How so, I'm using your model rocket theory? At least I'm trying to play your theory out. All you've been doing is saying, "just cuz."
Fine, keep using what you think. I'm simply saying you're using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to be told it is.
Isn't that exactly what you were doing with your model rocket theory? Using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to assume it isn't?
All I have is assumptions. I can only base an argument on how I see potentials for reality and fakey.
I could be wrong but I have not been proved wrong except to be told I'm wrong.
That's not good enough to change my thought process.
The thing is (if you are honest about it) you are merely following a mainstream narrative with an acceptance that what you are following, is fact and yet you have no knowing if the stories are fact or fiction.
In your favour and anyone's favour who follows those narratives is, mass opinions of a belief for the stories against stand out opinions against them by the few.
The few will always be swallowed by the many, so it's easier to appear to stand proud with the crowd to reel off a story told, as your mass truth, even if that story is a potential fabrication.
Fair points all around. I personally go with the preponderance of evidence mated with logic and plausibility. In the absence of such, highly skeptical, yes. I'm not a contrarian of mass thought and acceptance just to be so. Sometimes the masses are right, sometimes not. Each is to be taken on a case by case basis.
Exactly right and it's the taking it on a case by case basis that creates the issues of what I'm arguing against as to what you are arguing for.
What I'm saying is, your general mindset is to follow mass thought even though you understand that mass following of something does not make it a fact.
The issue is in the ease of how people are willing to accept as a fact, something which cannot be proven so, merely by count of numbers/masses against sceptical views against it being a fact.
This is where mainstream authority is adhered to...and fair enough in that respect. It's a natural thing for people to generally mimic and blindly follow the crowd that follows the idol narrators, kind of thing.
A sceptic is not in that same band. They will be deemed as
black sheep (the words convey a lot more than people realise) and contrarians, down to conspiracy nuts and so on and so on, whether they have any reason or no reason to be what they are.
The revered top scientist can become a nut job in short order for going against the grain.
People will shout " noo nooo, scientific scepticism is welcomed and new ideas are always welcome.
Of course...but it depends on what is welcome. That's the key.
Don't rock the boat that's already sailing, fix the one's that you're allowed to fix. If you get my meaning.
It's your theory that model rocketry shows that ICBM's can't exist. I showed you that your theory actually shows the contrary. So now that we've dispensed with your model rocket/fuel argument, what else you got? No fin theory?
You haven't dispensed with anything with me. You've took the high ground to pacify yourself. Fair enough to you.
You've done nothing to dampen down my mindset on this. Nothing at all.
Playing about with calculations for facts and potential fiction and marrying them up in your mind, is proving nothing of reality.
None of us can prove what the reality is. It's simply down to trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.
I took no high ground, I'm not even sure what you're referring to with that.
No dig. I'm just saying you use a model rocket to cater for something you've never witnessed, as if the large rockets we are told about work from the basis of that model rocket.
I'm merely saying that a rocket burns its fuel in extreme short order by having to push vertical at full thrust to gain the required altitude.
I'm saying it's not too high and the rest of what we're told is sketchy as all hell. Not to mention so called ICBM's.
You started your argument with your theory/observation of model rockets led you to believe that there isn't enough fuel to propel an ICBM as claimed, really, without backing up the assertion at all. I took your model rocket theory and rather unscientifically scaled it and showed that, you know what, that theory is probably not the right one for you to pursue.
Feel free to argue it. feel free to tell me I'm wrong.
I have no issue with that but I will only bow down when I feel I have nothing to add and I could be so wrong.
When that happens I'll happily hold my hands up.
I expect the same from others...but like I said: Mass opinion makes it extra hard for anyone to go sceptical.
You were the first to play with facts (model rockets) and apply them the to the potential fiction of ICBMs and marrying them up in your mind, not me. I just examined your theory more than you chose to do and found it neither here nor there.
I played the facts because they are the facts. Model rockets last for seconds in vertical flight before their fuel is expended.
It's not a fact that this applies to ICBM's and space rockets. I don't claim that as a fact. I don't believe those two rockets exist but I can't state it as a fact, so I have to use what I know to be reality to glean some semblance of rationality from what we're told about bigger missile/rockets.
Fuel to mass ratio is the real key. Fuel being it's own mass on top of the actual mass of the rocket.
Putting it in that respect, this is where a model rocket on scale would have to be literally scaled up against a so called ICBM.
Basically a little and large of identical proportions.
If one (little) expends it's fuel in short order with it's fuel to mass ration, then the larger one is equally going to expend it's fuel in short order, rendering them both at a limited altitude in seconds.
That's what I'm getting at.