Intercontinental ballistic missile

  • 1723 Replies
  • 63459 Views
?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1650 on: February 23, 2019, 11:26:24 AM »

I understand what science is.  I'm just not sure what you think science is.
I'll tell you what it isn't. It isn't sci-fi. It isn't lies. It isn't fiction. It isn't peer reviewed maybe's.
The science I look into is a search for a potential reality from what is natural about what, who, why and where we are and what is within.
I don't regard science as memorising made up nonsense because questions cannot be answered using a potential reality.

Quote from: markjo

Do you think that Newton, Einstein, Hawking and countless others toed the line and did what they were told?
I believe they will have, yes.
There are reasons why they're on a pedestal but not all of those reasons are legitimate, in my opinion.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1651 on: February 23, 2019, 11:28:42 AM »
But to tell the truth would be destroying the entire global system and space antics.
Closer to the truth would be to say:
The fact that rocket engines have been shown to provide thrust up to quite high altitudes, where there is virtually no air, destroys the basis of your hypothesis.


Quite high is one thing. All I tend to see are rocket/missile arcs. What do you see?

I also see one hell of a lot of fakery. I know you never see any. Why would you.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1652 on: February 23, 2019, 11:33:30 AM »
You're literally not making any sense. On the most simplistic level, you say to go farther you need to reduce mass. What do you think is happening when fuel is spent?
Twisting to suit yourself will only serve to confuse yourself. Unless that's your modus operandi to give onlookers a sense of confusion.

Quote from: Stash

We've shown you plenty of amateur rockets that go way longer than just a few seconds.
Again, you miss the point. Deliberate?

Quote from: Stash

What don't you get about scale? And what don't you get about your own model? You said it yourself, the atmosphere provides the resistance for the rocket to push off of. So why all of a sudden rockets can't use your model to fly at all?
Hmmm, weird. Totally twisted this. Nice one.
Don't bother spending your time coming back with similar nonsense to confuse onlookers.
If you are legitimate in doing this then just take a back seat.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1653 on: February 23, 2019, 11:43:58 AM »
Atmospheric resistance is imperative. No air needed means no resistance, means no reaction to flow, means no opposite movement.

 That is demonstrably incorrect. Among many videos demonstrating this
Some explanations about it also here - https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/4p3nq0/how_do_rocket_engines_transfer_the_force_upwards/
But  Iguess it is just wasted on you.
What are you trying to prove here?
If this is the best you people can do it's no wonder your space and globe nonsense is being shown up for the fiction it is.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39853
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1654 on: February 23, 2019, 11:51:19 AM »

I understand what science is.  I'm just not sure what you think science is.
I'll tell you what it isn't. It isn't sci-fi. It isn't lies. It isn't fiction. It isn't peer reviewed maybe's.
Not quite what I asked, but so far, so good.

The science I look into is a search for a potential reality from what is natural about what, who, why and where we are and what is within.
What makes you think that the scientists that you're bashing aren't doing exactly the same thing?

I don't regard science as memorising made up nonsense because questions cannot be answered using a potential reality.
Neither do actual scientists.  Granted, there are theoretical scientists thinking up a bunch of stuff that can't be proven, but there are a lot of applied scientists studying real phenomena like atmospheric pressure and gravity.


Quote from: markjo

Do you think that Newton, Einstein, Hawking and countless others toed the line and did what they were told?
I believe they will have, yes.
Then you truly have no idea of who they are and what they contributed to science.

There are reasons why they're on a pedestal but not all of those reasons are legitimate, in my opinion.
They are on pedestals because the dramatically changed the way that scientists look at the world.
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.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1655 on: February 23, 2019, 02:15:11 PM »
I'll tell you what it isn't. It isn't sci-fi. It isn't lies. It isn't fiction. It isn't peer reviewed maybe's.
So it isn't what you have been spouting.

I believe they will have, yes.
Then you have no idea what you are talking about.
Some of these went heavily against what they have been told, showing very large problems with what was then understood, which result in a significant shift in thinking.
They are wonderful examples of why your fantasy of scientists just following a narrative is pure BS.
If scientists are able (i.e. have the evidence) to show that there is something significantly wrong with the mainstream model, THEY WILL! Basically nothing can stop them. That will typically result in getting a Nobel prize.

That is the reason they are on a "pedestal." Because they showed something significantly wrong with the prior models.
If you really had evidence to show that the mainstream explanation of so much of physics is wrong, you would present it and get a Nobel prize.


Now, how about you either justify your claim that everything magically needs air to move, or you admit your claim is pure fantasy?

*

Stash

  • 5263
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1656 on: February 23, 2019, 02:20:55 PM »
You're literally not making any sense. On the most simplistic level, you say to go farther you need to reduce mass. What do you think is happening when fuel is spent?
Twisting to suit yourself will only serve to confuse yourself. Unless that's your modus operandi to give onlookers a sense of confusion.

Quote from: Stash

We've shown you plenty of amateur rockets that go way longer than just a few seconds.

Again, you miss the point. Deliberate?

Quote from: Stash

What don't you get about scale? And what don't you get about your own model? You said it yourself, the atmosphere provides the resistance for the rocket to push off of. So why all of a sudden rockets can't use your model to fly at all?
Hmmm, weird. Totally twisted this. Nice one.
Don't bother spending your time coming back with similar nonsense to confuse onlookers.
If you are legitimate in doing this then just take a back seat.

There's no twisting going on. It just struck me based upon what you have said about the atmosphere providing a rocket the resistance it needs to function in your model is that as long as the rocket is in the atmosphere it works as advertised in your model. Why wouldn't it?

What in your model prevents a rocket from going 200 feet, 2000 feet or 20,000 feet distance given enough fuel and thrust as long as it stays in the atmosphere?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1657 on: February 24, 2019, 07:23:17 AM »
The science I look into is a search for a potential reality from what is natural about what, who, why and where we are and what is within.
What makes you think that the scientists that you're bashing aren't doing exactly the same thing?
Because the one's I'm having a pop at and questioning for what I'm arguing against, are not being wholeheartedly legitimate, in my honest opinion.

A lot of it is basically nonsense passed off as reality...again, in my opinion.
However, I have no issue with the real scientists who are attempting to find the truth and those who do actually do something positive.

Sometimes a story told is not the real story. It can be a fictional adaptation of the potential truth...or the actual truth.
In a nutshell, those at the top get the real script and we get the revised story from it.
Why?
Because we can be fooled into anything by following that narrative. And we are on a regular basis, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: markjo
I don't regard science as memorising made up nonsense because questions cannot be answered using a potential reality.
Neither do actual scientists.  Granted, there are theoretical scientists thinking up a bunch of stuff that can't be proven, but there are a lot of applied scientists studying real phenomena like atmospheric pressure and gravity.
Like I mentioned above. Some will tell the truth but it will be disguised by a fiction.


Quote from: markjo
Quote from: markjo

Do you think that Newton, Einstein, Hawking and countless others toed the line and did what they were told?
I believe they will have, yes.
Then you truly have no idea of who they are and what they contributed to science.
You're right. All I have is what's told and shown. The same as you.
All you know about their contributions are what you were told.
Your truth is based on the story you accept as that truth, but as above, stories are not always truthful.

Quote from: markjo
There are reasons why they're on a pedestal but not all of those reasons are legitimate, in my opinion.
They are on pedestals because the dramatically changed the way that scientists look at the world.
Maybe in some.

The story tellers and writers decide the scenes of history. We can only mimic from memory after revising them.

Here's something for you...and I believe it's pertinent when considering this science and who is legit or not.

How many books have you read that were clearly fictional writing's?
You know, the books you bought or loaned that you clearly knew were fictional stories, yet you bought them to read and most likely enjoyed because it was a well thought out story.
Are you starting to get my drift?

This is what we are up against but the problem is, we are not told from which shelf the story books come from. Fact....or......fiction. And yet the same fact and fiction stories can be easily jumbled up on those shelves, so although you read some that say fiction, they may be based on fact. Those you see as fact may be easily based on fiction.

The so called science world is nothing more than this. It's littered with possibles, probables, truth's and lies.
Some are much more easier to spot than others.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1658 on: February 24, 2019, 07:31:30 AM »

If you really had evidence to show that the mainstream explanation of so much of physics is wrong, you would present it and get a Nobel prize.


Now, how about you either justify your claim that everything magically needs air to move, or you admit your claim is pure fantasy?
I can't admit my claim is anything other than potentially truth if I believe it to be so. And I do believe it to be so.
I'm fairly sure those at the top know what's what.
I'm also fairly sure that nobody is going to admit to anything different if it goes against the narrative they set out.
Soooooo, no nobel prizes for anyone going against the grain. You know that and so does anyone else who takes note.

I have nothing to prove to you and nothing to prove to anyone else.

If people want to dismiss anything I say, then they are welcome to do just that.
If people want to quietly look into what I'm saying, then they have a chance of seeing a potential truth of a extremely potential lie, like space rockets and gravity and all the rest of the mumbo jumbo on par with it.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1659 on: February 24, 2019, 09:07:23 AM »
What are you trying to prove here?
If this is the best you people can do it's no wonder your space and globe nonsense is being shown up for the fiction it is.
I am not trying to prove anything. I just showed the evidence that you are wrong.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1660 on: February 24, 2019, 01:30:30 PM »
Because the one's I'm having a pop at and questioning for what I'm arguing against, are not being wholeheartedly legitimate, in my honest opinion.
And that "honest opinion" is dishonest garbage.
The only reason you claim such things is because they agree with the mainstream science, like gravity and Newton's laws of motion, which goes against your delusional claims.
That isn't an honest evaluation.

The so called science world is nothing more than this. It's littered with possibles, probables, truth's and lies.
That would be your delusional nonsense.
The science world is not littered with lies.
Instead it is littered with evidence and understanding. 2 things you severely lack.

I can't admit my claim is anything other than potentially truth if I believe it to be so. And I do believe it to be so.
Then start justifying it rather than repeatedly asserting it.
Or by "potentially truth" do you mean delusional nonsense which you are choosing to ignore all the problems with so you can pretend there is a chance it might be true?

I'm also fairly sure that nobody is going to admit to anything different if it goes against the narrative they set out.
Again, pure BS. It has happened plenty of times.

I have nothing to prove to you and nothing to prove to anyone else.
You have plenty to prove, you just can't prove it.
You have made numerous wild claims contradicted by reality and plenty of evidence which you just dismiss.

I just showed the evidence that you are wrong.
Your baseless assertions contradicted by reality is not evidence. It is a baseless assertion.
You are yet to provide ANY evidence that shows the mainstream is wrong.

Now, going to explain why all motion and all forces magically needs air?

*

Stash

  • 5263
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1661 on: February 25, 2019, 01:21:58 AM »
If you flip the script and say the Skepti world view is enacted, here's where I'm perplexed.

V2 is the simplest example - Germany fires off rockets that go 200 miles max, distance. None of which leave the atmosphere to do so. If we leave 'space' out of this for the moment, what in the Skepti view precludes the rockets from doing so?
They are, in his view, pushing off the atmosphere, the stacked molecules he speaks of. So, in essence, ICBM's, missiles, rockets, whathaveyou, work in the Skepti model as long as they remain in the atmosphere. What in the model would cause them not to?

So we can get to the argument about whether rockets push off the atmosphere or not. But in the mean time, I'm pretty sure they work, whilst within the atmosphere, according to Skepti's model. I've seen nothing to argue otherwise and only for it.

So we dispense with all of the 'springboard', 'dead stick' nonsense as it's neither here nor there. As long as there is atmosphere for the rocket to travel in, we're all good to go. No?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1662 on: February 25, 2019, 04:16:40 AM »
What are you trying to prove here?
If this is the best you people can do it's no wonder your space and globe nonsense is being shown up for the fiction it is.
I am not trying to prove anything. I just showed the evidence that you are wrong.
Then you failed miserably.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1663 on: February 25, 2019, 04:19:16 AM »

Your baseless assertions contradicted by reality is not evidence. It is a baseless assertion.
You are yet to provide ANY evidence that shows the mainstream is wrong.


What I say is certainly not contradicted by reality,

Also,  mainstream has shown no real evidence to prove it is correct and why I'm wrong, no matter how much you scream it.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1664 on: February 25, 2019, 04:28:52 AM »
If you flip the script and say the Skepti world view is enacted, here's where I'm perplexed.

V2 is the simplest example - Germany fires off rockets that go 200 miles max, distance. None of which leave the atmosphere to do so. If we leave 'space' out of this for the moment, what in the Skepti view precludes the rockets from doing so?
They are, in his view, pushing off the atmosphere, the stacked molecules he speaks of. So, in essence, ICBM's, missiles, rockets, whathaveyou, work in the Skepti model as long as they remain in the atmosphere. What in the model would cause them not to?

So we can get to the argument about whether rockets push off the atmosphere or not. But in the mean time, I'm pretty sure they work, whilst within the atmosphere, according to Skepti's model. I've seen nothing to argue otherwise and only for it.

So we dispense with all of the 'springboard', 'dead stick' nonsense as it's neither here nor there. As long as there is atmosphere for the rocket to travel in, we're all good to go. No?
Yep, as long as there's atmosphere for the rocket to use as resistant force to push off of then we are good.
The problem is, we are not told that.
So even though you try to put a case to argue with atmosphere and to leave out space nonsense, rockets are not told to work any other way by mainstream.

If you accept they need atmosphere then you have to accept there's no space rockets; or space for that matter.

As for the V2. You can see they're gimmicks, to be fair.
It's all about just observing the nonsense from it all and the silly model set up from then to this day.
It's a clever little ruse but that's all it is at the end of the day.

No need to argue this, I know you're smitten by the sci-fi of it as your reality and that's fine by me. Just don't expect everyone to follow that train of thought.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1665 on: February 25, 2019, 05:46:02 AM »
Trolled by the troll king.
No matter how much "evidnece" and "proof" its all waved away with a simple "fakenews".

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1666 on: February 25, 2019, 06:17:17 AM »
What are you trying to prove here?
If this is the best you people can do it's no wonder your space and globe nonsense is being shown up for the fiction it is.
I am not trying to prove anything. I just showed the evidence that you are wrong.
Then you failed miserably.
No, I did not fail. I showed the evidence that you are wrong. Rocket motors do not need the atmosphere to push against. You are demonstrably wrong, that is a fact.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1667 on: February 25, 2019, 06:38:03 AM »
Sceptimatic, you have seen this video before, and threw it aside of course, but isnít this the type of experiment to show the air is stacking and compressing and pushing the rocket?



If the rocket engine released some air to get subsequently stacked and push off of, where is the evidence of it?  The gas appears to just go backwards and fill the space as one would expect.  I see no billowing of the gas, no resistance at all.  Why, if Air needs to stack and the rocket pushes off it, canít we see some billowing or resistance layer/pushback in such a video? 

What you are missing is evidence that air is pushing the rocket.  If this is so, shouldnít the propellant fumes give it away?  Where is the pushback?  If slow motion high def video of a rocket engine in a near vacuum isnít a good enough experiment, then what is? And what would display the way your rocket works?


Watch the gas and particulates at the 4 minute mark floating around aimlessly.  Where is the pushback?
« Last Edit: February 25, 2019, 06:53:55 AM by JCM »

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 6137
  • HAL 9000 is my friend.
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1668 on: February 25, 2019, 09:53:01 AM »
Here is another video on the see through rocket.

Eternal rest grant to him, O Lord; and let light perpetual shine upon him. May his soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

RAB.

*

Stash

  • 5263
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1669 on: February 25, 2019, 11:00:42 AM »
If you flip the script and say the Skepti world view is enacted, here's where I'm perplexed.

V2 is the simplest example - Germany fires off rockets that go 200 miles max, distance. None of which leave the atmosphere to do so. If we leave 'space' out of this for the moment, what in the Skepti view precludes the rockets from doing so?
They are, in his view, pushing off the atmosphere, the stacked molecules he speaks of. So, in essence, ICBM's, missiles, rockets, whathaveyou, work in the Skepti model as long as they remain in the atmosphere. What in the model would cause them not to?

So we can get to the argument about whether rockets push off the atmosphere or not. But in the mean time, I'm pretty sure they work, whilst within the atmosphere, according to Skepti's model. I've seen nothing to argue otherwise and only for it.

So we dispense with all of the 'springboard', 'dead stick' nonsense as it's neither here nor there. As long as there is atmosphere for the rocket to travel in, we're all good to go. No?
Yep, as long as there's atmosphere for the rocket to use as resistant force to push off of then we are good.
The problem is, we are not told that.
So even though you try to put a case to argue with atmosphere and to leave out space nonsense, rockets are not told to work any other way by mainstream.

If you accept they need atmosphere then you have to accept there's no space rockets; or space for that matter.

As for the V2. You can see they're gimmicks, to be fair.
It's all about just observing the nonsense from it all and the silly model set up from then to this day.
It's a clever little ruse but that's all it is at the end of the day.

No need to argue this, I know you're smitten by the sci-fi of it as your reality and that's fine by me. Just don't expect everyone to follow that train of thought.

The point is, all the stuff you've said to date about rockets/missiles being 'gimmicks' is not true as long as they stay in the atmosphere. They work just fine as long as they are not in space. So in your model, a V2 is not a gimmick as long as it had air as resistance to push off of. Correct? Literally, your only sticking point is a rocket working in the atmosphere as opposed to working in no atmosphere, correct?

If not correct explain how rockets/missiles as we see them don't work in the atmosphere.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1670 on: February 25, 2019, 11:43:44 AM »
What I say is certainly not contradicted by reality,
Plenty of simple experiments show otherwise.

Also,  mainstream has shown no real evidence
You dismissing it doesn't magically mean it isn't real evidence.
The mainstream has plenty of evidence, plenty of which has been provided to you which you simply dismiss.
Even the GPS used daily by countless people across the world is evidence of several key parts of mainstream models that show you to be wrong.


Now how about you quit with the distractions and explain why everything magically needs air?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1671 on: February 25, 2019, 11:50:11 AM »
If he never leaves his house, why does he need gps?
Fakenews.


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39853
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1672 on: February 25, 2019, 01:32:04 PM »

Your baseless assertions contradicted by reality is not evidence. It is a baseless assertion.
You are yet to provide ANY evidence that shows the mainstream is wrong.


What I say is certainly not contradicted by reality,

Also,  mainstream has shown no real evidence to prove it is correct and why I'm wrong, no matter how much you scream it.
The mainstream provides real evidence with every rocket launch.  If you want to reject that evidence, then that's your problem, not the mainstream's.
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.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1673 on: February 25, 2019, 01:37:31 PM »

Your baseless assertions contradicted by reality is not evidence. It is a baseless assertion.
You are yet to provide ANY evidence that shows the mainstream is wrong.


What I say is certainly not contradicted by reality,

Also,  mainstream has shown no real evidence to prove it is correct and why I'm wrong, no matter how much you scream it.
The mainstream provides real evidence with every rocket launch.  If you want to reject that evidence, then that's your problem, not the mainstream's.

when i need help, i turn to dilbert.
he always has the answers.
looks like scepti has taken this instruction.

dodgedodge swishswish

https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-02-25


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1674 on: February 26, 2019, 01:23:19 AM »
What are you trying to prove here?
If this is the best you people can do it's no wonder your space and globe nonsense is being shown up for the fiction it is.
I am not trying to prove anything. I just showed the evidence that you are wrong.
Then you failed miserably.
No, I did not fail. I showed the evidence that you are wrong. Rocket motors do not need the atmosphere to push against. You are demonstrably wrong, that is a fact.
Your facts are on a platter for you. What you physically know, is zero but you will continue to ride on the coat-tails of those who write the stories.
Fair enough but don't take it as a fact when you have no proof of it.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1675 on: February 26, 2019, 01:24:47 AM »
What are you trying to prove here?
If this is the best you people can do it's no wonder your space and globe nonsense is being shown up for the fiction it is.
I am not trying to prove anything. I just showed the evidence that you are wrong.
Then you failed miserably.
No, I did not fail. I showed the evidence that you are wrong. Rocket motors do not need the atmosphere to push against. You are demonstrably wrong, that is a fact.
Your facts are on a platter for you. What you physically know, is zero but you will continue to ride on the coat-tails of those who write the stories.
Fair enough but don't take it as a fact when you have no proof of it.

aaah
we can't rely on the words of others eh?
ok
add the whole judicial system as fakenews

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1676 on: February 26, 2019, 01:40:19 AM »
Sceptimatic, you have seen this video before, and threw it aside of course, but isnít this the type of experiment to show the air is stacking and compressing and pushing the rocket?



If the rocket engine released some air to get subsequently stacked and push off of, where is the evidence of it?  The gas appears to just go backwards and fill the space as one would expect.  I see no billowing of the gas, no resistance at all.  Why, if Air needs to stack and the rocket pushes off it, canít we see some billowing or resistance layer/pushback in such a video? 

What you are missing is evidence that air is pushing the rocket.  If this is so, shouldnít the propellant fumes give it away?  Where is the pushback?  If slow motion high def video of a rocket engine in a near vacuum isnít a good enough experiment, then what is? And what would display the way your rocket works?


Watch the gas and particulates at the 4 minute mark floating around aimlessly.  Where is the pushback?
I don't see what you are proving here?
There's no near vacuum.
The fact that the tube is full of exhaust shows there's no consistent allowance for the exit if that pressure. It means the small amount of pressure allowed for evacuation is so small as to be negligible against the expelled gases of the firework.

It means the pressure is there to be build on to create exactly what we see.

As for the bottom video where you say p[articles floating randomly.
We're talking about atmosphere they are in, not the particles themselves.
Of course you'll see scattered matter within atmosphere but it's all attached to atmosphere. No free space.
The reason why it's randomly moving about is due to the expansion and contraction of it withing that atmosphere which means it gets squeezed about until it's spent of energy and is then pushed to the ground.



?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1677 on: February 26, 2019, 01:42:38 AM »
Here is another video on the see through rocket.


That alone should show you exactly why atmosphere does the work or resistance to the burn.
I'll use this because it shows clearly what happens for those who are willing to see past the nonsense of no atmosphere space rockets..

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1678 on: February 26, 2019, 01:44:42 AM »
The point is, all the stuff you've said to date about rockets/missiles being 'gimmicks' is not true as long as they stay in the atmosphere. They work just fine as long as they are not in space. So in your model, a V2 is not a gimmick as long as it had air as resistance to push off of. Correct? Literally, your only sticking point is a rocket working in the atmosphere as opposed to working in no atmosphere, correct?

If not correct explain how rockets/missiles as we see them don't work in the atmosphere.
Are you admitting that your V2 uses the atmosphere to push against?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1679 on: February 26, 2019, 01:47:01 AM »

Your baseless assertions contradicted by reality is not evidence. It is a baseless assertion.
You are yet to provide ANY evidence that shows the mainstream is wrong.


What I say is certainly not contradicted by reality,

Also,  mainstream has shown no real evidence to prove it is correct and why I'm wrong, no matter how much you scream it.
The mainstream provides real evidence with every rocket launch.  If you want to reject that evidence, then that's your problem, not the mainstream's.
I don't see it as a problem. I reject it and that's that. If there's no problem then there's no need for you to argue in favour of the mainstream...unless you actually do see it as a problem for the mainstream...and yourself, of course.