Intercontinental ballistic missile

I think you may have already seen a portion of this. (runtime, 2:30) But it's a more accurate demonstration than squeezing soap. It also makes mention of how the membrane is exploded and the air pressure is applied before the water gets in the tube, which makes all the difference. and it quite different than squeezing soap bars.

If anything, that video works to make me more concrete in my scepticism of those missiles.
Dreamed up fantasy portrayed as reality.

You would also need more evidence for the soap, because if you watch it carefully, it doesn't just hit the top of the water and stop. Instead it pops out and then splashes back down. If that is your idea of not launching, then do you think that soap has a rocket engine inside?

Not from deep under the bath water it doesn't. It does if you are a few inches from the surface.

However we are not talking about a few inches from the surface or a few feet from the surface of the ocean.
We are talking over 100 feet of ocean.
As for the rocket having a supposed engine. It matters not if it can't clear the ocean.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2019, 04:23:07 PM

Quote from: MicroBeta on January 07, 2019, 06:32:06 PM

Deceleration?  We're still talking about that?

How about the recent rocket videos?

What about my explanation claim that septimatic's denpressure model can't predict the vertical acceleration for all rockets.  AAMOF, some may not accelerate while others will have varying values of acceleration?

Deceleration seems like a red herring.

Mike

Let's get back to the so called ICBM's.

Let's deal with this compressed air firing of these so called ICBM's from around 100 feet under the water.
Sit in a full bath and get a grip of a bar of soap. Try and grip it as hard as you can towards the bottom half.
Watch as the soap is launched under lots of pressure for its size and depth of your bath, plus the strength of your squeeze.
What happens?
The soap hits the top of the water and that's it. It doesn't launch out of it no matter how hard to try.

The same thing would happen to a missile of the size we are told from a tube like we are told, with the amount of compressed air that could be mustered on top of the actual so called compressed air in the entire tube to counteract the thin membrane holding back the water pressure before launch.

When something appears to be a silly fantasy I have to check it out.
This is one of many that I think is just that.

Nice one!


Have you ever seen a whale breach without the use of soap.


I really can’t see your problem here! Have you ever fired a blow gun when you were a Kid? We used to use old biro pens and a mouthful of barley for ammo! Pop one in the pipe give it a good blow, and ouch.


Have you ever seen compressed tools in action? Have you never had your nuts tightened with a compressed air tool? If not give it a go....they will never ever come loose again.


Try this at home


" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Get back to me when you're launching 40 foot missiles from a tube under water at 100 plus feet depth by using compressed air in an already compressed tube of air to hold back a membrane under severe water pressure.

We can discuss air tools and such in another topic.

Not from deep under the bath water it doesn't. It does if you are a few inches from the surface.

No, I'm pretty sure it does it from depth as well, unless you aren't launching it fast enough at which case it never reaches the surface.

But do you know what this does?
Show there are multiple variables involved. To then extrapolate this to other things, you need to do at least some basic math.

However we are not talking about a few inches from the surface or a few feet from the surface of the ocean.
We are talking over 100 feet of ocean.

So go ahead and show it should apply. I have already done the math (as a simple version) and shown no problem.

As for the rocket having a supposed engine. It matters not if it can't clear the ocean.

Good thing it can clear the ocean.

Using compressed air in an already compressed tube of air to hold back a membrane under severe water pressure.

And just why do you keep appealing to this?
You seem to want to make it seem rather difficult to do, but you are yet to establish why it would be.

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 09, 2019, 02:36:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2019, 04:23:07 PM

Quote from: MicroBeta on January 07, 2019, 06:32:06 PM

Deceleration?  We're still talking about that?

How about the recent rocket videos?

What about my explanation claim that septimatic's denpressure model can't predict the vertical acceleration for all rockets.  AAMOF, some may not accelerate while others will have varying values of acceleration?

Deceleration seems like a red herring.

Mike

Let's get back to the so called ICBM's.

Let's deal with this compressed air firing of these so called ICBM's from around 100 feet under the water.
Sit in a full bath and get a grip of a bar of soap. Try and grip it as hard as you can towards the bottom half.
Watch as the soap is launched under lots of pressure for its size and depth of your bath, plus the strength of your squeeze.
What happens?
The soap hits the top of the water and that's it. It doesn't launch out of it no matter how hard to try.

The same thing would happen to a missile of the size we are told from a tube like we are told, with the amount of compressed air that could be mustered on top of the actual so called compressed air in the entire tube to counteract the thin membrane holding back the water pressure before launch.

When something appears to be a silly fantasy I have to check it out.
This is one of many that I think is just that.

Nice one!


Have you ever seen a whale breach without the use of soap.


I really can’t see your problem here! Have you ever fired a blow gun when you were a Kid? We used to use old biro pens and a mouthful of barley for ammo! Pop one in the pipe give it a good blow, and ouch.


Have you ever seen compressed tools in action? Have you never had your nuts tightened with a compressed air tool? If not give it a go....they will never ever come loose again.


Try this at home


" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Get back to me when you're launching 40 foot missiles from a tube under water at 100 plus feet depth by using compressed air in an already compressed tube of air to hold back a membrane under severe water pressure.

We can discuss air tools and such in another topic.

For the moment, lets put aside sub launched missiles and even silo launched systems.  That leaves us with missiles that launch from above ground platforms.  This was a favorite of the Soviets.  These can be launched much like any model rocket. 

However, I contend that within a denpressure model there are too many differences between rockets to say definitively that there can be no acceleration on vertical launch.  If I understand denpressure correctly, those differences can not only cause a rocket to not accelerate in the vertical direction, it can also cause the rocket to slow on ascent, or a rocket actually be able to accelerate.  Do you agree or disagree?

Additionally, just like the V2 that Germany used to bomb the UK during WWII, a platform launched missile can take an arced trajectory and accelerate toward their target.  Do you agree or disagree?

Mike

Quote from: MicroBeta on January 09, 2019, 01:20:42 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 08, 2019, 09:31:10 PM

Quote from: MicroBeta on January 08, 2019, 07:12:54 PM

AAMOF, Mike

ARTOV!, Glenn


Are you 13 fucking years old?
Type like an adult you broken little tool.

I'm not sure what ARTOV means or who Glenn is but okay, if you'd prefer I'll type out "as a matter of fact" from now on.  I didn't realize standard internet/forum acronyms are frowned upon here.  Maybe a new forum policy is in order?

"broken little tool"...really?

Apparently I should know your ACBUYB but you have no obligation or desire to learn my TJR?

I think you are a pretentious little prick.


You claim you are important. Every stupid butthole claims to be important.

We have pilots, astronauts, physicists, gynecologists, child molesters, rocket surgeons,
elevator dorks, you name it, we have someone who claims to be it.

You know what? Nobody gives a god damn fuck.


So, you are the brains behind our nuclear sub fleet and you are here
on the Flat Earth Society website.


I think you are full of shit.
You are as generic as they come.
You blab about public domain crap like you have special insight.


DWYWTD, A-H.

Mr Bullwrinkle is not a nice person.

Mr Bullwrinkle is not a nice person.

We could say that he's all "Bull", wink wink!

For the moment, lets put aside sub launched missiles and even silo launched systems.  That leaves us with missiles that launch from above ground platforms.  This was a favorite of the Soviets.  These can be launched much like any model rocket. 

However, I contend that within a denpressure model there are too many differences between rockets to say definitively that there can be no acceleration on vertical launch.  If I understand denpressure correctly, those differences can not only cause a rocket to not accelerate in the vertical direction, it can also cause the rocket to slow on ascent, or a rocket actually be able to accelerate.  Do you agree or disagree?

A rocket could accelerate vertically......IF it can build thrust.

The problem with that is, big rockets/missiles would be fireworks. Solid fuel fireworks made of the lightest and strongest material at the cheapest price, plus ease of making to enable those rockets/missiles to do a certain job.

The job is simple.
To hit a target after arcing to it.

To do this they don't play the acceleration game. They simply springboard into the air under full thrust.

From this point is where we differ in our thinking. Assuming you don't bring up throttling so called space rockets.

You believe a rocket thrusts against it's insides and does all its work at that point, whilst ejecting hot fiery gases as simply an exhaust into the atmosphere as something that does absolutely no work.
You believe that this kick ass action inside the rocket at full thrust is somehow constantly kicking that rocket up its own arse and accelerating it as the rocket fuel is spent, making the rocket lighter.

How people cannot see that as clear and utter nonsense is beyond me but....and I say BUT. I do understand adherence to indoctrinated belief's. I was one, remember.

My reasoning makes perfect sense and should make sense to anyone taking the time to understand that everything needs something to push against. Action/reaction.

The rocket is at full thrust. It springboards into the air and holds a consistent speed after initial springboard acceleration.
It does not accelerate from this point unless it actually ejected some kind of carrying load which could be unburned fuel or some mass and in that case it would springboard accelerate briefly to gain a higher consistent speed.
It will not accelerate if it simply burns it's fuel as a way of lowering its mass, because all that does it keep the rocket balanced with the thrust against less atmosphere as it ascends.

There would be no consistent acceleration at all under full thrust. It's that simple.

Additionally, just like the V2 that Germany used to bomb the UK during WWII, a platform launched missile can take an arced trajectory and accelerate toward their target.  Do you agree or disagree?

Mike

No such thing as a V2 as far as I'm concerned. Not a real thing that did what we were told. It should be clear to anyone who looks into it.
Just early war time fantasy stuff. Scaremongering/propaganda.

In this video, where does air play a part in the motion of the guy?

They had great Photoshop back in 1944....

Those V2 films were quite easy to fake!

In this video, where does air play a part in the motion of the guy?

In the fiction you are fed, nowhere.
In denpressure it clearly shows how it all works, which I've explained time and time again and you supposedly saying you are smart cannot seem to get it.

The medicine ball displaces atmosphere by its own dense mass like I've said.
The person holding it and kneeling on a wheeled board pushes that dense mass (medicine ball) horizontally.
On that initial throw up until he releases that ball he is compressing the atmosphere directly in front of him. It's like he's throwing the ball against a spring. But he's also got the less dense atmosphere behind him that is acting as his leverage to actually throw the ball forward in the first place.
The more he holds and pushes that ball, the more compression he manages on top of the actual compression already reacting to the medicine ball's dense mass in the first place, without him doing anything to it..

This compression is acting against his push until he releases that ball.
The harder his push the more compression he creates and the more reaction of compression to his action of energy throw,

You take that compression away and he not only has no means of compressing the atmosphere in front, he has no leverage to actually throw the ball in the first place.

It's pretty logical to understand and people should not be swayed by the dupe of pseudo science from mainstream.

They had great Photoshop back in 1944....

Those V2 films were quite easy to fake!

It depends what you mean by that.

How about you show me some clips and we'll go through them. Bearing in mind the date.
Let's also look at the V1 while we're at it.

V2 rockets were not ICBM's, their range was a few hundred km. And to say they didn't exist is disrespect to the people that died because of them.

Quote from: sokarul on January 10, 2019, 08:24:23 AM

In this video, where does air play a part in the motion of the guy?

In the fiction you are fed, nowhere.
In denpressure it clearly shows how it all works, which I've explained time and time again and you supposedly saying you are smart cannot seem to get it.

The medicine ball displaces atmosphere by its own dense mass like I've said.
The person holding it and kneeling on a wheeled board pushes that dense mass (medicine ball) horizontally.
On that initial throw up until he releases that ball he is compressing the atmosphere directly in front of him. It's like he's throwing the ball against a spring. But he's also got the less dense atmosphere behind him that is acting as his leverage to actually throw the ball forward in the first place.
The more he holds and pushes that ball, the more compression he manages on top of the actual compression already reacting to the medicine ball's dense mass in the first place, without him doing anything to it..

This compression is acting against his push until he releases that ball.
The harder his push the more compression he creates and the more reaction of compression to his action of energy throw,

You take that compression away and he not only has no means of compressing the atmosphere in front, he has no leverage to actually throw the ball in the first place.

It's pretty logical to understand and people should not be swayed by the dupe of pseudo science from mainstream.

Ok, the movement of the ball is crushing the atmosphere molecules in front of him which push him back, correct?   What if he feints throwing the ball and just holds onto it at the last moment?   A quick thrust away from him but he doesn’t let the ball go, following?  How is he going to move on the cart?  And why would denpressure cause the movement in the first  but not in the second?  Are not the molecules getting crushed the same amount if he doesn’t let go as if he lets go?? 

V2 rockets were not ICBM's, their range was a few hundred km. And to say they didn't exist is disrespect to the people that died because of them.

If you have an argument then argue it. If you want to use emotion as your argument then make that your last post to me.

Ok, the movement of the ball is crushing the atmosphere molecules in front of him which push him back, correct?   What if he feints throwing the ball and just holds onto it at the last moment?   A quick thrust away from him but he doesn’t let the ball go, following?  How is he going to move on the cart?  And why would denpressure cause the movement in the first  but not in the second?  Are not the molecules getting crushed the same amount if he doesn’t let go as if he lets go??

If he pushes on the ball but doesn't let go then he has to also snatch that ball back which will basically rock him a little bit backwards and forwards.
If he doesn't snatch it back at the last second, then he loses balance because of his refusal to let go of the ball.

The V2 of WW2 had a range of 200 mi and guided itself well enough to hit London. It is a small (compared to current ICBMs) single stage rocket. Are you saying that in this tech, the very first one has never been improved on? Scuds (modern version of V2) in the Kuwait war went further than that, from Iraq to Israel. And you are saying that US, Russia, etc can do no better than that 70 years after ww2? Only tech I ever heard of that didn't get better ... apple 2 to modern pc, model t to tesla, 1950 tv to color, aol to internet, etc etc etc. But rockets are stuck in 1944?

The medicine ball displaces atmosphere by its own dense mass like I've said.

That is saying an object exists in the atmosphere.

What is 'dense' mass?  What are the other sorts?

A rocket could accelerate vertically......IF it can build thrust.

Why should it need to build thrust? (By that I assume you mean increase thrust)?
It should be capable of accelerating at a constant thrust.

To do this they don't play the acceleration game. They simply springboard into the air under full thrust.

No, they do play the acceleration game.
Projectiles which don't are those fired in a manner similar to a gun.
All the fuel is used before it leaves the barrel.

Rockets are different in that they are designed to accelerate for a much longer period of time.
Again, your "springboard" nonsense would apply the entire time the engine is on.

You believe a rocket thrusts against it's insides and does all its work at that point, whilst ejecting hot fiery gases as simply an exhaust into the atmosphere as something that does absolutely no work.

No we don't.
We accept simple physics where the rocket is effectively throwing out this exhaust, taking force to do so, and thus generating a reactionary force on the rocket, which can accelerate it.
You reject this and believe that simply doesn't occur and it is somehow magical interaction with the atmosphere that causes the rocket to be magically pushed.

How people cannot see that as clear and utter nonsense is beyond me

Then try understanding it rather than repeatedly just rejecting it as nonsense.
You not understanding something doesn't make it false.
You thinking it is nonsense doesn't magically make it so.

I do understand adherence to indoctrinated belief's.

Which would be religious garbage like FE, not actual science like how rockets work.

My reasoning makes perfect sense

No. It makes no sense at all.
You accept action-reaction force pairs.
But you think the rocket exhaust needs to act on the atmosphere to force the rocket, yet that somehow doesn't make it accelerate.
Just dealing with the first part, you claim it needs the atmosphere to work to be able to provide resistance and thus make the rocket need a force to accelerate the gas, but claim it can't work in a vacuum because you then have no force on the rocket.
But if in a vacuum there is no resistance to acceleration there would be no need for a force to accelerate the rocket and thus it should work fine. Your argument relies upon needing a force to accelerate/move the rocket, while claiming such a thing should only be needed in an atmosphere. It is pure nonsense.

But even if you do want to pretend that it only works in the atmosphere, you have the same issue: You have a rocket, with plenty of thrust, which magically just sits there at constant speed even though it is losing mass. This makes no sense.

You have literally no justification for any of your nonsense.

If the engine is on the rocket should be accelerating.

should make sense to anyone taking the time to understand that everything needs something to push against. Action/reaction.

Except that isn't what you are describing at all.
Instead you are pretending that what you are pushing against needs to push against the atmosphere in order to need any force.
The rocket is pushing against the exhaust. That is why the exhaust doesn't stay with the rocket and instead gets thrown out the back.

It does not accelerate from this point unless it actually ejected some kind of carrying load

It doesn't matter what the load is. If it ejects something it will have a reduction in mass and thus it would need to accelerate.
So if it is ejecting burnt fuel out, it will accelerate.

It will not accelerate if it simply burns it's fuel as a way of lowering its mass

Why? It is still losing mass.
If discarding mass results in an acceleration, discarding it by burning the fuel and throwing it out the back will as well.

There would be no consistent acceleration at all under full thrust. It's that simple.

No, it isn't that simple. That is just a baseless assertion of your contradicted by every experiment and every rational analysis.

It should be clear to anyone who looks into it.

No, it shouldn't.
The evidence indicates it is real.
There is literally no reason to think it is fake.

In the fiction you are fed, nowhere.

You mean in the reality we are fed.

In denpressure it clearly shows how it all works, which I've explained time and time again

You have repeatedly failed to explain anything with denpressure.
If it was going to be due to air resistance, a large object would have a much greater effect than a small one, regardless of mass.

You rejecting how air works doesn't magically make the rest of your nonsense correct.

You didn't even bother attempting to explain why catching it causes him to move backwards.
In your fantasy land, without things like conservation of momentum, the ball isn't being pushed by the air. In fact, as it is moving through the air, the air should be acting to slow it down and stop it. What magically makes him move backwards when he catches it?

You take that compression away and he not only has no means of compressing the atmosphere in front

Good thing it isn't needed at all.
It is the reaction from throwing the ball that causes the movement.

he has no leverage to actually throw the ball in the first place.

What leverage does he need?
He has muscles, they are capable of moving. This allows him to move the ball (including throw it).
If he is magically using the air as leverage, then he shouldn't move at all.

It's pretty logical to understand and people should not be swayed by the dupe of pseudo science from mainstream.

No, rejecting reality from mainstream science leaves you with a bunch of self-contradictory nonsense that makes you incapable of explaining almost anything.
Meanwhile once you actually understand the science, things like this are very logical and very easy to understand.

No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.

How did you come to the conclusion? (i.e. you done the maths or you've seen one in person but didn't work).

The V2 of WW2 had a range of 200 mi and guided itself well enough to hit London. It is a small (compared to current ICBMs) single stage rocket. Are you saying that in this tech, the very first one has never been improved on? Scuds (modern version of V2) in the Kuwait war went further than that, from Iraq to Israel. And you are saying that US, Russia, etc can do no better than that 70 years after ww2? Only tech I ever heard of that didn't get better ... apple 2 to modern pc, model t to tesla, 1950 tv to color, aol to internet, etc etc etc. But rockets are stuck in 1944?

No that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying the V1 and the V2 are gimmicks. A propaganda tool or a scaremongering tool that achieved its aim just like Jack the ripper did and the bogeyman...etc.
All designed gimmicks or scare tactics to serve a purpose....in my opinion of course.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 26, 2018, 02:00:05 AM

No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.

How did you come to the conclusion? (i.e. you done the maths or you've seen one in person but didn't work).

Simple experiments and basic logic and a large dose of hunch by looking at the videos of it all.
It doesn't sit right with me. It doesn't appear to be able to perform what we are told.


Now, by all means tell me I have no right to question.
By all means tell me I'm wrong.
By all means tell me that I need to do calculations to prove what I'm saying.

And everything else.

My answer to that is, you believe it all because you fail to accept things can be duped on this so called scale.
You can be told all the equations as to how this stuff works and all you're going on is what you'e told as to how those equations work in that scenario, Something you've never seen performed in real life scenarios in terms of the physical end product of that so called equation.

It all boils down to religious type believing (faith) in all of this stuff that you will never see in action, physically.
It sounds good in how it's told. But then again so does fantasy stuff.
The issue is in deciphering what is real and what is actual fantasy or a mixture of the two to make up a full story.

Quote from: vallie on January 10, 2019, 05:25:24 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 26, 2018, 02:00:05 AM

No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.

How did you come to the conclusion? (i.e. you done the maths or you've seen one in person but didn't work).

Simple experiments and basic logic and a large dose of hunch by looking at the videos of it all.
It doesn't sit right with me. It doesn't appear to be able to perform what we are told.


Now, by all means tell me I have no right to question.
By all means tell me I'm wrong.
By all means tell me that I need to do calculations to prove what I'm saying.

And everything else.

My answer to that is, you believe it all because you fail to accept things can be duped on this so called scale.
You can be told all the equations as to how this stuff works and all you're going on is what you'e told as to how those equations work in that scenario, Something you've never seen performed in real life scenarios in terms of the physical end product of that so called equation.

It all boils down to religious type believing (faith) in all of this stuff that you will never see in action, physically.
It sounds good in how it's told. But then again so does fantasy stuff.
The issue is in deciphering what is real and what is actual fantasy or a mixture of the two to make up a full story.

Sceptimatic, what little experiments are those you describe?   You admitted you won’t fly a simple d.i.y. rocket or experiment with different rockets yet you claim they don’t work the way we are told. 

We show you conclusive amateur video of two stage rockets accelerating miles into the air yet you still deny deny deny.  There is no reason to think those amateur videos are fake. If you have evidence they are fake then you should provide it.   

You can make all kinds of rockets.  Some are basic full blast from the get go, something like sugar rockets, compressed air, water/air pressure 2 liter rockets in school, and many more.  Others are more complex, multistage, thrust vectored, gimballed rockets, internal guidance controlled, and even R.C. rockets. 

If you won’t even join an amateur rocket club and learn about them (they have no desire to deceive you), how can you simply dismiss them?  Why not join them and surreptitiously hide your skepticism and then prove to everyone your ideas are true?  How do you expect anyone to take your ideas seriously if you resist developing your own rocket knowledge through personal experience?

Quote from: jimster on January 10, 2019, 11:35:36 AM

The V2 of WW2 had a range of 200 mi and guided itself well enough to hit London. It is a small (compared to current ICBMs) single stage rocket. Are you saying that in this tech, the very first one has never been improved on? Scuds (modern version of V2) in the Kuwait war went further than that, from Iraq to Israel. And you are saying that US, Russia, etc can do no better than that 70 years after ww2? Only tech I ever heard of that didn't get better ... apple 2 to modern pc, model t to tesla, 1950 tv to color, aol to internet, etc etc etc. But rockets are stuck in 1944?

No that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying the V1 and the V2 are gimmicks. A propaganda tool or a scaremongering tool that achieved its aim just like Jack the ripper did and the bogeyman...etc.
All designed gimmicks or scare tactics to serve a purpose....in my opinion of course.

Incorrect.

They were VERY real.

Sceptimatic, what little experiments are those you describe?   You admitted you won’t fly a simple d.i.y. rocket or experiment with different rockets yet you claim they don’t work the way we are told.
 

I've flown many DIY rockets in a lot of variations from bottle rockets to firework rockets to bow and arrow rockets. All kinds of stuff.
I've even tried to launch rocket soap from the bottom of a deep bath to make it jump right out of the water.
They all seem to show what I expected, which isn't what we are told about so called real rockets and ICBM's supposedly launched from underground silos or over 100 feet depth from a submarine by compressed air upon a 40 foot missile as we are told, to make it jump right out of the water.

The reality is, you haven't seen any of this either. You are merely asking me to join a model rocket club as if that's going to convince me of the stuff I'm questioning.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2019, 07:19:26 AM

Quote from: jimster on January 10, 2019, 11:35:36 AM

The V2 of WW2 had a range of 200 mi and guided itself well enough to hit London. It is a small (compared to current ICBMs) single stage rocket. Are you saying that in this tech, the very first one has never been improved on? Scuds (modern version of V2) in the Kuwait war went further than that, from Iraq to Israel. And you are saying that US, Russia, etc can do no better than that 70 years after ww2? Only tech I ever heard of that didn't get better ... apple 2 to modern pc, model t to tesla, 1950 tv to color, aol to internet, etc etc etc. But rockets are stuck in 1944?

No that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying the V1 and the V2 are gimmicks. A propaganda tool or a scaremongering tool that achieved its aim just like Jack the ripper did and the bogeyman...etc.
All designed gimmicks or scare tactics to serve a purpose....in my opinion of course.

Incorrect.

They were VERY real.

How do you know they were very real. And very real as in what?
Very real as a gimmick?
Very real as in they fly from one country to another and destroy?


Show me some reality that they work as told, or is it down to your belief because ..well.....it's in the history books....news at the time....tabloids.....etc.

Let's have some honesty. Can you prove what you are saying about this VERY real?

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on January 11, 2019, 08:37:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2019, 07:19:26 AM

Quote from: jimster on January 10, 2019, 11:35:36 AM

The V2 of WW2 had a range of 200 mi and guided itself well enough to hit London. It is a small (compared to current ICBMs) single stage rocket. Are you saying that in this tech, the very first one has never been improved on? Scuds (modern version of V2) in the Kuwait war went further than that, from Iraq to Israel. And you are saying that US, Russia, etc can do no better than that 70 years after ww2? Only tech I ever heard of that didn't get better ... apple 2 to modern pc, model t to tesla, 1950 tv to color, aol to internet, etc etc etc. But rockets are stuck in 1944?

No that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying the V1 and the V2 are gimmicks. A propaganda tool or a scaremongering tool that achieved its aim just like Jack the ripper did and the bogeyman...etc.
All designed gimmicks or scare tactics to serve a purpose....in my opinion of course.

Incorrect.

They were VERY real.

How do you know they were very real. And very real as in what?
Very real as a gimmick?
Very real as in they fly from one country to another and destroy?


Show me some reality that they work as told, or is it down to your belief because ..well.....it's in the history books....news at the time....tabloids.....etc.

Let's have some honesty. Can you prove what you are saying about this VERY real?

So what did destroy people and property in WWII, there are people alive today who can explain to you?

So all history is unproven?

So what did destroy people and property in WWII, there are people alive today who can explain to you?

Dropped bombs from aircraft.

So all history is unproven?

Nope, just most of it that cannot be verified.
A life of stories told of old, told as a truth and sold to the gullible but not necessarily the bold.

How do bombs fall down??

 

How do bombs fall down??

 

Try the other topic.