If it's accelerating then it isn't max thrusting from lift off
Again, that depends upon your idea of max thrust.
If you mean using all the fuel at once to achieve the maximum possible thrust from the fuel, then no, it isn't. But no rocket does.
If you mean just having the maximum constant thrust the engine is designed for, then no it can be.
somehow building its thrust by throttle of some kind.
Nope. No increase of thrust is required.
It can accelerate with that thrust.
Not it doesn't.
The vertical rocket is always pushing through lesser atmosphere with each millimetre.
Yes it does.
Remember, you are claiming it is this atmosphere which is creating the resistance to motion. That means it now resists the motion of the rocket less. This means a lower force would be able to accelerate the rocket more. This is balanced with the reduction of your reactionary force from the exhaust.
So it is balanced, the effective thrust remains the same.
So as it is losing mass, it will accelerate.
The horizontal rocket on wheels would be thrusting against equal atmospheric pressure throughout.
Yes, unlike the vertical rocket which is resisted less and less by the atmosphere.
A massive difference.
I never said they were the same. The effect would be the same.
In one you have constant thrust and resistance due to the constant atmosphere (in your model).
With the other you have a thrust which is reducing based upon the atmospheric pressure combined with a resistance which is reducing based upon the atmospheric pressure.
There is no way for you to be consistent and have your objection.
You require accepting reality, that the object will resist the motion based upon its mass with basically nothing to do with the atmosphere, while at the same time completely rejecting that and claiming the exhaust will only resist moving through the atmosphere with nothing to do with its mass.
You require directly contradicting yourself.
How about explaining this so called ICBM and tell me if the stats back it up.
How about you try dealing with the basics first?
I also provided you math (not stats) to show it is fine to launch from a sub out of the water and you completely ignored it.
If you aren't going to accept the basics of how rockets work, what is the point in providing you with the math?
Ok, so under this missile we have to believe that compressed air can....not only pressurise the entire container to hold back the membrane from the pressure of the ocean
That is the static pressure inside the tube, not just below it. They would then add to this pressure.
but it also has to have enough compression under the rocket's arse end in just over a foot of space
Why just over a foot of space?
While the bottom of the rocket is in the tube, the compressed air can continue to accelerate it.
It will continue to accelerate until it is out of the tube.
to negate that breached membrane
What needs to be negated?
And you wonder why I question this stuff?
No, I know why. Because you don't like reality and seem to want to reject as much physics as possible to pretend it is all a lie and to pretend you are better than everyone else because you "realise" it's "garbage" while other "indoctrinated fools" just "accept it".
What I want to know is why any sane, rational person should reject it.
So far all you have are appeals to ridicule. That wont convince any sane person.
What experiments have you done to verify what I'm arguing against with ICBM's?
Tests on rockets to understand how they work.
Testing to see what force rocket engines produce.
Testing rocket launches to see that they continue to accelerate as expected by mainstream physics.
Tests with water to determine how it resists motion.
Actually understanding the physics behind it.
Meanwhile what have you done?
You see it launch and then just wildly speculate.
What I don't have is the exact drag coefficient for ICBMs, or their relative density, hence I approximated it. Variations in that can change it, but not enough to make it impossible unless they do something stupid like try and push it up sideways.
I have many ways of improving my understanding of reality
Yes, you just choose not to do so.
but to get to the reality is not as simple as it seems when you have to wade through a plethora of nonsense/fantasy and a mixture of truth's and misinformation in a deceiving mixture, it seems.
Sure it is. You ignore all that and do the experiments yourself.
Would I be allowed to visit the sub and check out the launch tube and missiles?
How about you try doing what I suggested instead?
You don't need the ICBM to understand the physics behind it.
If you want to claim that the ICBM is the only way, then all your comparisons because dishonest garbage.
If you demand that the ICBM is the only way then every argument needs to be based upon that. Your soap becomes irrelevant. Bullets in water become irrelevant. Model rockets become irrelevant.
The only way for them to be relevant is to understand the physics behind it and thus be able to extrapolate to ICBMs, without needing to see one or use one.
I can't because I don't have a clue how this would work to have any purpose.
The purpose has already been explained. Trying to have it all accelerate at once would destroy it on the launchpad, not very effective.
If you wanted just constant velocity, then enjoy waiting hours for the rocket to arrive and wasting loads of fuel.
I'm merely saying that, if you think they accelerate until they lose their thrust then there must be some kind of throttling up.
If there isn't then they don't do what you say.
No, we will continue to say reality, no matter how often you reject it.
If they keep a constant thrust, they will continue to accelerate.
You need more than your baseless garbage to convince us to stop saying it.
Under max thrust. I am disputing it. Vertically.
And what is your basis for disputing it?
Directly contradicting yourself.
If they don't have a magic throttle them they don't magically accelerate.
That's right, they accelerate normally, with no magic involved.
You people seem to be more interested in them.
I understand why.
You sure don't seem to.
They allow you to perform experiments to verify or refute the claims you make about rockets.
You can easily set up a test yourself to observe that they continue to accelerate until their fuel is depleted. You can also observe that they continue to move upwards after the engine is off.
They don't just magically springboard up to a constant velocity and then stop dead once their fuel is depleted.
But you don't want to do these tests, almost like you know they will show you are wrong and you don't want to accept reality.
It's easier to refer to model rockets as if they somehow back up the reality of so called ICBM's
Yes, because they do.
We have actual experiments backing up our claims.
You have nothing but wild fantasy and completely invalid comparisons which indicate that planes and cars can't last more than tens of minutes before needing more fuel.
Everything about that proves I'm correct.
No, nothing about it proves you are correct.