We can clearly see with real rockets how quickly their fuel is spent...except for the rockets of space and war.
You mean we see with little toy rockets just how quickly their fuel is spent.
Likewise we see just how quickly little toy cars and planes use their fuel. That doesn't mean much larger ones will deplete the fuel in the same time.
Again, that stupidity is saying cars are fake because they should use their fuel far too quickly and only be able to go a few km at most.
There's a real good reason for that which you already know.
Yes, because all you have is BS. You have no rational arguments or evidence
To keep trying to gain more height or distance, you need to reduce the mass of your rocket, not add in bigger engines and structural mass, plus liquid fuel.
Again, we can try the same insanity with cars and planes.
According to you, if we want our cars or planes to go further or higher, we need to make them smaller, and that bigger engines and more fuel wont help.
Yet the exact opposite is observed in reality.
Small cars and planes, e.g. toy ones) go for quite a short distance.
Larger ones, i.e. one people can travel in, go for much further, and even bigger ones can typically go further still.
You clearly don't understand scale at all.
If you think they need to be smaller you should be able to show some formulas to show that is the case.
Yet all you can do is baselessly assert it.
To understand it all you have to do is look at a helicopter or a hovercraft
No I don't, as they operate via fundamentally different principles.
A helicopter operates by having a rotary wing. This wing moves through the air creating a pressure differential across the rotary wing which results in lift. Or at a simpler level, it deflects the air down and is pushed up in the process.
But even here it still just what is happening at the wing, not below.
To understand how a rocket works, all you need to understand is pressure.
If the pressure isn't balanced (such as because gas can escape out one opening), then it will impart a force.
If you have no resistance to the thrust you don't lift off.
Again, this makes no sense.
If you have thrust, you will lift off, at least if the thrust is large enough.
If you are throwing the exhaust gas one way, it necessitates a force in the opposite direction on the rocket.
No air is needed.
A drone in a low pressure chamber proves the point.
Again, the operate via fundamentally different principles and thus it proves nothing in regards to rockets.
The impossible setting off of of gunpowder in a low pressure chamber proves
Nothing more than that they were unable to set off that particular type of gunpowder.
You take away the medium and you take away the lift or movement.
Again, stop just baselessly asserting garbage. PROVE IT!
And before you say helicopters and hovercrafts are different
No. I will say it. They fly via fundamentally different mechanisms.
So before you try pretending they are the same, they fly via fundamentally different mechanisms.
You need to understand what science is before you start with that nonsense.
That would have been great advice for you before you started with all this nonsense. You seem to have no idea at all.
Of course they won't. To do that would lose them their status. Their bread and butter and even their sanity.
Yes, because it shows that they aren't being scientists at all and instead are spouting delusional nonsense, not backed up by anything at all and repeatedly contradicted by many experiments.
That is all. Nothing to do with any narrative.
Now, can you either back up your insane claim of everything requiring air for motion, or explain how your air magically pushes the rocket up without touching it as you have clearly dismissed the ability for a pressure to push the rocket up. If you accept pressure can push it up that means the pressurised exhaust gas can without the atmosphere.