up venturies and nozzles for yourself because I’m tired of explaining shit to people who blindly dismiss what they don’t understand and have never tested.
Since you acknowledge that momentum exists then you have to agree that this is how it works.
Using the septi-playbook here's an analogy for you.
I'm swinging on a rope and slam into you. You are going to go move and it has nothing to do with the atmosphere.
Mike
I am the atmosphere and you are the rocket fuel.
**sigh** you completely missed the point. I’m the reaction force of the exhausting gases and you’re the rocket but we’ll ignore that for now.
IIUC, here's a synopsis of your premise of how denpressure effects vertical acceleration of a rocket.
- The density of the atmosphere (molecule stacking or however you define it) decreases with altitude.
- The force required for a rocket to ascend through the less dense atmosphere decreases but there is also a corresponding decrease of the reaction force due to thrust on the same less dense atmosphere.
- Therefore, the constant thrust, decreasing mass, and change in density during vertical ascent are always balanced so acceleration is exactly zero.
There are a few major problems with this reasoning. The claim that a rocket can't accelerate must be subject to the following:
1. The effects of density versus altitude must be quantified.
2. Variables within the system must be accounted for:
a. The magnitude of thrust can vary from rocket to rocket.
b. e.g. Two identical model rockets can have engines with identical size and weight but different thrust values.
c. The rate at which fuel, and thus the corresponding decrease in mass, varies from engine to engine.
d. Atmospheric pressure and density versus altitude is not linear.
e. In taller rockets the density the rocket is pushing into and against may not be equal.
f. Thrust to weight ratio varies from rocket to rocket
In summary:
1. The effect of denpressure vs altitude is not quantified.
2. The change in density of the atmosphere vs altitude is non-linear.
3. The magnitude of thrust and thrust to weight ratio varies between rockets.
4. The rate of change of the mass varies between rockets.
Working entirely within the denpressure model and considering the variables outlined above, at a minimum the following outcomes are possible:
1. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are balanced by the change in atmospheric density, it is possible for a rocket to have zero acceleration during vertical ascent.
2. If the magnitude of thrust and fuel consumption are not balanced by the change in atmospheric density is possible for a rocket to have a constant or a decreasing acceleration during ascent.
If we take all the variables into account and working within denpressure, it is possible to have zero vertical acceleration or a constant/variable vertical acceleration throughout ascent. And, if I’m honest about it, these variables also imply that at some point in its ascent it should be possible for density to overcome thrust/fuel consumption and the rocket will decelerate (negative or downward acceleration) to the point where the rocket reaches equilibrium and not climb or fall until thrust is cutoff or increased.
Tthe point is that without quantifying denpressure and accounting for the variables between rockets, you can’t definitively say what the effect on the vertical acceleration will be. A zero, a positive, or a negative acceleration should all be possible but there’s no way to know.
Mike