Intercontinental ballistic missile

  • 1723 Replies
  • 24332 Views
?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #690 on: January 18, 2019, 05:54:58 AM »
Sceptimatic, please watch this video. Pause it at 3:19 and see the rocket acceleration is highest just as the engine is shut off... I see no reason to think this is fake.


Would you like to see more telemetry data from a higher powered rocket which can burn longer?  Would you believe it if I found live video of it from a higher powered rocket?  Or if I make my own video of it?  My nephew on my wife’s side is in Florida studying to be a Aeronautical Engineer could maybe help me too next time I’m down there.

Model size thrust vectoring and landing of the rocket...  Really really cool...
https://bps.space.    https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCILl8ozWuxnFYXIe2svjHhg     Most of what he is doing on a small scale you say is impossible for a rocket...

For fun, here we have a multiple stage rocket, with slow takeoff, with a shuttle on it that lands, kind of like the big fake kind that are tricking us...  I know, none of that is possible...

No chance of showing me a rocket still advancing after immediate thrust shut down after acceleration has become consistent speed?

Don't show me a graph as some kind of proof and don't show me a fake shuttle as some kind of proof.

You're arguing with me by using stuff you have no clue about as to any verification of reality. Correct?
Sceptimatic, you are seriously looking at that telemetry data and can’t see that the rocket is accelerating the most right before shut off?  There IS NO CONSTANT SPEED for a rocket while it is thrusting as long as it is more thrust then the downward force (we call it gravity,you call it whatever you want-it doesn’t change what we can test and observe).  This is EASILY testable.   

Can someone make a still shot of that image at 3:19, blow it up, and post it please?  It clearly shows acceleration, it’s angle (distance/time) even lowered a bit when the shutoff happened and the rocket still rose higher.   

You didn’t answer my question.  I said I can find telemetry from higher powered rockets that can burn for more then a couple seconds, don’t you want to see that data? Wouldn’t that data be incredibly useful to you in proving what you are saying?  Why aren’t you examining telemetry data from every rocket you can find and showing us all up?

What do you mean fake graph or fake shuttle?  It’s a rocket, the only difference is scale.  Can’t you stop for just a moment and analyze real world information without inserting your ideas into it and proclaiming it a fake graphic or a fake video?   

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #691 on: January 18, 2019, 06:07:57 AM »
https://vimeo.com/4713237

Watch that video...  It clearly shows acceleration, until it stops accelerating and immediately starts slowing down (it’s engine shut off) yet continues to climb very significantly in altitude.  It is all right in front of you. That took seconds to find, from an amateur who has no interest in deceiving anyone.

Would you like to see more?

(Edited to add same video in YouTube link)
« Last Edit: January 18, 2019, 06:18:06 AM by JCM »

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #692 on: January 18, 2019, 06:09:02 AM »
So why can't a rocket do the same, once all of it's fuel has been spent?
It can on a springboard launch. After that it is at a consistent speed under max thrust to keep its mass in vertical motion.
Cut that thrust dead and you do the very same to the rockets ability to advance vertically.
All of which has been proven wrong by the presented video evidence.  For which, you have not show where in the video is anything supports your claims.  If you've seen it point is out.
I haven't been proved wrong at all. Not by any stretch of the imagination of yourself and others.
What and where in the linked videos supports your claims?

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

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #693 on: January 18, 2019, 06:25:56 AM »


Realise its only in your last statemnet you finally correctly admitted it doesnt "stop dead" on engine shutdown.
All previous you claim "stops dead".
Re-read your own sht.
No. You need to read what I've been saying thoroughly instead of choosing to cherry pick what you think is in your favour by making out I'm contradicting.

Go and have a look at what I've said.
I'll spell it all out here so it's all clear.


1. A rocket on a springboard (acceleration) launch at maximum thrust would carry on its momentum if the thrust was shut down at that point.

2. A rocket on a springboard  (acceleration) launch at maximum thrust will do so for a short period of time, maybe a second or so before it hits a consistent speed under a continuation of max thrust.

If that thrust is shut down immediately as the rocket is doing this consistent speed, the rocket will cease to advance vertically.



Take your time to read it and digest it.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #694 on: January 18, 2019, 06:44:46 AM »

Sceptimatic, you are seriously looking at that telemetry data and can’t see that the rocket is accelerating the most right before shut off?  There IS NO CONSTANT SPEED for a rocket while it is thrusting as long as it is more thrust then the downward force (we call it gravity,you call it whatever you want-it doesn’t change what we can test and observe).  This is EASILY testable.
So let's test it out.
Bring up something you think is concrete and we'll have a good look. One step at a time to make things plain and simple.
 
Quote from: JCM

Can someone make a still shot of that image at 3:19, blow it up, and post it please?  It clearly shows acceleration, it’s angle (distance/time) even lowered a bit when the shutoff happened and the rocket still rose higher.   

You didn’t answer my question.  I said I can find telemetry from higher powered rockets that can burn for more then a couple seconds, don’t you want to see that data? Wouldn’t that data be incredibly useful to you in proving what you are saying?  Why aren’t you examining telemetry data from every rocket you can find and showing us all up?
Burning for more than a couple of seconds is not an issue. Max thrusting and acceleration for more than a second or so is the issue.

Quote from: JCM

What do you mean fake graph or fake shuttle?  It’s a rocket, the only difference is scale.  Can’t you stop for just a moment and analyze real world information without inserting your ideas into it and proclaiming it a fake graphic or a fake video?
Ok let's analyze something and see what's happening.
Pick something you are so sure about.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #695 on: January 18, 2019, 06:46:30 AM »


Realise its only in your last statemnet you finally correctly admitted it doesnt "stop dead" on engine shutdown.
All previous you claim "stops dead".
Re-read your own sht.
No. You need to read what I've been saying thoroughly instead of choosing to cherry pick what you think is in your favour by making out I'm contradicting.

Go and have a look at what I've said.
I'll spell it all out here so it's all clear.


1. A rocket on a springboard (acceleration) launch at maximum thrust would carry on its momentum if the thrust was shut down at that point.

2. A rocket on a springboard  (acceleration) launch at maximum thrust will do so for a short period of time, maybe a second or so before it hits a consistent speed under a continuation of max thrust.

If that thrust is shut down immediately as the rocket is doing this consistent speed, the rocket will cease to advance vertically.



Take your time to read it and digest it.

If you are travelling at a consistent speed in your car and you switch off the ignition, does it stop dead?
I don’t agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #696 on: January 18, 2019, 06:49:26 AM »
https://vimeo.com/4713237

Watch that video...  It clearly shows acceleration, until it stops accelerating and immediately starts slowing down (it’s engine shut off) yet continues to climb very significantly in altitude.  It is all right in front of you. That took seconds to find, from an amateur who has no interest in deceiving anyone.

Would you like to see more?

(Edited to add same video in YouTube link)
Springboard effect in motion. 509 mph acceleration and momentum from that.
This is not what I'm arguing.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #697 on: January 18, 2019, 06:50:48 AM »

What and where in the linked videos supports your claims?

Mike
I thought you were sure of what you were saying and didn't care what I had to say.
Just accept it at that.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #698 on: January 18, 2019, 06:53:46 AM »


Realise its only in your last statemnet you finally correctly admitted it doesnt "stop dead" on engine shutdown.
All previous you claim "stops dead".
Re-read your own sht.
No. You need to read what I've been saying thoroughly instead of choosing to cherry pick what you think is in your favour by making out I'm contradicting.

Go and have a look at what I've said.
I'll spell it all out here so it's all clear.


1. A rocket on a springboard (acceleration) launch at maximum thrust would carry on its momentum if the thrust was shut down at that point.

2. A rocket on a springboard  (acceleration) launch at maximum thrust will do so for a short period of time, maybe a second or so before it hits a consistent speed under a continuation of max thrust.

If that thrust is shut down immediately as the rocket is doing this consistent speed, the rocket will cease to advance vertically.



Take your time to read it and digest it.

If you are travelling at a consistent speed in your car and you switch off the ignition, does it stop dead?
I think I better add this in as well because it just doesn't seem to register with you people for some reason.

I am not arguing against horizontal thrust on a car or a rocket on wheels. I'm arguing about vertical.




Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #699 on: January 18, 2019, 06:59:51 AM »
Anyone else?
Hahaha

So item one (red) is the ball throw.

So item two (black) is the jackb on your shoulders up a flag pole/ ladder, elevator, magic vertical car, and cheerleaders?

Not sure how they differ...
What if the "Consistent speed" was really really fast.
Like 1,000km/hr fast.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #700 on: January 18, 2019, 07:15:30 AM »

What and where in the linked videos supports your claims?

Mike
I thought you were sure of what you were saying and didn't care what I had to say.
Just accept it at that.
Interesting reply.  In this discussion I never said "I don't care what you have to say" so you can stop using that as a crutch to avoid answering direct questions.

I'm not asking for an explanation or analogy.  Here is direct evidence that you claim does not contradict your assertions.

So, where in the linked videos can we find support for your claims?

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

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #701 on: January 18, 2019, 07:42:48 AM »


Realise its only in your last statemnet you finally correctly admitted it doesnt "stop dead" on engine shutdown.
All previous you claim "stops dead".
Re-read your own sht.
No. You need to read what I've been saying thoroughly instead of choosing to cherry pick what you think is in your favour by making out I'm contradicting.

Go and have a look at what I've said.
I'll spell it all out here so it's all clear.


1. A rocket on a springboard (acceleration) launch at maximum thrust would carry on its momentum if the thrust was shut down at that point.

2. A rocket on a springboard  (acceleration) launch at maximum thrust will do so for a short period of time, maybe a second or so before it hits a consistent speed under a continuation of max thrust.

If that thrust is shut down immediately as the rocket is doing this consistent speed, the rocket will cease to advance vertically.



Take your time to read it and digest it.

If you are travelling at a consistent speed in your car and you switch off the ignition, does it stop dead?
I think I better add this in as well because it just doesn't seem to register with you people for some reason.

I am not arguing against horizontal thrust on a car or a rocket on wheels. I'm arguing about vertical.

And at what angle does this sudden change in the way things work happen? 45°, 70°, 89.99° ?
I don’t agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #702 on: January 18, 2019, 08:56:46 AM »
Anyone else?
Hahaha

So item one (red) is the ball throw.

So item two (black) is the jackb on your shoulders up a flag pole/ ladder, elevator, magic vertical car, and cheerleaders?

Not sure how they differ...
What if the "Consistent speed" was really really fast.
Like 1,000km/hr fast.
It doesn't matter how fast it goes, vertically. If there's no acceleration and the rocket is keeping a consistent speed under its max thrust, as soon as that thrust is cut dead the rocket stops dead. It advances no further forward, vertically.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #703 on: January 18, 2019, 08:58:36 AM »

What and where in the linked videos supports your claims?

Mike
I thought you were sure of what you were saying and didn't care what I had to say.
Just accept it at that.
Interesting reply.  In this discussion I never said "I don't care what you have to say" so you can stop using that as a crutch to avoid answering direct questions.

I'm not asking for an explanation or analogy.  Here is direct evidence that you claim does not contradict your assertions.

So, where in the linked videos can we find support for your claims?

Mike
How about bringing up a real video that scuppers my claims so I have no comeback.
It should be so easy to do for you the way you're going on, so let's have it.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #704 on: January 18, 2019, 09:03:27 AM »



And at what angle does this sudden change in the way things work happen? 45°, 70°, 89.99° ?
Plumb for certain.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #705 on: January 18, 2019, 09:17:47 AM »

What and where in the linked videos supports your claims?

Mike
I thought you were sure of what you were saying and didn't care what I had to say.
Just accept it at that.
Interesting reply.  In this discussion I never said "I don't care what you have to say" so you can stop using that as a crutch to avoid answering direct questions.

I'm not asking for an explanation or analogy.  Here is direct evidence that you claim does not contradict your assertions.

So, where in the linked videos can we find support for your claims?

Mike
How about bringing up a real video that scuppers my claims so I have no comeback.
It should be so easy to do for you the way you're going on, so let's have it.
I'm not sure what you're asking.  Here's what I do know.  The linked videos clearly show your claims to be incorrect.  You stated those videos did not contradict any of your claims.  Pleas explain what was it in the video that you are referring to.

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

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #706 on: January 18, 2019, 09:26:33 AM »
Anyone else?
Hahaha

So item one (red) is the ball throw.

So item two (black) is the jackb on your shoulders up a flag pole/ ladder, elevator, magic vertical car, and cheerleaders?

Not sure how they differ...
What if the "Consistent speed" was really really fast.
Like 1,000km/hr fast.
It doesn't matter how fast it goes, vertically. If there's no acceleration and the rocket is keeping a consistent speed under its max thrust, as soon as that thrust is cut dead the rocket stops dead. It advances no further forward, vertically.

You realise that jackb on your head is the same as the cheerleaders.

"Predictive fall" force caused by denP shows that most object that have low air drag will fall at a rate of 9.8m/s^2.
Measruable reality.
That means anything travelling faster than 9.8m/s will take at least 1sec to slow down.

Velocityfinal = velocityinitial - predictivefall x time.

This formula works with bank withdrawl analogy.
Cars stopping at red lights
Cheerleaders.
Balls thrown.

Is predictable math fake news?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #707 on: January 18, 2019, 09:28:33 AM »
So travelking vertically at initial speed of 100m/s.
It will take ~10sec to come to 0m/s.
0 speed is "dead stop"
10sec is not instant.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #708 on: January 18, 2019, 09:32:41 AM »
I find it fascinating how you conlude its different.

Maybe you could state WHY its different.

Weve all read your post many times.
You can stop repeating it unless you plan to shed new info.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #709 on: January 18, 2019, 10:13:30 AM »
https://vimeo.com/4713237

Watch that video...  It clearly shows acceleration, until it stops accelerating and immediately starts slowing down (it’s engine shut off) yet continues to climb very significantly in altitude.  It is all right in front of you. That took seconds to find, from an amateur who has no interest in deceiving anyone.

Would you like to see more?

(Edited to add same video in YouTube link)
Springboard effect in motion. 509 mph acceleration and momentum from that.
This is not what I'm arguing.

What do you mean springboard?  That is a significantly high powered rocket.  It never reached a constant speed, it continued accelerating faster and faster until its engine shut off.  Are you suggesting that we need a bigger rocket?  I can find you bigger rockets with longer burns that go even higher with live telemetry.  How long does a rocket engine need to burn for you to accept it is not a “springboard” effect in action?  From my perspective your springboard is just a rocket engine firing and stopping, so what are you specifically saying?  And what are you talking about it’s stopping dead?  That rocket didn’t stop dead, if it ever reached a constant speed still going upward at an even higher velocity, why would it stop advancing?

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #710 on: January 18, 2019, 10:25:37 AM »
I think I understand what Sceptimatic is saying ... It all requires denpressure and rockets to push on the atmosphere.  He is saying that the rocket is limited by the atmosphere thinning such that the rocket pushing off it has to thrust and thrust but can’t accelerate anymore due to thinner atmosphere.  At that point in the rockets path the atmosphere is like a wall that only lets an actively thrusting rocket push continually higher.  Anything below that thinning atmosphere minus max thrust/velocity altitude is just the “springboard”.  It is a poor analogy calling it a “springboard” but I think That is what he means. 

Basically no videos of smaller rockets ever reach that magic altitude where they are constant velocity therefore none of our smaller rocket videos disprove anything.   It’s like trying to prove a negative, any rocket we show is either fake or it never got high enough. 

However, if I show a rocket with telemetry at 100,000 feet I would think that would nuke Sceptimatic’s position.  A rocket continually accelerating more and more until it shuts off at higher and higher heights Is evidence.  If the rocket had to push on the atmosphere at very high altitudes, its rate of acceleration would slow.  That evidence I think would be the evidence sceptimatic needs to prove his theory.  This is why telemetry is the downfall of Sceptimatics entire rocket theory.

This of course breaks down if rockets can push themselves. The issue we need to prove is that rockets don’t need atmosphere to push off of since any large rocket that leaves the atmosphere is obviously fake.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2019, 10:40:16 AM by JCM »

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #711 on: January 18, 2019, 10:32:51 AM »
I think I understand what Sceptimatic is saying ... It all requires denpressure and rockets to push on the atmosphere.  He is saying that the rocket is limited by the atmosphere thinning such that the rocket pushing off it has to thrust and thrust but can’t accelerate anymore due to thinner atmosphere.  At that point in the rockets path the atmosphere is like a wall that only lets an actively thrusting rocket push continually higher.  Anything below that thinning atmosphere minus max thrust/velocity altitude is just the “springboard”.  It is a poor analogy calling it a “springboard” but I think I should what he means. 

However, if I show a rocket with telemetry at 100,000 feet I would think that would nuke Sceptimatic’s position. 

This of course breaks down if rockets can push themselves. The issue we need to prove is that rockets don’t need atmosphere to push off of since any large rocket that leaves the atmosphere is obviously fake.
Yep, this is my argument.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #712 on: January 18, 2019, 10:35:05 AM »

I'm talking about two solid impermeable balls of the same size, and thus the same volume, but having different weights.  The volume of air (or atmosphere, if you prefer) they displace is exactly equal to the volume the balls.  It's a definition. You can't argue about a definition.
And I'm telling you they do not have the same volume so they do not displace the same atmosphere.

Volume = 4*Pi*r*r*r/3 where r is the radius of the ball. That's the definition of volume for a spherical shape.

Two balls with the same radius have the same volume. Period. It's definition.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #713 on: January 18, 2019, 10:39:14 AM »
I think I understand what Sceptimatic is saying ... It all requires denpressure and rockets to push on the atmosphere.  He is saying that the rocket is limited by the atmosphere thinning such that the rocket pushing off it has to thrust and thrust but can’t accelerate anymore due to thinner atmosphere.  At that point in the rockets path the atmosphere is like a wall that only lets an actively thrusting rocket push continually higher.  Anything below that thinning atmosphere minus max thrust/velocity altitude is just the “springboard”.  It is a poor analogy calling it a “springboard” but I think I should what he means. 

However, if I show a rocket with telemetry at 100,000 feet I would think that would nuke Sceptimatic’s position. 

This of course breaks down if rockets can push themselves. The issue we need to prove is that rockets don’t need atmosphere to push off of since any large rocket that leaves the atmosphere is obviously fake.
Yep, this is my argument.
Sorry, I added a little to my post you quoted...  bad forum etiquette probably :)

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #714 on: January 18, 2019, 10:50:15 AM »

I'm talking about two solid impermeable balls of the same size, and thus the same volume, but having different weights.  The volume of air (or atmosphere, if you prefer) they displace is exactly equal to the volume the balls.  It's a definition. You can't argue about a definition.
And I'm telling you they do not have the same volume so they do not displace the same atmosphere.

Volume = 4*Pi*r*r*r/3 where r is the radius of the ball. That's the definition of volume for a spherical shape.

Two balls with the same radius have the same volume. Period. It's definition.
Does a sponge ball of the same radius as a iron ball have the same volume?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #715 on: January 18, 2019, 10:54:28 AM »
I think I understand what Sceptimatic is saying ... It all requires denpressure and rockets to push on the atmosphere.  He is saying that the rocket is limited by the atmosphere thinning such that the rocket pushing off it has to thrust and thrust but can’t accelerate anymore due to thinner atmosphere.  At that point in the rockets path the atmosphere is like a wall that only lets an actively thrusting rocket push continually higher.  Anything below that thinning atmosphere minus max thrust/velocity altitude is just the “springboard”.  It is a poor analogy calling it a “springboard” but I think I should what he means. 

However, if I show a rocket with telemetry at 100,000 feet I would think that would nuke Sceptimatic’s position. 

This of course breaks down if rockets can push themselves. The issue we need to prove is that rockets don’t need atmosphere to push off of since any large rocket that leaves the atmosphere is obviously fake.
Yep, this is my argument.
Sorry, I added a little to my post you quoted...  bad forum etiquette probably :)
Same thing applies.
Prove rockets don't push off atmosphere and you prove me wrong.


Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #716 on: January 18, 2019, 11:05:41 AM »

I'm talking about two solid impermeable balls of the same size, and thus the same volume, but having different weights.  The volume of air (or atmosphere, if you prefer) they displace is exactly equal to the volume the balls.  It's a definition. You can't argue about a definition.
And I'm telling you they do not have the same volume so they do not displace the same atmosphere.

Volume = 4*Pi*r*r*r/3 where r is the radius of the ball. That's the definition of volume for a spherical shape.

Two balls with the same radius have the same volume. Period. It's definition.
Does a sponge ball of the same radius as a iron ball have the same volume?
We are talking about two solid impermeable balls. If their radius is the same, their volume is the same. It's a definition.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #717 on: January 18, 2019, 12:33:11 PM »

I find it fascinating how you conlude its different.

Maybe you could state WHY its different.

Weve all read your post many times.
You can stop repeating it unless you plan to shed new info.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #718 on: January 18, 2019, 01:57:31 PM »
It's always going to be vastly more
Yes, because you have provided nothing.
If you had evidence or rational arguments to back up you or rational arguments to refute what we were saying, then it wouldn't be vastly more.

As for what, evidence showing you are wrong, rational, consistent explanations to describe what is occurring, and rational arguments which show your claims are complete nonsense and contradictory.

You admit yourself you can't verify anything against what I'm saying.
No, stop lying.
I have stated quite explicitly that I have actually performed experiments which show you are wrong.
So no, I have verified against what you are saying. I know it is wrong from my own experiences.
But the best I can provide you is a video and a recount of my experiences, which you already have plenty of and reject.

Meanwhile, you have refused to do these experiments.

Contradicting myself as in what?
I have explained that repeatedly.
You claim that the resistance to motion is based upon displacing air and that the force required is based upon displacing air, but then instead claim it has momentum and can keep going without any extra force, but then claim objects need to keep having an application of force or they stop dead, but then claim that they can keep going without an application of force.
You are repeatedly contradicting yourself.

And of course you main objection to rockets working in space which requires you accepting that in order to accelerate the rocket you need a force, while rejecting that and claiming it is only resistance to the air that requires the force.

I have repeatedly explained these contradictions, as have others, yet you just ignore them.

You admit above your evidence is based on nothing that shows a truth. It's cognitive dissonance.
Again, stop lying.
I admit my evidence is not enough to provide YOU with 100% certainty.
It is based upon things which show the truth, just not enough to convince you with 100% certainty.

I care for the truth.
If you actually cared you wouldn't be spouting so much baseless garbage.
At most you would be saying that you don't accept what is being presented.
Your repeatedly baseless claims about how things allegedly work, which is self contradictory and backed by nothing other than more baseless claims from you shows you do not care about the truth at all.

That's why we are arguing it on here, because none of us know the absolute truth. We have to go on what stories were fed to us and pick the bones out of it.
You argue for the facts of the story without knowing the facts.
Again, stop acting like everyone is as ignorant as you.
Just because you refuse to do experiments or try to understand doesn't mean no one has.
Plenty of us know the truth from personal experience and are not just relying upon stories.
 I argue the story to find out what are the facts and what are the fiction.

You rejecting the facts doesn't mean we can't know them.

I've already said a springboard launch and shut down of acceleration still carries momentum of it until it slows to a stop. before acceleration back down.
I've never detracted from that at any time.
You have repeatedly detracted from that by claiming a rocket wouldn't do the same and have its momentum carry it on until it slows to a stop.

What's happening is you people refusing to actually understand what I'm saying, whether it's deliberate or inability to grasp it. I'm not too sure.
It's pretty simple.
No, what's actually happening is you refusing to understand the equivalence between these 2 situations and continually contradicting yourself by pretending they are fundamentally different and operate via vastly different physics.
If you want us to accept what you are saying you need an explanation for why these should operate with magically different physics.


So let's test it out.
Again, WE HAVE!
You have made it clear that you will never accept any evidence presented.
If it is a video, you will dismiss it as fake/CGI.
If it is just an recount of what happened, you will dismiss it as a story.
You will accept nothing we provide you.
The only thing you will accept is a test physically performed in front of you, and even that is questionable.
But you have refused to do the experiments.

Springboard effect in motion. 509 mph acceleration and momentum from that.
This is not what I'm arguing.
That statement makes no sense. 509 mph is a velocity not an acceleration.
This does not support your claim at all.
What we see in the video is a rocket starting off at a speed of 0, and then accelerate up to a speed of 509 archaic units per hour until its engine cuts off after which it slows down.
We don't see an initial springboard launch followed by constant speed.
So this shows you are completely wrong.

I am not arguing against horizontal thrust on a car or a rocket on wheels. I'm arguing about vertical
Yes you are.
Your argument for a vertical rocket works exactly the same for a horizontal one.
Until you can provide a valid justification for why physics should magically change between horizontal and vertical motion, they are the same argument.
As such, every time you argue against a rocket going vertical you are also making the same argument against one going horizontal, and every time you say it is fine going horizontal you are contradicting yourself.

How about bringing up a real video that scuppers my claims so I have no comeback.
You mean like the video you already commented on which clearly shows a continuous acceleration until the engine stops after which it then slows down, unlike your baseless claim of a magic launch to constant velocity and then stopping dead?
That sure seems to scupper your BS.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #719 on: January 18, 2019, 02:13:21 PM »
To be clear
A horizontal is not the same as a vertical in the sense there is a "predictable fall" factor.
But
It is just a factor that the overall formula allows for to mtach reality as close as possible.
Other than that its the same concept.
Forward accelleration minus backwards resistance equals net.

How can the cheerleaders and jackb standing on your head be different?