Intercontinental ballistic missile

  • 1647 Replies
  • 16497 Views
*

Stash

  • 1020
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1530 on: February 12, 2019, 11:27:22 PM »


Observation resulting in crazy stuff you can't explain, but we can:





Other than, CGI, balloons and such. But you're missing out. And you need to provide evidence of fakery, which you don't/never do.

It matters not, 'Hitchen's Razor pretty much takes care of it. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." You have not a single piece of evidence for your dome, arc light, center of the earth business. Nothing. Zero.

I have thousands of bits of video/photographic evidence to the contrary, amateur and professional. Not to mention maths, which you don't have and experiments, which you don't have.

All told, sorry to say, you have nothing.
In your mind I have nothing. In my mind I have enough real life experiments to show rockets do not work in extreme low pressure. You also have that evidence but you choose to deny it which is fair enough.

As for using the videos you use, by all means use them to argue your points but don't ever believe they're evidence for me.
If I was in court I would be throwing this out.

What can't be thrown out is reality.
The problem is, with reality we literally have to go and see the reality in all its glory, not from miles and miles distant observations or from the comfort of the TV.

You are basically arguing from a mainstream back up point to give your words some so called credence.
You're not being honest with yourself with the experiments and you also know that some experiments are changed to try and fit the rocket and no atmosphere narrative.

People are waking up to the nonsense but waking up is one thing...changing fiction into reality is another.

Is this the crux of the biscuit: "In my mind I have enough real life experiments to show rockets do not work in extreme low pressure."

Do you mean:

A) "In my mind, the vast amount of real life experimentation I've done shows utterly that rockets do not work in extreme low pressure."
OR
B) "The experimentation I've done in my mind shows utterly that rockets do not work in extreme low pressure."

If A, you seemingly go on to state, "You're not being honest with yourself with the experiments and you also know that some experiments are changed to try and fit the rocket and no atmosphere narrative."

What experiments do you speak of that I am not 'honest with'? What experiments have you shown that back up your assertions? One just has to do a simple search around here and the google to find a systemic issue; for years you have claimed experimentation performed to back your assertions, yet when pressed, you have never, ever, to date, produced a single shred of one. Why is that? Years of multitudes of people across forums asking for the same thing you claim to have and never once have you produced anything. Why is that?

I suspect, sadly, all we have is B.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1531 on: February 13, 2019, 12:11:12 AM »
scepti
if you need it explained to you like you were 5 - go to school.
School couldn't teach me it because it doesn't exist. It's the reason why none of you can.
All you can do is offer up copy and paste or a video that tells me nothing.

If you can explain it then do so like I'm 7. Nice and simple with your so called gravity force.

Objects with mass attract other objects with mass.
The atraction is greater the more mass the objects have and the closer they are to each other.

There.....simple......
Why do they do this in your world?
Tell me what's happening for this to work.

Itís a fundamental property of matter and the universe.

Itís like asking why do opposite electrical charges attract each other.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1532 on: February 13, 2019, 12:22:29 AM »
scepti
if you need it explained to you like you were 5 - go to school.
School couldn't teach me it because it doesn't exist. It's the reason why none of you can.
All you can do is offer up copy and paste or a video that tells me nothing.

If you can explain it then do so like I'm 7. Nice and simple with your so called gravity force.

Objects with mass attract other objects with mass.
The atraction is greater the more mass the objects have and the closer they are to each other.

There.....simple......
Why do they do this in your world?
Why "objects with mass appear to attract other objects with mass" is not important because it has been experimentally determined that "objects with mass appear to attract other objects with mass".

Some 300 experiments, from Henry Cavendish on, have been performed to measure gravitation accurately and hundreds of demonstrations have been done.

And Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, , only claims that gravitation behaves as though mass attracts mass and is an expression derived empirically - it does not attempt to exclaim why!

This is much the same as Coulomb's law, , which was also derived experimentally, so is also an empirical law.
Coulomb's law was accepted as correct long before there was any explanation as to why.
So you have no clue why mass attracts mass but gravity seems to fit because...well.....well it's a word to use to describe something that isn't anything except for mass to attract mass.

Sorry but there's no explanation that is observed except for extremely obscure so called experiments that aren't really anything.

Anyway we'll leave that here because it'll skew the topic again.
Just accept it doesn't exist from my part and I'll continue to use the correct argument of atmospheric pressure 100% externally required to ensure a rocket works and that space rockets are a fantasy just the same as the ICBM's which are basically passed off as a sort of destructive continent leaping space arcing fact.

Massive gimmicks that are being shown up to be exactly what some people thought they were.

Sorry but there is a wealth of evidence backing up the fact that matter attacts matter:

Cavendish experiment - not an obscure experiment but a highly repeatable experiment that shows not only does matter attract matter but also demonstrates the direct correlation between the amount of matter and the magnitude of attraction and also the inverse square of distance between objects.

Variations of acceleration towards the ground that correlate to geological density of rock.

Satellites - yes they exist. Grown ups are talking now.

Orbital mechanics and dynamics - again they exist no matter how hard you stick your fingers in your ears.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

rabinoz

  • 18353
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1533 on: February 13, 2019, 01:29:48 AM »
Why "objects with mass appear to attract other objects with mass" is not important because it has been experimentally determined that "objects with mass appear to attract other objects with mass".

Some 300 experiments, from Henry Cavendish on, have been performed to measure gravitation accurately and hundreds of demonstrations have been done.

And Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, , only claims that gravitation behaves as though mass attracts mass and is an expression derived empirically - it does not attempt to exclaim why!

This is much the same as Coulomb's law, , which was also derived experimentally, so is also an empirical law.
Coulomb's law was accepted as correct long before there was any explanation as to why.
So you have no clue why mass attracts mass but gravity seems to fit because...well.....well it's a word to use to describe something that isn't anything except for mass to attract mass.
I never anywhere said that I "have no clue why mass attracts mass"!
Surely physical experimental evidence is of far more value that some scientific theory that you couldn't understand.

And you always refuse to comment on "Coulomb's law, , which was also derived experimentally, so is also an empirical law.
Coulomb's law was accepted as correct long before there was any explanation as to why."

Why do you refuse to admit that you accept electrostatic forces even though you cannot explain them?

Quote from: sceptimatic
Sorry but there's no explanation that is observed except for extremely obscure so called experiments that aren't really anything.
There is nothing obscure about those experiments because with care anybody can demonstrate that mass appears to attract mass.
You refuse to accept that because it would destroy your whole world! Yet refuse to present any evidence of your hypotheses.
So all we have is empty words from you and nothing else.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1534 on: February 13, 2019, 04:01:02 AM »


Observation resulting in crazy stuff you can't explain, but we can:





Other than, CGI, balloons and such. But you're missing out. And you need to provide evidence of fakery, which you don't/never do.

It matters not, 'Hitchen's Razor pretty much takes care of it. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." You have not a single piece of evidence for your dome, arc light, center of the earth business. Nothing. Zero.

I have thousands of bits of video/photographic evidence to the contrary, amateur and professional. Not to mention maths, which you don't have and experiments, which you don't have.

All told, sorry to say, you have nothing.
In your mind I have nothing. In my mind I have enough real life experiments to show rockets do not work in extreme low pressure. You also have that evidence but you choose to deny it which is fair enough.

As for using the videos you use, by all means use them to argue your points but don't ever believe they're evidence for me.
If I was in court I would be throwing this out.

What can't be thrown out is reality.
The problem is, with reality we literally have to go and see the reality in all its glory, not from miles and miles distant observations or from the comfort of the TV.

You are basically arguing from a mainstream back up point to give your words some so called credence.
You're not being honest with yourself with the experiments and you also know that some experiments are changed to try and fit the rocket and no atmosphere narrative.

People are waking up to the nonsense but waking up is one thing...changing fiction into reality is another.

Is this the crux of the biscuit: "In my mind I have enough real life experiments to show rockets do not work in extreme low pressure."

Do you mean:

A) "In my mind, the vast amount of real life experimentation I've done shows utterly that rockets do not work in extreme low pressure."
OR
B) "The experimentation I've done in my mind shows utterly that rockets do not work in extreme low pressure."

If A, you seemingly go on to state, "You're not being honest with yourself with the experiments and you also know that some experiments are changed to try and fit the rocket and no atmosphere narrative."

What experiments do you speak of that I am not 'honest with'? What experiments have you shown that back up your assertions? One just has to do a simple search around here and the google to find a systemic issue; for years you have claimed experimentation performed to back your assertions, yet when pressed, you have never, ever, to date, produced a single shred of one. Why is that? Years of multitudes of people across forums asking for the same thing you claim to have and never once have you produced anything. Why is that?

I suspect, sadly, all we have is B.
Unless I'm stood next to you with all the equipment to prove my side all I have is my own theories from my own experiments.

You have little to nothing other than videos that do not back you up but they can certainly play a massive role in giving you a high and mighty pedestal to stand on among your peers, all for the belief of space rockets and such of which (if you are brutally honest) you have never had any physical proof of.

So it's pointless coming at me with the no proof stuff.

This comes down to me and you stood in a big empty hall and arguing about what we need to prove that space rockets are real or false.
Where do we start?


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1535 on: February 13, 2019, 04:05:29 AM »


Itís a fundamental property of matter and the universe.

Itís like asking why do opposite electrical charges attract each other.
So just admit you have no clue.
So what is it you are arguing for?
Is it for a force that doesn't exist, just because or is it for a force that doesn't exist but is made to exist by people who have been placed on a pedestal as some kind of authority and basic stardom, where this must be the correct answer?

Either one proves nothing to you.
All you have to go on, is NOTHING but your reliance on stories.

I'm at least putting in enough effort to explain my side and why rockets actually need to use atmosphere and why fictional gravity plays no part...etc.


*

rabinoz

  • 18353
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1536 on: February 13, 2019, 04:14:22 AM »
Unless I'm stood next to you with all the equipment to prove my side all I have is my own theories from my own experiments.
So either post your experiments here and NOW or at least post references as to where they might be found.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1537 on: February 13, 2019, 04:28:49 AM »
I never anywhere said that I "have no clue why mass attracts mass"!
Surely physical experimental evidence is of far more value that some scientific theory that you couldn't understand.

And you always refuse to comment on "Coulomb's law, , which was also derived experimentally, so is also an empirical law.
Coulomb's law was accepted as correct long before there was any explanation as to why."

Why do you refuse to admit that you accept electrostatic forces even though you cannot explain them?

I can explain them but you won't like the explanation.
The point is you can't.
The laws are based on what's perceived to be happening.
So why don't you explain why Coulomb's law works. What is the force?

Quote from: rabinoz

Quote from: sceptimatic
Sorry but there's no explanation that is observed except for extremely obscure so called experiments that aren't really anything.
There is nothing obscure about those experiments because with care anybody can demonstrate that mass appears to attract mass.
You refuse to accept that because it would destroy your whole world! Yet refuse to present any evidence of your hypotheses.
So all we have is empty words from you and nothing else.
It won't destroy my whole world at all.
The fact that you cannot explain why mass attracts mass is beneficial to my theory of the world because I can explain my side, you cannot and neither can the so called scientists you follow.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1538 on: February 13, 2019, 04:31:00 AM »
Unless I'm stood next to you with all the equipment to prove my side all I have is my own theories from my own experiments.
So either post your experiments here and NOW or at least post references as to where they might be found.
My experiments on here were just diagrams explaining.
Experiments on video are there for your viewing just like you use them to supposedly back you up.
You tend to follow copy and paste rather than using your own mind.

*

rabinoz

  • 18353
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1539 on: February 13, 2019, 04:35:01 AM »

Itís a fundamental property of matter and the universe.

Itís like asking why do opposite electrical charges attract each other.
So just admit you have no clue.
So what is it you are arguing for?
Is it for a force that doesn't exist, just because or is it for a force that doesn't exist but is made to exist by people who have been placed on a pedestal as some kind of authority and basic stardom, where this must be the correct answer?
No, it is a force proven to exists by hundreds of scientists and more hundreds of ordinary people doing these experiments often in their own homes.
Demonstration of Gravitation Attraction by Jimmy Demello
Gravitational Attraction by Thomas Koch
Cavendish Gravity Experiment Time Lapse Version 1 by Andrew Bennett
Cavendish Gravity Experiment Time Lapse Version 2 by Andrew Bennett
Universal Gravitation Demonstration by Nick Merrill
Newton's gravity law demonstrated with a torsion balance by Ejo Schrama
Believe what you like but don't confuse your fantasy world with the big wide real world out there.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1540 on: February 13, 2019, 09:28:07 AM »

Itís a fundamental property of matter and the universe.

Itís like asking why do opposite electrical charges attract each other.
So just admit you have no clue.
So what is it you are arguing for?
Is it for a force that doesn't exist, just because or is it for a force that doesn't exist but is made to exist by people who have been placed on a pedestal as some kind of authority and basic stardom, where this must be the correct answer?
No, it is a force proven to exists by hundreds of scientists and more hundreds of ordinary people doing these experiments often in their own homes.
Demonstration of Gravitation Attraction by Jimmy Demello
Gravitational Attraction by Thomas Koch
Cavendish Gravity Experiment Time Lapse Version 1 by Andrew Bennett
Cavendish Gravity Experiment Time Lapse Version 2 by Andrew Bennett
Universal Gravitation Demonstration by Nick Merrill
Newton's gravity law demonstrated with a torsion balance by Ejo Schrama
Believe what you like but don't confuse your fantasy world with the big wide real world out there.
The fantasy world is the one you adhere to like a limpet.
You're dead set on using a pretence of a proof for your gravity. There is none. There is no proof of it because it does not exist.

*

rabinoz

  • 18353
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1541 on: February 13, 2019, 12:37:17 PM »
The fantasy world is the one you adhere to like a limpet.
You're dead set on using a pretence of a proof for your gravity. There is none. There is no proof of it because it does not exist.
Prove it!

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1542 on: February 13, 2019, 12:40:01 PM »
In your mind I have nothing. In my mind I have enough real life experiments to show rockets do not work in extreme low pressure. You also have that evidence but you choose to deny it which is fair enough.
No. We don't have that evidence. So far the only evidence you have provided is a single video which shows 2 horribly flawed experiments which completely match the mainstream explanation and in no way show what you claim about rockets is correct.

If you have anything else, feel free to provide it.

My experiments on here were just diagrams explaining.
A diagram is not an experiment.

As for using the videos you use, by all means use them to argue your points but don't ever believe they're evidence for me.
If I was in court I would be throwing this out.
You mean you would be trying to throw it out and everyone would be wondering how you could be so insane.

The problem is, with reality we literally have to go and see the reality in all its glory
As plenty of us have. It isn't what you claim.
So far all you have done is just reject reality and assert nonsense.

I can explain my side
No you can't.
You can repeatedly assert the same nonsense, without every providing any explanation.
You can't explain why molecules are the way you claim. You can't explain why the air is required for everything. You can't explain why things fall. You can't explain why the atmosphere stacks.

You are yet to provide a single rational argument or explanation to back up your insane claims.
You repeatedly assert that everything requires air to move, but are yet to back it up in anyway other than a single example which equally shows that a horse needs a cart to move. It is pure nonsense.

Now again:
You have already accepted the first law.
You have almost accepted the second law but claim it requires air.
What is your justification for that claim?

The only one I can see is that you have the idea of space because it shows you to be full of garbage. But that is just you rejecting it because it shows you are wrong. It doesn't mean that you actually need air.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1543 on: February 13, 2019, 02:12:23 PM »

Itís a fundamental property of matter and the universe.

Itís like asking why do opposite electrical charges attract each other.
So just admit you have no clue.
So what is it you are arguing for?
Is it for a force that doesn't exist, just because or is it for a force that doesn't exist but is made to exist by people who have been placed on a pedestal as some kind of authority and basic stardom, where this must be the correct answer?
No, it is a force proven to exists by hundreds of scientists and more hundreds of ordinary people doing these experiments often in their own homes.
Demonstration of Gravitation Attraction by Jimmy Demello
Gravitational Attraction by Thomas Koch
Cavendish Gravity Experiment Time Lapse Version 1 by Andrew Bennett
Cavendish Gravity Experiment Time Lapse Version 2 by Andrew Bennett
Universal Gravitation Demonstration by Nick Merrill
Newton's gravity law demonstrated with a torsion balance by Ejo Schrama
Believe what you like but don't confuse your fantasy world with the big wide real world out there.
The fantasy world is the one you adhere to like a limpet.
You're dead set on using a pretence of a proof for your gravity. There is none. There is no proof of it because it does not exist.

And again, Cavendish experiment categorically proves that matter is attracted to matter.

We donít know the mechanism but we definitely know that it happens.

You have absolutely no proof whatsoever for denspressure. None.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1544 on: February 13, 2019, 03:04:16 PM »
And again, Cavendish experiment categorically proves that matter is attracted to matter.

We donít know the mechanism but we definitely know that it happens.

You have absolutely no proof whatsoever for denspressure. None.
I believe I have proof. What you believe I have is irrelevant to me just as me knowing gravity is nonsense is irrelevant to you.
You are happy to accept something that you have absolutely no clue about, as your supposed mass attracts mass force for no other reason than a reliance on being handed scientific so called idols to bounce off of by the schools/colleges/universities you were given that info.

Time to think for yourself if you really want to put something real to the fiction you were handed.

Oh and don't take that as a dig, because we were (practically) all schooled into this type of nonsense.

*

rabinoz

  • 18353
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1545 on: February 13, 2019, 09:39:21 PM »
And again, Cavendish experiment categorically proves that matter is attracted to matter.

We donít know the mechanism but we definitely know that it happens.

You have absolutely no proof whatsoever for denspressure. None.
I believe I have proof.
Well post your proof!

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1546 on: February 13, 2019, 11:23:09 PM »
And again, Cavendish experiment categorically proves that matter is attracted to matter.

We donít know the mechanism but we definitely know that it happens.

You have absolutely no proof whatsoever for denspressure. None.
I believe I have proof.
Well post your proof!
How about you post your proof without the use of CGI videos.

You made an error showing the supposed N1 rocket that fell apart. That was the crux of the nonsense that those gimmicks are.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1547 on: February 14, 2019, 12:18:04 AM »
And again, Cavendish experiment categorically proves that matter is attracted to matter.

We donít know the mechanism but we definitely know that it happens.

You have absolutely no proof whatsoever for denspressure. None.
I believe I have proof. What you believe I have is irrelevant to me just as me knowing gravity is nonsense is irrelevant to you.
You are happy to accept something that you have absolutely no clue about, as your supposed mass attracts mass force for no other reason than a reliance on being handed scientific so called idols to bounce off of by the schools/colleges/universities you were given that info.

Time to think for yourself if you really want to put something real to the fiction you were handed.

Oh and don't take that as a dig, because we were (practically) all schooled into this type of nonsense.

I donít just take peopleís word for it. There are these things called practical demonstrations that actually show the science in action. Iíve also taken part in a fair few personally during school and university.

Iíve seen the Cavendish experiment performed in real life and in countless videos. All of which demonstrate attraction of matter. There are hundreds of videos online to view, some of which also go into the full calculations determining force of attraction.

So, where is your evidence? Letís see it.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

Stash

  • 1020
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1548 on: February 14, 2019, 12:23:37 AM »
And again, Cavendish experiment categorically proves that matter is attracted to matter.

We donít know the mechanism but we definitely know that it happens.

You have absolutely no proof whatsoever for denspressure. None.
I believe I have proof.
Well post your proof!
How about you post your proof without the use of CGI videos.

You made an error showing the supposed N1 rocket that fell apart. That was the crux of the nonsense that those gimmicks are.

What would be the point? We've already met that requirement dozens of times over. Anything that doesn't fit your bias is immediately deemed fake. I could sit here for hours posting amateur footage of rockets in action and you default to your conspiratorial notions no matter how convincing they are.

You have yet to provide any evidence. Literally none. You won't share your experiments/proof or anything else anyone else has done that may support your belief system. Nada, zilch. Most people around here, when trying to support their argument present 'eveidence'. The "What about this..." or "What about that..."  You don't even do that. Your evidence is that you say so and anyone who doesn't agree is just indoctrinated. Hardly a convincing argument for, well, anything.

It's pretty easy to conclude that in the absence of you willing to provide any evidence, that you are incorrect as you can't fulfill even the most rudimentary of supporting data requirements. It's plain to see you lost this debate around page two. It's just been more fun for everyone else to look at a bunch of cool rocket footage more than anything else.

Get into the evidence biz and you may have a chance. You lost a long time ago.

*

rabinoz

  • 18353
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1549 on: February 14, 2019, 01:09:50 AM »
Well post your proof!
How about you post your proof without the use of CGI videos.
I never posted any CGI videos!

Whatever evidence I posted, you would say exactly the same thing but I do post evidence but you have no evidence! If you had you would post it.

As I have said so often, you and all flat-earthers, automatically declare any contrary evidence as "fabricated". The FES Wiki even says so:
Flat-earthers must believe that there is a vast conspiracy against the flat earth. Look at this:
Quote from: The Flat Earth Wiki
THE FLAT EARTH Wiki, Place of the Conspiracy in FET.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.

Essentially the reasoning boils down to -

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET

C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET is fabricated evidence
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It clearly states "The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth" and "If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated".

Quote from: sceptimatic link
You made an error showing the supposed N1 rocket that fell apart. That was the crux of the nonsense that those gimmicks are.
Where did I mention any "N1 rocket that fell apart"? Why was it "an error showing the supposed N1 rocket that fell apart"?
It happened but launch failures prove nothing, except that sometimes a part in an extremely complex like that fails.

Many rockets have failed at launch. How many do you want?
          
And there are many more successful launches.
          
Sure it's

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1550 on: February 14, 2019, 02:38:41 AM »
I donít just take peopleís word for it. There are these things called practical demonstrations that actually show the science in action. Iíve also taken part in a fair few personally during school and university.

Iíve seen the Cavendish experiment performed in real life and in countless videos. All of which demonstrate attraction of matter. There are hundreds of videos online to view, some of which also go into the full calculations determining force of attraction.

So, where is your evidence? Letís see it.
You have no evidence but the reliance on obscure so called experiments that you can't even prove as to why it supposedly works..
The Cavendish experiment caters for the natural atmospheric movement caused by agitation caused by expansion and compression created by the central energy of Earth which creates the pressurised whirlpool from that centre outwards.
Basically it's minor atmospheric swirling that is naturally occurring.

No need to come back to me to say I can't prove this. You prove your force first with some physical undeniable showing that even I can't dispute, or stop pretending you have proof when all you have is a reliance on info served on a mainstream platter for you to pick at and consume or throw at people who have been left to feed off of scraps.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1551 on: February 14, 2019, 03:00:04 AM »
Well post your proof!
How about you post your proof without the use of CGI videos.
I never posted any CGI videos!

Whatever evidence I posted, you would say exactly the same thing but I do post evidence but you have no evidence! If you had you would post it.

As I have said so often, you and all flat-earthers, automatically declare any contrary evidence as "fabricated". The FES Wiki even says so:
Flat-earthers must believe that there is a vast conspiracy against the flat earth. Look at this:
Quote from: The Flat Earth Wiki
THE FLAT EARTH Wiki, Place of the Conspiracy in FET.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.

Essentially the reasoning boils down to -

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET

C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET is fabricated evidence
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It clearly states "The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth" and "If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated".

Quote from: sceptimatic link
You made an error showing the supposed N1 rocket that fell apart. That was the crux of the nonsense that those gimmicks are.
Where did I mention any "N1 rocket that fell apart"? Why was it "an error showing the supposed N1 rocket that fell apart"?
It happened but launch failures prove nothing, except that sometimes a part in an extremely complex like that fails.

Many rockets have failed at launch. How many do you want?
          
And there are many more successful launches.
          
Sure it's
Blowing up gimmicks  would be all part of the ruse to keep the public interested and into a belief that space rockets are real and big 3000 tonne rockets can get into space...etc.

It's so clear to me and to many others, yet somehow people like you never see anything wrong in absolutely anything put out. Nothing.
That is a massive massive massive red flag to me when it concerns people like you.




*

Stash

  • 1020
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1552 on: February 14, 2019, 03:09:20 AM »
Blowing up gimmicks  would be all part of the ruse to keep the public interested and into a belief that space rockets are real and big 3000 tonne rockets can get into space...etc.

It's so clear to me and to many others, yet somehow people like you never see anything wrong in absolutely anything put out. Nothing.
That is a massive massive massive red flag to me when it concerns people like you.

It gets comical at a point and that is the clearest point to all others.

"Blowing up gimmicks would be all part of the ruse"
"Successfully launching gimmicks would be all part of the ruse"
"A ruse would be a ruse"

Do go on.

*

rabinoz

  • 18353
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1553 on: February 14, 2019, 03:23:17 AM »
You have no evidence but the reliance on obscure so called experiments that you can't even prove as to why it supposedly works..
There's nothing obscure about it! I carefully explained that to you before. Take note when you are told something!

Quote from: sceptimatic
The Cavendish experiment caters for the natural atmospheric movement caused by agitation caused by expansion and compression created by the central energy of Earth which creates the pressurised whirlpool from that centre outwards.
No it isn't and you have no evidence for such an obviously hastily invented excuse.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Basically it's minor atmospheric swirling that is naturally occurring.
The "atmospheric swirling" has nothing to do with it so stop inventing excuses!
Many of the Cavendish type experiments are performed in a vacuum chamber to make sure the atmosphere has no effect so stop this dreaming.

Quote from: sceptimatic
No need to come back to me to say I can't prove this.
There is no need to say you "can't prove this" because it is so obviously just a dreamed up excuse based on ignorance of how much care goes into the experiments.
Quote from: Ron Cowen
Quantum method closes in on gravitational constant
Cold rubidium atoms provide fresh approach to measuring Newton's big G.
Physicists have used the quantum nature of matter to obtain a highly precise value for the universal gravitational constant, the 'big G' that appears in Isaac Newton's law of how gravity pulls together everything, from planets to apples. Although the technique still needs refinements, physicists believe that in the future it will beat the precision of conventional methods ó and hopefully solve apparent discrepancies between measurements that have long puzzled physicists.

In a study described today in Nature1, researchers measured the minuscule gravitational tug between rubidium atoms and a 516-kilogram array of tungsten cylinders. The uncertainty in the latest measurement is 150 parts per million, or 0.015% ó only slightly larger than that of the conventional method of determining G, which is to quantify the mutual pull of two macroscopic masses.
Try explaining that away by "atmospheric swirling"!

Do you wonder that no-one esle comes along to support your dreamings?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1554 on: February 14, 2019, 03:43:52 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic
The Cavendish experiment caters for the natural atmospheric movement caused by agitation caused by expansion and compression created by the central energy of Earth which creates the pressurised whirlpool from that centre outwards.
No it isn't and you have no evidence for such an obviously hastily invented excuse.
There is evidence. Place two masses on a pivot and place some masses near those masses on a pivot and you'll see an attraction caused by the natural movement of atmospheric molecules in a whirlpool like motion that masses can create due to their trapped molecules creating a pressure against that atmosphere even when the atmospheric pressure is low, due to the compression which, depending on the severity of it, will create a force upon the masses and move them by natural molecular attachment with absolutely no free space.

Quote from: rabinoz

Quote from: sceptimatic
Basically it's minor atmospheric swirling that is naturally occurring.
The "atmospheric swirling" has nothing to do with it so stop inventing excuses!
Many of the Cavendish type experiments are performed in a vacuum chamber to make sure the atmosphere has no effect so stop this dreaming.
It has everything to do with it. Your pretence of gravity is based on you knowing nothing other than your adherence to obscure so called yesteryear experiments.
What kind of vacuum chamber did Cavendish have?
How did it work?

Quote from: rabinoz

Quote from: sceptimatic
No need to come back to me to say I can't prove this.
There is no need to say you "can't prove this" because it is so obviously just a dreamed up excuse based on ignorance of how much care goes into the experiments.
Quote from: Ron Cowen
Quantum method closes in on gravitational constant
Cold rubidium atoms provide fresh approach to measuring Newton's big G.
Physicists have used the quantum nature of matter to obtain a highly precise value for the universal gravitational constant, the 'big G' that appears in Isaac Newton's law of how gravity pulls together everything, from planets to apples. Although the technique still needs refinements, physicists believe that in the future it will beat the precision of conventional methods ó and hopefully solve apparent discrepancies between measurements that have long puzzled physicists.
Long puzzled scientists and yet Newton had it all sussed out. That is until people started questioning it. What a joke.

The old " use old time scientists as our reference frame and we can't go wrong, whilst also covering our own backs."
What utter nonsense, as far as I'm concerned. You feel free to walk into this stuff if it helps you get along.


Quote from: rabinoz


In a study described today in Nature1, researchers measured the minuscule gravitational tug between rubidium atoms and a 516-kilogram array of tungsten cylinders. The uncertainty in the latest measurement is 150 parts per million, or 0.015% ó only slightly larger than that of the conventional method of determining G, which is to quantify the mutual pull of two macroscopic masses.
Try explaining that away by "atmospheric swirling"!
A miniscule gravitational TUG. Oh my giddy aunt.


Quote from: rabinoz

Do you wonder that no-one esle comes along to support your dreamings?
Fear of ridicule and a hatred of me, most likely. Not to mention most people will likely think I'm an idiot and a troll and (pick any names you wish) whatever else.

I can't change what people do or don't or what they think of me.
I just put my stuff across. Take it or argue it or leave it.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2019, 03:56:10 AM by sceptimatic »

*

rabinoz

  • 18353
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1555 on: February 14, 2019, 05:01:48 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic
The Cavendish experiment caters for the natural atmospheric movement caused by agitation caused by expansion and compression created by the central energy of Earth which creates the pressurised whirlpool from that centre outwards.
No it isn't and you have no evidence for such an obviously hastily invented excuse.
There is evidence. Place two masses on a pivot and place some masses near those masses on a pivot and you'll see an attraction caused by the natural movement of atmospheric molecules in a whirlpool like motion that masses can create due to their trapped molecules creating a pressure against that atmosphere even when the atmospheric pressure is low, due to the compression which, depending on the severity of it, will create a force upon the masses and move them by natural molecular attachment with absolutely no free space.
That's not evidence! Because the same result is obtained whatever the direction and in many cases, the deflection is down and not rotary.
So, as usual, you are just dreaming up excuses based on pure ignorance of what those experiments actually entail.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Basically it's minor atmospheric swirling that is naturally occurring.
The "atmospheric swirling" has nothing to do with it so stop inventing excuses!
Many of the Cavendish type experiments are performed in a vacuum chamber to make sure the atmosphere has no effect so stop this dreaming.
Quote from: sceptimatic
It has everything to do with it. Your pretence of gravity is based on you knowing nothing other than your adherence to obscure so called yesteryear experiments.
What kind of vacuum chamber did Cavendish have?
How did it work?
Learn to read and understand. I NEVER said that Cavendish did have a vacuum chamber.
I said that "Many of the Cavendish type experiments are performed in a vacuum chamber to make sure the atmosphere has no effect so stop this dreaming."
If you're the slightest bit interested you could read: Invited Review Article: Measurements of the Newtonian constant of gravitation, G.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: rabinoz

Quote from: sceptimatic
No need to come back to me to say I can't prove this.
There is no need to say you "can't prove this" because it is so obviously just a dreamed up excuse based on ignorance of how much care goes into the experiments.
Quote from: Ron Cowen
Quantum method closes in on gravitational constant
Cold rubidium atoms provide fresh approach to measuring Newton's big G.
Physicists have used the quantum nature of matter to obtain a highly precise value for the universal gravitational constant, the 'big G' that appears in Isaac Newton's law of how gravity pulls together everything, from planets to apples. Although the technique still needs refinements, physicists believe that in the future it will beat the precision of conventional methods ó and hopefully solve apparent discrepancies between measurements that have long puzzled physicists.
Long puzzled scientists and yet Newton had it all sussed out. That is until people started questioning it. What a joke.

The old " use old time scientists as our reference frame and we can't go wrong, whilst also covering our own backs."
What utter nonsense, as far as I'm concerned. You feel free to walk into this stuff if it helps you get along.
No, Newton had nothing to do with determining G, the "Universal Gravitational Constant".
Newton's "Law of Universal Gravitation" was an experimentally determined description of the way gravity varied with masses and distance and G was just an unknown constant.

So clearly you are trying to argue against something that you simply do not understand and it apears do not want to understand - it's pitiful really!

Stop making up stories! I never said anything like, "use old time scientists as our reference frame and we can't go wrong, whilst also covering our own backs."

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: rabinoz
In a study described today in Nature1, researchers measured the minuscule gravitational tug between rubidium atoms and a 516-kilogram array of tungsten cylinders. The uncertainty in the latest measurement is 150 parts per million, or 0.015% ó only slightly larger than that of the conventional method of determining G, which is to quantify the mutual pull of two macroscopic masses.
Try explaining that away by "atmospheric swirling"!
A miniscule gravitational TUG. Oh my giddy aunt.
Stop your total idiocy, Your "giddy aunt" never came into it! All you can do is ridicule because you haven't the slightest understanding of what is going on.
But how could rhubidium atoms in a vacuum chamber be affected by your imaginary "atmospheric swirling"?

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: rabinoz

Do you wonder that no-one else comes along to support your dreamings?
Fear of ridicule and a hatred of me, most likely. Not to mention most people will likely think I'm an idiot and a troll and (pick any names you wish) whatever else.
Well, I don't hate you and if other flat-earthers hate you that's nothing to do with me and I can't help it if "most people will likely think" that you're "an idiot and a troll".
If they do it might be because you present thingd that obviously came from your imagination and nowhere else because you certainly have no valid evidence for them.

Quote from: sceptimatic
I can't change what people do or don't or what they think of me.
I just put my stuff across. Take it or argue it or leave it.
Sure, where I see that it is simply wrong I'll tell you so. But if you disagree my opinion might change if you presented evidence for the things you claim.

But you don't  present evidence because you have done no real experiments - only "thought experiments" which are useful in developing ideas but are NOT evidence.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1556 on: February 14, 2019, 05:50:46 AM »
That's not evidence! Because the same result is obtained whatever the direction and in many cases, the deflection is down and not rotary.
So, as usual, you are just dreaming up excuses based on pure ignorance of what those experiments actually entail.
Ohhh ok, so you use a rotary to prove gravity when dropping a stone/ball/brick or waheter was your real key.
How does that work then?

I know I know. It's showing mass attracts mass.
Yep, so drop a brick and voila the big Earth attracts the brick. Easy right?
But, just to prove to people that this is correct you will stick a mass on a rotary pivot and watch one mass get attracted to another and done in a vacuum to show one mass moving towards another.

I tried this. I put a grain of sand next to a massive hill and it stayed there until the wind blew it away.
But this only works on a pivot, right?

It wouldn't work of I laid a tiny ball bearing on a floor 6 inches away from a huge one, would it, unless they were magnetised, right? Hmmmm, is there a clue in there somewhere?
I wonder what magnetised actually means in potential reality?






Quote from: rabinoz
The "atmospheric swirling" has nothing to do with it so stop inventing excuses!
I have to invent something. I'm looking for real answers to put in place of the clear and utter pathetic fictional ones that are passed out as knowledge.

Quote from: rabinoz
Learn to read and understand. I NEVER said that Cavendish did have a vacuum chamber.
I said that "Many of the Cavendish type experiments are performed in a vacuum chamber to make sure the atmosphere has no effect so stop this dreaming."
So why not just accept Cavendish's experiment as is. Why was a vacuum used to prove something? I thought it was already proved by Cavendish and people just used Cavendish's name to act as a authority stamp on something they clearly do not know anything about but ...well, it's Cavendish, isn't it?
Why would anyone be so stupid as to think atmosphere would be the cause of movement?...Apart from me that is...who, as you know, is so stupid as to be ridiculous and not worthy of debating but debate anyway, eh?

Quote from: rabinoz

So clearly you are trying to argue against something that you simply do not understand and it apears do not want to understand - it's pitiful really!
It is pitiful...but not for me.
I pity people like you if you are being genuine.


Quote from: rabinoz
But you don't  present evidence because you have done no real experiments - only "thought experiments" which are useful in developing ideas but are NOT evidence.
Rab, you show me an experiment that you've done that proves to me the things you say.

Not too much to ask, is it?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1557 on: February 14, 2019, 09:00:46 AM »
A vacuum chamber has been used in order to reduce the error in measurement during the Cavendish experiment.

It is not just purely to show matter attraction but to actually measure it.

Across a wide range of distances and masses the results are very consistent.

Again this is not us just ďbelievingĒ what weíre told but actually seeing it in action.
We can demonstrate experimentally matter attraction. The consistency across different distances and masses also writes off your attempt to explain away using ďwhirlpoolsĒ.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1558 on: February 14, 2019, 12:47:22 PM »
I believe I have proof. What you believe I have is irrelevant to me just as me knowing gravity is nonsense is irrelevant to you.
And your belief has no effect on reality. If you had proof you would have provided it.
Likewise you foolishly believing you know gravity is nonsense when you are unable to refute it in any way and can only dismiss the evidence for it has no effect on reality.

If you want to discuss gravity and alternatives to the real explanation of cavendish, do it elsewhere, and if you aren't going to have it as a fundamental force and instead appeal to other things like air flowing around, then you need to be able to explain it from the fundamentals.

Oh and don't take that as a dig, because we were (practically) all schooled into this type of nonsense.
Again, not everyone is like you. Not everyone relies upon what they are told and stupid thought experiments. Some have actually done some experiments themselves and thus aren't just being schooled.


Now how about you quit with the insults and stalling and derailing and instead start dealing with the issues raised?

Again, you have accepted the first law of motion.
You have almost accepted the second law of motion, however you cling to the belief that it requires the air.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU NEED THE AIR FOR THE SECOND LAW?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1559 on: February 15, 2019, 04:11:34 AM »
A vacuum chamber has been used in order to reduce the error in measurement during the Cavendish experiment.
Have you ever done an experiment by this method or are you simply accepting what you're told?

Quote from: Mainframes

It is not just purely to show matter attraction but to actually measure it.

Across a wide range of distances and masses the results are very consistent.
Measure what?
How is it measured to be consistent inside a vacuum chamber?

How long does it take for mass to be attracted to mass in a vacuum chamber compared to not being in one?

Quote from: Mainframes

Again this is not us just ďbelievingĒ what weíre told but actually seeing it in action.
We can demonstrate experimentally matter attraction. The consistency across different distances and masses also writes off your attempt to explain away using ďwhirlpoolsĒ.
No problem. Tell me about all of it you seen in action.
Explain it to me about where you were and how big the so called vacuum chambers were and what was used inside of them.
You know, stuff like that.