Intercontinental ballistic missile

  • 1723 Replies
  • 44460 Views
?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22981
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #540 on: January 14, 2019, 12:42:41 PM »
Your argument and concern are wrong according to the model rocket industry. Again, from Estes, "Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting. At the end of this thrusting portion of the flight (1.7 seconds into flight time from liftoff), the model rocket is traveling at its maximum speed. This maximum speed is 670 feet per second or about 3.5 times as fast as the average speed.
After the propellant is gone, the rocket is moving upward without a thrust force pushing it on up."

So are they mistaken or lying?
Are you not grasping what's being said?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #541 on: January 14, 2019, 12:56:06 PM »
Your argument and concern are wrong according to the model rocket industry. Again, from Estes, "Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting. At the end of this thrusting portion of the flight (1.7 seconds into flight time from liftoff), the model rocket is traveling at its maximum speed. This maximum speed is 670 feet per second or about 3.5 times as fast as the average speed.
After the propellant is gone, the rocket is moving upward without a thrust force pushing it on up."

So are they mistaken or lying?
Are you not grasping what's being said?
No, that would be you.
For this rocket the springboard launch part would be within the first fraction of a second.

I will highlight the important parts that you continually ignore:
Quote
Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting. At the end of this thrusting portion of the flight (1.7 seconds into flight time from liftoff), the model rocket is travelling at its maximum speed. This maximum speed is 670 feet per second or about 3.5 times as fast as the average speed.
After the propellant is gone, the rocket is moving upward without a thrust force pushing it on up.

As a comparison:
Your claim - The rocket springboards then has a constant velocity while the engine is on.
Their claim (and all the results of all experiments) - The rocket continues to accelerate while the engine is on.

Your claim - After the fuel is depleted the rocket stops dead and falls.
Their claim (and all the results of all experiments) - The rocket continues to move upwards but slows down as it does so.

And a bonus one:
Your claim - At the end of this thrusting portion of the flight the model rocket has stopped dead and is stationary before it falls back down to Earth.
Their claim (and the results of all experiments) - At the end of this thrusting portion of the flight the model rocket is travelling at its maximum speed.

Notice the massive difference between your claims and theirs?

So do you think these people, who have been dealing with rockets for quite some time, are just extremely stupid and ignorant and have no idea what they are talking about, or do you think they are lying? Or are you just wrong?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22981
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #542 on: January 14, 2019, 01:10:26 PM »


Again, you have 2 options:
1 - REAL PHYSICS! The thrust (by which I mean "forwards" push on the rocket) is based upon the reactionary force to expelling the exhaust.
The force required to accelerate an object is based upon its mass, not the atmosphere, with the atmosphere only contributing to resistance based upon velocity. This means the exhaust will be expelled with the same force and the same force thus acts on the rocket. Thus all the reduced atmospheric resistance does is lower air resistance meaning it will accelerate.
2 - Scepti's fantasy land physics :( In this world instead of mass determining how much force is required to accelerate an object, the air does along with the mass (something like F=mPa), with a greater atmospheric pressure/density meaning more resistance. Now as the rocket moves into less dense air, there is less resistance. This means that less force is required to accelerate the exhaust out of the rocket, meaning a lesser reactionary force, but also less is needed to accelerate a rocket of a given mass, meaning it is balanced, meaning the same effective thrust (F/P) and thus the rocket will still accelerate as it loses mass.

Instead of picking one of these options, you wish to pick bits of both.
You want the exhaust to only resist based upon the atmosphere, but then have the rocket completely ignore the atmosphere and instead be based upon its mass. You are literally contradicting yourself.

No fantasy here. It should be blatantly obvious to people seeing as atmospheric pressure is the very thing that keeps everything moving, yet we're expected to accept a fictional force they call gravity and the big dupe of pretending a rocket can thrust its burning fuel out of a nozzle and equally kick its own insides above to push it through the atmosphere.
Easy enough for people to be duped if they refuse to question it.

Quote from: JackBlack
Firstly, you are aware the sealing of the tube would likely be done with a similar mechanism to that used to inject the air to push the missile out?
We have valves that can quite easily open and close very quickly, withstand significant pressures, and allow a lot of air to flow through at once.
A valve eh?
Just flip a valve and out comes your missile. All 36 tons of it.

Here's something for you. I admit I haven't looked.
Do you know of anything that is 36 tons that can be thrown into the air by compressed air, even 20 feet?



Quote from: JackBlack
So it is quite simple: Subs have air tanks. This is part of their design as they can open valves and allow this high pressure air to push the water out of their ballast tanks to surface. All it requires is directing that to the base of the missile tube, which will then pressurise the bottom and start forcing the missile up.
Air tanks to eject 36 tons from a tube?



Quote from: JackBlack
Not vertically they won't.
Rockets will continue to accelerate while their engine is on, and then continue moving upwards while slowing down once their engine is off.

No they won't. Not vertically.

Quote from: JackBlack
Atmospheric resistance from above with no return push from below...just a low pressure refill from what the projectile leaves as it compresses into the atmosphere.
This is why it's so hard to climb or throw objects vertically as opposed to horizontally.
We have shown in your other thread that the atmosphere has nothing to do with it.
The reason it is hard to climb or throw objects vertically is because of gravity or whatever garbage you use to replace weight.
You have no clue what gravity is and yet you use it to explain, what?



Quote from: JackBlack
In a nutshell it's simply a friction grip all the way up vertically with no added push from under it.
Your "friction grip" which most people would simply call air resistance is almost the same horizontally and veritcally.
No it's not.

Quote from: JackBlack
The big difference is that vertically, the atmosphere decreases in pressure and thus the friction is reduced as you go higher.
So it's not the same, is it?

Quote from: JackBlack
That would mean vertically fired projectiles would go further.


In an arc, of course.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #543 on: January 14, 2019, 01:40:06 PM »
It should be blatantly obvious to people seeing as atmospheric pressure is the very thing that keeps everything moving
No it isn't.
What is blatantly obvious to everyone accept you apparently is that you are directly contradicting yourself.
Again, why should it be the atmosphere that keeps everything moving when you claim that is what stops things moving?
You can't have it both ways.
What is obvious to everyone is that air and other fluids try to prevent relative motion, not keep them in motion.
It is obvious to everyone except you that if the rocket keeps its thrust constant (by ejecting the same amount of fuel) it will continue to accelerate as it is losing mass, and will likely accelerate faster.

the big dupe of pretending a rocket can thrust its burning fuel out of a nozzle and equally kick its own insides above to push it through the atmosphere.
Again, you trying to make it appear ridiculous doesn't magically make it wrong.
Go learn basic physics. Do the experiments to figure out how it works.
Stop with the pathetic ridicule which amounts to nothing more than stating you are wilfully ignorant.

Easy enough for people to be duped if they refuse to question it.
Which is why I question your BS rather than be duped by it.
Questioning reality doesn't make you better when you still reject reality.

A valve eh?
Again, your pathetic ridicule just shows you don't care about reality.

No they won't. Not vertically.
Again, repeating the same lie doesn't magically make it true.
We have videos and experiments we have conducted and statements from rocket manufacturers

No it's not.
Don't just assert it isn't.
Explain why it is magically different.

Again, here is reality for you:
The air is a fluid and as such will interact with any substance moving through it. This interaction results in a force which is dependent upon the velocity. An object moving quickly through the fluid will need to push the fluid out of the way and experiences drag as it moves relative the fluid.
An object stationary relative to the fluid does not experience this as it doesn't need to push the fluid out of the way nor is the fluid moving past it.
There is no dependence on directionality here.

Again, the only difference is that for horizontal motion the air remains fairly constant, but for vertical motion the air gets less dense as you get higher.

So it's not the same, is it?
Are you capable of basic reasoning?
It not being the same makes it better for vertical projectiles as they don't have as much air resistance slowing them down.
If that was all there was they would go further.

In an arc, of course.
Then they wouldn't be vertical.
Do you understand what vertical means?

An object fired straight up is slowed down less due to air resistance than an object fired horizontally.

Now do you have anything rational backing up any of your lies, or do you only have lies, appeal to ridicule and wilful ignorance?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #544 on: January 14, 2019, 06:55:28 PM »
Once that missile is fired vertically under no other propulsion but the initial launch then it can shed as much of its mass as it wants, it still won't accelerate.

Unfortunately, there are soldiers around the world that would like what you're saying to be true.  If that was the case, there would be no need to create weapons like a discarding sabot.  The speed, at the muzzle, nearly doubles after leaving the barrel due to nothing but its loss in mass.  If your "theory" was true, and a projectile was at maximum velocity at the muzzle regardless of any change in the projectile, then you wouldn't need to create this type of weapon to begin with.

The only time it will accelerate is if it hits the arc summit and accelerates down from that point.

Question, regarding this statement, do you believe the projectile is at maximum velocity at the end of the barrel, or does it ever equal or exceed that speed after passing the apex of the ballistic arc?
With all the woes facing our planet do we need a flat earth to add to them...

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #545 on: January 14, 2019, 07:02:05 PM »
If it's accelerating then it isn't max thrusting from lift off
Again, that depends upon your idea of max thrust.
If you mean using all the fuel at once to achieve the maximum possible thrust from the fuel, then no, it isn't. But no rocket does.
If you mean just having the maximum constant thrust the engine is designed for, then no it can be.
Max thrust is max amount of fuel that can be burned in one go to be ejected.
Once that happens there's no more extra thrust. All you have is reduced mass but also reduced atmospheric resistance which keeps a consistency of speed, not acceleration.



Quote from: JackBlack
Not it doesn't.
The vertical rocket is always pushing through lesser atmosphere with each millimetre.
Yes it does.
Remember, you are claiming it is this atmosphere which is creating the resistance to motion. That means it now resists the motion of the rocket less. This means a lower force would be able to accelerate the rocket more. This is balanced with the reduction of your reactionary force from the exhaust.

So it is balanced, the effective thrust remains the same.
So as it is losing mass, it will accelerate.
No it won't. By losing fuel mass it merely hold a consistent speed by thrusting into lesser atmospheric friction but counteracting it by the loss of the mass by ejected burning fuel into it.



Quote from: JackBlack
Ok, so under this missile we have to believe that compressed air can....not only pressurise the entire container to hold back the membrane from the pressure of the ocean
That is the static pressure inside the tube, not just below it. They would then add to this pressure.
How?
They would have to seal off the entire tube after pressurisation against the membrane and ocean water pressure so they don't breach that membrane before launch. Then they would need to super pressurise the foot and a bit under that rocket.
Any idea how they do this?



Quote from: JackBlack
but it also has to have enough compression under the rocket's arse end in just over a foot of space
Why just over a foot of space?
While the bottom of the rocket is in the tube, the compressed air can continue to accelerate it.
It will continue to accelerate until it is out of the tube.
And then what?
A soon as it leaves that tube it's massively slowed down.
No way would that missile shoot out of the water from over 100 feet of depth under that compression. It's not happening.


Quote from: JackBlack
I'm merely saying that, if you think they accelerate until they lose their thrust then there must be some kind of throttling up.
If there isn't then they don't do what you say.
No, we will continue to say reality, no matter how often you reject it.
If they keep a constant thrust, they will continue to accelerate.
You need more than your baseless garbage to convince us to stop saying it.
Not vertically they won't.



Quote from: JackBlack
It's easier to refer to model rockets as if they somehow back up the reality of so called ICBM's
Yes, because they do.
We have actual experiments backing up our claims.
You have nothing but wild fantasy and completely invalid comparisons which indicate that planes and cars can't last more than tens of minutes before needing more fuel.

What experiments do you have to back up your claims.
Let me see them.
It appears that your have all missed  it in the video at 38:16


Thy use stream to get the rocket out of the water, at which time the rocket engines engages. Watch the video carefully, and you will see this.

The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #546 on: January 14, 2019, 07:04:58 PM »
Once that missile is fired vertically under no other propulsion but the initial launch then it can shed as much of its mass as it wants, it still won't accelerate.

Unfortunately, there are soldiers around the world that would like what you're saying to be true.  If that was the case, there would be no need to create weapons like a discarding sabot.  The speed, at the muzzle, nearly doubles after leaving the barrel due to nothing but its loss in mass.  If your "theory" was true, and a projectile was at maximum velocity at the muzzle regardless of any change in the projectile, then you wouldn't need to create this type of weapon to begin with.

The only time it will accelerate is if it hits the arc summit and accelerates down from that point.

Question, regarding this statement, do you believe the projectile is at maximum velocity at the end of the barrel, or does it ever equal or exceed that speed after passing the apex of the ballistic arc?

Early in this thread, Sceptimatic agreed that if two fat cats were on a skateboard rolling down the road and one of them jumped off then the skateboard would speed up.  Did I misinterpret that?  Why would the skateboard speed up whenís a cat jumped off but not the tank missile losing its shell along the way?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #547 on: January 14, 2019, 08:40:16 PM »
[quote author=JCM link=topic=78872.msg2134951#msg2134951 date=1547521498

Early in this thread, Sceptimatic agreed that if two fat cats were on a skateboard rolling down the road and one of them jumped off then the skateboard would speed up.  Did I misinterpret that?  Why would the skateboard speed up whenís a cat jumped off but not the tank missile losing its shell along the way?
[/quote]

It would depend on what direction the cat jumped, and how much he pushed off.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #548 on: January 14, 2019, 09:41:08 PM »

Early in this thread, Sceptimatic agreed that if two fat cats were on a skateboard rolling down the road and one of them jumped off then the skateboard would speed up.  Did I misinterpret that?  Why would the skateboard speed up whenís a cat jumped off but not the tank missile losing its shell along the way?

It would depend on what direction the cat jumped, and how much he pushed off.

Interesting...  Which direction of jump produces which effect?  Letís assume the force of the jump is equal no matter the direction.
Straight up?
Left or Right?
Forward (same direction of skateboard)?
Backwards?

How about if the cat just falls off or is picked up as it rolls by?   No force exerted on the skateboard from the cat falling off or picked up...  What happens to the velocity of the skateboard?  This is related to the OP and sceptimaticís misunderstanding of physics in general.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22981
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #549 on: January 14, 2019, 11:22:18 PM »

Your claim - The rocket springboards then has a constant velocity while the engine is on.
As long as it's at max thrust and in vertical flight.
Quote from: JackBlack
Their claim (and all the results of all experiments) - The rocket continues to accelerate while the engine is on.

Quote from: JackBlack
Your claim - After the fuel is depleted the rocket stops dead and falls.
Once under consistent speed and then with immediate thrust shut down.


Quote from: JackBlack
Their claim (and all the results of all experiments) - The rocket continues to move upwards but slows down as it does so.
This would only happen right after immediate springboard acceleration. Once into consistent speed it would not.

Quote from: JackBlack
And a bonus one:
Your claim - At the end of this thrusting portion of the flight the model rocket has stopped dead and is stationary before it falls back down to Earth.
After springboard launch and into consistent flight.
Once it's pushing it's own mass under power then that's all it pushes. Nothing more. No extra momentum.
Cut the thrust dead and you cut the rocket dead.

Quote from: JackBlack
Their claim (and the results of all experiments) - At the end of this thrusting portion of the flight the model rocket is travelling at its maximum speed.

Yep.l Which like I've said is in seconds. Apparently 1.7 seconds with their rocket. Short order for ease.

Quote from: JackBlack
Notice the massive difference between your claims and theirs?
I'd say there's a swerve on their part but it's like a boomerang, it comes right back to the crux of what I said. In bold above.

Quote from: JackBlack
So do you think these people, who have been dealing with rockets for quite some time, are just extremely stupid and ignorant and have no idea what they are talking about, or do you think they are lying? Or are you just wrong?
Far from stupid. Ignorant? It depends on who's doing what and for what purpose for video.
I don't know what the motives are for some. As for the many, I suggest they're just setting off rockets as a hobby. Why not?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22981
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #550 on: January 14, 2019, 11:24:49 PM »
Once that missile is fired vertically under no other propulsion but the initial launch then it can shed as much of its mass as it wants, it still won't accelerate.

Unfortunately, there are soldiers around the world that would like what you're saying to be true.  If that was the case, there would be no need to create weapons like a discarding sabot.  The speed, at the muzzle, nearly doubles after leaving the barrel due to nothing but its loss in mass.  If your "theory" was true, and a projectile was at maximum velocity at the muzzle regardless of any change in the projectile, then you wouldn't need to create this type of weapon to begin with.

The only time it will accelerate is if it hits the arc summit and accelerates down from that point.

Question, regarding this statement, do you believe the projectile is at maximum velocity at the end of the barrel, or does it ever equal or exceed that speed after passing the apex of the ballistic arc?
Like I explained earlier on to you.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22981
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #551 on: January 14, 2019, 11:28:15 PM »

It appears that your have all missed  it in the video at 38:16


Thy use stream to get the rocket out of the water, at which time the rocket engines engages. Watch the video carefully, and you will see this.
It just gets better and better.
So this rocket actually ignites and burns inside this sub and super heats water into steam.
Seriously?
It's even worse than I imagined it to be.
The fantasy knows no bounds.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22981
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #552 on: January 14, 2019, 11:31:45 PM »
Once that missile is fired vertically under no other propulsion but the initial launch then it can shed as much of its mass as it wants, it still won't accelerate.

Unfortunately, there are soldiers around the world that would like what you're saying to be true.  If that was the case, there would be no need to create weapons like a discarding sabot.  The speed, at the muzzle, nearly doubles after leaving the barrel due to nothing but its loss in mass.  If your "theory" was true, and a projectile was at maximum velocity at the muzzle regardless of any change in the projectile, then you wouldn't need to create this type of weapon to begin with.

The only time it will accelerate is if it hits the arc summit and accelerates down from that point.

Question, regarding this statement, do you believe the projectile is at maximum velocity at the end of the barrel, or does it ever equal or exceed that speed after passing the apex of the ballistic arc?

Early in this thread, Sceptimatic agreed that if two fat cats were on a skateboard rolling down the road and one of them jumped off then the skateboard would speed up.  Did I misinterpret that?  Why would the skateboard speed up whenís a cat jumped off but not the tank missile losing its shell along the way?
Ground friction on wheels and the momentum the cat creates as it jumps against atmospheric resistance and paw friction of the board.

You have none of this in a vertical projectile.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #553 on: January 15, 2019, 12:55:45 AM »
[repeated lies cut]
Repeating the same lies doesn't help your case.
You need to provide a rational justification for these lies and/or evidence for them.

So far all you are doing is showing you are wilfully ignorant.
That does nothing to negate the validity of ICBMs.

Yep.l Which like I've said is in seconds. Apparently 1.7 seconds with their rocket. Short order for ease.
No, which is the exact opposite of what you have said.
You claim that effectively instantly, the rocket is at maximum speed which is held constant and after that 1.7 seconds, the rocket has stopped dead.
They say the rocket continues to accelerate while the engine is on, only reaching the max speed as the engine cuts off. No magic constant velocity, no magic stopping dead.

Far from stupid. Ignorant? It depends on who's doing what and for what purpose for video.
I don't know what the motives are for some. As for the many, I suggest they're just setting off rockets as a hobby. Why not?
They are making rocket engines, describing how they work and selling them.

So this rocket actually ignites and burns inside this sub and super heats water into steam.
No, a different "rocket" which is actually just effectively a type of rocket fuel, boils water to create what effectively amounts to pressurised air.

The fantasy knows no bounds.
Yes, your fantasy known no bounds. How about you try discarding it and joining people back in reality?

Ground friction on wheels and the momentum the cat creates as it jumps against atmospheric resistance and paw friction of the board.
You have none of this in a vertical projectile.
No, the only part missing is the ground friction on wheels, but that just serves to slow it down.

In your fantasy world, why is momentum/inertia magic, and only acting horizontally? Why not vertically?
How come all observations show that inertia does occur vertically, but that there is also something pushing things down?

Once again, all you have are your baseless lies, backed up by nothing except more lies.
Refuting you are mountains of evidence and rational thought.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #554 on: January 15, 2019, 05:16:53 AM »
Actually, it is you, not us, that has relied on model rocketry to support your claims, erroneously. Yours was the first mention of your observations of model rockets and how ICBM's can't exist in this thread. Page 3. Not ours:
A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind

Yep I did say this. I used it to explain how a light rocket expends its fuel in short order and so would a larger rocket. And neither will accelerate vertically at full thrust.
You trying to continue to use it to argue for you, is pointless. Argue the so called ICBM's if you think you can.

Quote from: Stash
So again, I ask you, is model rocketry a part of the conspiracy?
Model rocketry isn't a part of anything other than people launching models rockets into the air.
Why does it need to be a conspiracy?

Because your claim for any rocket is that it cannot accelerate at full thrust, it only "springboards". You used a model rocket as an example, "And neither will accelerate vertically at full thrust." The model rocket maker folks say that you are wrong, it does accelerate. So are they mistaken or lying (the latter being conspiratorial in nature)?
Springboard is initial acceleration from a dead start. It has to accelerate from that point.

My argument is after this initial acceleration springboard start, it then settles into a consistent speed as long as it continues to full thrust against lesser atmosphere.
If the thrust is cut dead the rocket stops dead and accelerates back down. If the thrust diminishes the rocket will continue to to advance with less speed.

Pretty simple really and it shows a reality as far as I'm concerned.

Youve been shown several times if you have high enough velocity whne the engines are cut (0 thrust) you still keep going forward until the slow down exceeds the velocity.
The bank analogy.
Car at red light.
The actual formula.
All show you youre wrong.
This isnt even theoretical stuff.
Throw a ball straight up.
The accelleration is in your arm.
Leaving your hand is "engines off".
The ball continues to move until the peak of the arc.
Have you ever throw a ball or is sports now part of your fake news.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22981
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #555 on: January 15, 2019, 05:23:35 AM »
Youve been shown several times if you have high enough velocity whne the engines are cut (0 thrust) you still keep going forward until the slow down exceeds the velocity.

Not vertically you don't.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #556 on: January 15, 2019, 05:30:51 AM »
Once that missile is fired vertically under no other propulsion but the initial launch then it can shed as much of its mass as it wants, it still won't accelerate.

Unfortunately, there are soldiers around the world that would like what you're saying to be true.  If that was the case, there would be no need to create weapons like a discarding sabot.  The speed, at the muzzle, nearly doubles after leaving the barrel due to nothing but its loss in mass.  If your "theory" was true, and a projectile was at maximum velocity at the muzzle regardless of any change in the projectile, then you wouldn't need to create this type of weapon to begin with.

The only time it will accelerate is if it hits the arc summit and accelerates down from that point.

Question, regarding this statement, do you believe the projectile is at maximum velocity at the end of the barrel, or does it ever equal or exceed that speed after passing the apex of the ballistic arc?

Early in this thread, Sceptimatic agreed that if two fat cats were on a skateboard rolling down the road and one of them jumped off then the skateboard would speed up.  Did I misinterpret that?  Why would the skateboard speed up whenís a cat jumped off but not the tank missile losing its shell along the way?
Ground friction on wheels and the momentum the cat creates as it jumps against atmospheric resistance and paw friction of the board.

You have none of this in a vertical projectile.

The direction doesnt matter!
Thurst force up minus (fricion force down + gravity/ denp) = net force.
Be it positive or negative will show direction.
Algebra.
A - (B + C) = D
Only capturing the correct variables is required however the general logic remains
Bigger forward vs resistance will result in forward motion.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22981
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #557 on: January 15, 2019, 05:35:48 AM »


The direction doesnt matter!
Thurst force up minus (fricion force down + gravity/ denp) = net force.
Be it positive or negative will show direction.
Algebra.
A - (B + C) = D
Only capturing the correct variables is required however the general logic remains
Bigger forward vs resistance will result in forward motion.
If the cat jumps forward it accelerates away from the skateboard and the only way to do that is for its feet to use that skateboard as its leverage, which means slowing the skateboard down in order to accelerate itself.

You don't need any of your equations/calculations to know this.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #558 on: January 15, 2019, 05:36:39 AM »
Youve been shown several times if you have high enough velocity whne the engines are cut (0 thrust) you still keep going forward until the slow down exceeds the velocity.

Not vertically you don't.

https://goo.gl/images/fpxyTx

Realy?
Add snow baording and olympics to your list of fake news?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22981
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #559 on: January 15, 2019, 06:25:31 AM »
Youve been shown several times if you have high enough velocity whne the engines are cut (0 thrust) you still keep going forward until the slow down exceeds the velocity.

Not vertically you don't.

https://goo.gl/images/fpxyTx

Realy?
Add snow baording and olympics to your list of fake news?
I don't appear to be talking about snow boarding but feel free to explain  what you're trying to tell me.
If you can.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #560 on: January 15, 2019, 06:51:47 AM »
If the cat jumps forward it accelerates away from the skateboard and the only way to do that is for its feet to use that skateboard as its leverage, which means slowing the skateboard down in order to accelerate itself.

You don't need any of your equations/calculations to know this.

Can it be? Sceptimatic get it right!  If the cat jumps off in the direction of motion the skateboard slows down.  Great example of conservation of momentum and "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

The action - pushing off the skateboard increases the cats momentum, and the reaction - the force the skateboard feels from the push slows it down, decreasing its momentum.

It's the same principle that accelerates rockets. Congratulations Sceptimatic!

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22981
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #561 on: January 15, 2019, 07:39:17 AM »
If the cat jumps forward it accelerates away from the skateboard and the only way to do that is for its feet to use that skateboard as its leverage, which means slowing the skateboard down in order to accelerate itself.

You don't need any of your equations/calculations to know this.

Can it be? Sceptimatic get it right!  If the cat jumps off in the direction of motion the skateboard slows down.  Great example of conservation of momentum and "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

The action - pushing off the skateboard increases the cats momentum, and the reaction - the force the skateboard feels from the push slows it down, decreasing its momentum.

It's the same principle that accelerates rockets. Congratulations Sceptimatic!
Then how about explaining how it works with a rocket vertically.
And also try explaining how it works with a cat on a skateboard, vertically.
I assume you can explain it, right?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #562 on: January 15, 2019, 08:04:38 AM »
Then how about explaining how it works with a rocket vertically.
And also try explaining how it works with a cat on a skateboard, vertically.
I assume you can explain it, right?

Yes, happy to explain it for you. Here is for the cat jumping vertically.

Before the jump all the motion is in the forward direction, all the momentum is in the forward direction. If the cat jumps straight up, it has no affect on the forward direction of either the jumping cat or the skateboard cat. Both are still moving forward with the same velocity.

But vertically, the cat has pushed off against the skateboard to launch himself into the air, giving him some vertical motion in addition to his continued motion in the direction he was originally traveling.

The equal and opposite force caused by the cat pushing off vertically is a downward force on the skate board, transmitted through the wheels to the ground, its a small force pushing downward on the ground.

A rocket acts the same. The force of the exhaust being ejected (analagous to the cats muscles providing the spring up) has an equal and opposite force propelling the rocket. It doesnt matter what direction the rocket is pointed.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #563 on: January 15, 2019, 08:06:25 AM »
Youve been shown several times if you have high enough velocity whne the engines are cut (0 thrust) you still keep going forward until the slow down exceeds the velocity.

Not vertically you don't.

https://goo.gl/images/fpxyTx

Realy?
Add snow baording and olympics to your list of fake news?
I don't appear to be talking about snow boarding but feel free to explain  what you're trying to tell me.
If you can.

Self explanatory.
You made a statement about vertical.
I showed you evidence that refutes it.
You fail at undersranding numbers.
Heres a photo.
Troll some more.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22981
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #564 on: January 15, 2019, 08:56:21 AM »
Yes, happy to explain it for you. Here is for the cat jumping vertically.

Before the jump all the motion is in the forward direction, all the momentum is in the forward direction. If the cat jumps straight up, it has no affect on the forward direction of either the jumping cat or the skateboard cat. Both are still moving forward with the same velocity.

But vertically, the cat has pushed off against the skateboard to launch himself into the air, giving him some vertical motion in addition to his continued motion in the direction he was originally traveling.

The equal and opposite force caused by the cat pushing off vertically is a downward force on the skate board, transmitted through the wheels to the ground, its a small force pushing downward on the ground.

A rocket acts the same. The force of the exhaust being ejected (analagous to the cats muscles providing the spring up) has an equal and opposite force propelling the rocket. It doesnt matter what direction the rocket is pointed.
That makes no rational sense at all.

Let's build a man sized cardboard rocket, hypothetically.
All it will be will be a tube that can fit me and you in with our feet soles touching, knees bent and our heads touching a closed lid on each side of the tube.

I'll liken this to how your rocket works.
Do you agree with this part?

We would be the fuel under pressure.
If I push into you, you push into me.
Your head goes to the top head and mine goes to the bottom, exhaust.

Am I on the right lines with your rocket?
If I am then I'll carry on. If not, tell me why not.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22981
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #565 on: January 15, 2019, 08:57:35 AM »

Self explanatory.
You made a statement about vertical.
I showed you evidence that refutes it.
You fail at undersranding numbers.
Heres a photo.
Troll some more.
What have you refuted?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #566 on: January 15, 2019, 10:07:43 AM »
l.

Let's build a man sized cardboard rocket, hypothetically.
All it will be will be a tube that can fit me and you in with our feet soles touching, knees bent and our heads touching a closed lid on each side of the tube.

I'll liken this to how your rocket works.
Do you agree with this part?

We would be the fuel under pressure.
If I push into you, you push into me.
Your head goes to the top head and mine goes to the bottom, exhaust.

Am I on the right lines with your rocket?
If I am then I'll carry on. If not, tell me why not.

I like your analogy very much, with one small difference.  My head is pressed against an immovable cover on my end of the rocket, and the bottom of our rocket is open. Then, as you say, we both spring with our legs, what will happen is you will be ejected from the  bottom of the rocket, and the rocket with me in it will move in the opposite direction.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #567 on: January 15, 2019, 10:11:57 AM »
You can easily test this by yourself. Get in a wagon with a heavy rock. The heave the rock off the back of the wagon. You and the wagon will move forward.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #568 on: January 15, 2019, 10:21:06 AM »
Youve been shown several times if you have high enough velocity whne the engines are cut (0 thrust) you still keep going forward until the slow down exceeds the velocity.

Not vertically you don't.

https://goo.gl/images/fpxyTx

Realy?
Add snow baording and olympics to your list of fake news?
I don't appear to be talking about snow boarding but feel free to explain  what you're trying to tell me.
If you can.

Self explanatory.
You made a statement about vertical.
I showed you evidence that refutes it.
You fail at undersranding numbers.
Heres a photo.
Troll some more.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22981
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #569 on: January 15, 2019, 10:26:18 AM »
l.

Let's build a man sized cardboard rocket, hypothetically.
All it will be will be a tube that can fit me and you in with our feet soles touching, knees bent and our heads touching a closed lid on each side of the tube.

I'll liken this to how your rocket works.
Do you agree with this part?

We would be the fuel under pressure.
If I push into you, you push into me.
Your head goes to the top head and mine goes to the bottom, exhaust.

Am I on the right lines with your rocket?
If I am then I'll carry on. If not, tell me why not.

I like your analogy very much, with one small difference.  My head is pressed against an immovable cover on my end of the rocket, and the bottom of our rocket is open. Then, as you say, we both spring with our legs, what will happen is you will be ejected from the  bottom of the rocket, and the rocket with me in it will move in the opposite direction.
Yep, You will push against me with your head against the top of the rocket and I will push against you with my head pushing through a hole in the bottom of my end of it.


So what we do is, we hang the rocket up as we are both in it.
Ok, vertically we are inside.
I decide to push against your feet and you push against mine.

We both start to stretch out but that results in me being pushed out by you using your head against the top of your rocket and me simply having nothing to push against you, so I merely fall out and your head simply uses the rocket top as a leverage to push me out. It does not move your rocket.


However. If you were to push me out and I resisted by having something outside to push into. Something like atmosphere, then I can create a reactionary resistance to your push by using that atmosphere as my leverage.

You see, if I don't have something to resist my push against your push then your push is pointless.
Can you see what I'm saying?