It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

stop arguing amongst yourselves. it's obvious papa legba is one of you, with nothing better to do than try to discredit flat earth theory. why do you waste time?

flat earth theory is a serious endeavor, and a great deal of work has gone into it. the fact you've all decided to ignore that and play about with a troll who has no original thought and no capability for anything remotely interesting or intelligent just speaks wonders about how pathetic and desperate you all are. you cannot face the fact round earth theory is dying so you distract yourself with the pile of bullshit papa legba is spewing.

legba, now. leave. if you're so idiotic you do not understand the truth and you'd rather waste time discrediting something that shouldn't affect you, you're a waste of space. you do not understand anything. you know nothing about flat earth theory, and you may well know nothing at all, you just repeat the same old things, most of which is bs.

just leave already.

The fact that we have a hard time telling trolls apart from actual flat earthers says a thing or two about FET.

Again: you have no evidence I am a flat-earther. Because you cannot read.

A book on a table demonstrates merely that a book is on a table; you not only cannot read but cannot think.

I showed, through my link to the BuK M2E missile performance data which you either ignored or misinterpreted (reading issues again, markjo?), that military rocket designers do, indeed, know that rockets require atmospheric pressure to work.

But if you think I'm naming any of them for you then you are even dumber than I thought.

Which is quite extraordinarily dumb; I mean, really, you have no idea...

Lastly: Jroweskeptic; I asked for an explanation of precisely what you meant by 'go fuck yourself'. With diagrams, please, if possible?

You are all a joke.

& everybody is laughing at you.

This thread alone demonstrates to the neutral reader how completely morally & intellectually bankrupt you are.

Now carry on, proving me right every single time you post.

A book on a table demonstrates merely that a book is on a table; you not only cannot read but cannot think.

Does the weight of a book produce a force on a table or doesn't it?  It's a very simple question.

I showed, through my link to the BuK M2E missile performance data which you either ignored or misinterpreted (reading issues again, markjo?), that military rocket designers do, indeed, know that rockets require atmospheric pressure to work.

You showed no such thing.  Air to air missiles are routinely fired from altitudes far above 10,000 feet.

Your source says:

The missile system can operate in temperatures up to ± 50°C and wind speeds up to 30m/s. Its maximum operating altitude above sea level is 3,000m.

There is more to the system than the missile itself.

Hello again, children; it's time for a story...

Once upon a time, there was a zen novice who was struggling to attain enlightenment.
His master suggested that the novice shut himself in his cell for a month & meditate on an Ox.
Nothing but an Ox.
At the end of the month, the master opened the cell door & asked the novice to come out.
'I can't.' replied the novice, 'My horns won't fit through the door!'


Now; I have repeatedly told you that I am here to Open Doorways.

Some lead to Freedom; others lead... elsewhere.

Yet you resolutely refuse to enter them.

Why?

Because your horns won't fit through the door.




Space-horns, for Space-believers!











lol!

I showed, through my link to the BuK M2E missile performance data which you either ignored or misinterpreted (reading issues again, markjo?), that military rocket designers do, indeed, know that rockets require atmospheric pressure to work.

Can you point out where the specs in the Buk M2E article show that it relies on atmospheric pressure to work? I gives target ranges, a max altitude you can shoot it off from, but I didn't see anything about atmospheric pressure range.

I probably missed it. Could you point it out?

Quote from: Papa Legba on May 24, 2015, 09:57:41 PM

I showed, through my link to the BuK M2E missile performance data which you either ignored or misinterpreted (reading issues again, markjo?), that military rocket designers do, indeed, know that rockets require atmospheric pressure to work.

Can you point out where the specs in the Buk M2E article show that it relies on atmospheric pressure to work? I gives target ranges, a max altitude you can shoot it off from, but I didn't see anything about atmospheric pressure range.

I probably missed it. Could you point it out?

It doesn't it was just diversionary tactic  by that creepy little forum troll,  the cancerous Papa Legbefore

Hello again, children; it's time for a story...

Once upon a time, there was a zen novice who was struggling to attain enlightenment.
His master suggested that the novice shut himself in his cell for a month & meditate on an Ox.
Nothing but an Ox.
At the end of the month, the master opened the cell door & asked the novice to come out.
'I can't.' replied the novice, 'My horns won't fit through the door!'


Now; I have repeatedly told you that I am here to Open Doorways.

Some lead to Freedom; others lead... elsewhere.

Yet you resolutely refuse to enter them.

Why?

Because your horns won't fit through the door.




Space-horns, for Space-believers!











lol!

Maybe my horns are what's preventing me from going into a prison instead of getting out.

Quote from: legion on May 23, 2015, 12:43:30 PM

[

Quote

DISCUSSION: The rocket car is propelled along the floor according to the principle stated in Isaac Newton's third law of motion. "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." The balloon pushes on the air and the air pushes back on the balloon. Because the balloon is attached to the car, the car is pulled along by the balloon.

It really should read "The balloon pushes on the air inside the balloon, and the air inside the balloon pushes back on the balloon"

If that were the case, you would have no movement. Think about it. Anyway, time for a physics lesson that you can try at home:

Pressure is greater in the stationary fluid (air) than in the moving fluid (water stream). The atmosphere pushes the ball into the region of reduced pressure.

If any of the space adventure believers has an experiment to prove their "rockets push themselves along" beliefs, the go ahead and post it. Indoctrination and appeals to common sense(!) don't count.

It really should read "The balloon pushes on the air inside the balloon, and the air inside the balloon pushes back on the balloon"

Your missing a detail though. When an opening in the ballon is present then the air doesn't push against that part of the balloon. Therefore there is force on the opposite side of the balloon that isn't matched at the opening. Net force in one direction results in acceleration.

Quote from: legion on May 25, 2015, 12:30:02 PM

It really should read "The balloon pushes on the air inside the balloon, and the air inside the balloon pushes back on the balloon"

Your missing a detail though. When an opening in the ballon is present then the air doesn't push against that part of the balloon. Therefore there is force on the opposite side of the balloon that isn't matched at the opening. Net force in one direction results in acceleration.

Why would you think the air doesn't push on the opening? Did you not watch the physics video I linked?

Pressure is greater in the stationary fluid (air) than in the moving fluid (water stream). The atmosphere pushes the ball into the region of reduced pressure.

So in the case of the balloon, the higher speed, lower pressure air (relative to the stationary air in the room) coming out of the balloon, causes the atmosphere to push on the balloons opening and thereby creates a net force from the higher to lower pressure gradient.

This causes the balloon to move.

What have you got for anyone to test?

Quote from: Mainframes on May 25, 2015, 01:14:28 PM

Quote from: legion on May 25, 2015, 12:30:02 PM

It really should read "The balloon pushes on the air inside the balloon, and the air inside the balloon pushes back on the balloon"

Your missing a detail though. When an opening in the ballon is present then the air doesn't push against that part of the balloon. Therefore there is force on the opposite side of the balloon that isn't matched at the opening. Net force in one direction results in acceleration.

Why would you think the air doesn't push on the opening? Did you not watch the physics video I linked?

Because an opening is nothing.  How can something push on nothing?

Quote

Pressure is greater in the stationary fluid (air) than in the moving fluid (water stream). The atmosphere pushes the ball into the region of reduced pressure.

So in the case of the balloon, the higher speed, lower pressure air (relative to the stationary air in the room) coming out of the balloon, causes the atmosphere to push on the balloons opening and thereby creates a net force from the higher to lower pressure gradient.

This causes the balloon to move.

What have you got for anyone to test?

Although Bernoulli's principle does occur in the nozzle section of a balloon, unbalanced action/reaction forces also occur and must be accounted for.

To be rather honest, I am also rather pee'd that I am no where close to owning my own space ship.
If I spent less time here, and more time working towards my real life goals I could get a hell lot closer.
I think you can get a rocket for under $65 million and casual for about $10 million.

So right now, I am $74.7 million away from my own space ship!

To be rather honest, I am also rather pee'd that I am no where close to owning my own space ship.
If I spent less time here, and more time working towards my real life goals I could get a hell lot closer.
I think you can get a rocket for under $65 million and casual for about $10 million.

So right now, I am $74.7 million away from my own space ship!

Space ships don't cost anything. They don't exist. Now if you want to build a cheap rocket, I suggest a firework if you want fire or a water bottle rocket for even cheaper effects. Both rockets use the external atmsophere to work.

Total cost to you. About 1 dollar/pound or whatever currency you use that equates to it.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on May 26, 2015, 12:53:23 AM

To be rather honest, I am also rather pee'd that I am no where close to owning my own space ship.
If I spent less time here, and more time working towards my real life goals I could get a hell lot closer.
I think you can get a rocket for under $65 million and casual for about $10 million.

So right now, I am $74.7 million away from my own space ship!

Space ships don't cost anything. They don't exist. Now if you want to build a cheap rocket, I suggest a firework if you want fire or a water bottle rocket for even cheaper effects. Both rockets use the external atmsophere to work.

Total cost to you. About 1 dollar/pound or whatever currency you use that equates to it.

Ha ha..  Welcome to sceptimatic's low cost space program.   Replacing the Delta 4 heavy with a bottle rocket.    Seems an appropriate comparison between Flat Earth and Round Earth.  And here's a hint, the flat earth space program is NOT the  Delta 4.     

I was looking at the sister site earlier today, and there were some interesting observations about sceptimatic.

Tom Bishop thought sceptimatic was actually Eric Dubay. 
Thork says,   "Sceptimatic just talks bollocks. And lots of it."

I agree with Thork,  he seems the brightest of the bunch over there.    As for Tom Bishop thinking sceptimatic was Eric Dubay,  I'm not sure who ought to be more insulted.  If Eric Dubay's videos are any guide, he is as dumb as they come,  and sceptimatic is not far away.   

Fancy thinking that sun rays through clouds are an indicator of a close sun?   I mean seriously ...   that's  as idiotic as it comes.

 

Fancy thinking that sun rays through clouds are an indicator of a close sun?   I mean seriously ...   that's  as idiotic as it comes.

Guess you will have to put me in with the idiots. For I struggle to see how angular rays  coming through the clouds from a hot spot is an indicator of a distant sun.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 26, 2015, 02:21:51 AM

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on May 26, 2015, 12:53:23 AM

To be rather honest, I am also rather pee'd that I am no where close to owning my own space ship.
If I spent less time here, and more time working towards my real life goals I could get a hell lot closer.
I think you can get a rocket for under $65 million and casual for about $10 million.

So right now, I am $74.7 million away from my own space ship!

Space ships don't cost anything. They don't exist. Now if you want to build a cheap rocket, I suggest a firework if you want fire or a water bottle rocket for even cheaper effects. Both rockets use the external atmsophere to work.

Total cost to you. About 1 dollar/pound or whatever currency you use that equates to it.

Ha ha..  Welcome to sceptimatic's low cost space program.   Replacing the Delta 4 heavy with a bottle rocket.    Seems an appropriate comparison between Flat Earth and Round Earth.  And here's a hint, the flat earth space program is NOT the  Delta 4.     

I was looking at the sister site earlier today, and there were some interesting observations about sceptimatic.

Tom Bishop thought sceptimatic was actually Eric Dubay. 
Thork says,   "Sceptimatic just talks bollocks. And lots of it."

I agree with Thork,  he seems the brightest of the bunch over there.    As for Tom Bishop thinking sceptimatic was Eric Dubay,  I'm not sure who ought to be more insulted.  If Eric Dubay's videos are any guide, he is as dumb as they come,  and sceptimatic is not far away.   

Fancy thinking that sun rays through clouds are an indicator of a close sun?   I mean seriously ...   that's  as idiotic as it comes.

You're not really worth a toss to be fair. You stand out like a sore thumb as a shill.
Keep up the good work though because I do get a laugh out of dipshit's like you. 

Guess you will have to put me in with the idiots. For I struggle to see how angular rays  coming through the clouds from a hot spot is an indicator of a distant sun.

Ah,  ok,   get a piece of paper,  draw a circle on it representing the sun.   Now  draw straight lines from the sun to all points around the edge of the paper,  are those lines parallel?   

Now look at Eric Dubay's video again showing the sun coming through the clouds,  he says that the rays of the sun should be parallel if the sun is far away, and because they aren't parallel, he concludes the sun must be just above the clouds. 

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

He is just wrong.    And I believe deliberately misleading.   No one could be that stupid. 

You're not really worth a toss to be fair. You stand out like a sore thumb as a shill.
Keep up the good work though because I do get a laugh out of dipshit's like you. 

Yet another dumbass who doesn't know what a shill is.    Look it up and then come back and tell me that you aren't a shill.

PS.  Tom Bishop was wrong,  Eric Dubay you ain't   dumb as he is even he knows what a shill is.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 26, 2015, 03:42:41 AM

You're not really worth a toss to be fair. You stand out like a sore thumb as a shill.
Keep up the good work though because I do get a laugh out of dipshit's like you. 

Yet another dumbass who doesn't know what a shill is.    Look it up and then come back and tell me that you aren't a shill.

PS.  Tom Bishop was wrong,  Eric Dubay you ain't   dumb as he is even he knows what a shill is.

Your other names are just as horrble. Try one with a dfferent persona, you pleb.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 26, 2015, 03:45:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 26, 2015, 03:42:41 AM

You're not really worth a toss to be fair. You stand out like a sore thumb as a shill.
Keep up the good work though because I do get a laugh out of dipshit's like you. 

Yet another dumbass who doesn't know what a shill is.    Look it up and then come back and tell me that you aren't a shill.

PS.  Tom Bishop was wrong,  Eric Dubay you ain't   dumb as he is even he knows what a shill is.

Your other names are just as horrble. Try one with a dfferent persona, you pleb.

So now that we have the insults out of the way,  what is it about  rockets in space  that is your biggest concern.   Is it that you don't accept the physics,  or is it that you don't understand it.

Quote from: tappet on May 26, 2015, 03:16:14 AM

Guess you will have to put me in with the idiots. For I struggle to see how angular rays  coming through the clouds from a hot spot is an indicator of a distant sun.

Ah,  ok,   get a piece of paper,  draw a circle on it representing the sun.   Now  draw straight lines from the sun to all points around the edge of the paper,  are those lines parallel?   

If we are drawing cartoons, wouldn't you have to include a cloud in that drawing with a small gap in the cloud. Then the sun shining toward that gap with the light coming through the gap to all points around the edge of the paper?
Something smells fishy here.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 26, 2015, 03:43:38 AM

Quote from: tappet on May 26, 2015, 03:16:14 AM

Guess you will have to put me in with the idiots. For I struggle to see how angular rays  coming through the clouds from a hot spot is an indicator of a distant sun.

Ah,  ok,   get a piece of paper,  draw a circle on it representing the sun.   Now  draw straight lines from the sun to all points around the edge of the paper,  are those lines parallel?   

If we are drawing cartoons, wouldn't you have to include a cloud in that drawing with a small gap in the cloud. Then the sun shining toward that gap with the light coming through the gap to all points around the edge of the paper?
Something smells fishy here.

You could put a cloud in there if you like,  it's your drawing,   but it still won't make the rays of the sun parallel,  they will still radiate outwards from the sun.

Well you should have finished your drawing by now,  so now look at Eric Dubay's video where he claims the diverging rays prove the sun is just above the clouds?



All that proves is that he thinks his audience are easily fooled idiots,  ( or he is )
That screen grab is 2 minutes into this video " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Markjo: so; you admit that I DID NOT 'miss out a zero' in my interpretation of the BuK missile data?

Nor did I confuse 'maximum operational launching altitude' with 'maximum operational ceiling'.

Ergo; either you were wrong, or you lied.

Just making that clear before we carry on...

Now; of course the stats of the BuK don't state that it pushes on air, you dim-wits; why should they?

& besides, have you never heard of the Official Secrets Act?

Honestly; you are an embarrassment.

But they DO state that it will not take off above 3000 metres; now why should this be so?

All its other systems are capable of working at higher altitudes; so why should it be unable to take off?

The problem with solid-fuel rockets is that the larger they are & the longer the burn-time of the fuel they contain, the thicker the rocket casing must become in order to withstand the heat/pressure created therein (ammonium perchlorate burns at 3000+C; that's HOT); this imbalance results in their power-to-weight ratio becoming unfeasible above a certain size. & the BuK series are about as big as you'll get outside of NASA's fantasy Imagineering.

& don't mention the Trident; that's as fake as tits on a bull too.

Thus, even at sea-level the BuK is teetering on the verge of being unable to achieve launch velocity; in the rarefied air above 3000 metres altitude it has no chance.

Why?

BECAUSE IT RELIES ON ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN ORDER TO FUNCTION, YOU IDIOTS.

It's really very simple; you just have to apply a bit of logic. Besides which, all the facts on the matter have been known since at least the 1920s.

Well; to real rocket designers, that is...

But not to NASA-cultists.

Why?

Because they have reptiles in their minds, & their space-horns won't fit through the door.

LOL!

P.s. Rayzor/ausGeoff: you are just SO bad at this.

But keep it up; we all need the laughs.

Hubbard, Crowley & Parsons; CULT-LEADERS all!

Why do water rockets work better when you put water in them, opposed to just air?

Markjo: so; you admit that I DID NOT 'miss out a zero' in my interpretation of the BuK missile data?

Nor did I confuse 'maximum operational launching altitude' with 'maximum operational ceiling'.

Ergo; either you were wrong, or you lied.

To be honest, I checked a different source that listed the performance specs of the missile itself, not the support system.

Just making that clear before we carry on...

Now; of course the stats of the BuK don't state that it pushes on air, you dim-wits; why should they?

& besides, have you never heard of the Official Secrets Act?

Why would the US need to keep Russia's "Official Secrets"?

But they DO state that it will not take off above 3000 metres; now why should this be so?

No, they didn't say that.  They said:

The missile system can operate in temperatures up to ± 50°C and wind speeds up to 30m/s. Its maximum operating altitude above sea level is 3,000m.

Do you not understand the difference between a missile system and a missile?  I'll give you a hint: one is a part of the other.

All its other systems are capable of working at higher altitudes; so why should it be unable to take off?

Who said that the rest of the system is capable of working at higher altitudes?  So you have a source that you would be willing to share with the rest of the class?

Why is the maximum operating altitude of the system 3000 meters?  I honestly don't know.  I don't have any personal experience with that system, and I'm guessing that you don't either.  However, I wouldn't be surprised if at least part of the reason has to do with the fact that humans have a harder time breathing above 10,000 feet.

The problem with solid-fuel rockets is that the larger they are & the longer the burn-time of the fuel they contain, the thicker the rocket casing must become in order to withstand the heat/pressure created therein (ammonium perchlorate burns at 3000+C; that's HOT); this imbalance results in their power-to-weight ratio becoming unfeasible above a certain size. & the BuK series are about as big as you'll get outside of NASA's fantasy Imagineering.

& don't mention the Trident; that's as fake as tits on a bull too.

Okay, then how about the MX missile?  Or the Minuteman III?  How about the SA-2?

Thus, even at sea-level the BuK is teetering on the verge of being unable to achieve launch velocity; in the rarefied air above 3000 metres altitude it has no chance.

Why?

Citation, please.  I've seen videos of BuKs launching just fine.

BECAUSE IT RELIES ON ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN ORDER TO FUNCTION, YOU IDIOTS.

It's really very simple; you just have to apply a bit of logic. Besides which, all the facts on the matter have been known since at least the 1920s.

None of that explains why air to air missiles can be launched at altitudes much higher than 3000 meters.

All its other systems are capable of working at higher altitudes; so why should it be unable to take off?

The problem with solid-fuel rockets is that the larger they are & the longer the burn-time of the fuel they contain, the thicker the rocket casing must become in order to withstand the heat/pressure created therein (ammonium perchlorate burns at 3000+C; that's HOT); this imbalance results in their power-to-weight ratio becoming unfeasible above a certain size. & the BuK series are about as big as you'll get outside of NASA's fantasy Imagineering.

Nice of you to confirm that your ignorance of rocket engineering extends to solid fuel rockets.   You really need to do your research.   Go look at APCP rocket  design criteria.   

While we are talking Russian surface to air operational altitude limits,   what use would a surface to air missile system  be that couldn't shoot down a Cessna 150, because it couldn't reach that high.   For god's sake keep it to yourself, we wouldn't want Putin to know about the fatal weakness in his air defence capability.

Which prompts me to ask how high was MH17 flying when it was shot down by a Buk operated by Russians operating in Eastern Ukraine?   

Even the amateur's  manage to get APCP rockets past 120,000 ft   http://ddeville.com/derek/Qu8k.html

Even the A-Darter co-produced by Brazil and RSA gets fired from 13 700m. The A-Darter is the short range version.
I am no longer sure why rocket height is still an argument if you are prepared to believe anything at all.
There are loads and loads of examples of rockets going really really high . . . even to space 

You are all your own worst enemies; it is LOL.

Because all your above replies simply reinforce what I said.

But you're too stupid to realise that.

I'll let you stew in your own idiot-juice for a while before returning with yet more evidence on how rockets actually function.

You'll hate it!

Until then, keep up the space-dreams, cultists; after all, maybe one day it'll happen for YOU?

Just LOL!!!

You are all your own worst enemies; it is LOL.

Because all your above replies simply reinforce what I said.

But you're too stupid to realise that.

I'll let you stew in your own idiot-juice for a while before returning with yet more evidence on how rockets actually function.

You'll hate it!

Until then, keep up the space-dreams, cultists; after all, maybe one day it'll happen for YOU?

Just LOL!!!

Que?