I think I've made it6 more than clear about it all being my opinion.
No you haven't.
You repeatedly assert it as fact then when called out try and hide being it being your opinion.
You even claim that things are backed up by logic.
You are on a debate site. You opinion means basically nothing.
If you can't provide something rational you should stay quite.
You are counterarguing based on your belief that it is all
No, we are arguing based upon knowledge and understanding.
Several of us having personally performed experiments to test and obtain/confirm that knowledge.
Meanwhile you don't even want to go and test yourself.
What is the degree based on?
Proper science degrees will have you performing experiments, not just reading from textbooks.
Proper engineering degrees will be similar, but vary depending upon what type of engineering you are doing, and take a lot of the science as is in some places or be quite similar to science in others.
No, they wont cover everything, because there isn't enough time do to everything.
If you wanted to discard all of science and start from scratch, even with all the technology we have (which you would have to verify anyway) you wouldn't be able to finish before you die.
I personally believe they are fiction until I am shown to be wrong in my reasoning.
And this is why you aren't presenting it as an opinion. If it is just an opinion it isn't based upon reasoning. It would be based upon belief and feelings.
If it was based upon reasoning it would be a claim of a fact.
It actually does.
Again, completely wrong.
Possible and plausible are vastly different. Possible requires any non-0 probability. Plausible requires that the event is actually likely, which as a starting point would be a possibility >0.5.
Fuel to mass ration scupper this nonsense, In my opinion.
If all you have is your opinion, then shut up.
You have previously claimed that they couldn't go more than a few hundred miles. Yet you have absolutely nothing to based that off.
So again, can you provide any form of reasoning to back it up.
Otherwise what you are doing is no better than simply saying you don't think they are real.
A world of supposed terrorism and nobody has went rogue. Not one in all these years.
That is because the terrorists don't have their hands on them.
Instead people who want to live do.
It depends who are the real ignorant people.
I would say those rejecting reality because they think it is silly, with nothing more than their own baseless opinions, who are completely unwilling to do tests themselves to find out the truth and instead just repeatedly demand physical evidence that they aren't willing to obtain themselves and which those they ask have no way to actually provide.
What will I be seeing in action?
Well if you go into model rocketry you can see that your claims about them are pure nonsense.
Absolutely not afraid of seeing anything.
Then why refuse to do the experiments?
Is it because you know it will refute you and thus don't want to do it, or do you think you already know the answer from your baseless beliefs and thus have no "need"?
If the rocket had a throttle and enough thrust to launch and also add extra thrust due to a throttle then I'd agree it could accelerate.
There is no need for a "throttle". If it has more force than is required to counter its weight and air resistance it can continue to accelerate.
The reality in my opinion is
Stop spouting garbage like this.
This is just another pathetic attempt to be able to assert baseless garbage without any evidence.
Either it is reality, or it just your opinion. Pick one.
Is it in reality a rocket does this, or is it in your ignorant opinion it does this?
If the former, provide evidence or some form of justification. If the latter, shut up as I don't give a damn if you don't thinks rockets work like they do in reality.
Simple experiments will prove you wrong, but you are unwilling to do the experiments.
a rocket uses full thrust
Again, "full thrust" would simply be an explosion, where all the fuel is expended instantly.
Instead they use much lower than that for a longer period of time to continue accelerating.
That actually makes no sense in terms of so called space rockets.
Only if you just want your rocket to just go up and then back down.
If you want it to follow an elliptical path to hit a target (such as an ICBM) then you don't want to go straight up. That is a much longer path and much less efficient as you would need to go up and then turn.
If you wanted to put something in orbit it is also extremely inefficient as you would need to go up and then turn.
The more efficient path is to be in a roughly elliptical orbit where you are boosting your perigee.
I'm saying real rockets/missiles reach their maximum vertical velocity immediately after lift off.
And you are completely wrong.
An explosively fired projectile (like from a gun) pointing upwards would reach its maximum vertical velocity almost immediately.
A rocket, as long as it's thrust to weight ratio is greater than 1, will continue accelerating.
Again, plenty of people watch these real rockets launch and note that they don't magically accelerate instantly.
Picture holding a catapult and the stone being the rocket.
We are discussing rockets, with rocket engines, not something fired from a sling.
we know the stone gets one maximum springboard launch and after that it is friction gripped and loses momentum from that point which slows it down to an eventual stop and then it accelerates downwards until it reaches terminal velocity or hits the ground before that.
Yes, because it doesn't have an engine and instead only has the initial throw to make it move. After which air resistance and gravity accelerate it, with gravity accelerating it downwards and air resistance accelerating it to bring it to a stop relative to the air.
A rocket engine continues to provide thrust allowing it to continue to accelerate.
However, if that rocket is at maximum thrust and maximum velocity and then the thrust is cut dead, immediately, the rocket becomes a dead stick and moves no further upwards.
Why would it magically stop?
That would be akin to where the stone is released.
If you really want to work that comparison:
The rocket engine corresponds to the elastic band.
The rocket on the launch pad corresponds to the band pulled all the way back.
The engines igniting and pushing the rocket off the pad corresponds to releasing the stone.
The rocket off the pad, but still with its engines on corresponds to the stone still being in the elastic and being pushed forward by the elastic, but not at the maximum extension.
The engines cutting off corresponds to the stone now out of the elastic, coasting along as it is slowed by gravity and air resistance.
It isn't just the launchpad that corresponds to the stone in the elastic. It is the entire time the engine is on.
The launch pad only corresponds to the maximum extension where you are holding the stone back.
The main difference between that and a rocket (other than the obvious) is that the force acting on the stone is reduced as the elastic relaxes, while the force on the rocket remains roughly constant (it can have a little boost at the start due to the ground effect), and the mass of the stone remains constant while the mass of the rocket is reduces as it burns through its fuel. This means the maximum acceleration occurs right at the start for the stone while it can occur right at the end for a rocket (or some point during its burn due to the changing force from air resistance as it increases velocity).
Meanwhile, the nonsense you are claiming corresponds to releasing the stone, having it reach its maximum velocity instantly (i.e. a tiny amount of time compared to the time required to fully relax the elastic), continue going up at a constant velocity while the elastic relaxes, pushing the stone upwards; then once the elastic is relaxed, the stone stops dead and falls.
Is your bicycle being pedalled vertically? No it isn't.
Go and try pedalling it up a wall.
We have been over this before with your prior ignorance on inertia.
When I throw a ball up in the air it doesn't stop as soon as it leaves my hand, even though I stop providing "thrust" to it.
You not understanding inertia doesn't mean it isn't real.
Why should a rocket magically stop dead when its engines stop, but only if vertical?
Also, plenty of stunt people do it all the time. Riding up a vertical jump, yet continuing to go upwards.
People will do it on motor bikes, push bikes, skateboards, sometimes roller blades.
They all continue to go up.
I'm saying that all the ICBM's and big so called space rockets, are gimmicks. They don't do what we are told. In my opinion.
Yet they use a rocket engine, start off slow and continue to accelerate.
You are claiming they shouldn't.
So if not a rocket, just what do you think they are?
Now, like I said, if all you have is your opinion, then it is worthless and you should just stay quiet.
If you want to try convincing any rational person that inertia and other laws of physics are wrong, you will need more than just your opinion and/or baseless assertion.
All the experiments I have ever conducted show that inertia is real and that a rocket will continue to accelerate while its engines are on.
If you are unwilling to accept testimony and video evidence and instead demand real physical evidence then go buy a model rocket kit and test it yourself.
If you are unwilling to do that, and thus are completely unwilling to accept anything to show you are wrong, then just shut up as it is clear you are not interested in debate or truth.