USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war

  • 174 Replies
  • 21227 Views
?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #150 on: July 30, 2014, 01:20:12 PM »

Learn the concepts and there won't be a problem. A rocket engine can work under water because of how they work. A jet engine cannot work underwater because of how they work. It's amazing how ignorant you can be.
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.

I don't see how it's ignorant to believe something that is not only possible, but has been demonstrated to be possible for centuries.

Fuel can burn in the absence of air, easily. The fuel just needs to contain its own oxygen source, as in gunpowder. Bullets can fire underwater. Why couldn't rockets operate underwater?
A bullet can fire underwater because of the expansion of ignited gunpowder. Trying to fire a burning fuel rocket vertically out of water is a no go. Putting one into a near vacuum is also a no go.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #151 on: July 30, 2014, 01:22:36 PM »

Learn the concepts and there won't be a problem. A rocket engine can work under water because of how they work. A jet engine cannot work underwater because of how they work. It's amazing how ignorant you can be.
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.

I don't see how it's ignorant to believe something that is not only possible, but has been demonstrated to be possible for centuries.

Fuel can burn in the absence of air, easily. The fuel just needs to contain its own oxygen source, as in gunpowder. Bullets can fire underwater. Why couldn't rockets operate underwater?
A bullet can fire underwater because of the expansion of ignited gunpowder. Trying to fire a burning fuel rocket vertically out of water is a no go. Putting one into a near vacuum is also a no go.

A rocket can fire underwater and in a vacuum because of the expansion of ignited rocket fuel. All systems are go.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #152 on: July 30, 2014, 01:23:16 PM »
And scepti would obviously know these things because he has so much experience experimenting with them in real life......
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #153 on: July 30, 2014, 01:27:05 PM »

Learn the concepts and there won't be a problem. A rocket engine can work under water because of how they work. A jet engine cannot work underwater because of how they work. It's amazing how ignorant you can be.
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.

I don't see how it's ignorant to believe something that is not only possible, but has been demonstrated to be possible for centuries.

Fuel can burn in the absence of air, easily. The fuel just needs to contain its own oxygen source, as in gunpowder. Bullets can fire underwater. Why couldn't rockets operate underwater?
A bullet can fire underwater because of the expansion of ignited gunpowder. Trying to fire a burning fuel rocket vertically out of water is a no go. Putting one into a near vacuum is also a no go.

A rocket can fire underwater and in a vacuum because of the expansion of ignited rocket fuel. All systems are go.
Don't live your life on fantasy. Start using some common sense.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #154 on: July 30, 2014, 01:28:09 PM »
And scepti would obviously know these things because he has so much experience experimenting with them in real life......
Yep, you could say that.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #155 on: July 30, 2014, 01:36:53 PM »

Learn the concepts and there won't be a problem. A rocket engine can work under water because of how they work. A jet engine cannot work underwater because of how they work. It's amazing how ignorant you can be.
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.

I don't see how it's ignorant to believe something that is not only possible, but has been demonstrated to be possible for centuries.

Fuel can burn in the absence of air, easily. The fuel just needs to contain its own oxygen source, as in gunpowder. Bullets can fire underwater. Why couldn't rockets operate underwater?
A bullet can fire underwater because of the expansion of ignited gunpowder. Trying to fire a burning fuel rocket vertically out of water is a no go. Putting one into a near vacuum is also a no go.

A rocket can fire underwater and in a vacuum because of the expansion of ignited rocket fuel. All systems are go.
Don't live your life on fantasy. Start using some common sense.

Right back at you. (Notice how this argument doesn't get you anywhere.)
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38540
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #156 on: July 30, 2014, 01:41:22 PM »
A bullet can fire underwater because of the expansion of ignited gunpowder. Trying to fire a burning fuel rocket vertically out of water is a no go. Putting one into a near vacuum is also a no go.
Scepti, first of all, sub launched missiles do not burn underwater.  Compressed air pushes the rocket out of the water where the rocket ignites.  Secondly, a rocket can burn underwater or in a vacuum because it carries its own air supply, generally in the form of liquid oxygen.  Why are these two basic concepts so hard for you to understand?  What kind of evidence will it take for you to finally accept them?

Don't live your life on fantasy. Start using some common sense.
One man's fantasy is another man's common sense.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #157 on: July 30, 2014, 01:43:04 PM »

Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.

Do you know that both of the metals magnesium and sodium burn under water sceptimatic?  Nope?  Oh dear, so much for not using Wiki or Google eh?

Although I must say that I'm not surprised as you seem to mistakenly think that nothing can burn under water LOL.




?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #158 on: July 30, 2014, 02:05:07 PM »
A bullet can fire underwater because of the expansion of ignited gunpowder. Trying to fire a burning fuel rocket vertically out of water is a no go. Putting one into a near vacuum is also a no go.
Scepti, first of all, sub launched missiles do not burn underwater.  Compressed air pushes the rocket out of the water where the rocket ignites.  Secondly, a rocket can burn underwater or in a vacuum because it carries its own air supply, generally in the form of liquid oxygen.  Why are these two basic concepts so hard for you to understand?  What kind of evidence will it take for you to finally accept them?

Don't live your life on fantasy. Start using some common sense.
One man's fantasy is another man's common sense.
The sooner you realise why a rocket carries it's own oxygen supply the sooner you will realise how they actually do work.

Let me just explain, see if you can grasp it.
Imagine filling a rocket with just fuel, it would simply fall out of the rocket and ignite into a complete mess of a fire ball.
Adding oxygen to it allows the fuel to be forced out into a controlled fast burn, allowing it to super heat the atmosphere and create a huge void that causes the atmosphere to squeeze the rocket up by immediately filling that.

The oxygen in the rocket only serves the purpose of rocing out the ignited fuel.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #159 on: July 30, 2014, 02:07:06 PM »

Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.

Do you know that both of the metals magnesium and sodium burn under water sceptimatic?  Nope?  Oh dear, so much for not using Wiki or Google eh?

Although I must say that I'm not surprised as you seem to mistakenly think that nothing can burn under water LOL.
Lots of things burn underwater. Rockets in terms of ignited fuel for thrust will not work.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #160 on: July 30, 2014, 02:11:21 PM »

Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.

Do you know that both of the metals magnesium and sodium burn under water sceptimatic?  Nope?  Oh dear, so much for not using Wiki or Google eh?

Although I must say that I'm not surprised as you seem to mistakenly think that nothing can burn under water LOL.
Lots of things burn underwater. Rockets in terms of ignited fuel for thrust will not work.

Sure they will, even according to you:


The sooner you realise why a rocket carries it's own oxygen supply the sooner you will realise how they actually do work.

Let me just explain, see if you can grasp it.
Imagine filling a rocket with just fuel, it would simply fall out of the rocket and ignite into a complete mess of a fire ball.
Adding oxygen to it allows the fuel to be forced out into a controlled fast burn, allowing it to super heat the atmosphere water and create a huge void that causes the atmosphere water to squeeze the rocket up by immediately filling that.

The oxygen in the rocket only serves the purpose of rocing out the ignited fuel.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #161 on: July 30, 2014, 02:14:41 PM »

Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.

Do you know that both of the metals magnesium and sodium burn under water sceptimatic?  Nope?  Oh dear, so much for not using Wiki or Google eh?

Although I must say that I'm not surprised as you seem to mistakenly think that nothing can burn under water LOL.
Lots of things burn underwater. Rockets in terms of ignited fuel for thrust will not work.

Sure they will, even according to you:


The sooner you realise why a rocket carries it's own oxygen supply the sooner you will realise how they actually do work.

Let me just explain, see if you can grasp it.
Imagine filling a rocket with just fuel, it would simply fall out of the rocket and ignite into a complete mess of a fire ball.
Adding oxygen to it allows the fuel to be forced out into a controlled fast burn, allowing it to super heat the atmosphere water and create a huge void that causes the atmosphere water to squeeze the rocket up by immediately filling that.

The oxygen in the rocket only serves the purpose of rocing out the ignited fuel.
Oh, so you think rocket fuel will simply super heat the water to create a voide enough for a rocket to fly? Hahahaha.
You have a lot to learn.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #162 on: July 30, 2014, 02:17:54 PM »

Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.

Do you know that both of the metals magnesium and sodium burn under water sceptimatic?  Nope?  Oh dear, so much for not using Wiki or Google eh?

Although I must say that I'm not surprised as you seem to mistakenly think that nothing can burn under water LOL.
Lots of things burn underwater. Rockets in terms of ignited fuel for thrust will not work.

Sure they will, even according to you:


The sooner you realise why a rocket carries it's own oxygen supply the sooner you will realise how they actually do work.

Let me just explain, see if you can grasp it.
Imagine filling a rocket with just fuel, it would simply fall out of the rocket and ignite into a complete mess of a fire ball.
Adding oxygen to it allows the fuel to be forced out into a controlled fast burn, allowing it to super heat the atmosphere water and create a huge void that causes the atmosphere water to squeeze the rocket up by immediately filling that.

The oxygen in the rocket only serves the purpose of rocing out the ignited fuel.
Oh, so you think rocket fuel will simply super heat the water to create a voide enough for a rocket to fly? Hahahaha.
You have a lot to learn.

No, that's what you think, according to how your own description of how a rocket works in air. Why would it be any different it water, according to you?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #163 on: July 30, 2014, 02:19:38 PM »
Lots of things burn underwater. Rockets in terms of ignited fuel for thrust will not work.

So if I fabricate a small rocket using powdered aluminium, sulphur and magnesium, you're claiming I can't fire it underwater?

And think carefully before you answer this.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #164 on: July 30, 2014, 02:28:10 PM »
Lots of things burn underwater. Rockets in terms of ignited fuel for thrust will not work.

So if I fabricate a small rocket using powdered aluminium, sulphur and magnesium, you're claiming I can't fire it underwater?

And think carefully before you answer this.
You won't launch it into the sky from under the water.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #165 on: July 30, 2014, 02:42:14 PM »
You won't launch it into the sky from under the water.

And why do you say this exactly?  Have you tried this experiment yourself?  And assuming you have (in order to denounce it so strongly) how did you utilise the three materials, and what did you use for your rocket casing?  BTW,  what purpose does the powdered aluminium serve?


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22962
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #166 on: July 30, 2014, 02:54:24 PM »
You won't launch it into the sky from under the water.

And why do you say this exactly?  Have you tried this experiment yourself?  And assuming you have (in order to denounce it so strongly) how did you utilise the three materials, and what did you use for your rocket casing?  BTW,  what purpose does the powdered aluminium serve?
What do you mean what purpose does it serve?
We are talking about rockets taking off from under water. We don't need to go into stuff like thermite and what not. We are talking about moving a ballistic missile from under water into the sky.

We are told that compressed air shoots the missile out of the water, then the rocket burn kicks in and off it goes.
Some videos show this happening.

Other videos show the rocket coming out of the water already ignited.
I'm telling you right now that neither can happen in how we are shown.

Not a hope in hell are you going to get a 20 odd foot long ballistic missile through 120 feet of water by air pressure to jump out of the sea, then to ignite and on it's merry way.
Not a hope in hell.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #167 on: July 30, 2014, 04:03:06 PM »

Not a hope in hell are you going to get a 20 odd foot long ballistic missile through 120 feet of water by air pressure to jump out of the sea, then to ignite and on it's merry way.
Not a hope in hell.

I wasn't asking you about full-sized rockets.  I was asking you questions specifically about a little home-made rocket anybody can make in their backyard with only cheap, simple gear.  And launch from underwater, and which will travel at least 20 metres into the air.

I'm refuting your claim that you can't launch a rocket from underwater.  You're wrong.  Simple as that.  Sorry.


*

Socratic Amusement

  • 636
  • An Exercise in Witty Exploration
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #168 on: July 30, 2014, 04:03:13 PM »

Learn the concepts and there won't be a problem. A rocket engine can work under water because of how they work. A jet engine cannot work underwater because of how they work. It's amazing how ignorant you can be.
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.

Scpeti, you have no right to call anyone ignorant in that subject, when you have been presented with not only diagrams of how it works, but video of it actually working, you simply deny it with your lazy cop out of "deep thinking."

If you really could articulate why we were incorrect, you would have explained why in detail ages ago.

But you can't.
I've explained and better explained why it's a lie. If you haven't looked, then do so.

I have looked. Your answers are:

1. "I had a deep think about this..."
2. "Its bullshit."
3. "I have already answered the question."

None of those answers are scientific, nor have you come up with a counter to demonstrable evidence that anyone can perform in their own back yard.

I trust my eyes, my experiences, and demonstrable science more than I trust your "deep think."
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38540
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #169 on: July 30, 2014, 06:12:58 PM »
Let me just explain, see if you can grasp it.
Imagine filling a rocket with just fuel, it would simply fall out of the rocket and ignite into a complete mess of a fire ball.
Adding oxygen to it allows the fuel to be forced out into a controlled fast burn, allowing it to super heat the atmosphere and create a huge void that causes the atmosphere to squeeze the rocket up by immediately filling that.

The oxygen in the rocket only serves the purpose of rocing out the ignited fuel.
??? Scepti, are you saying that fuel can burn without oxygen?  Last I knew, fire needs 3 things: fuel, heat and oxygen.  Are you saying that this is not true?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #170 on: July 30, 2014, 06:17:36 PM »
Let me just explain, see if you can grasp it.
Imagine filling a rocket with just fuel, it would simply fall out of the rocket and ignite into a complete mess of a fire ball.
Adding oxygen to it allows the fuel to be forced out into a controlled fast burn, allowing it to super heat the atmosphere and create a huge void that causes the atmosphere to squeeze the rocket up by immediately filling that.

The oxygen in the rocket only serves the purpose of rocing out the ignited fuel.
??? Scepti, are you saying that fuel can burn without oxygen?  Last I knew, fire needs 3 things: fuel, heat and oxygen.  Are you saying that this is not true?

Well he won't admit it now that you told him what is needed to make fire. It's always more fun to just ask the question initially so that we can see what he says.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #171 on: July 31, 2014, 09:35:09 PM »
By now, everybody will have noted that sceptimatic never responded to my little story about making a home-made "rocket" that anybody (except sceptimatic himself probably LOL) can make in their backyard.  And launch from underwater, and propel 20m or so into the air.

It's more than obvious by the nature of his posts here that he has virtually no comprehension of the principles of jet propulsion.  His "understanding" of basic physics would make a high-schooler blush.


*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #172 on: August 02, 2014, 03:51:42 AM »
This non-response from sceptimatic again proves that when confronted with any sort of legitimate scientific problem that he can't address, he simply disappears from the thread, never to be seen again.

So... I stand by my claim that sceptimatic has absolutely no idea of rocket and/or jet engine technology.  If he had, he would've asked me how I manged to carry out my little experiment with my homemade "rocket".  But he didn't.  Which tells me a lot.


?

guv

  • 1132
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #173 on: August 02, 2014, 04:11:29 AM »

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #174 on: August 02, 2014, 04:38:34 AM »
Septic read this and weep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

Good link.

But I'm guessing that as sceptimatic's final comment in this thread was:  "Not a hope in hell are you going to get a 20 odd foot long ballistic missile through 120 feet of water by air pressure to jump out of the sea, then to ignite and on it's merry way.  Not a hope in hell" there's very little likelihood of him reading through it.

He has all the evidence he needs:  Not a hope in hell.  And he says it twice just to prove the point.   ;D