Astronomers have spotted the Tesla with their telescopes.

Quote from: Empirical on February 15, 2018, 01:28:39 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 01:01:08 PM

Quote from: Empirical on February 15, 2018, 10:16:46 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 09:55:06 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 15, 2018, 09:44:37 AM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on February 15, 2018, 09:11:39 AM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on February 14, 2018, 10:40:14 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 09:45:50 AM

Quote from: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 09:26:04 AM

Where is your evidence for the claim man made objects can’t travel at 11.1 km/s?

To answer your boring bot query anyway, as stated my evidence is the laws of physics.

Which law?  I don't remember any that apply exclusively to man made objects...

Please answer the simplest of questions.  Which law?  Why is this so difficult for you?

You aren't likely to get an answer.  He's just a troll who feeds on the attention.  He usually ends up getting banned.

The answer was: the laws of physics you are not programmed to understand.

This answer will not change, just as your programming to misunderstand the laws of physics will not change.

The answer is: Papa don't get how conservation of movement work.

Conservation of what now?

Movement, things can move, get over it.

Conservation of movement eh?

Interesting.

It's how things are able to move.

The G forces of travelling 18km in 1 second from a standstill to a stop would render me a stain on the wall  I cant imagine the rocket would be in the same shape. Probably cant fly point to point and have to go quite high. If something was travelling at 18km/s low to the ground, it would probably rip everything under it apart

Lets see, assuming linear acceleration (i.e. accelerate at rate of a until reaching peak speed then slow down at -a), you reach your peak at the half way point after travelling 9 km in 0.5 seconds.
so d=0.5*a*t^2=>a=2*d/t^2=2*9 km/0.25 s^2=72 km/s^2

It's only like 7000 gs, surely that should be fine....

However, if you are fine with going at 10 gs, then it will take 27 seconds.
That okay?

You do not understand either Newton's third law or conservation of momentum.

If you did you would understand that no man made object can travel at 11.1 km/s.

Not debatable...

You are somewhat right. It isn't really debatable.
Newton's third law indicates that man made objects can hypothetically travel at any speed, with relativity providing a limit.

Get a rocket with some fuel, burn the fuel (which results in it being ejected from the rocket and conservation of momentum requiring the rocket and remaining fuel to accelerate), see how fast it goes. If not fast enough, add more fuel. Keep doing that until it gets fast enough.

At best you would end up approaching a limit.
If you think there is such a limit, and that limit is below 11.1 km/s, feel free to prove it.

I own a telescope that can clearly focus on ESO550, their are also microscope able to view molecules. I'd say it is a safe assumption you are just making claims to defend your feeble beliefes.

ESO550 is quite large (at least if it is what I think it is).
The microscopes used to view molecules operate on fundamentally different technologies to telescopes used to view stars.
You cannot have a light based microscope resolve objects below a few hundred nm.

Assuming the roadster is 400 000 km away, and 4 m front to back, and you are viewing it in light with a wavelength of 200 nm, with optimal viewing conditions (i.e. it is oriented perpendicular to the line from us to it) it would require a lens which is roughly 25 m in diameter to resolve the front and back as distinct points.
If instead you want to get a "picture" of the car which is 20 pixels front to back, you would need a lens that is roughly 500 m and get an image that looks like this:

If you want it in red (600 nm) you are looking at a lens  which is around 1.5 km.

Meanwhile, according to wiki, the largest optical telescope on Earth will be the Extremely Large Telescope, with the primary mirror (equivalent to the lens diameter) being a mere 40 m.

So I would say he is correct with this.
There is no telescope on Earth which can discernibly resolve the roadster at that distance.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 01:37:07 PM

Quote from: Empirical on February 15, 2018, 01:28:39 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 01:01:08 PM

Quote from: Empirical on February 15, 2018, 10:16:46 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 09:55:06 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 15, 2018, 09:44:37 AM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on February 15, 2018, 09:11:39 AM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on February 14, 2018, 10:40:14 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 09:45:50 AM

Quote from: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 09:26:04 AM

Where is your evidence for the claim man made objects can’t travel at 11.1 km/s?

To answer your boring bot query anyway, as stated my evidence is the laws of physics.

Which law?  I don't remember any that apply exclusively to man made objects...

Please answer the simplest of questions.  Which law?  Why is this so difficult for you?

You aren't likely to get an answer.  He's just a troll who feeds on the attention.  He usually ends up getting banned.

The answer was: the laws of physics you are not programmed to understand.

This answer will not change, just as your programming to misunderstand the laws of physics will not change.

The answer is: Papa don't get how conservation of movement work.

Conservation of what now?

Movement, things can move, get over it.

Conservation of movement eh?

Interesting.

It's how things are able to move.

Your translation software may need an upgrade.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 06:29:33 AM

You do not understand either Newton's third law or conservation of momentum.

If you did you would understand that no man made object can travel at 11.1 km/s.

Not debatable...

Get a rocket with some fuel, burn the fuel (which results in it being ejected from the rocket and conservation of momentum requiring the rocket and remaining fuel to accelerate), see how fast it goes. If not fast enough, add more fuel. Keep doing that until it gets fast enough.

Lol the jackblack AI algorithm is trying to define conservation of momentum as  m1 v1 = (m1 v1 + m1 v1).

Told you it would pull this kinda mathemagical bullshit...

It is psychotic.

Lol [Papa Legba's] AI algorithm is trying to define conservation of momentum as  m1 v1 = (m1 v1 + m1 v1).

There you go blatantly lying yet again.

Now how about you address what I actually said?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 15, 2018, 04:30:24 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 02:24:13 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 15, 2018, 02:04:06 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 12:41:22 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 14, 2018, 05:26:25 PM

Ludicrous!

Ludicrous?

ludicrous

Ludicrous? Newton's third law is not ludicrous, rabbibot.You're not programmed to understand it though, are you?

Nup, I'm not "programmed", "I think, therefore I am"!

True Newton's third law is not ludicrous and it works fine and as TheEngineer tried to drum into your hard head, so does Conservation of Momentum.

Not only that, but used as intended, they both show that a rocket works fine in a vacuum!
Newton did not say, except gas or that these laws did not apply to separate parts of the same object, such as gun and cartridge or rocket and fuel.

In other words you still can't prove the ludicrous claim that you made in:

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 04:29:30 PM

Meanwhile, in reality, velocities of 11.1 km/s are impossible to achieve for any man made object.

Your programming is deranged. All you do is howl like a madman. You do not understand either Newton's third law or conservation of momentum.
If you did you would understand that no man made object can travel at 11.1 km/s. Not debatable... Except by psychotic AI algorithms on mad flat Earth forums, of course.

So the Demented Voodoo Priest rants and raves, but still can't prove the ludicrous claim that you made in:

Meanwhile, in reality, velocities of 11.1 km/s are impossible to achieve for any man made object.

By the way, in case you haven't worked this out yet there is no conflict between the Rocket Thrust Equation and:

• Newton's 3rd Law,
• Conservation of Momentum and
• Joule expansion (also called free expansion).

Small ignorant minds ridicule what they can't understand! and that certainly applies to you, Papa.

If you want it in red (600 nm) you are looking at a lens  which is around 1.5 km.

Meanwhile, according to wiki, the largest optical telescope on Earth will be the Extremely Large Telescope, with the primary mirror (equivalent to the lens diameter) being a mere 40 m.

So I would say he is correct with this.
There is no telescope on Earth which can discernibly resolve the roadster at that distance.

Not only that but the telescope would need to be in space:

Atmospheric Effects - Seeing

Turbulent cells of air in the atmosphere limit the actual resolution of telescopes in the optical wavebands to typically no better than that obtained by a 20-cm telescope. The seeing at any location depends upon many factors and changes due to temperature, weather, pollutants and local microclimate. Good locations may achieve a typical seeing of 1 arcsecond but most sites are worse than this. Even the best sites rarely achieve seeing of better than 0.5 arcseconds. If the resolution a telescope achieves is limited by the seeing rather than its diffraction limit it is said to be seeing limited.

From: Australian National Telescope Facility,  Atmospheric Effects

Quote from: JackBlack on February 15, 2018, 04:55:42 PM

If you want it in red (600 nm) you are looking at a lens  which is around 1.5 km.

Meanwhile, according to wiki, the largest optical telescope on Earth will be the Extremely Large Telescope, with the primary mirror (equivalent to the lens diameter) being a mere 40 m.

So I would say he is correct with this.
There is no telescope on Earth which can discernibly resolve the roadster at that distance.

Not only that but the telescope would need to be in space:

Quote

Atmospheric Effects - Seeing

Turbulent cells of air in the atmosphere limit the actual resolution of telescopes in the optical wavebands to typically no better than that obtained by a 20-cm telescope. The seeing at any location depends upon many factors and changes due to temperature, weather, pollutants and local microclimate. Good locations may achieve a typical seeing of 1 arcsecond but most sites are worse than this. Even the best sites rarely achieve seeing of better than 0.5 arcseconds. If the resolution a telescope achieves is limited by the seeing rather than its diffraction limit it is said to be seeing limited.

From: Australian National Telescope Facility,  Atmospheric Effects

Well stop far arseing around and get it done then. We can build a 27km particle accelerator, I think we can handle a 1.5km lens. Make it 2km just to be sure. Lets go people! Move out!

We can build a 27km particle accelerator, I think we can handle a 1.5km lens. Make it 2km just to be sure. Lets go people! Move out!

Big astronomical telescopes do not use lenses.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 05:18:13 PM

Lol [Papa Legba's] AI algorithm is trying to define conservation of momentum as  m1 v1 = (m1 v1 + m1 v1).

There you go blatantly lying yet again.

Now how about you address what I actually said?

I did.

Which is why you altered my quote.

You claim a rocket can boot itself up the arse to gain motion, then boot itself up the arse again to double its speed..

This is defining Newton's third law as f1 = -(f1 + f1).

Total gibberish.

You are mental and you lie about everything.

You're programmed to.

Quote from: Empirical on February 15, 2018, 04:29:02 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 01:37:07 PM

Quote from: Empirical on February 15, 2018, 01:28:39 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 01:01:08 PM

Quote from: Empirical on February 15, 2018, 10:16:46 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 09:55:06 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 15, 2018, 09:44:37 AM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on February 15, 2018, 09:11:39 AM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on February 14, 2018, 10:40:14 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 09:45:50 AM

Quote from: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 09:26:04 AM

Where is your evidence for the claim man made objects can’t travel at 11.1 km/s?

To answer your boring bot query anyway, as stated my evidence is the laws of physics.

Which law?  I don't remember any that apply exclusively to man made objects...

Please answer the simplest of questions.  Which law?  Why is this so difficult for you?

You aren't likely to get an answer.  He's just a troll who feeds on the attention.  He usually ends up getting banned.

The answer was: the laws of physics you are not programmed to understand.

This answer will not change, just as your programming to misunderstand the laws of physics will not change.

The answer is: Papa don't get how conservation of movement work.

Conservation of what now?

Movement, things can move, get over it.

Conservation of movement eh?

Interesting.

It's how things are able to move.

Your translation software may need an upgrade.

Movement, when an object moves from A to B, what's so hard to understand.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 05:11:13 PM

Quote from: Empirical on February 15, 2018, 04:29:02 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 01:37:07 PM

Quote from: Empirical on February 15, 2018, 01:28:39 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 01:01:08 PM

Quote from: Empirical on February 15, 2018, 10:16:46 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 09:55:06 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 15, 2018, 09:44:37 AM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on February 15, 2018, 09:11:39 AM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on February 14, 2018, 10:40:14 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 09:45:50 AM

Quote from: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 09:26:04 AM

Where is your evidence for the claim man made objects can’t travel at 11.1 km/s?

To answer your boring bot query anyway, as stated my evidence is the laws of physics.

Which law?  I don't remember any that apply exclusively to man made objects...

Please answer the simplest of questions.  Which law?  Why is this so difficult for you?

You aren't likely to get an answer.  He's just a troll who feeds on the attention.  He usually ends up getting banned.

The answer was: the laws of physics you are not programmed to understand.

This answer will not change, just as your programming to misunderstand the laws of physics will not change.

The answer is: Papa don't get how conservation of movement work.

Conservation of what now?

Movement, things can move, get over it.

Conservation of movement eh?

Interesting.

It's how things are able to move.

Your translation software may need an upgrade.

Movement, when an object moves from A to B, what's so hard to understand.

You.

This is defining Newton's third law as f1 = -(f1 + f1).

It it not "defining Newton's third law as f1 = -(f1 + f1)" so you are wrong again.
But, we can hardly expect a Deluded Voodoo Priest to understand either Newton's 3rd Law or Conservation of Momentum.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 16, 2018, 12:09:34 AM

This is defining Newton's third law as f1 = -(f1 + f1).

It it not "defining Newton's third law as f1 = -(f1 + f1)" so you are wrong again.
But, we can hardly expect a Deluded Voodoo Priest to understand either Newton's 3rd Law or Conservation of Momentum.

Yes it is, so I am not.

But we can hardly expect an AI shillgorithm to make a single post without lying and personal abuse.

Because that is all they are programmed to do.

Here is the jackblack AI algorithm claiming a rocket pushes on itself, then to increase speed does so again.

Pure pseudoscience.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 15, 2018, 04:39:15 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 06:29:33 AM

You do not understand either Newton's third law or conservation of momentum.

If you did you would understand that no man made object can travel at 11.1 km/s.

Not debatable...

Get a rocket with some fuel, burn the fuel (which results in it being ejected from the rocket and conservation of momentum requiring the rocket and remaining fuel to accelerate), see how fast it goes. If not fast enough, add more fuel. Keep doing that until it gets fast enough.

Lol the jackblack AI algorithm is trying to define conservation of momentum as  m1 v1 = (m1 v1 + m1 v1).

Told you it would pull this kinda mathemagical bullshit...

It is psychotic.

I did.

No, you didn't. You blatantly lied about what I said and about what I am.
I am a human, not an AI algorithm.

No address what I have said rather than repeating the same BS lies.

You claim a rocket can boot itself up the arse to gain motion, then boot itself up the arse again to double its speed..

No, I don't.
I claim a rocket can "throw" some of its exhaust backwards, pushing the exhaust away and thus pushing the rocket forwards.
i.e. F1=-F2, where F1 is the force on the rocket which has an equal and opposite force, F2, which is the force on the mass of the exhaust.

You are the one providing the gibberish, not me.

But we can hardly expect an AI shillgorithm to make a single post without lying and personal abuse.

Is that why every post from you (or at least almost every post) is filled with lies and abuse?

Here is the jackblack AI algorithm claiming a rocket pushes on itself, then to increase speed does so again.

No, here is Papa Legba lying about a post yet again, because it is unable to construct a rational argument to defend its lies or refute its opponent, and of course, includes the abuse it usually does.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 15, 2018, 04:39:15 PM

Get a rocket with some fuel, burn the fuel (which results in it being ejected from the rocket and conservation of momentum requiring the rocket and remaining fuel to accelerate), see how fast it goes. If not fast enough, add more fuel. Keep doing that until it gets fast enough.

Lol the jackblack AI algorithm is trying to define conservation of momentum as  m1 v1 = (m1 v1 + m1 v1).
Told you it would pull this kinda mathemagical bullshit...
It is psychotic.

Notice the difference between the posts?
We can see Jackblack is trying to define conservation of momentum as (not technically this, but this represents the simple form):
mr vrf + mf vff =(mr + mf) * vi, such that vff<vi, thus vrf>vi
i.e. the momentum of the rocket and fuel is conserved, such that the rocket and fuel start with some initial velocity.
The rocket the burns and ejects the fuel, "lowering" the velocity of the fuel (or having it negative with this 1D problem), meaning the velocity of the rocket increases.

Now perhaps you can try to address than rather than repeatedly lying and abusing people?

We can see Jackblack is trying to define conservation of momentum as (not technically this, but this represents the simple form):
mr vrf + mf vff =(mr + mf) * vi, such that vff<vi, thus vrf>vi

Lol you are mental.

You just made that all up.

You don't even provide definitions for the terms in your mad fake equation.

Here is the simple form of com: m1v1+m2v2 = m1v1+m2v2.

Please note that it refers to two separate objects.

Stop lying about everything please.

Oh sorry you are not programmed to do that...

So no one as of yet is able to provide adequate refutation.

Legbot has tried to drag the thread off on tangents but it's coding is not sufficient enough to convince others of it's falsehood.

An object was spotted exactly where the Tesla was predicted to be. It is up to people to make their own mind up from there on in.

A rocket would operate on the following momentum equation:

m1v1 = m2v2 + m3v3

1 = rocket and fuel
2 = rocket less fuel
3 = fuel

A rocket would operate on the following momentum equation:

m1v1 = m2v2 + m3v3

1 = rocket and fuel
2 = rocket less fuel
3 = fuel

The rocket and its fuel are one system, creating one force.

Your fake equation takes this one system and falsely divides it into two, in order to add it to itself and double its force.

It is Pseudoscience.

You ridiculous retards should take a look at conservation of momentum and how it applies.

Quote from: Mainframes on February 16, 2018, 01:47:08 PM

A rocket would operate on the following momentum equation:

m1v1 = m2v2 + m3v3

1 = rocket and fuel
2 = rocket less fuel
3 = fuel

The rocket and its fuel are one system, creating one force.

Your fake equation takes this one system and falsely divides it into two, in order to add it to itself and double its force.

It is Pseudoscience.

It is perfectly possible for an object to split into two or more separate objects. Conservation of momentum applies and is one of the most basic tenets of mechanics. 12 year olds learn this in school.

Lol you are mental.

Are you capable of responding without an insult?

You just made that all up.

Yes, I made up the equation, which accurately reflects conservation of momentum, quite easily.

You don't even provide definitions for the terms in your mad fake equation.

Because I was leaving in a general form, and it isn't fake in the slightest.

It is a simple case of 2 objects (like a rocket and a piece of fuel), mr is the mass of the rocket (and any fuel not included in the piece being thrown backwards), mf is the mass of the fuel, vi is the initial velocity, vrf is the final velocity of the rocket, vff is the final velocity of the fuel.
The fuel and rocket start at the same velocity, vi.
If you like it can be rewritten us mr vrf + mf vff = mr vi + mf vi.

Then momentum is exhanged between the rocket and fuel such that the fuel loses momentum and the rocket gains it.
This happens because the rocket "throws" the fuel backwards.
This results in the velocity of the rocket increasing.

Stop lying about everything please.

Follow your own advice, you are the one lying here, not me.

The rocket and its fuel are one system, creating one force.

Stop lying.
That is only the case before the fuel is used.
When it is used it is burnt and blasted out behind the rocket.
When that happens they are no longer one system.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 12:25:17 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on February 16, 2018, 01:47:08 PM

A rocket would operate on the following momentum equation:

m1v1 = m2v2 + m3v3

1 = rocket and fuel
2 = rocket less fuel
3 = fuel

The rocket and its fuel are one system, creating one force.

Your fake equation takes this one system and falsely divides it into two, in order to add it to itself and double its force.

It is Pseudoscience.

It is perfectly possible for an object to split into two or more separate objects. Conservation of momentum applies and is one of the most basic tenets of mechanics. 12 year olds learn this in school.

And they never learn it as m1v1 = m2v2 + m3v3.

Because you made that shit up.

And oh look, the jackblack AI algorithm posted as I was writing this...

What a surprise!

It, too, admits it just made up its fake equation, yet expects to be taken seriously...

It is mental.

And oh look, the [rational human being known as JackBlack] posted as I was writing this...
It, too, admits it just made up its fake equation, yet expects to be taken seriously...

No, I did no such thing.

I admitted I made the equation. There is nothing fake about it.
It is based upon the conservation of momentum, i.e. sum(p)=k

You are also full of shit.
No one ever learns the conservation of momentum as:
m1v1+m2v2=m1v1+m2v2.
This is merely an identity, with nothing linking it to conservation of momentum.

Instead you would likely have something more like this:
m1*v1i + m2*v2i = m1*v1f+m2*v2f
indicating the starting and final velocity for each object which can change, unlike your identity which just has a single velocity for each mass. which can change with the sum of the product of the masses and velocities remaining constant.

And then what happens if you let 1=r, and 2=f, and vfi=vri=vi?
Then you get:
mr*vi + mf*vi = mr*vrf+mf*vff
which simplifies to:
(mr+ mf)vi = mr*vrf+mf*vff
Which is what I had.

Due to the joined term on the left, this could also be represented as:
mt*vi=mr*vrf+mf*vff
or with other subscripts used.

That is good when you analyse something breaking apart.

Now quit with your pathetic lies and deflections.
Honestly and rational address what has been said, back up your claims, or get lost.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 02:13:15 AM

And oh look, the [rational human being known as JackBlack] posted as I was writing this...
It, too, admits it just made up its fake equation, yet expects to be taken seriously...

No, I did no such thing.

I admitted I made the equation. There is nothing fake about it.
It is based upon the conservation of momentum, i.e. sum(p)=k

You are also full of shit.
No one ever learns the conservation of momentum as:
m1v1+m2v2=m1v1+m2v2.
This is merely an identity, with nothing linking it to conservation of momentum.

Instead you would likely have something more like this:
m1*v1i + m2*v2i = m1*v1f+m2*v2f
indicating the starting and final velocity for each object which can change, unlike your identity which just has a single velocity for each mass. which can change with the sum of the product of the masses and velocities remaining constant.

And then what happens if you let 1=r, and 2=f, and vfi=vri=vi?
Then you get:
mr*vi + mf*vi = mr*vrf+mf*vff
which simplifies to:
(mr+ mf)vi = mr*vrf+mf*vff
Which is what I had.

Due to the joined term on the left, this could also be represented as:
mt*vi=mr*vrf+mf*vff
or with other subscripts used.

That is good when you analyse something breaking apart.

Now quit with your pathetic lies and deflections.
Honestly and rational address what has been said, back up your claims, or get lost.

You admit com applies to two objects.

Yet a fuelled rocket is one object.

And that one object exerts a force using the internally stored energy of the fuel.

You, however, divide the rocket into two objects in your mad fake equation.

Thus, you are basing your mad fake equation on FALSE PREMISES.

Which is why it can safely be rejected as Pseudoscience.

QED, botty boy.

You admit com applies to two objects.

No. I admit my correct analysis applies to 2 objects or entities, initially moving together before they split.
Additionally, these 2 entities can be considered a single entity before the split.

Yet a fuelled rocket is one object.

Stop lying.
Once the fuel is burnt it is ejected from the rocket and they are no longer a single object.
As such, the analysis applies.

You, however, divide the rocket into two objects in your mad fake equation.

No, I note the fuel is separated from the rocket when it burns in my correct analysis (including a completely sane equation) you are yet to even come close to addressing.

Thus, you are basing your mad fake equation on FALSE PREMISES.
Which is why it can safely be rejected as Pseudoscience.

Nope, my real equation is based upon correct premises.
Meanwhile your pathetic "analysis" requires completely rejecting reality and pretending the fuel stays with the rocket even after it is burnt.

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 02:31:14 AM

Yet a fuelled rocket is one object.

Stop lying.

The jackblack AI algorithm cannot count to 'one'.

Its credibility is non-existent.