Intercontinental ballistic missile

In terms of a real rocket/missile, something like 1 second or so

Nope. It continues until the fuel is depleted.

so accept that for what it is whether you believe it or not.

Sorry, I'm far to sceptical to accept that nonsense.
I would require evidence, but all the evidence I have found or collected myself shows the opposite.

I have no issues with genuine model rockets and when I say genuine, I mean any that can be physically verified.

So why limit it to small model rockets.
Even large ones exist and can be verified to launch nothing like you claim.
You just seem to think they aren't rockets, yet don't provide any viable alternative.

you would have to pedal so hard to keep it at that velocity

Yes, otherwise you slow down. You don't just instantly stop dead.

If you cease to pedal after you max momentum is hit, you stop dead and fall.
Do you agree?

No. Almost anyone who has seen anything like that wont agree.
Instead they will likely accept reality, that after you stop pedalling, you slow down, reaching a peak when you reach a velocity of 0, instead of stopping dead.

Again, you can go and do the experiments yourself, you just choose not to.
If you aren't willing to do the experiment, keep your garbage opinions to yourself.

Quote from: Stash on January 02, 2019, 12:56:25 PM

Unfortunately, I saw this one live:

If you want to use emotion to try and give you some kind of credence on this then stay out of it.

I'm not using emotion as credence. It's the only one I saw live which ended tragically, whatever conspiracy theory you have about that notwithstanding. Point being, you asked for live and footage. There it is. Just so happened to be a really bad day.

And the shuttle, like all other launches, didn't "springboard" or whatever you're on about. It rose like they all do/did. It's not that complicated. Rockets/missiles exist. And I'm dumbfounded as to why you're so resistant to reality. I think you can still maintain your dome belief, maybe just make it higher. I don't think denpressure is 'rocket/missile' prohibitive. I don't even think flat earth is 'rocket/missile' prohibitive.

Why can't something, in this case, ICBM's, exist (wish they didn't) with so much documentation, paper, video evidence or otherwise and still fit into your belief system as well. Is it kind of an NRA thing where if you give into any inch of gun control you know the opposition is going to ultimately take a mile?

Why is the notion of an ICBM anathema to your belief system (other than the obviousness of their intent)?

Quote from: MicroBeta on January 02, 2019, 10:25:34 AM

How soon after leaving the launch pad does acceleration stop. Define immediately in relation too time.

In terms of a real rocket/missile, something like 1 second or so, give or take. I can't give you a better answer than that so accept that for what it is whether you believe it or not.

Quote from: MicroBeta

What happens if there's no launch pad?  e.g. A horizontal launch.

Mike

A rocket propelled dragster type?
Something on wheels?
Or something fired from a fighter jet. A missile or whatever?

Since you brought up a horizontal rocket on wheels before how about a rocket sled on the ground?

What about the second stage of a rocket firing after the first stage has shutdown and ejected from the the rocket.  Here's a decent example of a two stage rocket; which, BTW, clearly shows that when the first stage rockets shutdown and eject the rocket continues to climb for several seconds before the second stage rocket fires.  Go to about 1:30 to 1:45 in the video to see this.  Two stage kits are available from any model rocket source.



Explain if you can.

Mike

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.

If a rocket can lift off at less than maximum thr4ust and throttle up that thrust then it will accelerate.
The problem with this is, it's a pointless rocket/missile. It serves no purpose and would be so unstable as to render it a danger to its initial surrounding area.

There's a reason why rockets WHOOSH  straight up at full thrust.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 02, 2019, 06:32:52 AM

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.

Nope.
Let's deal with solid fuel rockets like we are told so called ICBM's are.
Full thrust or bust.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 02, 2019, 07:10:03 AM

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.

Yep and only for a split second before resistance arrests that max velocity. From there is simply decreases in upward momentum until friction gripped to a stop and then acceleration towards the ground begins, until terminal velocity is attained or it simply hits the ground under acceleration.

A rocket, as long as it's thrust to weight ratio is greater than 1, will continue accelerating.

Nope.
The rocket at full thrust will reach maximum velocity just like the bullet and will keep that velocity as long as the full thrust is constant. It will not be accelerating.

Again, plenty of people watch these real rockets launch and note that they don't magically accelerate instantly.

I don't dispute people watching rockets launching. It's about what they see in that launch which is the key.
Merely saying people see slow motion launches is not proof of anything.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 02, 2019, 08:02:24 AM

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.

It wouldn't be akin to the stone being released. The stone is still under momentum from energy applied in the slingshot.
The stone is slowing down on the vertical. It loses its maximum velocity as immediate as it gained it.

A rocket would still be max thrusting and keeping a constant velocity due to change in atmosphere it is thrusting against, in terms of ever thinning atmosphere for want of better words.
That thrust remains constant against less atmosphere on the vertical but if able to do so by jettisoning fuel in the burn (thrust) which keeps a fuel to mass to atmospheric ration constant, enabling constant velocity....not acceleration.

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 provided a springboard for it and the energy of your springboard thrust is expended against the atmosphere you threw it into. That atmosphere will friction grip the ball and slow it down on the up motion.

It's a different scenario to a constant velocity rocket and constant max thrust.

Why should a rocket magically stop dead when its engines stop, but only if vertical?

Because the max thrust to keep a constant velocity has nothing else to give so the rocket is entirely under an exact movement upwards for that initial thrust for each millimetre of vertical lift.
Shut that down, dead and you gain no push. Your rocket stops dead

I simple analogy.
If I was to push you up a pole and I used all my might with arms bent and muscles primed to spring push you up that pole you would move up that pole a little until my energy applied to your arse end was arrested by the friction of the pole and atmosphere you are in.
Basically you would hit maximum velocity (however tiny) before slowing down in short order but still moving up as you slow down.

If I was to simple get on my knees and steadily raise you up in a sort of steady fashion, sort of like a max strength to push you and to hold that max strength of push constantly, then you move up at a constant velocity by my constant energy but if I cease to push you by snatching my hands away from you, you immediately stop moving up. You stop dead.

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.

Built up momentum. Energy applied for a springboard push. It doesn't matter how it's dressed up, it's all the same thing.

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?

The slow launches are merely gimmicks.

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.

I don't believe you but feel free to push that.

The rocket at full thrust will reach maximum velocity just like the bullet and will keep that velocity as long as the full thrust is constant. It will not be accelerating.

Beg to differ:

If a rocket can lift off at less than maximum thr4ust

Again, maximum thrust would be an explosion where all fuel is spent at once and no rocket does that.

throttle up that thrust then it will accelerate.

Nope. No need for it to increase throttle to accelerate.

The problem with this is, it's a pointless rocket/missile.

You not understanding how rockets work doesn't make them pointless. It serves no purpose and would be so unstable as to render it a danger to its initial surrounding area.

Full thrust or bust.

No, full thrust would mean bust.

Yep and only for a split second before resistance arrests that max velocity. From there is simply decreases in upward momentum until friction gripped to a stop and then acceleration towards the ground begins, until terminal velocity is attained or it simply hits the ground under acceleration.

Yes, notice how it doesn't just stop dead after the initial bang stops? It keeps moving upwards, just like a rocket would.

The rocket at full thrust will reach maximum velocity

Again, stop just asserting garbage.
Everything shows you are wrong.
There is literally nothign to support your insane claims.
If you wish to continue asserting such garbage you will need vastly more than your baseless claim.

just like the bullet

No, nothing like a bullet.
A bullet is fired with an explosion where all the fuel is used at once. A rocket does not.

Merely saying people see slow motion launches is not proof of anything.

No, people see them in real time.
They observe the rockets start out slow and increase speed (i.e. accelerate).

It wouldn't be akin to the stone being released. The stone is still under momentum from energy applied in the slingshot.

Yes, just like the rocket is still under momentum from the energy applied while the rocket engine was on.

The stone is slowing down on the vertical. It loses its maximum velocity as immediate as it gained it.

No it doesn't.
It can gain it extremely quickly and lose it quite slowly.
If it lost its maximum velocity as immediately as it gained it it wouldn't go very high, just the height of the slingshot.

A rocket would still be max thrusting and keeping a constant velocity

Quit spouting the same BS. If you want anyone to take that garbage seriously you will need more than the same repeated, refuted, pathetic baseless assertion.

It's a different scenario to a constant velocity rocket and constant max thrust.

Good thing no one is talking about such a fantasy as that except you.
We are talking about real rockets.

Because the max thrust to keep a constant velocity

Has nothing to do with it.
Again, we are talking about real rockets.
But even then, still no reason for it to stop dead instantly.

I simple analogy.

No, here is a simple analogy, one you already used, a rock in a sling.
When it leaves the sling it doesn't stop dead, it continues moving up.

Basically you would hit maximum velocity (however tiny) before slowing down in short order but still moving up as you slow down.

Even with your pathetic analogy, you keep moving upwards, so why does the rocket magically stop dead?
Why is this magical event never observed by anyone?

The slow launches are merely gimmicks.

HOW? You seem to love just dismissing real factual rockets as gimmicks, but provide no alternative explanation.
Just what magic is being used for them?

I don't believe you but feel free to push that.

I don't give a damn what you believe as you have shown you don't value the truth, will reject reality and believe delusional nonsense which is contradicted by so many experiments you can easily do.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 02, 2019, 01:06:24 PM

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?

The slow launches are merely gimmicks.

Oh come on.  Seriously?  I just showed you the videos and all the equipment for model rockets that actually do this and you're so biased and closed minded that you've dismissed this, you won't bother testing it yourself, and you continue with the claim that "slow launches are merely gimmicks."

Quote from: JackBlack

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.

I don't believe you but feel free to push that.

There's nothing to push.  It's fact.  To use the speti playbook, here's an analogy for you:

I apply a constant force to push a skateboard with my two cats sitting on it.  The skateboard will accelerate from a stop until it reaches some constant speed.

Now, my cats jump off and there is still a constant applied force.  However, since the skateboard weight about 30 lbs less it will accelerate to a new higher constant speed.

Simple right?  Well as that rocket is climbing upward it's losing mass.  A constant applied force, a decreasing mass, the rocket must accelerate for the same reason the skateboard goes faster when my cats jump off.

Mike

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 01:53:59 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 02, 2019, 01:06:24 PM

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?

The slow launches are merely gimmicks.

Oh come on.  Seriously?  I just showed you the videos and all the equipment for model rockets that actually do this and you're so biased and closed minded that you've dismissed this, you won't bother testing it yourself, and you continue with the claim that "slow launches are merely gimmicks."

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 01:53:59 AM

Quote from: JackBlack

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.

I don't believe you but feel free to push that.

There's nothing to push.  It's fact.  To use the speti playbook, here's an analogy for you:

I apply a constant force to push a skateboard with my two cats sitting on it.  The skateboard will accelerate from a stop until it reaches some constant speed.

Now, my cats jump off and there is still a constant applied force.  However, since the skateboard weight about 30 lbs less it will accelerate to a new higher constant speed.

Simple right?  Well as that rocket is climbing upward it's losing mass.  A constant applied force, a decreasing mass, the rocket must accelerate for the same reason the skateboard goes faster when my cats jump off.

Mike

Conclusion: You have big cats

Quote from: MicroBeta on January 03, 2019, 03:08:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 01:53:59 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 02, 2019, 01:06:24 PM

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?

The slow launches are merely gimmicks.

Oh come on.  Seriously?  I just showed you the videos and all the equipment for model rockets that actually do this and you're so biased and closed minded that you've dismissed this, you won't bother testing it yourself, and you continue with the claim that "slow launches are merely gimmicks."

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 01:53:59 AM

Quote from: JackBlack

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.

I don't believe you but feel free to push that.

There's nothing to push.  It's fact.  To use the speti playbook, here's an analogy for you:

I apply a constant force to push a skateboard with my two cats sitting on it.  The skateboard will accelerate from a stop until it reaches some constant speed.

Now, my cats jump off and there is still a constant applied force.  However, since the skateboard weight about 30 lbs less it will accelerate to a new higher constant speed.

Simple right?  Well as that rocket is climbing upward it's losing mass.  A constant applied force, a decreasing mass, the rocket must accelerate for the same reason the skateboard goes faster when my cats jump off.

Mike

Conclusion: You have big cats

They were ragdolls and 14 & 16 lbs were about average...but yeah bigger than the average house cat.

Every thing you say on this subject is wrong. Go watch a video of any rocket launch and maximum velocity is not achieved instantaneously, that would be impossible. Even in the case of a simple projectile maximum velocity is not achieved instantaneously. Watch this.....the arrow is clearly seen accelerating. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

The arrow obviously accelerates from zero to maximum velocity, but it's is extreme short order. What you see from that point on is, friction slowing of that arrow.

He doesn’t care about degrees or anything else for that matter.  I have the degree and 35 years of experience in what he says is impossible.  His only answer is I’m a liar and/or I’ve been duped and I’m too stupid to know.


Mike

I'm not calling you stupid. I'm questioning what you believe to be the truth without you actually knowing it to be the truth.

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 02, 2019, 02:54:25 PM

Simple graph showing flight of a small model rocket. Note how the velocity changes over the first second as its fuel burns. It then decelarates till it’s velocity reaches 0 at three seconds, then it falls.....




http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/space%20science/forces1.htm

Not to mention, for a rocket, model or otherwise, to have a constant thrust to not accelerate is literally impossible.

To have max thrust on a vertical will not produce acceleration after initial standing start to acceleration to reach constant velocity.

A second or so acceleration and that's your lot, vertically on max thrust.

Since you brought up a horizontal rocket on wheels before how about a rocket sled on the ground?

What about it?

What about the second stage of a rocket firing after the first stage has shutdown and ejected from the the rocket.  Here's a decent example of a two stage rocket; which, BTW, clearly shows that when the first stage rockets shutdown and eject the rocket continues to climb for several seconds before the second stage rocket fires.  Go to about 1:30 to 1:45 in the video to see this.  Two stage kits are available from any model rocket source.



Explain if you can.

Mike

You're going to have to find something better than that. It shows nothing against what I've been saying.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 01:53:59 AM

The rocket at full thrust will reach maximum velocity just like the bullet and will keep that velocity as long as the full thrust is constant. It will not be accelerating.

Beg to differ:

Let me know when they launch vertically.

Quote from: MicroBeta on January 02, 2019, 02:50:15 PM

He doesn’t care about degrees or anything else for that matter.  I have the degree and 35 years of experience in what he says is impossible.  His only answer is I’m a liar and/or I’ve been duped and I’m too stupid to know.


Mike

I'm not calling you stupid. I'm questioning what you believe to be the truth without you actually knowing it to be the truth.

Seriously, somebody would have to be incompetent to do what I do for a living and not know the facts of the things we are discussing.  It is literally what I do for a living every.  Forces & moments, inertia & momentum...its knowledge, not blind belief of something I've read in a book.  That is something you cannot say about any of your claims. 

The inertia you claim doesn’t exist is accounted for in everything I do.  A ship at sea moves in ways a land based facility would never see. 

With a new design sometimes the customer wants more than just a design and supporting analysis so I’ve done physical testing for proof of concept...actually tested the results of my calculations.  I know that the stresses we calculate in shipboard systems while underway match reality because my company has tested that too.  I've physically proved every concept I posted here.  I know you can't say the same.  I’ve even given you everything you need to test your claims.  You could build the rocket I described and the whole matter to bed but you refuse to do it.  Your lame excuses says a lot about your confidence in you so-called theories.

This is how I know your concepts are bullshit.  You, on the other hand, have never show a single thing I’ve posted to be wrong.  Not once. 

I know the truth and you are the one operating on belief...plain and simple.

Mike

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 02, 2019, 11:00:51 AM

Fly by dismissal of everyone?

Either way.
Was mine dismissed due its involment of numbers?
Maybe sceotis not a numbers guy.
The anaolgy was solid.

Try another.

Because you cant math?

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 02, 2019, 02:44:30 PM

Every thing you say on this subject is wrong. Go watch a video of any rocket launch and maximum velocity is not achieved instantaneously, that would be impossible. Even in the case of a simple projectile maximum velocity is not achieved instantaneously. Watch this.....the arrow is clearly seen accelerating. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

The arrow obviously accelerates from zero to maximum velocity, but it's is extreme short order. What you see from that point on is, friction slowing of that arrow.

You dont say!
So insightful...

Quote from: JackBlack on January 02, 2019, 01:06:24 PM

I simple analogy.
If I was to push you up a pole and I used all my might with arms bent and muscles primed to spring push you up that pole you would move up that pole a little until my energy applied to your arse end was arrested by the friction of the pole and atmosphere you are in.
Basically you would hit maximum velocity (however tiny) before slowing down in short order but still moving up as you slow down.

If I was to simple get on my knees and steadily raise you up in a sort of steady fashion, sort of like a max strength to push you and to hold that max strength of push constantly, then you move up at a constant velocity by my constant energy but if I cease to push you by snatching my hands away from you, you immediately stop moving up. You stop dead.

Aaaaaah scepti...
So your simple analogy.
If we were to use numbers, would basically be akin to the bank account analogy.
Your weakass arms are not going to be able to thrust jackbs fatass to any great velocity to exceed the downward push of denp (approx 9.8m/s/s).
Basically Meaning -
Youd have to simply throw him up acheiving a spring board velocty at ~20m/s and you would see him stop dead at ~2seconds.

The exact same as the bank analogy.

Try math next time you run an experiment to pedict the outcome.

Quote from: MicroBeta on January 03, 2019, 01:38:36 AM

Since you brought up a horizontal rocket on wheels before how about a rocket sled on the ground?

What about it?

Quote from: MicroBeta

What about the second stage of a rocket firing after the first stage has shutdown and ejected from the the rocket.  Here's a decent example of a two stage rocket; which, BTW, clearly shows that when the first stage rockets shutdown and eject the rocket continues to climb for several seconds before the second stage rocket fires.  Go to about 1:30 to 1:45 in the video to see this.  Two stage kits are available from any model rocket source.



Explain if you can.

Mike

You're going to have to find something better than that. It shows nothing against what I've been saying.

The video clearly shows that once the first stage engines cut off it continued to climb.  Its momentum kept the rocket climbing while the boosters dropped away.  Additionally, the video clearly shows that when the second stage engine cut off the rocket again continued to climb.  Explain how that isn’t against your claim that when thrust stops all vertical progress stops.

The video clearly shows that the rocket continues climb and after the first stage boosters fall away the second stage fires.  The video clearly shows the rocket accelerating and quickly climbed until the second stage motor cuts out.  Explain how this is not against your claim that once it is flying vertically it CANNOT accelerate and will only fly at a constant velocity. 
 

The video is very, very clear as to what happens.  Everything this rocket does is contrary to your claims.   

Mike

I have a feeling scepti believes all the fuel is ignited and explodes all at once.
Like a cartoon barrel of tnt.

Scepti - please confirm.
Yes/ no is simple enough.

  To use the speti playbook, here's an analogy for you:

I apply a constant force to push a skateboard with my two cats sitting on it.  The skateboard will accelerate from a stop until it reaches some constant speed.

Fair enough.

Now, my cats jump off and there is still a constant applied force.

If your cats jump off they will impart a force to the skateboard with their mass and paw push/springboard in or against the direction of the skateboard.
Assuming it's against the direction then they would accelerate it from it's original decaying speed for a brief moment until a new speed was achieved which would also immediately decay.

  However, since the skateboard weight about 30 lbs less it will accelerate to a new higher constant speed.

It would never be a constant speed. Friction and the lack of constant energy applied would see to that.

Simple right?

Not as simple as you think.

Well as that rocket is climbing upward it's losing mass.

Yep it loses fuel mass and potential debris but we'll stick with fuel.

  A constant applied force, a decreasing mass, the rocket must accelerate for the same reason the skateboard goes faster when my cats jump off.

Mike

Nope.
The rocket movement is based on fuel to mass to atmospheric density ratio.
This keeps a rocket moving at full thrust on a constant velocity.

I've physically proved every concept I posted here.

No you haven't. You haven't physically proved anything I'm questioning.

  I know you can't say the same.  I’ve even given you everything you need to test your claims.  You could build the rocket I described and the whole matter to bed but you refuse to do it.  Your lame excuses says a lot about your confidence in you so-called theories.

I'm very confident in my theories. It doesn't mean they're all correct or anything. It just means that nobody is proving them to be wrong just as much as I can't literally prove them to be right.

This is how I know your concepts are bullshit.  You, on the other hand, have never show a single thing I’ve posted to be wrong.  Not once.
I know the truth and you are the one operating on belief...plain and simple.

Mike

I can't show you to be wrong. I can ask you for proof just as you can ask me and we can both give what we think is a diluted version of what we think is a proof or a potential reality.

You claim no higher ground on this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 01:53:59 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 02, 2019, 01:06:24 PM

I simple analogy.
If I was to push you up a pole and I used all my might with arms bent and muscles primed to spring push you up that pole you would move up that pole a little until my energy applied to your arse end was arrested by the friction of the pole and atmosphere you are in.
Basically you would hit maximum velocity (however tiny) before slowing down in short order but still moving up as you slow down.

If I was to simple get on my knees and steadily raise you up in a sort of steady fashion, sort of like a max strength to push you and to hold that max strength of push constantly, then you move up at a constant velocity by my constant energy but if I cease to push you by snatching my hands away from you, you immediately stop moving up. You stop dead.

Aaaaaah scepti...
So your simple analogy.
If we were to use numbers, would basically be akin to the bank account analogy.
Your weakass arms are not going to be able to thrust jackbs fatass to any great velocity to exceed the downward push of denp (approx 9.8m/s/s).
Basically Meaning -
Youd have to simply throw him up acheiving a spring board velocty at ~20m/s and you would see him stop dead at ~2seconds.

The exact same as the bank analogy.

Try math next time you run an experiment to pedict the outcome.

You try understanding what's being said and then I'll deal with you.

 The video is very, very clear as to what happens.  Everything this rocket does is contrary to your claims.   

Mike

The video is not very clear at all and does not go against what I've said, otherwise I wouldn't still bother to argue my side.
If you think that shows you to be correct and me wrong then you have no need to take any further part in trying to convince me....right?

I have a feeling scepti believes all the fuel is ignited and explodes all at once.
Like a cartoon barrel of tnt.

Scepti - please confirm.
Yes/ no is simple enough.

No.

Quote from: MicroBeta on January 03, 2019, 03:08:15 AM

  To use the speti playbook, here's an analogy for you:

I apply a constant force to push a skateboard with my two cats sitting on it.  The skateboard will accelerate from a stop until it reaches some constant speed.

Fair enough.

Quote from: MicroBeta

Now, my cats jump off and there is still a constant applied force.

If your cats jump off they will impart a force to the skateboard with their mass and paw push/springboard in or against the direction of the skateboard.
Assuming it's against the direction then they would accelerate it from it's original decaying speed for a brief moment until a new speed was achieved which would also immediately decay.

Quote from: MicroBeta

  However, since the skateboard weight about 30 lbs less it will accelerate to a new higher constant speed.

It would never be a constant speed. Friction and the lack of constant energy applied would see to that.

Lack of constant energy applied???  What the hell are you talking about?  What about the part where I say there “is still a constant applied force”. 

And, the cats will impart a force when they “push/springboard” off.  Really?  You know what I meant.

What are you, ten years old?  I was trying to lighten the discussion with my cats but since you want to play those childish games I’ll spell it out for you.

You have two skateboards.  One with a thirty pound weight and the second with no additional weight.  They’re both on the same level and smooth surface.  They both have the same applied constant force.  I’m saying the lighter board will reach a higher constant speed than the heavier one.  Clear enough for you or do I need my niece to get her crayons and draw you some pictures?

Mike

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 03, 2019, 06:33:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2019, 01:53:59 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 02, 2019, 01:06:24 PM

I simple analogy.
If I was to push you up a pole and I used all my might with arms bent and muscles primed to spring push you up that pole you would move up that pole a little until my energy applied to your arse end was arrested by the friction of the pole and atmosphere you are in.
Basically you would hit maximum velocity (however tiny) before slowing down in short order but still moving up as you slow down.

If I was to simple get on my knees and steadily raise you up in a sort of steady fashion, sort of like a max strength to push you and to hold that max strength of push constantly, then you move up at a constant velocity by my constant energy but if I cease to push you by snatching my hands away from you, you immediately stop moving up. You stop dead.

Aaaaaah scepti...
So your simple analogy.
If we were to use numbers, would basically be akin to the bank account analogy.
Your weakass arms are not going to be able to thrust jackbs fatass to any great velocity to exceed the downward push of denp (approx 9.8m/s/s).
Basically Meaning -
Youd have to simply throw him up acheiving a spring board velocty at ~20m/s and you would see him stop dead at ~2seconds.

The exact same as the bank analogy.

Try math next time you run an experiment to pedict the outcome.

You try understanding what's being said and then I'll deal with you.

You realize we said the same thing...
I added in a few numbers.
Possibly you have issue with numbers.

Quote from: MicroBeta on January 03, 2019, 05:59:54 AM

I've physically proved every concept I posted here.

No you haven't. You haven't physically proved anything I'm questioning.

Quote from: MicroBeta

  I know you can't say the same.  I’ve even given you everything you need to test your claims.  You could build the rocket I described and the whole matter to bed but you refuse to do it.  Your lame excuses says a lot about your confidence in you so-called theories.

I'm very confident in my theories. It doesn't mean they're all correct or anything. It just means that nobody is proving them to be wrong just as much as I can't literally prove them to be right.

Quote from: MicroBeta

This is how I know your concepts are bullshit.  You, on the other hand, have never show a single thing I’ve posted to be wrong.  Not once.
I know the truth and you are the one operating on belief...plain and simple.

Mike

I can't show you to be wrong. I can ask you for proof just as you can ask me and we can both give what we think is a diluted version of what we think is a proof or a potential reality.

You claim no higher ground on this.

I don’t claim any ground.  However, I do claim to be right.  I have provided you with ample proof of my claims.  I’ve provided you with videos that show what I claim.  And, I’ve provided you with a source for the materials to test it yourself. 

I claimed this type of rocket will start off slower than conventional rockets, accelerate as it climbs, and will do it without fins.  I’ve even provided you with a source for the equipment you need.  If you really believed that you are only expressing your opinion, that you need to do physical experiments, and you are logical and open minded then you would test it out. 

However, you stated that you don’t need to test it because you already know it will show you to be right.  IOW, claiming that your views are fact, they don’t need to be tested, and everything else is wrong. 

Quote from: MicroBeta on January 03, 2019, 06:47:54 AM

 The video is very, very clear as to what happens.  Everything this rocket does is contrary to your claims.   

Mike

The video is not very clear at all and does not go against what I've said, otherwise I wouldn't still bother to argue my side.
If you think that shows you to be correct and me wrong then you have no need to take any further part in trying to convince me....right?

I’m trying to provide clear, testable examples of my statements on how rockets fly and large (ICBMs) in particular.  Short of going to your house and demonstrating this, the TVC system for model rockets and this video are the best I could do.  So, I made sure you had access to everything you need to test my claims.  But, you refused to do so and you refuse to take the video and my interpretation seriously.

I’m really trying here but you are so dismissive.  How about this?  Look at the video again and tell me what you believe the rocket is doing.  Use the on board camera segment from about the one minute mark through the end of its flight.  In particular tell me what you see when the first stage rockets shutdown/separate and when the second stage motor lights off.  I don’t think this is an unreasonable request.

Mike

Lack of constant energy applied???  What the hell are you talking about?  What about the part where I say there “is still a constant applied force”. 

And, the cats will impart a force when they “push/springboard” off.  Really?  You know what I meant.

What are you, ten years old?  I was trying to lighten the discussion with my cats but since you want to play those childish games I’ll spell it out for you.

You have two skateboards.  One with a thirty pound weight and the second with no additional weight.  They’re both on the same level and smooth surface.  They both have the same applied constant force.  I’m saying the lighter board will reach a higher constant speed than the heavier one.  Clear enough for you or do I need my niece to get her crayons and draw you some pictures?

Mike

Let me get this right.
Are you saying that you push both boards with the same force an d let them freely roll away until they both stop but in the meantime the heavier board will be much slower than the lighter board or are you applying constant force to both boards so they're always under your apllied energy and not freely rolling along on their own.
Maybe those crayons aren't a bad idea.
Summon your niece.

Quote from: MicroBeta on January 03, 2019, 08:50:05 AM

Lack of constant energy applied???  What the hell are you talking about?  What about the part where I say there “is still a constant applied force”. 

And, the cats will impart a force when they “push/springboard” off.  Really?  You know what I meant.

What are you, ten years old?  I was trying to lighten the discussion with my cats but since you want to play those childish games I’ll spell it out for you.

You have two skateboards.  One with a thirty pound weight and the second with no additional weight.  They’re both on the same level and smooth surface.  They both have the same applied constant force.  I’m saying the lighter board will reach a higher constant speed than the heavier one.  Clear enough for you or do I need my niece to get her crayons and draw you some pictures?

Mike

Let me get this right.
Are you saying that you push both boards with the same force an d let them freely roll away until they both stop but in the meantime the heavier board will be much slower than the lighter board or are you applying constant force to both boards so they're always under your apllied energy and not freely rolling along on their own.
Maybe those crayons aren't a bad idea.
Summon your niece.

Okay, that was funny.

It is a constant applied force.  The applied force remains after a constant speed is reached.  Assume each is driven by identical battery operated motors that you turn on with a wireless remote so there is no physical interactions with either board.

Mike