A rocket could accelerate vertically......IF it can build thrust.
Why should it need to build thrust? (By that I assume you mean increase thrust)?
It should be capable of accelerating at a constant thrust.
To do this they don't play the acceleration game. They simply springboard into the air under full thrust.
No, they do play the acceleration game.
Projectiles which don't are those fired in a manner similar to a gun.
All the fuel is used before it leaves the barrel.
Rockets are different in that they are designed to accelerate for a much longer period of time.
Again, your "springboard" nonsense would apply the entire time the engine is on.
You believe a rocket thrusts against it's insides and does all its work at that point, whilst ejecting hot fiery gases as simply an exhaust into the atmosphere as something that does absolutely no work.
No we don't.
We accept simple physics where the rocket is effectively throwing out this exhaust, taking force to do so, and thus generating a reactionary force on the rocket, which can accelerate it.
You reject this and believe that simply doesn't occur and it is somehow magical interaction with the atmosphere that causes the rocket to be magically pushed.
How people cannot see that as clear and utter nonsense is beyond me
Then try understanding it rather than repeatedly just rejecting it as nonsense.
You not understanding something doesn't make it false.
You thinking it is nonsense doesn't magically make it so.
I do understand adherence to indoctrinated belief's.
Which would be religious garbage like FE, not actual science like how rockets work.
My reasoning makes perfect sense
No. It makes no sense at all.
You accept action-reaction force pairs.
But you think the rocket exhaust needs to act on the atmosphere to force the rocket, yet that somehow doesn't make it accelerate.
Just dealing with the first part, you claim it needs the atmosphere to work to be able to provide resistance and thus make the rocket need a force to accelerate the gas, but claim it can't work in a vacuum because you then have no force on the rocket.
But if in a vacuum there is no resistance to acceleration there would be no need for a force to accelerate the rocket and thus it should work fine. Your argument relies upon needing a force to accelerate/move the rocket, while claiming such a thing should only be needed in an atmosphere. It is pure nonsense.
But even if you do want to pretend that it only works in the atmosphere, you have the same issue: You have a rocket, with plenty of thrust, which magically just sits there at constant speed even though it is losing mass. This makes no sense.
You have literally no justification for any of your nonsense.
If the engine is on the rocket should be accelerating.
should make sense to anyone taking the time to understand that everything needs something to push against. Action/reaction.
Except that isn't what you are describing at all.
Instead you are pretending that what you are pushing against needs to push against the atmosphere in order to need any force.
The rocket is pushing against the exhaust. That is why the exhaust doesn't stay with the rocket and instead gets thrown out the back.
It does not accelerate from this point unless it actually ejected some kind of carrying load
It doesn't matter what the load is. If it ejects something it will have a reduction in mass and thus it would need to accelerate.
So if it is ejecting burnt fuel out, it will accelerate.
It will not accelerate if it simply burns it's fuel as a way of lowering its mass
Why? It is still losing mass.
If discarding mass results in an acceleration, discarding it by burning the fuel and throwing it out the back will as well.
There would be no consistent acceleration at all under full thrust. It's that simple.
No, it isn't that simple. That is just a baseless assertion of your contradicted by every experiment and every rational analysis.
It should be clear to anyone who looks into it.
No, it shouldn't.
The evidence indicates it is real.
There is literally no reason to think it is fake.
In the fiction you are fed, nowhere.
You mean in the reality we are fed.
In denpressure it clearly shows how it all works, which I've explained time and time again
You have repeatedly failed to explain anything with denpressure.
If it was going to be due to air resistance, a large object would have a much greater effect than a small one, regardless of mass.
You rejecting how air works doesn't magically make the rest of your nonsense correct.
You didn't even bother attempting to explain why catching it causes him to move backwards.
In your fantasy land, without things like conservation of momentum, the ball isn't being pushed by the air. In fact, as it is moving through the air, the air should be acting to slow it down and stop it. What magically makes him move backwards when he catches it?
You take that compression away and he not only has no means of compressing the atmosphere in front
Good thing it isn't needed at all.
It is the reaction from throwing the ball that causes the movement.
he has no leverage to actually throw the ball in the first place.
What leverage does he need?
He has muscles, they are capable of moving. This allows him to move the ball (including throw it).
If he is magically using the air as leverage, then he shouldn't move at all.
It's pretty logical to understand and people should not be swayed by the dupe of pseudo science from mainstream.
No, rejecting reality from mainstream science leaves you with a bunch of self-contradictory nonsense that makes you incapable of explaining almost anything.
Meanwhile once you actually understand the science, things like this are very logical and very easy to understand.