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

Quote from: Rayzor on July 15, 2015, 02:09:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 15, 2015, 01:16:14 AM

Weirdly, none of you can provide any proof that they do work.

Have you lost the ability to read, in addition to you lack of ability to reason?   Proof has been provided already numerous times.   

What would you consider to be definitive proof?   Just so we are perfectly clear on what you are trying to say.

Physical proof has not been provided.

How do you propose that someone provide physical proof on an internet discussion forum? 

Thank you hoppy; your avatar is LOL in a good way & your tag-line 'God is real' pleases me greatly.

However, I must take you to task on one thing.

That is, your statement that 'victory for Legba' equates to victory for Flat Earth theory.

It does not.

It equates to a victory for REAL SCIENCE over PSEUDO SCIENCE.

& it is only when the latter is done away with that we can begin to address the true nature of the object we inhabit...

The answer will shock you, I believe.

But as it will be as LOL as anything can ever be, I will be content...

Cos I just love to LOL!!!

I'm doing it now, in fact, after reading markjo's latest self-contradictory post...

Thank you hoppy; your avatar is LOL in a good way & your tag-line 'God is real' pleases me greatly.

However, I must take you to task on one thing.

That is, your statement that 'victory for Legba' equates to victory for Flat Earth theory.

It does not.

It equates to a victory for REAL SCIENCE over PSEUDO SCIENCE.

Incorrect.  Mathematics is the language of real science.  If you've provided no math, then you've done no real science.

Thank you hoppy; your avatar is LOL in a good way & your tag-line 'God is real' pleases me greatly.

However, I must take you to task on one thing.

That is, your statement that 'victory for Legba' equates to victory for Flat Earth theory.

It does not.

It equates to a victory for REAL SCIENCE over PSEUDO SCIENCE.

& it is only when the latter is done away with that we can begin to address the true nature of the object we inhabit...

The answer will shock you, I believe.

But as it will be as LOL as anything can ever be, I will be content...

Cos I just love to LOL!!!

I'm doing it now, in fact, after reading markjo's latest self-contradictory post...

Refer to the quote in my forum signature.  It's not science unless it's based off of measurement and supported by math.

...
sokarul: so a drawing of two dots & an arrow 'destroys everything I believe in', does it?

I suggest all it destroys is your own credibility as a rational being...

But maybe that's just me?
..

You can't explain how a spent fuel molecule can hit an air molecule to propel a rocket.  All you do is sidestep the question. Just like you did here.
So I ask again, how does a molecule hitting a molecule propel a rocket?

Quote from: Rayzor on July 15, 2015, 02:09:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 15, 2015, 01:16:14 AM

Weirdly, none of you can provide any proof that they do work.

Have you lost the ability to read, in addition to you lack of ability to reason?   Proof has been provided already numerous times.   

What would you consider to be definitive proof?   Just so we are perfectly clear on what you are trying to say.

The only proof in this thread was provided by legba. The Sci-fi fans are just cheering NASA on.

Care to quote this 'proof'?

Markjo: Liar.

Nothing new there though...

Mikeman: do you have a tape-measure long enough to reach the moon?

No?

Then STFU about 'measurement'.

& as for maths 'proving' anything; Liar.

Again.

Sokarul: your drawing is not an accurate representation of anything except your own desperation to try to somehow 'win' this 'debate'.

So STFU too.

Liar.

AGAIN...

Mainframes: I provided simple experiments & easily-verifiable evidence to support my model of how rockets work.

You lot provided NOTHING.

Ergo; I won.

& every neutral reader of this thread knows it.

That's how science works, cultists...

No 'maths' necessary at all.

So deal with it, losers.

As ever; LOL!!!

Markjo: Liar.

Nothing new there though...

Mikeman: do you have a tape-measure long enough to reach the moon?

No?

Then STFU about 'measurement'.

& as for maths 'proving' anything; Liar.

Again.

Sokarul: your drawing is not an accurate representation of anything except your own desperation to try to somehow 'win' this 'debate'.

So STFU too.

Liar.

AGAIN...

Mainframes: I provided simple experiments & easily-verifiable evidence to support my model of how rockets work.

You lot provided NOTHING.

Ergo; I won.

& every neutral reader of this thread knows it.

That's how science works, cultists...

No 'maths' necessary at all.

So deal with it, losers.

As ever; LOL!!!

The words of a defeated little boy.

Mikeman: do you have a tape-measure long enough to reach the moon?

Well, nice of you to ask! We kind of do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

That's how science works, cultists...

No 'maths' necessary at all.

http://webmup.com/62477/

No-one cares what you think, sokarul; stop making it worse for yourself with your sulking.

Anyhow; moving on again...

In researching the subject of rocketry, I kept coming upon the same 3 names as 'respected commentators' on the subject.

These names are: John Schilling, Markus Schiiler & Robert Schmucker.

Let me repeat them: SCHILL-ing; SCHILL-er; SCHMUCK-er...

LMAO!!!

& it gets better...

SCHILL-er & SCHMUCK-er are a kind of boring Laurel & Hardy double-act, but John SCHILL-ing, Ph.d, is full of LOL!!!

Lots of his old posts can be found, commenting on stuff like Buffy The Vampire Slayer scripts & characters, as well as telling the most outrageous lies about 'safety nazis' checking out a vacuum chamber he was allegedly testing 'advanced propulsion systems' (lol!) in for 'vacuum pockets'.

What a fraud!

Of course, his posts are chock-full of crappy Star-Trek & sci-fi references too, & - interestingly - I can not find 1 single photograph of the man anywhere.

George William Herbert is another 'rocket expert' who seems utterly unreal too; 'herbert' is slang for a foolish or dimwitted person, as well as being Trekkie slang for a rigid & limited mentality. His wiki-editing history is LOL & I could only find 2 crappy, low-res photos of his sad neck-bearded self.

The above can all be found on a LOL-tastic website called lewis.armscontrol.wonk, earnestly discussing the latest sightings of Iranian or North Korean 'nooklar' ICBM's, like a bunch of addled medieaval theologians arguing over how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin...

It is HILARIOUS!

Of course, you tin-foil-hatted 'Coincidence Theorists' & cultists will claim this is all mere happenstance...

But maybe that's cos there's a few Schill-ers, Schmucks & Herberts amongst you, too?

LMFAO!!!

At YOU!!!

SCHMUCKS!!!

P.s. conker; stop lying.

No-one cares what you think, sokarul; stop making it worse for yourself with your sulking.

Anyhow; moving on again...

In researching the subject of rocketry, I kept coming upon the same 3 names as 'respected commentators' on the subject.

These names are: John Schilling, Markus Schiiler & Robert Schmucker.

Let me repeat them: SCHILL-ing; SCHILL-er; SCHMUCK-er...

LMAO!!!

& it gets better...

SCHILL-er & SCHMUCK-er are a kind of boring Laurel & Hardy double-act, but John SCHILL-ing, Ph.d, is full of LOL!!!

Lots of his old posts can be found, commenting on stuff like Buffy The Vampire Slayer scripts & characters, as well as telling the most outrageous lies about 'safety nazis' checking out a vacuum chamber he was allegedly testing 'advanced propulsion systems' (lol!) in for 'vacuum pockets'.

What a fraud!

Of course, his posts are chock-full of crappy Star-Trek & sci-fi references too, & - interestingly - I can not find 1 single photograph of the man anywhere.

George William Herbert is another 'rocket expert' who seems utterly unreal too; 'herbert' is slang for a foolish or dimwitted person, as well as being Trekkie slang for a rigid & limited mentality. His wiki-editing history is LOL & I could only find 2 crappy, low-res photos of his sad neck-bearded self.

The above can all be found on a LOL-tastic website called lewis.armscontrol.wonk, earnestly discussing the latest sightings of Iranian or North Korean 'nooklar' ICBM's, like a bunch of addled medieaval theologians arguing over how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin...

It is HILARIOUS!

Of course, you tin-foil-hatted 'Coincidence Theorists' & cultists will claim this is all mere happenstance...

But maybe that's cos there's a few Schill-ers, Schmucks & Herberts amongst you, too?

LMFAO!!!

At YOU!!!

SCHMUCKS!!!

P.s. conker; stop lying.

This post has had me crying with laughing at the names. It absolutely beggars belief how poeople cannot see through this absolute utter laughable drivel. 
Nice on Papa.

P.s. conker; stop lying.

Oh god! I lied?? Oh NO! I must correct this inmediatly. Please tell me what did I said that was a lie, and cite a source that refutes me. I appreciate your time.

Quote

P.s. conker; stop lying.

Oh god! I lied?? Oh NO! I must correct this inmediatly. Please tell me what did I said that was a lie, and cite a source that refutes me. I appreciate your time.

Whenever one of the numnuts like Papa Legba  calls someone a liar,  it means that you've proven them to be wrong about something or other and they have no answer. 

No, conker; you appreciate WASTING my time.

So stop it, liar.

Same goes for you, super-troll Rayzor/Evil Edna/Psyopticon...

Now; anyone care to explain why Four of the top internet 'rocket experts' are named after slang words for idiots & paid liars?

They are RIPPING the piss out of you & you just cannot see it...

ROFLMFAO!!!

Legba has beat the sh*t out of you sci-fi fans.

Markjo: Liar.

Nothing new there though...

Mikeman: do you have a tape-measure long enough to reach the moon?

No?

Then STFU about 'measurement'.

& as for maths 'proving' anything; Liar.

Again.

Sokarul: your drawing is not an accurate representation of anything except your own desperation to try to somehow 'win' this 'debate'.

So STFU too.

Liar.

AGAIN...

Mainframes: I provided simple experiments & easily-verifiable evidence to support my model of how rockets work.

You lot provided NOTHING.

Ergo; I won.

& every neutral reader of this thread knows it.

That's how science works, cultists...

No 'maths' necessary at all.

So deal with it, losers.

As ever; LOL!!!

How does one do science without math?  Seriously, please explain.

No-one cares what you think, sokarul; stop making it worse for yourself with your sulking.

Anyhow; moving on again...

In researching the subject of rocketry, I kept coming upon the same 3 names as 'respected commentators' on the subject.

These names are: John Schilling, Markus Schiiler & Robert Schmucker.

Let me repeat them: SCHILL-ing; SCHILL-er; SCHMUCK-er...

LMAO!!!

& it gets better...

SCHILL-er & SCHMUCK-er are a kind of boring Laurel & Hardy double-act, but John SCHILL-ing, Ph.d, is full of LOL!!!

Lots of his old posts can be found, commenting on stuff like Buffy The Vampire Slayer scripts & characters, as well as telling the most outrageous lies about 'safety nazis' checking out a vacuum chamber he was allegedly testing 'advanced propulsion systems' (lol!) in for 'vacuum pockets'.

What a fraud!

Of course, his posts are chock-full of crappy Star-Trek & sci-fi references too, & - interestingly - I can not find 1 single photograph of the man anywhere.

George William Herbert is another 'rocket expert' who seems utterly unreal too; 'herbert' is slang for a foolish or dimwitted person, as well as being Trekkie slang for a rigid & limited mentality. His wiki-editing history is LOL & I could only find 2 crappy, low-res photos of his sad neck-bearded self.

The above can all be found on a LOL-tastic website called lewis.armscontrol.wonk, earnestly discussing the latest sightings of Iranian or North Korean 'nooklar' ICBM's, like a bunch of addled medieaval theologians arguing over how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin...

It is HILARIOUS!

Of course, you tin-foil-hatted 'Coincidence Theorists' & cultists will claim this is all mere happenstance...

But maybe that's cos there's a few Schill-ers, Schmucks & Herberts amongst you, too?

LMFAO!!!

At YOU!!!

SCHMUCKS!!!

P.s. conker; stop lying.

Why is it so hard to answer such an easy question? You preached on and on about how rockets push off of air and now you can't explain how. Seems to me you believe in something you know nothing about.
But I'm going to ask again. How does s spent fuel molecule hitting an air molecule propel a rocket?

Cheers, Hoppy; but it wasn't hard, was it?

All neutrals should google & even download John Schilling & George William Herbert's net history asap, before it all gets deleted.

NASA made a huge mistake naming them so blatantly; their identities were being established from at least year 2000 though, before the term 'shill' became well-known.

Plus it's just so LOL!!! to read.

Star Trek SCHILLS...

Star Wars SCHMUCKS...

Intergalactic HERBERTS...

Oh, my!

L.M.F.A.O!!!

What a world we live in...

P.s.: markjo; you do MATH with MATH; you do SCIENCE with OBSERVATION & EXPERIMENTS.

You know; like the ones you DIDN'T provide for your model of rocketry...

Which is why you LOST the 'debate'.

Ok, simpleton?

Btw; have you met John Schilling?

LOL!!!

P.s. sokarul: 'spent' fuel molecule?

LMAO, con-man!!!

You mean 'spent' like your argument?

Whatever; have YOU met John Schilling?

Why not ask HIM your pointless questions; he's a real, proper ROCKET-SCIENTIST, you know!

ROFLMFAO - AGAIN!!!

No, conker; you appreciate WASTING my time.

So stop it, liar.

Yeah yeah, I heard you the first time, I know you have proof I'm a liar. So, can you please provide it?

Conmker: can YOU please stop wasting my time?

Or, better yet, go ask a SCHILL, SCHMUCK or HERBERT for the answer; they oughta know, eh?

LOL!!!

Cheers, Hoppy; but it wasn't hard, was it?

All neutrals should google & even download John Schilling & George William Herbert's net history asap, before it all gets deleted.

NASA made a huge mistake naming them so blatantly; their identities were being established from at least year 2000 though, before the term 'shill' became well-known.

Plus it's just so LOL!!! to read.

Star Trek SCHILLS...

Star Wars SCHMUCKS...

Intergalactic HERBERTS...

Oh, my!

L.M.F.A.O!!!

What a world we live in...

P.s.: markjo; you do MATH with MATH; you do SCIENCE with OBSERVATION & EXPERIMENTS.

You know; like the ones you DIDN'T provide for your model of rocketry...

Which is why you LOST the 'debate'.

Ok, simpleton?

Btw; have you met John Schilling?

LOL!!!

P.s. sokarul: 'spent' fuel molecule?

LMAO, con-man!!!

You mean 'spent' like your argument?

Whatever; have YOU met John Schilling?

Why not ask HIM your pointless questions; he's a real, proper ROCKET-SCIENTIST, you know!

ROFLMFAO - AGAIN!!!

What should I call them? They can be a few different things. Anyways your lack of answering the question clearly show just how little you understand about what you preach. Like we all know, rockets work by Newton's 3rd law.

LOL!!!

Have you conveniently forgotten the monumental verbal & logical beat-down I gave you over the last 90+ pages, sokarul?

Or are you now just shit-posting too?

Seems that's all you space-cultist Trolls have left...

SCHILLS...

SCHMUCKS...

& HERBERTS...

LMFAO!!!

Spouting your uneducated opinion is not a beat down. The fact is you can't even explain what you believe. You have provided no evidence at all.  We all showed you how you are wrong. You are just too stupid to see it.

Spouting your uneducated opinion is not a beat down. The fact is you can't even explain what you believe. You have provided no evidence at all.  We all showed you how you are wrong. You are just too stupid to see it.

There's more than enough evidence in this topic to give the outsider looking in, the heads up on the truth and to see the lie being guarded by people like you, either naively or deliberately.
In your case I believe 100% it's simply just naivety/gullibility due to you looking and acting like a simpleton.

Any neutral outsider looking in will conclude that Papa, scepti and hoppy know nothing about science and engineering, just spout hot air and waffle and have been owned repeatedly by several of us on here.

You are simply lying & shitposting now, mainframes & sokarul, in a clear attempt to lengthen & derail the thread, turn a page & thus deflect attention from my discovery that four of the top internet 'rocket experts' have names that are slang terms for Idiots & Paid Liars.

Any neutrals wishing to read this post can just go back a page, though, or click on my name & read through my posts without all you & your space-cultist brethren's witless jabbering.

Really, sokarul; all the way throughout this thread you have repeatedly made statements of the most breathtaking stupidity.

For example; that ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel is not ammonium perchlorate rocket fuel, & that the space-shuttle does not need aerodynamics.

& that's just two off the top of my head.

You have ZERO credibility in the eyes of any neutral reader & are utterly & completely DEFEATED.

So STFU & please change your arrogant & dishonest tag-line.

Now: SCHILLS, SCMUCKS & HERBERTS; what's that all about, 'coincidence-theorists' & cultists?

I remain, like everyone else by now: LMFAO!!!

At YOU!!!

Quote from: sokarul on July 17, 2015, 07:00:55 AM

Spouting your uneducated opinion is not a beat down. The fact is you can't even explain what you believe. You have provided no evidence at all.  We all showed you how you are wrong. You are just too stupid to see it.

There's more than enough evidence in this topic to give the outsider looking in, the heads up on the truth and to see the lie being guarded by people like you, either naively or deliberately.
In your case I believe 100% it's simply just naivety/gullibility due to you looking and acting like a simpleton.

Then why don't you explain how a spent fuel molecule hitting an air molecule can propel the rocket?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 17, 2015, 07:16:46 AM

Quote from: sokarul on July 17, 2015, 07:00:55 AM

Spouting your uneducated opinion is not a beat down. The fact is you can't even explain what you believe. You have provided no evidence at all.  We all showed you how you are wrong. You are just too stupid to see it.

There's more than enough evidence in this topic to give the outsider looking in, the heads up on the truth and to see the lie being guarded by people like you, either naively or deliberately.
In your case I believe 100% it's simply just naivety/gullibility due to you looking and acting like a simpleton.

Then why don't you explain how a spent fuel molecule hitting an air molecule can propel the rocket?

Explaining that to you would go right over your weird shaped head.
As long as you believe that atmosphere is full of particles just freely banging into each other randomly with a vacuum between them, then how in the hell can I explain anything to you, you dunter.

Indeed, sceptimatic; the subject has been done to death & the space-cultists LOST.

Comprehensively.

Now they are trying to deflect from my latest findings, namely that FOUR OF THE TOP INTERNET 'ROCKET EXPERTS' ARE NAMED AFTER SLANG TERMS FOR IDIOTS OR PAID LIARS.

This is doubtless to give them time to whip up a photoshop of the seemingly non-existent 'John Schilling Ph.d', delete as much evidence as they can, or just generally confer on tactics.

They are stupid; they are useless; they are trolls & they are SCHILLS, SCHMUCKS & HERBERTS...

& right now, everyone is laughing at them.

No need for even a little 'lol' at this point...

Oh - who am I kidding?

ROFLMFAO!!!

Indeed, sceptimatic; the subject has been done to death & the space-cultists LOST.

Comprehensively.

Now they are trying to deflect from my latest findings, namely that FOUR OF THE TOP INTERNET 'ROCKET EXPERTS' ARE NAMED AFTER SLANG TERMS FOR IDIOTS OR PAID LIARS.

This is doubtless to give them time to whip up a photoshop of the seemingly non-existent 'John Schilling Ph.d', delete as much evidence as they can, or just generally confer on tactics.

They are stupid; they are useless; they are trolls & they are SCHILLS, SCHMUCKS & HERBERTS...

& right now, everyone is laughing at them.

No need for even a little 'lol' at this point...

Oh - who am I kidding?

ROFLMFAO!!!

Exactly like playing chess with a pigeon,  Papa struts around the board,  knocking pieces over,   squawks a bit,  then craps all over the board before flying back to the flock claiming victory.   

Good,  so now that you've claimed victory you can go home to the flock and pretend you know how to play chess.    LOL!!!

My guess is you won't stop trolling.   I live in the vain hope that you might actually say something intelligent, instead of squawking and crapping everywhere.