Intercontinental ballistic missile

  • 1723 Replies
  • 232896 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #90 on: December 30, 2018, 11:45:31 AM »
I do not throw it out as fact. I defend it as my theory.
No, you repeatedly throw it out as fact.

Can you prove the existence of an untouchable mirror?
Yes, in a variety of ways.

First of all, the stuff that contradicts my world view are the one's that are accepted blindly. My theories are not accepted at all by anyone that I can recall
So you don't accept your own "theories"?

Considering I came to the dome theory by process of experimentation with my overall theory, then it's hard to be sceptical over it.
So because you baselessly asserted it, you accept it without scepticism?

This just shows how dishonest you are.
You reject what there is plenty of evidence for simply because it is mainstream and you haven't gotten your physical proof of being there for its launch, while accepting baselessly garbage of which there is no evidence for.

Take a back seat.
No thanks. I will keep calling out your BS until you start responding honestly and rationally.

Now care to try backing up your claim of hundreds of miles?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #91 on: December 30, 2018, 01:48:59 PM »
How so, I'm using your model rocket theory? At least I'm trying to play your theory out. All you've been doing is saying, "just cuz."
Fine, keep using what you think. I'm simply saying you're using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to be told it is.

Isn't that exactly what you were doing with your model rocket theory? Using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to assume it isn't?

It's your theory that model rocketry shows that ICBM's can't exist. I showed you that your theory actually shows the contrary. So now that we've dispensed with your model rocket/fuel argument, what else you got? No fin theory?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #92 on: December 30, 2018, 01:57:49 PM »
Take a back seat.
No thanks. I will keep calling out your BS until you start responding honestly and rationally.
And sceptimatic isn't likely to "start responding . . . .  rationally" before Hell freezes over! I'll accept that he's responding honestly!
This might, or might not, help:
Quote
How to reason with flat earthers (it may not help though)
Thinking that the earth might be flat appears to have grown in popularity in recent years. Indeed, flat earthers are gathering for their annual conference this year in Birmingham, just two miles from my own university.

But the earth isn’t flat. Unsurprisingly, " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">this isn’t hard to prove. But as scads of " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">YouTube videos demonstrate, these proofs fail to convince everyone. A glance at the comments show there’s still vitriolic disagreement in some quarters.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
All you can do is to treat some as
Quote
A source of innocent merriment, Of innocent merriment!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #93 on: December 30, 2018, 02:10:19 PM »
As for me believing the Earth has a dome and the sun is a carbon arc within it, is my physically unprovable theory or musing or whatever anyone wants to call it. I do not throw it out as fact. I defend it as my theory.
Sceppy, you do not have a "theory" to defend!
Quote
Spoiler Alert: A Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, and Law Are Not the Same Thing
Hypothesis A hypothesis is a reasonable guess based on something that you observe in the natural world.
Theory A scientific theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported by repeated testing.
Law Scientific laws are short, sweet, and always true. They’re often expressed in a single statement and generally rely on a concise mathematical equation.
The most that you can claim on this topic and your denpressure is that you have hypotheses because none are "supported by repeated testing".
« Last Edit: December 30, 2018, 11:20:02 PM by rabinoz »

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #94 on: December 30, 2018, 08:36:22 PM »
Just for Scepti.  2 SLBM Launches.





And to answer how a missile is fired through the water, it isn't.  It's ejected from it's launch tube through the water using compressed air, and once the missile breaks the surface, the solid fuel rocket fires.  A very rudimentary demonstration.

« Last Edit: December 30, 2018, 09:02:01 PM by NotSoSkeptical »
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #95 on: December 30, 2018, 10:56:56 PM »
Scepti can be summed up as conspiracy theorist with zero backing.
On par with danangs phew.
Thanks for coming out.
Your OPINION noted.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #96 on: December 30, 2018, 11:45:11 PM »
Inertial guidance? Briefly explain this and tell me how this works.
Also briefly explain the thrust vector control.
No need for any text book copying. Just give me the explainable basics for the dummy that I am.
Okay, I’ll bite.  Accelerometers provide inputs to a computer that takes the inputs to determine changes in direction.  The computer takes those inputs and vectors thrust from the engines to stay on course throughout it's flight.
Ok, explain the rocket accelerometer and its inputs that manage to change direction and vector thrust to alter the trajectory.
Here's the way I see it.
If you don't keep a full thrust to keep a near vertical then your rocket will literally lose lift and go unstable and fall out of the sky.
Your rockets with engines are nonsense in terms of the word "engine".
No fins to control it and your rocket is an unstable useless missile.

This gimbal stuff is also ridiculous when supposedly working from the rocket's arse end (supposed engines).
I believe it's a dupe.
Missiles....fine.
Slow launching ICBM's...nonsense, just the same as slow launching so called space rockets. They're in the same band of duping.
The gullible public are being fed fantasy.

Quote from: MicroBeta
I honestly hope you don’t actually believe you can determine the range of all rockets because you’ve watched rockets lift of and fly.
Nope.
What I can do is watch rockets launch at "full thrust" and basically springboard into the air and hold that thrust until the fuel is spent. It then falls back to the ground, whether its a model rocket of a larger missile/rocket.
The major issue with them all is their very rapid depletion of their fuel.

Legitimate rockets that are launched are fairly easy to spot.
 Two key things to watch out for.

1. The springboard launch, meaning a rapid launch at full thrust.

2. The short time the full thrust lasts. Generally less than a minute with most, if not all.

Any potential fake launches like we see in the sketchy video footage will also show two major points.

1. A slow launch as if the rocket goes into slow motion as it leaves the launch pad. This alone should make people sit up and take notice of this nonsense.

2. The enormous underthrust of these so called rockets would literally blow them to smithereens and no silly venting is going to be good enough to stop that happening at those supposed lift off speeds which are akin to someone going up in an express elevator. It's nuts, it really is.

I know I know " just because it looks like that scepti"....nah, I see what I see because I see utter bull in my opinion.

Quote from: MicroBeta
The amateur model rocketry record for altitude is ≈72 miles.  What does it tell you about how far ICBMs can fly if a model rocket that is carried around in pickup truck can reach 72 miles.
I don't believe it at all.


Quote from: MicroBeta
Here's a link to all the diagrams you could want. 

http://www.themilitarystandard.com/missile/titan1/layout.php

Mike
The first diagram with the silo's and control entres look like the fantasy I'm talking about.
Those so called massive ICBM's in those silo's could not vent the stuff they would spew out.
Where would it go?
The slow motion lift off's from the silo's, as we are fed would blow these things to smithereens.
Fantasy war game stuff for our gullible minds.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #97 on: December 30, 2018, 11:46:54 PM »
Did anyone mention that model hobby rockets use solid fuel?
Little different that liquid...
Just a touch different.

Thanks for another great analogy.
Try again.
And what fuel do the so called ICBM's apparently use?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #98 on: December 31, 2018, 12:01:39 AM »
How so, I'm using your model rocket theory? At least I'm trying to play your theory out. All you've been doing is saying, "just cuz."
Fine, keep using what you think. I'm simply saying you're using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to be told it is.

Isn't that exactly what you were doing with your model rocket theory? Using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to assume it isn't?
All I have is assumptions. I can only base an argument on how I see potentials for reality and fakey.
I could be wrong but I have not been proved wrong except to be told I'm wrong.
That's not good enough to change my thought process.

The thing is (if you are honest about it) you are merely following a mainstream narrative with an acceptance that what you are following, is fact and yet you have no knowing if the stories are fact or fiction.
In your favour and anyone's favour who follows those narratives is, mass opinions of a belief for the stories against stand out opinions against them by the few.
The few will always be swallowed by the many, so it's easier to appear to stand proud with the crowd to reel off a story told, as  your mass truth, even if that story is a potential fabrication.

Quote from: Stash
It's your theory that model rocketry shows that ICBM's can't exist. I showed you that your theory actually shows the contrary. So now that we've dispensed with your model rocket/fuel argument, what else you got? No fin theory?
You haven't dispensed with anything with me. You've took the high ground to pacify yourself. Fair enough to you.
You've done nothing to dampen down my  mindset on this. Nothing at all.
Playing about with calculations for facts and potential fiction and marrying them up in your mind, is proving nothing of reality.

None of us can prove what the reality is. It's simply down to trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #99 on: December 31, 2018, 12:21:03 AM »
Did anyone mention that model hobby rockets use solid fuel?
Little different that liquid...
Just a touch different.

Thanks for another great analogy.
Try again.
And what fuel do the so called ICBM's apparently use?
Commonly solid fuels like Ammonium perchlorate composite propellant. Any the wiser?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #100 on: December 31, 2018, 12:27:16 AM »
How so, I'm using your model rocket theory? At least I'm trying to play your theory out. All you've been doing is saying, "just cuz."
Fine, keep using what you think. I'm simply saying you're using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to be told it is.

Isn't that exactly what you were doing with your model rocket theory? Using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to assume it isn't?
All I have is assumptions. I can only base an argument on how I see potentials for reality and fakey.
I could be wrong but I have not been proved wrong except to be told I'm wrong.
That's not good enough to change my thought process.

The thing is (if you are honest about it) you are merely following a mainstream narrative with an acceptance that what you are following, is fact and yet you have no knowing if the stories are fact or fiction.
In your favour and anyone's favour who follows those narratives is, mass opinions of a belief for the stories against stand out opinions against them by the few.
The few will always be swallowed by the many, so it's easier to appear to stand proud with the crowd to reel off a story told, as  your mass truth, even if that story is a potential fabrication.

Fair points all around. I personally go with the preponderance of evidence mated with logic and plausibility. In the absence of such, highly skeptical, yes. I'm not a contrarian of mass thought and acceptance just to be so. Sometimes the masses are right, sometimes not. Each is to be taken on a case by case basis.

Quote from: Stash
It's your theory that model rocketry shows that ICBM's can't exist. I showed you that your theory actually shows the contrary. So now that we've dispensed with your model rocket/fuel argument, what else you got? No fin theory?
You haven't dispensed with anything with me. You've took the high ground to pacify yourself. Fair enough to you.
You've done nothing to dampen down my  mindset on this. Nothing at all.
Playing about with calculations for facts and potential fiction and marrying them up in your mind, is proving nothing of reality.

None of us can prove what the reality is. It's simply down to trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I took no high ground, I'm not even sure what you're referring to with that. You started your argument with your theory/observation of model rockets led you to believe that there isn't enough fuel to propel an ICBM as claimed, really, without backing up the assertion at all. I took your model rocket theory and rather unscientifically scaled it and showed that, you know what, that theory is probably not the right one for you to pursue.

You were the first to play with facts (model rockets) and apply them the to the potential fiction of ICBMs and marrying them up in your mind, not me. I just examined your theory more than you chose to do and found it neither here nor there.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #101 on: December 31, 2018, 12:39:01 AM »
Just for Scepti.  2 SLBM Launches.





And to answer how a missile is fired through the water, it isn't.  It's ejected from it's launch tube through the water using compressed air, and once the missile breaks the surface, the solid fuel rocket fires.  A very rudimentary demonstration.


Forget the sketchy first video. I deem them as nonsense because they look it.

However, let's deal with the second video.
It's fine blowing a silly projectile from a tube in a tank but we need to look at what reality would be for a supposed ICBM from a sub deep underwater.

First of all you need to go and look at a bullet fired from a high powered gun and see what happens to the bullet underwater.
See also how far bullets travel underwater before the crushing water friction grips/crushes them to a stop.

Ok so let's deal with supposed compressed air pushing a so called big ICBM, fully fuelled and warhead heavy out of a tube, vertically from deep to not only negate the crushing water but also keep going until it pushes clear of that water many feet above, to then ignite.


Imagine the pressure required for one.
Ok, let's assume it was possible.

What do we have next?
We have a skin over the tube that keeps the compressed air in and the crushing water out from entering the tube.
Somehow there has to be some kind of equilibrium to keep this as balanced as possible so one compression doesn't nullify the other.

A nice solid metal cover would be ideal to separate these warring compressions but not practical to launch a so called ICBM from under....right? Seems sensible doesn't it?

Ok so now we have to launch the ICBM from the tube and having it bust the skin holding the water back.
The very nano second that skin breaks the rocket is up against the full force of that deep water. Think bullet.

That water is going to negate the push of the compressed air and naturally friction grip the missile full of fuel and warhead material, not to mention a strong cylindrical body, plus so called engine.

Once this missile leaves the tube the tube will also be hit with such force of water it would most likely create massive issues with the sub...but that's the least of the issues.

Now here's a bigger problem on top of what I've said.

The ICMB's inside these subs, as we are told, are pretty tall. Some are as big as the actual hull itself vertically standing, it appears. A few feet seems to be the clearance.
So here's the key.
What we have to achieve here is, managing to create enough compression under a few feet of massive rocket as well as up the sides of it and against the skin at the top, which means the compression is negating itself by acting against the rocket from either side.

I'm happy to be shown something different but it has to be good to clear this fantasy up.

You see, it all sounds great. People like to live on big country busting intercontinental travelling warheads launched depp underwater from subs that need no refuelling for 25 years and what not.
It makes good reading and also good films.
I love reading about it all but I tend to treat it all as I see it. A film and a story, in cases like this.


« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 12:52:05 AM by sceptimatic »

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #102 on: December 31, 2018, 12:42:32 AM »
Short of strapping him to a rocket and launching him -
What other kind of "proofs" are there?

Youre such a joke, scepti.
Claim fake news some more.
Everyones out to decieve you eh?
By your logic Ive never beeen to austrailia so rab is not real.
Ive never seen an oxygen molecule so breathing isnt real.
I theorize you eat your own sht.
Ive never seen you not not eat your own sht.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #103 on: December 31, 2018, 12:43:51 AM »
Ok, explain the rocket accelerometer and its inputs that manage to change direction and vector thrust to alter the trajectory.
Here's the way I see it.
If you don't keep a full thrust to keep a near vertical then your rocket will literally lose lift and go unstable and fall out of the sky.
Your rockets with engines are nonsense in terms of the word "engine".
No fins to control it and your rocket is an unstable useless missile.

This gimbal stuff is also ridiculous when supposedly working from the rocket's arse end (supposed engines).
I believe it's a dupe.
It would be easier trying to explain these things to a child as to you because a child wants to learn but you believe that you know all you'll ever need to know.

You don't have the slightest notion of the most elementary physics that form the basis of things like rocket static stability let alone dynamic stability.

But worse than that is that you do not want to understand because somewhere along the line it might undermine your own hypotheses.

That is proven by your statements like, "This gimbal stuff is also ridiculous when supposedly working from the rocket's arse end . . . engines."

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #104 on: December 31, 2018, 12:48:41 AM »
Did anyone mention that model hobby rockets use solid fuel?
Little different that liquid...
Just a touch different.

Thanks for another great analogy.
Try again.
And what fuel do the so called ICBM's apparently use?
Commonly solid fuels like Ammonium perchlorate composite propellant. Any the wiser?
I've looked it up on wiki.
Solid fuel but not like a packed gunpowder design.
Still a solid fuel though. A souped up firework.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 01:47:42 AM by sceptimatic »

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #105 on: December 31, 2018, 12:54:59 AM »
Aahaha
Kabool failed.
Im outofdate.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #106 on: December 31, 2018, 12:55:39 AM »
It's fine blowing a silly projectile from a tube in a tank but we need to look at what reality would be for a supposed ICBM from a sub deep underwater.
No we do not because they do not launch an "ICBM from a sub deep underwater".  That was easy and painless!

Quote from: sceptimatic
First of all you need to go and look at a bullet fired from a high powered gun and see what happens to the bullet underwater.
See also how far bullets travel underwater before the crushing water friction grips/crushes them to a stop.
No we do not because the ICBM is not travelling at a high velocity while under water.  That was easy and painless!

Quote from: sceptimatic
Ok so let's deal with supposed compressed air pushing a so called big ICBM, fully fuelled and warhead heavy out of a tube, vertically from deep to not only negate the crushing water but also keep going until it pushes clear of that water many feet above, to then ignite.
A heavy ICBM also has a large area and they do not launch from very deep so "clear of that water" does not mean "many feet above"!

All of you arguments boil down to "Sceppy can't understand it, so it must be a fake" and that is simply a fallacy!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #107 on: December 31, 2018, 01:10:51 AM »
Did anyone mention that model hobby rockets use solid fuel?
Little different that liquid...
Just a touch different.

Thanks for another great analogy.
Try again.
And what fuel do the so called ICBM's apparently use?
Commonly solid fuels like Ammonium perchlorate composite propellant. Any the wiser?
I've looked it up on wiki.
Solid fuel but not like a packed gunpowder design.
Still a solid fuel though. I souped up firework.
And did you find this too?
Quote from: OverTheTop
What is the difference between black powder and composite?
Composite motors have a higher Specific Impulse value, compared to BP motors. As a simple explanation, Specific Impulse can be thought of as "fuel economy" for rocket engines.
The higher the number the more energy a given mass of fuel will give to the rocket when burnt.

BP motors have Isp around 100 s. Composite motors can have Isp of more than 2.5 times that. The unit for Isp is seconds .
And a 2.5 increase in the Isp means a massive increase in capability.

His BP refers to Black Powder as used in simple fireworks - probably not those we'll be seeing over the Brisbane River tonight!

But don't expect a free tutorial in Rocket Science because it does end up getting a bit complicated for tyros - it is after all  ;) Rocket Science ;).

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #108 on: December 31, 2018, 01:20:46 AM »
How so, I'm using your model rocket theory? At least I'm trying to play your theory out. All you've been doing is saying, "just cuz."
Fine, keep using what you think. I'm simply saying you're using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to be told it is.

Isn't that exactly what you were doing with your model rocket theory? Using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to assume it isn't?
All I have is assumptions. I can only base an argument on how I see potentials for reality and fakey.
I could be wrong but I have not been proved wrong except to be told I'm wrong.
That's not good enough to change my thought process.

The thing is (if you are honest about it) you are merely following a mainstream narrative with an acceptance that what you are following, is fact and yet you have no knowing if the stories are fact or fiction.
In your favour and anyone's favour who follows those narratives is, mass opinions of a belief for the stories against stand out opinions against them by the few.
The few will always be swallowed by the many, so it's easier to appear to stand proud with the crowd to reel off a story told, as  your mass truth, even if that story is a potential fabrication.

Fair points all around. I personally go with the preponderance of evidence mated with logic and plausibility. In the absence of such, highly skeptical, yes. I'm not a contrarian of mass thought and acceptance just to be so. Sometimes the masses are right, sometimes not. Each is to be taken on a case by case basis.
Exactly right and it's the taking it on a case by case basis that creates the issues of what I'm arguing against as to what you are arguing for.
What I'm saying is, your general mindset is to follow mass thought even though you understand that mass following of something does not make it a fact.
The issue is in the ease of how people are willing to accept as a fact, something which cannot be proven so, merely by count of numbers/masses against sceptical views against it being a fact.

This is where mainstream authority is adhered to...and fair enough in that respect. It's a natural thing for people to generally mimic and blindly follow the crowd that follows the idol narrators, kind of thing.

A sceptic is not in that same band. They will be deemed as black sheep (the words convey a lot more than people realise) and contrarians, down to conspiracy nuts and so on and so on, whether they have any reason or no reason to be what they are.

The revered top scientist can become a nut job in short order for going against the grain.
People will shout " noo nooo, scientific scepticism is welcomed and new ideas are always welcome.
Of course...but it depends on what is welcome. That's the key.

Don't rock the boat that's already sailing, fix the one's that you're allowed to fix. If you get my meaning.

Quote from: Stash
It's your theory that model rocketry shows that ICBM's can't exist. I showed you that your theory actually shows the contrary. So now that we've dispensed with your model rocket/fuel argument, what else you got? No fin theory?
You haven't dispensed with anything with me. You've took the high ground to pacify yourself. Fair enough to you.
You've done nothing to dampen down my  mindset on this. Nothing at all.
Playing about with calculations for facts and potential fiction and marrying them up in your mind, is proving nothing of reality.

None of us can prove what the reality is. It's simply down to trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Quote from: Stash
I took no high ground, I'm not even sure what you're referring to with that.
No dig. I'm just saying you use a model rocket to cater for something you've never witnessed, as if the large rockets we are told about work from the basis of that model rocket.

I'm merely saying that a rocket burns its fuel in extreme short order by having to push vertical at full thrust to gain the required altitude.
I'm saying it's not too high and the rest of what we're told is sketchy as all hell. Not to mention so called ICBM's.

Quote from: Stash
You started your argument with your theory/observation of model rockets led you to believe that there isn't enough fuel to propel an ICBM as claimed, really, without backing up the assertion at all. I took your model rocket theory and rather unscientifically scaled it and showed that, you know what, that theory is probably not the right one for you to pursue.
Feel free to argue it. feel free to tell me I'm wrong.
I have no issue with that but I will only bow down when I feel I have nothing to add and I could be so wrong.
When that happens I'll happily hold my hands up.
I expect the same from others...but like I said: Mass opinion makes it extra hard for anyone to go sceptical.

Quote from: Stash
You were the first to play with facts (model rockets) and apply them the to the potential fiction of ICBMs and marrying them up in your mind, not me. I just examined your theory more than you chose to do and found it neither here nor there.
I played the facts because they are the facts. Model rockets last for seconds in vertical flight before their fuel is expended.
It's not a fact that this applies to ICBM's and space rockets. I don't claim that as a fact. I don't believe those two rockets exist but I can't state it as a fact, so I have to use what I know to be reality to glean some semblance of rationality from what we're told about bigger missile/rockets.

Fuel to mass ratio is the real key. Fuel being it's own mass on top of the actual mass of the rocket.
Putting it in that respect, this is where a model rocket on scale would have to be literally scaled up against a so called ICBM.
Basically a little and large of identical proportions.

If one (little) expends it's fuel in short order with it's fuel to mass ration, then the larger one is equally going to expend it's fuel in short order, rendering them both at a limited altitude in seconds.

That's what I'm getting at.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 01:28:38 AM by sceptimatic »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #109 on: December 31, 2018, 01:32:23 AM »
Short of strapping him to a rocket and launching him -
What other kind of "proofs" are there?

Youre such a joke, scepti.
Claim fake news some more.
Everyones out to decieve you eh?
By your logic Ive never beeen to austrailia so rab is not real.
Ive never seen an oxygen molecule so breathing isnt real.
I theorize you eat your own sht.
Ive never seen you not not eat your own sht.
You've never seen a lot of stuff you're told about but you appear to accept it as fact as long as it's not disputed by the minority, it seems.

You are welcome to think how you wish but merely using what you are using in order to try and destroy my arguments, is weak in the extreme.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #110 on: December 31, 2018, 01:47:02 AM »
Ok, explain the rocket accelerometer and its inputs that manage to change direction and vector thrust to alter the trajectory.
Here's the way I see it.
If you don't keep a full thrust to keep a near vertical then your rocket will literally lose lift and go unstable and fall out of the sky.
Your rockets with engines are nonsense in terms of the word "engine".
No fins to control it and your rocket is an unstable useless missile.

This gimbal stuff is also ridiculous when supposedly working from the rocket's arse end (supposed engines).
I believe it's a dupe.
It would be easier trying to explain these things to a child as to you because a child wants to learn but you believe that you know all you'll ever need to know.
Then explain it to me as if I'm that child. Or simply don't bother responding to me and accept that I'm the person you say I am that supposedly believes I know all I ever need to, which sort of takes away the entire point of me being the sceptical and inquisitive and innovative person that I am.
You decide what you want to do. I'm ok with whatever.

Quote from: rabinoz
You don't have the slightest notion of the most elementary physics that form the basis of things like rocket static stability let alone dynamic stability.
Enlighten me as if you were teaching a kid the very basics. Because that's all we really need. We don't need to know the composition of everything to find out how a rocket works in how I'm questioning.


Quote from: rabinoz
But worse than that is that you do not want to understand because somewhere along the line it might undermine your own hypotheses.
Or maybe you don't want to admit that I have something. By all means deny that but don't expect me to accept what you are saying, either.
Fair enough?

Quote from: rabinoz
That is proven by your statements like, "This gimbal stuff is also ridiculous when supposedly working from the rocket's arse end . . . engines."
Put me right them. Show me how you know it to be correct from your own personal proof.

I just look at the simplicity of stuff and to me a gimballed rocket nozzle/engine would be silly.
Prove me wrong.
A heavy gimple above something would be a much better stability tool.
Under it is like trying to balance a long stick on your finger. Move your finger and your stick is a unstable unless you can immediately sway your finger opposite the fall.
However, a so called rocket gimbal would not get the chance to do that, because once that power is shifted your rocket is a dead stick.

By all means show me otherwise if you can.

I'll just add.
If you hung your rocket on a big cable at the top and let your gimbal do the work then you can steady it because your top is going nowhere.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #111 on: December 31, 2018, 02:02:39 AM »
It's fine blowing a silly projectile from a tube in a tank but we need to look at what reality would be for a supposed ICBM from a sub deep underwater.
No we do not because they do not launch an "ICBM from a sub deep underwater".  That was easy and painless!
Apparently they are very closely related it seems, so let's deal with the closely related ballistic sub missiles. The same issues arise. No change really, is there.
Hopefully that's not too painful for you.

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
First of all you need to go and look at a bullet fired from a high powered gun and see what happens to the bullet underwater.
See also how far bullets travel underwater before the crushing water friction grips/crushes them to a stop.
No we do not because the ICBM is not travelling at a high velocity while under water.  That was easy and painless!
Really?
Do they come equipped with large corks on the noses or something, as well as their arse ends to pop them out of the water?
So if they're not travelling at high velocity then how can they leave the tube and get through the deep water to be pushed right out of it before fuel burn?

Any idea of how fast they would leave the tube?

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
Ok so let's deal with supposed compressed air pushing a so called big ICBM, fully fuelled and warhead heavy out of a tube, vertically from deep to not only negate the crushing water but also keep going until it pushes clear of that water many feet above, to then ignite.
A heavy ICBM also has a large area and they do not launch from very deep so "clear of that water" does not mean "many feet above"!

All of you arguments boil down to "Sceppy can't understand it, so it must be a fake" and that is simply a fallacy!
First of all you deny the ICBM on subs and now you admit them. Do you actually know what you're arguing for?

If they don't launch from deep then they're not really fit for the purpose of what we are told. Right?

It says they generally launch them from about 160 feet depth.
I'd say that was deep enough to create massive pressure, wouldn't you?


Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #112 on: December 31, 2018, 02:10:14 AM »
It's fine blowing a silly projectile from a tube in a tank but we need to look at what reality would be for a supposed ICBM from a sub deep underwater.
No we do not because they do not launch an "ICBM from a sub deep underwater".  That was easy and painless!
Apparently they are very closely related it seems, so let's deal with the closely related ballistic sub missiles. The same issues arise. No change really, is there.
Hopefully that's not too painful for you.

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
First of all you need to go and look at a bullet fired from a high powered gun and see what happens to the bullet underwater.
See also how far bullets travel underwater before the crushing water friction grips/crushes them to a stop.
No we do not because the ICBM is not travelling at a high velocity while under water.  That was easy and painless!
Really?
Do they come equipped with large corks on the noses or something, as well as their arse ends to pop them out of the water?
So if they're not travelling at high velocity then how can they leave the tube and get through the deep water to be pushed right out of it before fuel burn?

Any idea of how fast they would leave the tube?

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
Ok so let's deal with supposed compressed air pushing a so called big ICBM, fully fuelled and warhead heavy out of a tube, vertically from deep to not only negate the crushing water but also keep going until it pushes clear of that water many feet above, to then ignite.
A heavy ICBM also has a large area and they do not launch from very deep so "clear of that water" does not mean "many feet above"!

All of you arguments boil down to "Sceppy can't understand it, so it must be a fake" and that is simply a fallacy!
First of all you deny the ICBM on subs and now you admit them. Do you actually know what you're arguing for?

If they don't launch from deep then they're not really fit for the purpose of what we are told. Right?

It says they generally launch them from about 160 feet depth.
I'd say that was deep enough to create massive pressure, wouldn't you?
Why do you continue this discussion when you clearly do not understand the subject?  What else do you believe we are misled about? Satellites?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #113 on: December 31, 2018, 02:35:36 AM »
How so, I'm using your model rocket theory? At least I'm trying to play your theory out. All you've been doing is saying, "just cuz."
Fine, keep using what you think. I'm simply saying you're using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to be told it is.

Isn't that exactly what you were doing with your model rocket theory? Using it for one reality and transferring it to something you do not have a clue about as a reality, except to assume it isn't?
All I have is assumptions. I can only base an argument on how I see potentials for reality and fakey.
I could be wrong but I have not been proved wrong except to be told I'm wrong.
That's not good enough to change my thought process.

The thing is (if you are honest about it) you are merely following a mainstream narrative with an acceptance that what you are following, is fact and yet you have no knowing if the stories are fact or fiction.
In your favour and anyone's favour who follows those narratives is, mass opinions of a belief for the stories against stand out opinions against them by the few.
The few will always be swallowed by the many, so it's easier to appear to stand proud with the crowd to reel off a story told, as  your mass truth, even if that story is a potential fabrication.

Fair points all around. I personally go with the preponderance of evidence mated with logic and plausibility. In the absence of such, highly skeptical, yes. I'm not a contrarian of mass thought and acceptance just to be so. Sometimes the masses are right, sometimes not. Each is to be taken on a case by case basis.
Exactly right and it's the taking it on a case by case basis that creates the issues of what I'm arguing against as to what you are arguing for.
What I'm saying is, your general mindset is to follow mass thought even though you understand that mass following of something does not make it a fact.
The issue is in the ease of how people are willing to accept as a fact, something which cannot be proven so, merely by count of numbers/masses against sceptical views against it being a fact.

Totally agree.

This is where mainstream authority is adhered to...and fair enough in that respect. It's a natural thing for people to generally mimic and blindly follow the crowd that follows the idol narrators, kind of thing.

Couldn't agree more. With the same token, it's a very narrow line between a kneejerk-presumption that some level of scientific authority supported by a preponderance of evidence, logic, plausibility and mass appeal is default conspiratorially in place to thwart the 'truth' so there must be a defatco alternate 'truth'. At a certain point, is everything just a lie? Is all knowledge from authority to be discarded? Is all knowlege from authority to be accepted? No. There has to be some middle ground. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to be typing this now.

A sceptic is not in that same band. They will be deemed as black sheep (the words convey a lot more than people realise) and contrarians, down to conspiracy nuts and so on and so on, whether they have any reason or no reason to be what they are.

The revered top scientist can become a nut job in short order for going against the grain.
People will shout " noo nooo, scientific scepticism is welcomed and new ideas are always welcome.
Of course...but it depends on what is welcome. That's the key.

Don't rock the boat that's already sailing, fix the one's that you're allowed to fix. If you get my meaning.

Again, I don't disagree. But defaulting to all things 'mainstream are wrong' knocks out 50%+ of the equation before you've really even had a chance to examine it. (Same can be said for mainstream examining alternative stuff) But when things get all 'conspiratorial' minded, I see the veil of reason drop and cloud, rather than reveal.

Quote from: Stash
I took no high ground, I'm not even sure what you're referring to with that.
No dig. I'm just saying you use a model rocket to cater for something you've never witnessed, as if the large rockets we are told about work from the basis of that model rocket.

I'm merely saying that a rocket burns its fuel in extreme short order by having to push vertical at full thrust to gain the required altitude.
I'm saying it's not too high and the rest of what we're told is sketchy as all hell. Not to mention so called ICBM's.

No dig taken. But literally you 'used a model rocket to cater for something you've never witnessed, as if the large rockets we are told about DON'T work from the basis of that model rocket.' That's where this all started. You using model rocketry to dispense with the reality (or not) of ICBM technology. That was you, not me. I just examined your theory, you did not.

Fuel to mass ratio is the real key. Fuel being it's own mass on top of the actual mass of the rocket.
Putting it in that respect, this is where a model rocket on scale would have to be literally scaled up against a so called ICBM.
Basically a little and large of identical proportions.

If one (little) expends it's fuel in short order with it's fuel to mass ration, then the larger one is equally going to expend it's fuel in short order, rendering them both at a limited altitude in seconds.

That's what I'm getting at.

I'm picking up what you're putting down. But put a little something behind it. I did a little homework, back of the envelope calculations to show how your model rocket theory doesn't work. All you've done so far is say, "nope, just cuz". Put a little effort in to back up your assertions. How does the fuel to mass ratio not work? What's your calculation. I at least tried with my calculations, you've done just short of zero.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #114 on: December 31, 2018, 03:05:09 AM »
It's fine blowing a silly projectile from a tube in a tank but we need to look at what reality would be for a supposed ICBM from a sub deep underwater.
No we do not because they do not launch an "ICBM from a sub deep underwater".  That was easy and painless!
Apparently they are very closely related it seems, so let's deal with the closely related ballistic sub missiles. The same issues arise. No change really, is there.
Hopefully that's not too painful for you.

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
First of all you need to go and look at a bullet fired from a high powered gun and see what happens to the bullet underwater.
See also how far bullets travel underwater before the crushing water friction grips/crushes them to a stop.
No we do not because the ICBM is not travelling at a high velocity while under water.  That was easy and painless!
Really?
Do they come equipped with large corks on the noses or something, as well as their arse ends to pop them out of the water?
So if they're not travelling at high velocity then how can they leave the tube and get through the deep water to be pushed right out of it before fuel burn?

Any idea of how fast they would leave the tube?

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
Ok so let's deal with supposed compressed air pushing a so called big ICBM, fully fuelled and warhead heavy out of a tube, vertically from deep to not only negate the crushing water but also keep going until it pushes clear of that water many feet above, to then ignite.
A heavy ICBM also has a large area and they do not launch from very deep so "clear of that water" does not mean "many feet above"!

All of you arguments boil down to "Sceppy can't understand it, so it must be a fake" and that is simply a fallacy!
First of all you deny the ICBM on subs and now you admit them. Do you actually know what you're arguing for?

If they don't launch from deep then they're not really fit for the purpose of what we are told. Right?

It says they generally launch them from about 160 feet depth.
I'd say that was deep enough to create massive pressure, wouldn't you?

I guess by your same argument torpedoes don't exist. Or do they?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #115 on: December 31, 2018, 04:57:42 AM »
This is where mainstream authority is adhered to...and fair enough in that respect. It's a natural thing for people to generally mimic and blindly follow the crowd that follows the idol narrators, kind of thing.

Couldn't agree more. With the same token, it's a very narrow line between a kneejerk-presumption that some level of scientific authority supported by a preponderance of evidence, logic, plausibility and mass appeal is default conspiratorially in place to thwart the 'truth' so there must be a defatco alternate 'truth'.
There does have to be a truth. Unfortunately all we can do is accept something as a truth without any evidence. Or accept it as a truth because we physically have the facts that physically show it to be the truth.
In the first instance, we simply accept with no real mind to question. Let's call them our run of the mill explanations that we simply accept because it's just easier to do so, regardless. Including myself.
In between that there's stuff that I just don't blindly accept which is why I question it,regardless of people telling me I have no proof, because i simply refer them back to the first instance of acceptance for them.




Quote from: Stash
At a certain point, is everything just a lie?
 Is all knowledge from authority to be discarded?
Is all knowlege from authority to be accepted? No. There has to be some middle ground. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to be typing this now.
Of course. It's a 3 way thing.
Let's be totally honest. If we all accepted everything then nothing would exist to debate.

In terms of knowledge from authority being discarded, it depends on how that's actually portrayed. Because authority deems something to be the expertise of those in authority but it can also be construed as people simply taking an authoritative role over something they are simply gatekeeping for others of higher authority.

Sounds a bit confusing but I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at.
The victors get to choose history and all that stuff.

The issue is, we are fed a mixture of truth's, lies and a mix of both, in possibly equal measures.
My arguments may not stand up to those who have the ease of some official reference of the issue at hand, written by what is deemed as an authority on it.
I'm at a disadvantage in  that respect because I can't reference anything. I have to rely on trying to logically pick apart what's being told/conveyed to me.


Quote from: Stash
(Same can be said for mainstream examining alternative stuff) But when things get all 'conspiratorial' minded, I see the veil of reason drop and cloud, rather than reveal.
The major problem with anything that is deemed to be at loggerheads with a mainstream ideal, will, in short order be termed "a conspiracy theory" and the people who push it will be cast off as "conspiracy nutters".

It's a case of anything worthwhile to the system will be accepted and anything that goes against it, denied in whichever way is suitable for those who want to keep the charade up.
That in itself can be termed as a conspiracy in me saying it.
The thing is I think those who are awake to issues know we are being lied to even if they accept a lot of stuff.

One lie can be 100 lies or a million, just as one truth can be the same.
The problem again is in , do we accept one lie being just that and feeling there's a genuine reason as to why, while discarding the notion that there could be more lies?

Or is one truth told for every 99 lies out of 100?


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #116 on: December 31, 2018, 05:01:49 AM »

I guess by your same argument torpedoes don't exist. Or do they?
This goes back to what I said earlier about acceptance of something because there's no thought to argue it.
I wouldn't bother arguing whether torpedoes exist but if stories were told about them doing stuff that I found to be questionable then I might do just that.
However I'm not questioning them at this time because I don't find them worth questioning. It seems quite feasible as to what they do.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #117 on: December 31, 2018, 05:24:45 AM »
Inertial guidance? Briefly explain this and tell me how this works.
Also briefly explain the thrust vector control.
No need for any text book copying. Just give me the explainable basics for the dummy that I am.
Okay, I’ll bite.  Accelerometers provide inputs to a computer that takes the inputs to determine changes in direction.  The computer takes those inputs and vectors thrust from the engines to stay on course throughout it's flight.
Ok, explain the rocket accelerometer and its inputs that manage to change direction and vector thrust to alter the trajectory.
Here's the way I see it.
If you don't keep a full thrust to keep a near vertical then your rocket will literally lose lift and go unstable and fall out of the sky.
Your rockets with engines are nonsense in terms of the word "engine".
No fins to control it and your rocket is an unstable useless missile.

This gimbal stuff is also ridiculous when supposedly working from the rocket's arse end (supposed engines).
I believe it's a dupe.
Missiles....fine.
Slow launching ICBM's...nonsense, just the same as slow launching so called space rockets. They're in the same band of duping.
The gullible public are being fed fantasy.
Here is a link to the same sort of system you can purchase for model rocketry.

https://bps.space/signal/

Here is a quote from the website...

Quote
Model rockets have fins and launch quickly; real space launch vehicles don't. With thrust vectoring, your rockets can slowly ascend and build speed, instead of leaving your sight in seconds. Signal R2, a thrust vectoring kit, is here to bridge that gap, enabling model rockets that look, and work like the real thing.

The way you see it is completely wrong.  As you can clearly see your whole spring board is completely wrong.  Your claim that it’s not possible for the slow liftoff with gradual acceleration is proven wrong. 

Every single claim you’ve ever made about how you “logically” concluded rockets work is PROVEN completely wrong by model rocket enthusiasts competing for highest flight, least drift from liftoff, etc.

Here’s another thing for you.  You can’t dismiss this.  Unless you’re willing to build and launch the rocket all your claims aren’t worth shit.  Your so-called logical approach to how rockets work is completely and utterly destroyed by model rocketry.  This is actually a situation of Case Closed.

Mike
Since it costs 1.82¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 3.64¢.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #118 on: December 31, 2018, 06:02:54 AM »
Here is a link to the same sort of system you can purchase for model rocketry.

https://bps.space/signal/

Here is a quote from the website...

Quote
Model rockets have fins and launch quickly; real space launch vehicles don't. With thrust vectoring, your rockets can slowly ascend and build speed, instead of leaving your sight in seconds. Signal R2, a thrust vectoring kit, is here to bridge that gap, enabling model rockets that look, and work like the real thing.
Model rockets launch quickly. Like I said earlier. No issue there and you can verify that one yourself.

Real space launch vehicles don't?
Real space rocket won't, because they don't exist.

Let's try ballistic missiles from silo's and/or submarines.

Does a ballistic missile just saunter out of a silo?
Do you seriously think that would be a good idea?
Do you seriously think it's feasible for a rocket to just saunter out of a silo or a sub tube, vertically?

Like I said before. If the rocket launches like a bat out of hell, like a springboard then you have a real rocket/missile.
If it crawls out in a slow motion looking way, then you have special effects, or to put it plainly, you have no genuine working rocket.

Pretty simple and easy to understand once you actually see what's what.

Quote from: MicroBeta

The way you see it is completely wrong.  As you can clearly see your whole spring board is completely wrong.  Your claim that it’s not possible for the slow liftoff with gradual acceleration is proven wrong.
Gradual acceleration vertically is pointless nonsense.
The whole point of a rocket/missile is to be stable after launch.
To be stable after launch it must full thrust and springboard into the atmosphere in order for that atmosphere to grip and steady it under immense speed.

A slow launch would render any missile as a mass of burning fuel on the launch pad or close to it after it destabilizes.
No silly gimbal is going to arrest something like that.
 
Quote from: MicroBeta

Every single claim you’ve ever made about how you “logically” concluded rockets work is PROVEN completely wrong by model rocket enthusiasts competing for highest flight, least drift from liftoff, etc.
Model rocket enthusiasts have proven nothing. What are they proving?
They're proving that rockets work by full thrust launch at immediate constant velocity, vertically for a short time before they arc.


Quote from: MicroBeta

Here’s another thing for you.  You can’t dismiss this.  Unless you’re willing to build and launch the rocket all your claims aren’t worth shit.
I've launched rockets and they all do the same thing. Immediate springboard thrust and immediate near constant velocity before full arcing.

Quote from: MicroBeta

  Your so-called logical approach to how rockets work is completely and utterly destroyed by model rocketry.  This is actually a situation of Case Closed.

Mike
Case wide open. You can close the case from your part if you want. I'll call this you decking out due to having no proof against what I'm saying.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #119 on: December 31, 2018, 07:04:49 AM »
Just for Scepti.  2 SLBM Launches.





And to answer how a missile is fired through the water, it isn't.  It's ejected from it's launch tube through the water using compressed air, and once the missile breaks the surface, the solid fuel rocket fires.  A very rudimentary demonstration.


Forget the sketchy first video. I deem them as nonsense because they look it.

However, let's deal with the second video.
It's fine blowing a silly projectile from a tube in a tank but we need to look at what reality would be for a supposed ICBM from a sub deep underwater.

First of all you need to go and look at a bullet fired from a high powered gun and see what happens to the bullet underwater.
See also how far bullets travel underwater before the crushing water friction grips/crushes them to a stop.

Ok so let's deal with supposed compressed air pushing a so called big ICBM, fully fuelled and warhead heavy out of a tube, vertically from deep to not only negate the crushing water but also keep going until it pushes clear of that water many feet above, to then ignite.


Imagine the pressure required for one.
Ok, let's assume it was possible.

What do we have next?
We have a skin over the tube that keeps the compressed air in and the crushing water out from entering the tube.
Somehow there has to be some kind of equilibrium to keep this as balanced as possible so one compression doesn't nullify the other.

A nice solid metal cover would be ideal to separate these warring compressions but not practical to launch a so called ICBM from under....right? Seems sensible doesn't it?

Ok so now we have to launch the ICBM from the tube and having it bust the skin holding the water back.
The very nano second that skin breaks the rocket is up against the full force of that deep water. Think bullet.

That water is going to negate the push of the compressed air and naturally friction grip the missile full of fuel and warhead material, not to mention a strong cylindrical body, plus so called engine.

Once this missile leaves the tube the tube will also be hit with such force of water it would most likely create massive issues with the sub...but that's the least of the issues.

Now here's a bigger problem on top of what I've said.

The ICMB's inside these subs, as we are told, are pretty tall. Some are as big as the actual hull itself vertically standing, it appears. A few feet seems to be the clearance.
So here's the key.
What we have to achieve here is, managing to create enough compression under a few feet of massive rocket as well as up the sides of it and against the skin at the top, which means the compression is negating itself by acting against the rocket from either side.

I'm happy to be shown something different but it has to be good to clear this fantasy up.

You see, it all sounds great. People like to live on big country busting intercontinental travelling warheads launched depp underwater from subs that need no refuelling for 25 years and what not.
It makes good reading and also good films.
I love reading about it all but I tend to treat it all as I see it. A film and a story, in cases like this.

There is nothing sketchy about the first video.  It's a missile coming out of the water and then it's engine igniting.  The video is clear, nothing sketchy about it.


Your firing the gun under water analogy would apply if the missile was ignited under water.  It isn't.  It's a two stage launch.  The missile is ejected from its launch tube via compressed air.  The compressed air only needs to get the missile to pop above the surface and then the missile fires its engine.  The pressure of the water above it is taken into consideration when launching a missile.  They have specific depths that they must launch from to ensure the compressed air pushing the missile overcomes the pressure of the water above it, so the missile is above the water when it ignites.

The water entering the launch tube after the missile is launched is not going to damage the sub.  You don't know what you are talking about.

Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.