Yep, as long as the pressure is positive, meaning contained or added to.
No, meaning note negative.
Again, the rate has no effect on if the value is positive or negative.
Stop pretending it does and start speaking English.
You need to clarify whatever it is you're trying to get across.
No clarification is needed, it is really quite simple.
If you stand next to a wall doing nothing and the wall collapses, you stay standing there (unless you decide to run).
But if you push or lean against a wall, and the wall falls, you move towards where the wall was.
Without pushing against (or towards) the wall, you have no reason to move towards it when it breaks.
The same applies to your gas.
If the gas is all moving away from a wall and not pushing against it, if that wall breaks there is no reason for the gas to suddenly start moving out.
But if the gas was always pushing outwards in all directions, pushing against the wall, then when it breaks, it will move outwards.
Hence the real model of gases which includes the fact that they push outwards in all directions at all times can explain this simple scenario, while your nonsense does not.
Where is the air loss?
Out the multitude of openings.
They will typically have at least 3, 1 for each arm and 1 for the head.
At no point was it ever enclosed, yet the pressure still acts on it to keep it "inflated".
So no, it proves you wrong.
You not liking that and claiming it proves you right doesn't mean it does. It just means you are rejecting reality yet again.
The expanded gas from the rocket (the burn in this case) compresses the stack down by that burning thrust and the resulting super compression now expanding back against what was expanded into it to compress it, crates the gas fight that the rocket sits atop of.
Again, this is pure nonsense.
How do you magically get the gas below more compressed?
The most compressed it will be is in the throat of the nozzle.
The rocket merely sits on this gas fight.
If the rocket merely sat on top, it would sit there going no where.
In order for the rocket to go upwards there must be a force acting on it pushing it up.
You keep mentioning sentient. Try and leave it out so you don;t waste your time.
The only waste of time here is you.
The simple fact is the way you have described your gas makes it appear sentient.
Normally gas tries to move outwards in all directions, pushing outwards in all directions.
But you claim for some reason it just magically stops doing that and instead just peacefully moves towards an opening.
But then if a new opening forms, without even pushing against it it somehow knows that it should turn around and move towards that opening.
This requires the gas to be sentient or be a highly advanced program.
Back in reality, the gas is not sentient. Instead it s just always pushing outwards in all directions.
And that works fine at explains so much, without contradicting itself or appealing to nonsense like sentient gas.
It's now resisting the gauge piston and spring
HOW?
Is it applying a force to the gauge? If so, that is applying a positive pressure to it.
Otherwise, it can't resist.
Again, speak English.
It is providing a decreasing, positive pressure.
The pressure being decreasing does not mean the value is not positive.
Again, there is no actual conundrum.
There is just you blatantly rejecting reality and making up new meanings for words.
The simple fact is all the available evidence shows that gases push outwards in all directions.
You have literally nothing to indicate otherwise.
Instead all you have is wild speculation based upon nothing, which requires so many contradictions and insane nonsense to try and prop up your fantasy.
And all of it is based upon a rejection of reality. You want Earth to be flat, so you feel a need to reject the reality of rockets working in a vacuum which clearly shows Earth is round, so you need to invent a whole new branch of physics with sentient gas to try and stop rockets working in a vacuum. But all you have done is gone down a path of pure insanity claiming positive numbers aren't positive and repeatedly contradicting yourself.
All while avoiding very simple questions which directly expose these contradictions.
Until you have consistent answers for all these questions which actually address the issue, you have nothing.
Again:
What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move (which isn't the rocket and which the rocket can't push against)?
How does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?
How does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?
And as a bonus question, just what evidence at all do you have that gas works the way you claim rather than the way mainstream science has shown it does?