I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 26, 2016, 06:16:47 AM

If it was not for these weapons we would at least be on ww3 by now. The math is not complicated to build one of these, at least not a simple a bomb (getting the enriched material is a different story). I know intelligence, math, coherent thinking and general sanity is not your strong suit. Just try to keep up for once.

I am always impressed by these weapons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W62

A typical US built ICBM has start mass 78 000 kg to bring a 114 kg (253 lb) a W62 American thermonuclear warhead to the target and wipe out Moscow.

A typical ICBM is thus most fuel (say 77 000 kg) to bring the warhead to an altitude of 1 112 000 m from where it then drops to hit ground at 7 000 m/s speed after a successful re-entry.

Imagine putting such 78 tons ICBMs on a submarine!

We don't have to. There are SLBM's such as the Trident I & II for that.

Topic is of course my Challenge about the amount of fuel used to do a space trip.

ICBMs do space trips - straight up in space, turn and down again to wipe out Moscow - and it is of course of interest to study how much fuel they use for it. Why doesn't the small, light weight nuclear war head just continue into space. Why does it stop, turn and re-enter and return to destroy Moscow?

The reason is simple. It is all a stupid hoax but a military secret that if revealed is punished by DEATH! Anybody like me actually proving that nuclear bombs and space trips are fake will be punished by DEATH.

It is not funny to be punished by DEATH but I do it anyway. I am not afraid of DEATH, you see.

ICBMs do space trips - straight up in space, turn and down again to wipe out Moscow - and it is of course of interest to study how much fuel they use for it.

No, not straight up.  On a parabolic ballistic trajectory.  Also, not all ICBMs are aimed at Moscow.

Why doesn't the small, light weight nuclear war head just continue into space. Why does it stop, turn and re-enter and return to destroy Moscow?

Umm... Gravity, perhaps.

Topic is of course my Challenge about the amount of fuel used to do a space trip.

ICBMs do space trips - straight up in space, turn and down again to wipe out Moscow - and it is of course of interest to study how much fuel they use for it. Why doesn't the small, light weight nuclear war head just continue into space. Why does it stop, turn and re-enter and return to destroy Moscow?

The reason is simple. It is all a stupid hoax but a military secret that if revealed is punished by DEATH! Anybody like me actually proving that nuclear bombs and space trips are fake will be punished by DEATH.

It is not funny to be punished by DEATH but I do it anyway. I am not afraid of DEATH, you see.

you didn't prove anything, let alone nuclear weapons don't exist.

Topic is of course my Challenge about the amount of fuel used to do a space trip.

ICBMs do space trips - straight up in space, turn and down again to wipe out Moscow - and it is of course of interest to study how much fuel they use for it. Why doesn't the small, light weight nuclear war head just continue into space. Why does it stop, turn and re-enter and return to destroy Moscow?

The reason is simple. It is all a stupid hoax but a military secret that if revealed is punished by DEATH! Anybody like me actually proving that nuclear bombs and space trips are fake will be punished by DEATH.

It is not funny to be punished by DEATH but I do it anyway. I am not afraid of DEATH, you see.

Stop lying.  You have not been punished by death and you have not proven anything.  You do not have access to any classified info which would be required to the law you're fond of quoting to even apply.  Stop lying.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 02, 2016, 11:14:31 AM

ICBMs do space trips - straight up in space, turn and down again to wipe out Moscow - and it is of course of interest to study how much fuel they use for it.

No, not straight up.  On a parabolic ballistic trajectory.  Also, not all ICBMs are aimed at Moscow.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 02, 2016, 11:14:31 AM

Why doesn't the small, light weight nuclear war head just continue into space. Why does it stop, turn and re-enter and return to destroy Moscow?

Umm... Gravity, perhaps.

Yes, gravity does make human space travel impossible. You cannot lift the space craft with humans off the ground. Too heavy!
And gravity also makes ICBMs impossible. Gravity pulls them back so fast that they burn up at re-entry like meteoroids. Vaporized. Useless. Only military people can invent such nonsense.

Any person trying to win my Challenge (topic) must really understand what gravity is (apart from making the Challenge impossible to win). 

Quote from: markjo on May 02, 2016, 11:22:18 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 02, 2016, 11:14:31 AM

ICBMs do space trips - straight up in space, turn and down again to wipe out Moscow - and it is of course of interest to study how much fuel they use for it.

No, not straight up.  On a parabolic ballistic trajectory.  Also, not all ICBMs are aimed at Moscow.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 02, 2016, 11:14:31 AM

Why doesn't the small, light weight nuclear war head just continue into space. Why does it stop, turn and re-enter and return to destroy Moscow?

Umm... Gravity, perhaps.

Yes, gravity does make human space travel impossible.

You keep confusing the words "difficult" and "impossible".  They aren't the same thing.  Human space travel is, without doubt, very difficult, but by no means impossible.

You cannot lift the space craft with humans off the ground. Too heavy!

Then maybe they should try using lighter humans.

Seriously, what's the difference between lifting a one ton unmanned satellite into orbit and lifting a one ton manned satellite into orbit?

And gravity also makes ICBMs impossible. Gravity pulls them back so fast that they burn up at re-entry like meteoroids. Vaporized. Useless.

That is unless someone can figure out a trajectory that minimizes the heating of reentry and some sort of insulation to protect the warhead from the extreme heat.

Only military people can invent such nonsense.

Gee, I wonder how metal foundries protect their crucibles from similar extreme heating conditions.

LOL!!!

As if by magic the shopkeeper appeared...

It is all a stupid hoax but a military secret that if revealed is punished by DEATH! Anybody like me actually proving that nuclear bombs and space trips are fake will be punished by DEATH.

It is not funny to be punished by DEATH but I do it anyway. I am not afraid of DEATH, you see.

OOOH SCARY!!! O NOEZ O NOEZ TEH BADD MENN GUNNA GETT MI O NOEZ!1!1!11!!!!!

But I've gone even further than you & proved that nuclear power is also fake & rockets can't possibly work in a vacuum...

Should I be SCARED then, BabyHeiwa?

SCARED... of TEH DETH TWICE OVER?!1!??1!11!1//?/!1.??!!!!!

Cos I ain't all SPECIAL & UNAFRAID like you?

Or is it more like that I can say what the fuck I want, about what the fuck I want, & no-one will ever do a damn thing about it, ever?

Cos I think that's how it works...

Just GTFO & polish that Lamborghini your Monagesque mate let you photo, you old fraud...

It's the least you could do, you fear-porn spamming, sock-puppeting, & utterly, utterly busted shill.

Oh, & you troll youtube as Jon Devaugh too; just a little 'fuck you' as an aperitif...

Quote from: Heiwa on May 02, 2016, 11:43:48 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 02, 2016, 11:22:18 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 02, 2016, 11:14:31 AM

ICBMs do space trips - straight up in space, turn and down again to wipe out Moscow - and it is of course of interest to study how much fuel they use for it.

No, not straight up.  On a parabolic ballistic trajectory.  Also, not all ICBMs are aimed at Moscow.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 02, 2016, 11:14:31 AM

Why doesn't the small, light weight nuclear war head just continue into space. Why does it stop, turn and re-enter and return to destroy Moscow?

Umm... Gravity, perhaps.

Yes, gravity does make human space travel impossible.

You keep confusing the words "difficult" and "impossible".  They aren't the same thing.  Human space travel is, without doubt, very difficult, but by no means impossible.

OK, show that it is possible and win my Challenge.

How much fuel do you need for the various stunts to get away from Earth, brake, stop and land at targets (Moon and Mars), take off again and finally brake stop and land on Earth to complete the trip.

Do you really understand how gravity forces affect your spacecraft during the trip?

I doubt it.

I evidently prefer one-way space trips done by Arianespace all the time a explained many times. One way is without humans aboard. Only instruments of all kind are aboard. Easy. But I cannot even understand the purpose of human return trips. What have humans to do up there?

OK, show that it is possible and win my Challenge.

Nah.  You've already convinced me that it would just be a waste of time because you refuse to believe that manned space flight is possible.

How much fuel do you need for the various stunts to get away from Earth, brake, stop and land at targets (Moon and Mars), take off again and finally brake stop and land on Earth to complete the trip.

I keep telling you that the formulas for fuel calculations are the same for manned and unmanned missions.  Maybe this page will help you with your own calculations:
http://www.quantumg.net/rocketeq.html

Do you really understand how gravity forces affect your spacecraft during the trip?

In general, yes.

I evidently prefer one-way space trips done by Arianespace all the time a explained many times. One way is without humans aboard. Only instruments of all kind are aboard. Easy.

Of course one way trips are easier than round trips.  However, don't ever think of one way trips as easy.  Getting to orbit is still the most fuel intensive part of any space trip.

But I cannot even understand the purpose of human return trips. What have humans to do up there?

What do humans have to do on 6 month long sea voyages?

OK, show that it is possible and win my Challenge.

Show that proving nukes & space travel are fake is punishable by DEATH & stop people from thinking that you are a fear-porn spamming Shill first, BabyHeiwa...

Cos I don't feel DEAD right now; could it be you are LYING?

What do humans have to do on 6 month long sea voyages?

Off topic, but anyway. They look after the vessel transporting cargo from A to B and are paid for it. Reminds me of JFK starting this nonsense of manned space trips. JFK alleges that he less than 20 years earlier was on a ship in the South Seas chasing yellow monkies and suddenly he was in the sea himself swimming ashore. What nonsense.

Now try to focus on the topic.

Don't tell me a formula for calculating fuel consumption. Tell me the fuel used for a manned space trip, not just the start into orbit, blah, blah.

It seems the China way of space travel is straight to targets. No orbits around anything delaying the trip. Maybe they save fuel that way?

Quote from: markjo on May 02, 2016, 11:22:18 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 02, 2016, 11:14:31 AM

ICBMs do space trips - straight up in space, turn and down again to wipe out Moscow - and it is of course of interest to study how much fuel they use for it.

No, not straight up.  On a parabolic ballistic trajectory.  Also, not all ICBMs are aimed at Moscow.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 02, 2016, 11:14:31 AM

Why doesn't the small, light weight nuclear war head just continue into space. Why does it stop, turn and re-enter and return to destroy Moscow?

Umm... Gravity, perhaps.

Yes, gravity does make human space travel impossible. You cannot lift the space craft with humans off the ground. Too heavy!
And gravity also makes ICBMs impossible. Gravity pulls them back so fast that they burn up at re-entry like meteoroids. Vaporized. Useless. Only military people can invent such nonsense.

Any person trying to win my Challenge (topic) must really understand what gravity is (apart from making the Challenge impossible to win).

So once again I got to post the TWR of the Saturn V.  Keep in mind this TWR assumes GVM and likely the TWR would be higher.

TWR of the Saturn V on the pad:

5 F-1 engines with 6.672.000 N thrust each=33,360,000 N

2 896 895 kg gross rocket mass

(6,672,000N*5)/(2,896,895*9. 8 )=1.17  TWR

Where are your calculations besides just adding the fuel mass and saying it was a lot?

As for sub-orbital flight it takes a lot less fuel even if the craft reaches space.  Simply because orbital velocity does not need to be achieved.

Funny how gravity in your model changes to support your claims.  Can not go to the moon because the craft would be pulled back and crash into Earth.  Yet for things like gravity assist and sub-orbital flight it does not effect the craft. For ICBMs they will continue into space as an example.

My guess you will still fail to show us your calculations for TWR. Why is that?  You are claiming something like the Saturn V could not lift off, you seem pretty sure you are right.  To me that means you have evidence and can show us the calculations you did.

You must have missed this before, since it is regarding what you continually point out the topic is your challenge:

Can you provide evidence you have the funds doing something similar to this?



Now if I was to tell you I will give you $8,000 for doing something you can see that today I have it in a checking account.  It does not insure I will have it tomorrow or will pay it, but it does show I have the funds now and capable of earning enough to pay you.

The address you give is to a building that is owned and operated by a company that provides subsidized housing.  This seems to indicate your gross assets are valued at less than €1,000,000.  Can you offer evidence you do not receive a subsidy for your rent/mortgage or you own your home?

You state, "basic principles of astrophysics" are to be used to win your challenge. What basic principles?  Are they the ones I can find in books on the subject?  The stuff taught in schools?  The ones astronomers claim are correct?  The principles Arianespace uses to put satellites into orbit?

You have demonstrated you do not understand the subject matter of your challenge.  I showed you the delta-v and ISP for the Saturn V and then you asked questions that were answered by that information.  Like the amount of fuel needed and how much gets used during a burn.  You claimed my calculations did not take pressure or gravity into account when they did and I provided you a link with the methodology I used.  Which suggest you discounted my calculations and results without reviewing them.

You made a claim you were sentenced to death in the US for revealing nuclear secretes.  When did you receive this sentence?  When did you have access to classified information about US nuclear technology?  What US Government agency or contractor did you work for? I am asking since I believe this is a false claim and suggest you are not completely honest.

Taking the above into consideration how are you qualified to judge the challenge? How are you going to ensure a fair ruling?

The above are reasonable questions regarding your challenge.  Considering the amount of time someone would need to invest in doing it if they do not just copy and paste what NASA has already done.

Quote from: markjo on May 02, 2016, 01:09:01 PM

What do humans have to do on 6 month long sea voyages?

Off topic, but anyway. They look after the vessel transporting cargo from A to B and are paid for it. Reminds me of JFK starting this nonsense of manned space trips. JFK alleges that he less than 20 years earlier was on a ship in the South Seas chasing yellow monkies and suddenly he was in the sea himself swimming ashore. What nonsense.

Now try to focus on the topic.

Don't tell me a formula for calculating fuel consumption. Tell me the fuel used for a manned space trip, not just the start into orbit, blah, blah.

It seems the China way of space travel is straight to targets. No orbits around anything delaying the trip. Maybe they save fuel that way?

Seems you missed where I posted the Saturn V's Delta V, fuel burned per second, amount of Delta -v needed to get from the surface of the Earth to lunar orbit and back.

You continue to fail to show where those calculations are wrong.  I wonder why?  Is it because you can not or are you choosing to withhold evidence you are right?

Going direct does save some delta-v and omitting orbiting the Earth first in some situations.  Many times orbiting the Earth is used as a safety measure and will most likely be used for manned missions.

Remember this bullshit?

It is all a stupid hoax but a military secret that if revealed is punished by DEATH! Anybody like me actually proving that nuclear bombs and space trips are fake will be punished by DEATH.

It is not funny to be punished by DEATH but I do it anyway. I am not afraid of DEATH, you see.

Yeah, well I've proved a LOT more than you & I'm still not dead?

Can you recommend someone I should see about this?

Teh CIA maybe?

Teh MI5?

Teh Jason Bourne even?

LOL!!!

You are so busted, Heiwababy...

And watching all the Clown Defers desperately trying to cover your arse for you is pure Comedy Gold!

Hey, I know! Why don't you all start calling me a Troll? And trying to reportfag me into oblivion?

Cos it's the closest I'll ever come to actual DEATH for proving nuclear fission & space travel is fake.

You ridiculous old fraud.

Remember this bullshit?

Quote from: Heiwa on May 02, 2016, 11:14:31 AM

It is all a stupid hoax but a military secret that if revealed is punished by DEATH! Anybody like me actually proving that nuclear bombs and space trips are fake will be punished by DEATH.

It is not funny to be punished by DEATH but I do it anyway. I am not afraid of DEATH, you see.

Yeah, well I've proved a LOT more than you & I'm still not dead?

Can you recommend someone I should see about this?

Teh CIA maybe?

Teh MI5?

Teh Jason Bourne even?

LOL!!!

You are so busted, Heiwababy...

And watching all the Clown Defers desperately trying to cover your arse for you is pure Comedy Gold!

Hey, I know! Why don't you all start calling me a Troll? And trying to reportfag me into oblivion?

Cos it's the closest I'll ever come to actual DEATH for proving nuclear fission & space travel is fake.

You ridiculous old fraud.

Mother f#$%er he is back!! I thought the abortion had disappeared.

Do you not see why I loathe this guy!! He isn't even fun, he is a sad case of an attempted but failed "push me down the stairs" abortion. 

No one believes anything you say heiwa!! GO AWAY!! Wherever you disappeared before GO BACK!!

Legba.... Please don't joke about babyheiwa, I want nothing even remotely close to association with him. You are intelligent enough to know there isn't even one tiny sliver of truth in that. Plus I will gladly show my IP address to show I am in Texas and certainly not in France.

Why do you think I am mad that I have not become a cowboy astronaut millionaire??

In short, that joke isn't even funny to me....its like nails in a chalk board.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 02, 2016, 01:21:52 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 02, 2016, 01:09:01 PM

What do humans have to do on 6 month long sea voyages?

Off topic, but anyway. They look after the vessel transporting cargo from A to B and are paid for it. Reminds me of JFK starting this nonsense of manned space trips. JFK alleges that he less than 20 years earlier was on a ship in the South Seas chasing yellow monkies and suddenly he was in the sea himself swimming ashore. What nonsense.

Now try to focus on the topic.

Don't tell me a formula for calculating fuel consumption. Tell me the fuel used for a manned space trip, not just the start into orbit, blah, blah.

It seems the China way of space travel is straight to targets. No orbits around anything delaying the trip. Maybe they save fuel that way?

Seems you missed where I posted the Saturn V's Delta V, fuel burned per second, amount of Delta -v needed to get from the surface of the Earth to lunar orbit and back.

You continue to fail to show where those calculations are wrong.  I wonder why?  Is it because you can not or are you choosing to withhold evidence you are right?

Going direct does save some delta-v and omitting orbiting the Earth first in some situations.  Many times orbiting the Earth is used as a safety measure and will most likely be used for manned missions.

Thanks, but you are OT. Topic is my famous Challenge and how much fuel you need to go to Mars and back with humans aboard and WHY it is necessary.
Some gentlemen get very upset about it but in order to travel in space safely, you must carry fuel with you, etc, etc.
Why would anyone use a rocket that hasn't been built since 1974 to go to Mars?

Why don't you use a nuclear reactor to drive your spacecraft - https://education.jsc.nasa.gov/explorers/p4.html ?

By using current technology and a spacecraft powered by chemical rocket engines, a trip to Mars could take between six to nine months. Because of the alignment of Mars and Earth, our best chance to launch occurs every 26 months.

We need to find other ways to travel to Mars and beyond, and we are currently considering alternative propulsion systems.

Nuclear thermal propulsion allows a spacecraft to travel faster by providing a more efficient, and light weight system.

It looks like this:



According NASA the nuclear reactor is attached to the rocket engine! It is light weight and apparently saves weight so that more humans (weight) can fly to Mars faster and in comfort.

Note that the very hot gases ejected from the rocket also drive the little turbo pump that is the heart of the system. According NASA the system was developed and patented by Albert Einstein already 1942 but made a military secret to protect USA!

Despite their advantages, nuclear power still gets a lot of bad press.  Ion engines would probably be a much easier sell:

Insanely Fuel Efficient Engine Could Go To Mars And Back On One Tank Of Fuel

An ion engine that smashes the fuel efficiency record has been registered for an innovation patent. Inventor Patrick Neumann told University of Sydney student newspaper Honi Soit the drive could go to “Mars and back on a tank of fuel”, but its first application may be shunting networks of small satellites around in Earth orbit.

Despite their advantages, nuclear power still gets a lot of bad press.  Ion engines would probably be a much easier sell:

Quote from: http://www.iflscience.com/technology/mars-and-back-one-tank-magnesium

Insanely Fuel Efficient Engine Could Go To Mars And Back On One Tank Of Fuel

An ion engine that smashes the fuel efficiency record has been registered for an innovation patent. Inventor Patrick Neumann told University of Sydney student newspaper Honi Soit the drive could go to “Mars and back on a tank of fuel”, but its first application may be shunting networks of small satellites around in Earth orbit.

Part of my Challenge (topic) is to determine the size of the fuel tank of the spacecraft! You can use any engine type! I am only interested in the amount of fuel (energy) used and I assume it is in a tank. But maybe I am wrong?

Quote from: Woody on May 02, 2016, 01:36:44 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 02, 2016, 01:21:52 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 02, 2016, 01:09:01 PM

What do humans have to do on 6 month long sea voyages?

Off topic, but anyway. They look after the vessel transporting cargo from A to B and are paid for it. Reminds me of JFK starting this nonsense of manned space trips. JFK alleges that he less than 20 years earlier was on a ship in the South Seas chasing yellow monkies and suddenly he was in the sea himself swimming ashore. What nonsense.

Now try to focus on the topic.

Don't tell me a formula for calculating fuel consumption. Tell me the fuel used for a manned space trip, not just the start into orbit, blah, blah.

It seems the China way of space travel is straight to targets. No orbits around anything delaying the trip. Maybe they save fuel that way?

Seems you missed where I posted the Saturn V's Delta V, fuel burned per second, amount of Delta -v needed to get from the surface of the Earth to lunar orbit and back.

You continue to fail to show where those calculations are wrong.  I wonder why?  Is it because you can not or are you choosing to withhold evidence you are right?

Going direct does save some delta-v and omitting orbiting the Earth first in some situations.  Many times orbiting the Earth is used as a safety measure and will most likely be used for manned missions.

Thanks, but you are OT. Topic is my famous Challenge and how much fuel you need to go to Mars and back with humans aboard and WHY it is necessary.
Some gentlemen get very upset about it but in order to travel in space safely, you must carry fuel with you, etc, etc.
Why would anyone use a rocket that hasn't been built since 1974 to go to Mars?

Why don't you use a nuclear reactor to drive your spacecraft - https://education.jsc.nasa.gov/explorers/p4.html ?

Quote

By using current technology and a spacecraft powered by chemical rocket engines, a trip to Mars could take between six to nine months. Because of the alignment of Mars and Earth, our best chance to launch occurs every 26 months.

We need to find other ways to travel to Mars and beyond, and we are currently considering alternative propulsion systems.

Nuclear thermal propulsion allows a spacecraft to travel faster by providing a more efficient, and light weight system.

It looks like this:



According NASA the nuclear reactor is attached to the rocket engine! It is light weight and apparently saves weight so that more humans (weight) can fly to Mars faster and in comfort.

Note that the very hot gases ejected from the rocket also drive the little turbo pump that is the heart of the system. According NASA the system was developed and patented by Albert Einstein already 1942 but made a military secret to protect USA!

OK.

You must have missed this before, since it is regarding what you continually point out the topic is your challenge:

Can you provide evidence you have the funds doing something similar to this?



Now if I was to tell you I will give you $8,000 for doing something you can see that today I have it in a checking account.  It does not insure I will have it tomorrow or will pay it, but it does show I have the funds now and capable of earning enough to pay you.

The address you give is to a building that is owned and operated by a company that provides subsidized housing.  This seems to indicate your gross assets are valued at less than €1,000,000.  Can you offer evidence you do not receive a subsidy for your rent/mortgage or you own your home?

You state, "basic principles of astrophysics" are to be used to win your challenge. What basic principles?  Are they the ones I can find in books on the subject?  The stuff taught in schools?  The ones astronomers claim are correct?  The principles Arianespace uses to put satellites into orbit?

You have demonstrated you do not understand the subject matter of your challenge.  I showed you the delta-v and ISP for the Saturn V and then you asked questions that were answered by that information.  Like the amount of fuel needed and how much gets used during a burn.  You claimed my calculations did not take pressure or gravity into account when they did and I provided you a link with the methodology I used.  Which suggest you discounted my calculations and results without reviewing them.

You made a claim you were sentenced to death in the US for revealing nuclear secretes.  When did you receive this sentence?  When did you have access to classified information about US nuclear technology?  What US Government agency or contractor did you work for? I am asking since I believe this is a false claim and suggest you are not completely honest.

Taking the above into consideration how are you qualified to judge the challenge? How are you going to ensure a fair ruling?

The above are reasonable questions regarding your challenge.  Considering the amount of time someone would need to invest in doing it if they do not just copy and paste what NASA has already done.

It is all a stupid hoax but a military secret that if revealed is punished by DEATH! Anybody like me actually proving that nuclear bombs and space trips are fake will be punished by DEATH.

It is not funny to be punished by DEATH but I do it anyway. I am not afraid of DEATH, you see.

Still not dead...

Wondering why BabyHeiwaSpeed wrote this...

Not getting answers...

Please don't joke about babyheiwa

Well according to you I'll be killed by teh gubbimmint ninjaz soon, so the jokes will cease then.

I thought the abortion had disappeared.

Nah, that was Heiwa, whilst you were posting, lulzily enough...

Guess you'll be working overtime now?

It's always fun watching you shills juggle your socks...

You always mess up in the end, & I always catch you...

With hilarious results!

Anyhoo; about that capslock DEATH! that's coming my way...

Any updates yet?

You have demonstrated you do not understand the subject matter of your challenge.

Hm, I created my two €1M Challenges (topic) many years ago and so far nobody has won anything.

You just have to (1) explain how a weak and lightweight top crushes a strong and heavy bottom of any structure by GRAVITY and (2) calculate the amount of fuel required to overcome GRAVITY for a manned return trip in space.

I wonder why it is so difficult.

Maybe it is impossible?

Nothing to be upset about!

Or maybe you are not clever enough? Your brain is too small?

Well, if your brain is too small, I have not advice to help.

Maybe you can find some pill on the Internet enlarging it? They say you can enlarge your penis by a pill.

But it is off topic.

It seems you must understand GRAVITY to win my solemn Challenges.

Quote from: Woody on May 02, 2016, 11:05:56 PM

You have demonstrated you do not understand the subject matter of your challenge.

Hm, I created my two €1M Challenges (topic) many years ago and so far nobody has won anything.

You just have to (1) explain how a weak and lightweight top crushes a strong and heavy bottom of any structure by GRAVITY and (2) calculate the amount of fuel required to overcome GRAVITY for a manned return trip in space.

I wonder why it is so difficult.

Maybe it is impossible?

Nothing to be upset about!

Or maybe you are not clever enough? Your brain is too small?

Well, if your brain is too small, I have not advice to help.

Maybe you can find some pill on the Internet enlarging it? They say you can enlarge your penis by a pill.

But it is off topic.

It seems you must understand GRAVITY to win my solemn Challenges.

This has been two nights from hell and I am just not in the mood more so than usual. It just grinds my gears seeing your ignorance and lies. Just GO AWAY already...crawl back in that sad little hole you live in. Your challenge is useless and just a ruse to get attention. There is no money to win besides a six pack, a bicycle, an incomplete deck of uno, and some monopoly money. Just go away.....

I would say try one of those brain pills you talk about that don't exist. However, you would prob use it as a suppository and do you no good.  You just cant find good help these days

My mom told me I am the most special, most smartest guy around! So I no its be true!!!

If you think I am really heiwa, then I pity you. Makes me rethink the whole "intelligent" opinion I had of you before could be an incorrect assertion. There is zero evidence of such, however, it may be coming from the same toilet bowl you dig up all your "evidence". Just because it comes every morning after your coffee doesn't mean its accurate or true.

Maybe try one of those brain pill heiwa is always talking about....however maybe on you, I would try the suppository, may have more effect since apparently that is where most of your brains are.

This has been two nights from hell and I am just not in the mood more so than usual.

Boo-Hoo!

Go for a ride in your dusty Lambo & cheer yourself up then, Han Solo.

Maybe try one of those brain pill heiwa is always talking about.

So now you're agreeing with Heiwa... sorry, yourself?

Thought you hated him above all others?

Speaking of him (you) though:

It is all a stupid hoax but a military secret that if revealed is punished by DEATH! Anybody like me actually proving that nuclear bombs and space trips are fake will be punished by DEATH.

It is not funny to be punished by DEATH but I do it anyway. I am not afraid of DEATH, you see.

I still seem to be alive; the capslock DEATH! has not fallen upon me as predicted...

Could the above entity have been spreading fear-porn & disinfo?

If so, why?

I'll get to the bottom of this if it kills me!

CAPSLOCK KILLS ME EVEN!!!!

Loud....obnoxious....wood chair in the library....flatulence

Sorry Legba this is all I have right now. Yesterday was the anniversary of the crap I have spoken about. I don't have the chutzpah to battle right now...I apologize for the inconvenience, please leave a message and number, I will attempt to get back to you as soon as possible

Yesterday was the anniversary of the crap I have spoken about.

I know; I've already had my top men look into it.

Their report read: 'Nobody cares'.

They really are top men...

Top... Men!

Now, back to why I am not DEAD!

It is all a stupid hoax but a military secret that if revealed is punished by DEATH! Anybody like me actually proving that nuclear bombs and space trips are fake will be punished by DEATH.

It is not funny to be punished by DEATH but I do it anyway. I am not afraid of DEATH, you see.

Until my grisly capslock end is inflicted upon me by shadowy G-Men, I can only conclude that, with the above, Heiwa the limited hangout man is spreading capslock FEAR-PORN & DISINFO!

Quote from: Heiwa on May 03, 2016, 12:17:57 AM

Quote from: Woody on May 02, 2016, 11:05:56 PM

You have demonstrated you do not understand the subject matter of your challenge.

Hm, I created my two €1M Challenges (topic) many years ago and so far nobody has won anything.

You just have to (1) explain how a weak and lightweight top crushes a strong and heavy bottom of any structure by GRAVITY and (2) calculate the amount of fuel required to overcome GRAVITY for a manned return trip in space.

I wonder why it is so difficult.

Maybe it is impossible?

Nothing to be upset about!

Or maybe you are not clever enough? Your brain is too small?

Well, if your brain is too small, I have not advice to help.

Maybe you can find some pill on the Internet enlarging it? They say you can enlarge your penis by a pill.

But it is off topic.

It seems you must understand GRAVITY to win my solemn Challenges.

This has been two nights from hell and I am just not in the mood more so than usual. It just grinds my gears seeing your ignorance and lies. Just GO AWAY already...crawl back in that sad little hole you live in. Your challenge is useless and just a ruse to get attention. There is no money to win besides a six pack, a bicycle, an incomplete deck of uno, and some monopoly money. Just go away.....

I would say try one of those brain pills you talk about that don't exist. However, you would prob use it as a suppository and do you no good.  You just cant find good help these days

Hm, my Challenges (topic) are real and serious and I am happy that they are talked about and plenty money to win. But you have to understand GRAVITY to win and collect. As it seems to make you ill, sick, crazy, soiling your underpants, unhappy and not fit for anything, may I suggest you find some better contact than me for assistance even if difficult to find.

Quote from: Woody on May 02, 2016, 11:05:56 PM

You have demonstrated you do not understand the subject matter of your challenge.

Hm, I created my two €1M Challenges (topic) many years ago and so far nobody has won anything.

You just have to (1) explain how a weak and lightweight top crushes a strong and heavy bottom of any structure by GRAVITY and (2) calculate the amount of fuel required to overcome GRAVITY for a manned return trip in space.

I wonder why it is so difficult.

Maybe it is impossible?

Nothing to be upset about!

Or maybe you are not clever enough? Your brain is too small?

Well, if your brain is too small, I have not advice to help.

Maybe you can find some pill on the Internet enlarging it? They say you can enlarge your penis by a pill.

But it is off topic.

It seems you must understand GRAVITY to win my solemn Challenges.

Seems you can not offer evidence you challenge is legitimate.  Resorting to ad hominem, avoiding answering questions, trying to change the subject are not tactics someone resorts to using if they have a good argument and evidence.

Why not just show your calculations you did that supports something like the Saturn V could not lift off the pad?

I showed you the calculations for TWR, delta-v, fuel used per second seems odd an engineer can not reply with the same or show me where those calculations are wrong.

Since you keep saying it is off topic how about showing me your calculations in a thread I started about the just this subject?  If you are right and have done the calculations you should destroy me in that thread.

I'll just post questions about your challenge in this thread unless you bring up something you claim is off topic.