Intercontinental ballistic missile

  • 1723 Replies
  • 56815 Views
?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1620 on: February 21, 2019, 03:22:51 PM »
The real reason you won't explain it to me is quite simply, you have no explanation for it.
You are told what it does but you are not told what it is and why it does what it supposedly does.
"What it is", "what it does" and "why it does it" are 3 different questions.  We already have answers for the first two.  The third is the real bugger and scientists are still trying to figure that one out.
None of them are answered.
What it is: is a name that describes an unknown. A nothing.
What it does: It apparently allows mass to attract mass. No reason for it except mass apparently just attracts mass, when it can be bothered.

Why it does it:Nobody knows because it's clearly masking something that people should really know. Atmospheric pressure. It's so simple but maybe that's the whole issue.
You can't build so called space stuff with atmospheric pressure being your start and end product.


Quote from: markjo
Quote from: markjo

How about you just tell me what it is as a force then.
According to Einstein, gravity isn't a force.
Of course. It's not a force because it's sci-fi. It's something made up inorder to create the magic of space and what not.
It's clever because it allows people to massively appeal to authority in argument against a questioning sceptic. That appeal to authority is worn like a smart little badge that implies mainstream rights to sell/portray hypotheticals as facts.
Appeal to a recognized authority is quite appropriate such discussions.  It's hard to prove the experts wrong when you don't even understand what it is that you're trying to prove wrong.
If the so called experts do not know what it is they're arguing in favour of then they are not experts. They are self appointed authoritarians pushing their agenda and handing out certificates to those who can mimic what they push.

You are correct in that nobody can rational argue it. You can't argue something that does not exist....and win that argument.
It's like religion.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1621 on: February 21, 2019, 03:23:57 PM »
Youve avoided quite a bit actually.
Lets see the diagram.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1622 on: February 21, 2019, 03:29:09 PM »
No.
You cant argue with crazy.

*

Stash

  • 4067
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1623 on: February 21, 2019, 04:11:36 PM »
All the rocket footage shown that is within our atmosphere is totally legit, no problems, because they would work just fine, according to you, because they are pushing against the atmosphere? It's only when we get to rockets in space that you have a problem?
Nice try but no cigar.

Your so called space rockets are not portrayed to work by using external atmosphere as a resistance to thrust.
Remember?
They kick their own arses according to those so called space rocket scientists.

So my issue is firmly with them not being what we are told they are on a launch pad.
What we are shown and what we actually get are two entirely different things, in my opinion.

No 3000 tonne rockets lifting off with a large number of massive engines. It's counter productive for a start.
No vertical rocket requires an engine. It's like you might as well stick a big propeller on the top and bottom of it.

No need for throttles on vertical rockets.

You wrote:

You don't require solid to push against you just need the pressure of the resistance to thrust.
The atmosphere provides that exceptionally well.

And I assume you agree that the model rockets you yourself have launched don't have propellers inside them. They are, well, rocket powered.

The only difference is that you claim they push off of the atmosphere and my claim is that they do not.

So forget "Space" rockets for a moment.

For all the rockets that don't go to space, they work just as advertised in both your model and mine: They launch, rise up and when they lose momentum, fall back to earth. All this springboard stuff, no acceleration business is neither here nor there. These non-space rockets just push off the atmosphere. Simple as that.

So the German V2 rockets worked as advertised, they flew about 200 miles, max altitude of 55 miles, well within the atmosphere, nowhere near space. So simply, according to you, they just had big rocket engines that pushed off of the atmosphere, right? No different than a model rocket, just scaled up.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1624 on: February 21, 2019, 04:44:56 PM »
They kick their own arses according to those so called space rocket scientists.
No, that is only your pathetic strawman. No one other than you suggests that.

No 3000 tonne rockets lifting off with a large number of massive engines. It's counter productive for a start.
No vertical rocket requires an engine.
You sure love repeatedly asserting this BS and ignoring what it acutally means.
If there are no engines it can't move.
You aren't objecting to the engines, you are objecting to the use of hydrogen and oxygen as fuel.

It's an explanation that has no meaning in reality unless you use a force.
Why?
Because you don't like it?
Sorry, but you not liking something doesn't magically mean it has no meaning.
Even without using a force and instead having curved space time, it still has meaning.

Atmosphere is always required.
PROVE IT
You keep asserting this BS, but you are yet to back it up in any way.

because it's fictional.
Remember, we are discussing reality, not your delusional fantasyland. So you not liking something and wanting to dismiss it as fiction doesn't magically mean it is fiction.

I don't avoid anything unless I know I've already answered previous and many times previous.
Stop lying. You avoid things you can't answer and then pretend you have answered it.
You are yet to provide any justification for everything needing air. Instead you have repeatedly asserted it does.

On the basis that we survive in this cell as needing it for everything that occurs.
So you have no basis and instead just go around in circles, you need air for movement because you need air for movement.
This isn't a justification, it is just repeating your assertion.


You have provided zero evidence.
You ignoring things doesn't magically mean they don't exist.
The world continues to exist even when you close your eyes.

I didn't.
Again, stop lying. You have done so repeatedly. That is a key part of your claim of how rockets work.
Instead of it simply being the high pressure gas pushing the rocket upwards it is instead somehow magically interacting with the atmosphere below which then magically pushes the rocket up. It makes no sense at all.

You said the exhaust was of no consequence.
No I didn't. Why must you lie so much?
I said once it has left the rocket it is no longer important.

create the massive compression of it to create the reactionary squeeze back to create that resistant layer/stack to push on push to enable that rocket to advance into the atmosphere  on each cushion of super compressed air build.
And again, how does that then magically get transmitted to the rocket?
The only thing available to do so is the exhaust gas, acting as a pressure against the rocket, but you reject that being able to make it move.

Now, can you justify your claim that all motion needs air?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39336
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1625 on: February 21, 2019, 07:54:21 PM »
The real reason you won't explain it to me is quite simply, you have no explanation for it.
You are told what it does but you are not told what it is and why it does what it supposedly does.
"What it is", "what it does" and "why it does it" are 3 different questions.  We already have answers for the first two.  The third is the real bugger and scientists are still trying to figure that one out.
None of them are answered.
What it is: is a name that describes an unknown. A nothing.
Gravity is a word that describes the phenomenon of mass attracting mass or energy (gravitational lensing).

What it does: It apparently allows mass to attract mass.
Yup.

No reason for it except mass apparently just attracts mass, when it can be bothered.
Sorry, but the reason is a different question.

Why it does it:Nobody knows because it's clearly masking something that people should really know. Atmospheric pressure. It's so simple but maybe that's the whole issue.
Most scientists will freely admit that gravity is still something of a mystery.  However, scientists have learned enough about atmospheric pressure over the course of a lot years of study and experimentation to be certain that it could not be mistaken for gravity.  How you could confuse the two is a mystery to me.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1626 on: February 21, 2019, 10:28:11 PM »


For all the rockets that don't go to space, they work just as advertised in both your model and mine:
It's not how they're advertised though.



Quote from: Stash
They launch, rise up and when they lose momentum, fall back to earth. All this springboard stuff, no acceleration business is neither here nor there. These non-space rockets just push off the atmosphere. Simple as that.

So the German V2 rockets worked as advertised, they flew about 200 miles, max altitude of 55 miles, well within the atmosphere, nowhere near space. So simply, according to you, they just had big rocket engines that pushed off of the atmosphere, right? No different than a model rocket, just scaled up.
If you admit the non-space rockets push off of the atmosphere in order to work then you accept that they cannot work in what you believe, is space.

Trying to play twister with the V2 effigy in saying 200 miles up isn't space, is pointless because you follow that the so called Karman line at 62 so called miles, is apparently where is supposedly begins.

You people need to make up your mind.
To think in this day that people still believe 3000 tonne rockets went into space and big ICBM's have the ability to launch into so called space and fly thousands of miles to a target and obliterate it on city scale or worse, beggars belief.

Sci-fi is strong in many people's minds. It's great as a fantasy as long as it's kept there, because to bring it into your own reality and trying to pass it off as that, is cheating yourself out of rational thought.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1627 on: February 21, 2019, 10:37:28 PM »

And again, how does that then magically get transmitted to the rocket?
The only thing available to do so is the exhaust gas, acting as a pressure against the rocket, but you reject that being able to make it move.


I reject exhaust gas because that's exactly what it is.
The problem you have though, is, you have no clue what is working gas and exhaust gas.

A rocket is a simple thing. It is literally so simple but is passed off as this complicated thing because to pass it off as the simple thing it is is to render the space sci-fi as exactly that and cannot be passed off as factual.

This is why the arse kicking rockets with engines are passed off as workable without external atmosphere.
I seriously seriously have trouble understanding how people who should know better....don't.




?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1628 on: February 21, 2019, 10:44:55 PM »
Most scientists will freely admit that gravity is still something of a mystery.  However, scientists have learned enough about atmospheric pressure over the course of a lot years of study and experimentation to be certain that it could not be mistaken for gravity.  How you could confuse the two is a mystery to me.
Not most scientists. All scientists. There's a reason for that. It's called knowing the word gravity is complete nonsense and is just a cover word to pass off fictional forces that aren't apparent forces in order for their silly universal type model works with their Earth model.
Sheer and utter nonsense as clear as crystal but people love sci-fi, so here we are arguing against it and you for it, along with your peers.

As for scientists discarding atmospheric pressure. No they don't. Real scientists know what's what, I believe. The problem is in being allowed to tell the truth because to tell the truth would be to scupper the fantasy and the duping of the public for as long as it's been going on.

*

Stash

  • 4067
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1629 on: February 21, 2019, 10:53:27 PM »

For all the rockets that don't go to space, they work just as advertised in both your model and mine:
It's not how they're advertised though.

It is though, regardless of model. Non-space rockets are advertised to shoot up in the atmosphere and go a certain altitude or shoot up and over in the atmosphere and go a certain altitude and distance.

Quote from: Stash
They launch, rise up and when they lose momentum, fall back to earth. All this springboard stuff, no acceleration business is neither here nor there. These non-space rockets just push off the atmosphere. Simple as that.

So the German V2 rockets worked as advertised, they flew about 200 miles, max altitude of 55 miles, well within the atmosphere, nowhere near space. So simply, according to you, they just had big rocket engines that pushed off of the atmosphere, right? No different than a model rocket, just scaled up.
If you admit the non-space rockets push off of the atmosphere in order to work then you accept that they cannot work in what you believe, is space.

No one has to admit anything at this point, we're just talking about non-space rockets do what they advertise they do, go certain altitudes and distances. Seemingly, both models allow for the answer to be yes. The physics by which they do so not withstanding.

Trying to play twister with the V2 effigy in saying 200 miles up isn't space, is pointless because you follow that the so called Karman line at 62 so called miles, is apparently where is supposedly begins.

200 miles distance, not altitude. Max altitude for the ones fired at London, 55 miles high, not space. Still in the atmosphere. My point is, contrary to what you have stated before, in both models, the V2's could have worked. Your version pushed off the atmosphere, my doesn't. But it still does just work. Would you agree?

You people need to make up your mind.
To think in this day that people still believe 3000 tonne rockets went into space and big ICBM's have the ability to launch into so called space and fly thousands of miles to a target and obliterate it on city scale or worse, beggars belief.

The point being, as long as the rocket remains in the atmosphere, it has something to push against in your model. So theoretically, regardless of the size or weight of the rocket, with a big enough engine with enough fuel, it could go very, very long distances as long as it's in the atmosphere and therefore has something to push off of in your model. Agree?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

rabinoz

  • 25653
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1630 on: February 21, 2019, 11:27:29 PM »
The problem is in being allowed to tell the truth because to tell the truth would be to scupper the fantasy and the duping of the public for as long as it's been going on.
Who is stopping anyone telling "THE TRUTH"? If you really have evidence for your hypotheses nobody will stop you publicising it.

There are numerous websites promoting "alternate" and some very respected scientists questioning things like relativity.
Look at Ruyong Wang and his paper Successful GPS Operations Contradict the Two Principles of Special Relativity and Imply a New Way for Inertial Navigation ? Measuring Speed Directly.

And there is this whole website questioning that sort of thing:
Quote from: Doug Marett
Conspiracy of Light
This website examines historical and modern experiments on the nature of space and light, and possible new interpretations based on an alternative approach to the scientific evidence at hand.  Fred Hoyle once said, "anytime you point a new telescope at the sky now you are only going to find what you already know is up there." Has modern physics become complacent? New science is where the real opportunities lie, so we're focusing on the holes in physics theory instead.
You just don't have any evidence for your claims so you are scared to publicise them too widely!

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1631 on: February 22, 2019, 12:06:32 AM »
The problem you have though, is, you have no clue what is working gas and exhaust gas.
No, the problem is that you want to focus on semantics and pretend that because it is hot it can't be exhaust.
Notice how yet again you avoid the issue?

A rocket is a simple thing. It is literally so simple
That's right. It is very simple. It has high pressure gas which pushes the rocket up. No external atmosphere required. But you pretend it is so much more complicated and relies upon so much nonsense, all so you can reject space.

This is why the arse kicking rockets with engines are passed off as workable without external atmosphere.
Again, what arse kicking rockets?
How about you address how people claim they actually work?

Or how about you backup your delusional claims that they magically need atmosphere and that everything needs atmosphere to move.
Explain how the force is magically transmitted from the atmosphere to the rocket. Remember, you have dismissed, so it clearly can't be the exhaust gas.

*

The_Heeter

  • 45
  • Globe earth is the ONLY earth
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1632 on: February 22, 2019, 05:42:34 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.

So all of the V2 rockets used in WW2 to cause extensive damage across multiple countries just don't exist, and the literal thousands of ICBMs we put into silos across America and other parts of the world were all fake? I think not. To blatantly disregard evidence such as this shows how flawed your argument is.
Yep, basically, in terms of the way we were all told they worked.
In my opinion of course. It doesn't mean I'm 100% correct but it doesn't mean I'm wrong, either.

So your argument is not that they don't exist, rather that you don't agree with how they work. Is this because you don't believe the sources, or because you believe the science itself is flawed? I get the sense that your not a rocket scientist (Neither am I) but I think we can both agree from the mountains of evidence that whether you like it or not, they do work.

Let me try to explain it in simpler, non-science terms. lets say the rocket is coming from a U.S. silo, and going to Europe. The missile would be launched from the silo and go essentially straight up for 5 minutes. Then, the main rocket body will disconnect. Then the rocket will then begin to arc, going to roughly 3,500 miles into the air before descending to the target which will take around 2 minutes.

What about this explanation which can be easily proven by math and just watching it happen makes you believe them to be false? I do believe I have "logically looked into this" by watching footage, reading articles and stat sheets, and forming my own opinions.
The big silo's are nothing of the sort for big rockets, In my opinion.
Just another load of stories.
If you think a rocket launched from underground from a silo of the size we are told and can vent as well as rise into so called space and then onto a target, then go right ahead.

It works well for a sci-fi film. That's about all the credit it gets from me.

I believe they work because you can go to the silos that have been shut down, tour the insides of them, and then watch them work in the multiple videos. None of this is "Sci-fi", you can literally go and see it with your own eyes in action. Is there any reason in particular you refuse to believe this evidence or are you just in denial?
Globe earth is the ONLY earth

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1633 on: February 22, 2019, 05:51:26 AM »
Going would require going outside.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1634 on: February 22, 2019, 07:38:22 AM »
200 miles distance, not altitude. Max altitude for the ones fired at London, 55 miles high, not space. Still in the atmosphere. My point is, contrary to what you have stated before, in both models, the V2's could have worked. Your version pushed off the atmosphere, my doesn't. But it still does just work. Would you agree?
First of all I don't believe the sky is 55 miles high but that's irrelevant.
What is relevant is the vertical push through ever weakening atmosphere against ever weakening stack.
We can clearly see with real rockets how quickly their fuel is spent...except for the rockets of space and war.
There's a real good reason for that which you already know. It starts with a B and ends with a T with a ULL in the first and a SHI in the second.
Those V2 rockets look like gimmicks and act like them as they supposedly lift off.
At best they were framed upright airships.
Potentially they were just a big old firework.
What they weren't; they weren't a big high flying hundreds and hundreds of miles of arcing destruction, in my opinion.

Quote from: Stash
The point being, as long as the rocket remains in the atmosphere, it has something to push against in your model. So theoretically, regardless of the size or weight of the rocket, with a big enough engine with enough fuel, it could go very, very long distances as long as it's in the atmosphere and therefore has something to push off of in your model. Agree?
No, not at all.
Your rocket has a limit.
To keep trying to gain more height or distance, you need to reduce the mass of your rocket, not add in bigger engines and structural mass, plus liquid fuel.
There's a reason why fireworks are made of cardboard and carry solid fuel.
It's one big max thrust and a springboard acceleration and momentum from it. In seconds.

Your modern missiles are no more than fireworks, except they can go a bit further for their fuel. But not much further.

All these hundreds of miles or thousands, are nice stories or scary thoughts in terms of ICBM's, etc...but it's just sci-fi In my opinion, for reasons I explained earlier in the topic.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1635 on: February 22, 2019, 07:41:14 AM »
The problem is in being allowed to tell the truth because to tell the truth would be to scupper the fantasy and the duping of the public for as long as it's been going on.
Who is stopping anyone telling "THE TRUTH"? If you really have evidence for your hypotheses nobody will stop you publicising it.

There are numerous websites promoting "alternate" and some very respected scientists questioning things like relativity.
Look at Ruyong Wang and his paper Successful GPS Operations Contradict the Two Principles of Special Relativity and Imply a New Way for Inertial Navigation ? Measuring Speed Directly.

And there is this whole website questioning that sort of thing:
Quote from: Doug Marett
Conspiracy of Light
This website examines historical and modern experiments on the nature of space and light, and possible new interpretations based on an alternative approach to the scientific evidence at hand.  Fred Hoyle once said, "anytime you point a new telescope at the sky now you are only going to find what you already know is up there." Has modern physics become complacent? New science is where the real opportunities lie, so we're focusing on the holes in physics theory instead.
You just don't have any evidence for your claims so you are scared to publicise them too widely!
Then don't fret over it. Just sit back and see what's what with your given stuff. Your platter.

No need to get all worked up with me. You tell me time and time again how retarded I am and how my theories are not even that....etc.....etc. So why are you even bothering?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1636 on: February 22, 2019, 07:57:32 AM »

That's right. It is very simple. It has high pressure gas which pushes the rocket up. No external atmosphere required. But you pretend it is so much more complicated and relies upon so much nonsense, all so you can reject space.


Explain how the force is magically transmitted from the atmosphere to the rocket. Remember, you have dismissed, so it clearly can't be the exhaust gas.
To understand it all you have to do is look at a helicopter or a hovercraft and just understand that a rocket is only adding much more expansion to gain more compression into the stack to gain the lift.

It's no more difficult than that.
If you have no resistance to the thrust you don't lift off.
A drone in a low pressure chamber proves the point.
The impossible setting off of of gunpowder in a low pressure chamber proves the rocket needs a resistance of atmosphere dense enough to allow that push.

You take away the medium and you take away the lift or movement.

And before you say helicopters and hovercrafts are different. Yes they are in terms of using  internal combustion engines to drive propellers/blades to compress the atmospheric stack below  to create lift against lower pressure created above for it to move into by push up, shows how a big unit can rest entirely on the cushion/spring or atmospheric compression.

A rocket does exactly the same thing, except with more forced compression to create a massive acceleration and stability into the atmosphere above where it has to displace the atmosphere by being pointed...ish.

Take away the atmosphere and nothing is going anywhere, never mind into the sky.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1637 on: February 22, 2019, 08:07:31 AM »
I believe they work because you can go to the silos that have been shut down, tour the insides of them, and then watch them work in the multiple videos. None of this is "Sci-fi", you can literally go and see it with your own eyes in action. Is there any reason in particular you refuse to believe this evidence or are you just in denial?
A few silos may have been built. To carry something off you have to have a few items on show.
Go and take a look around the so called space museums with the supposed remnants of spacesuits and capsules, landers and even large rockets that are models of a supposed real thing.
That alone should set alarm bells ringing.

To sell the story you have to create the visual effects and the physical ability of people to walk about around the so called real life once working contraptions, as they're told.
Then stand in awe at the sheer size of a big saturn V and a host of other big models.

You have no clue what you are looking at, in terms of what they stand for in reality. You can only go on what you're told.
If that's good enough for you and you have no questions, then fine. Good luck to you. You need not bother to ever question. You can accept everything as your happy truth.
I can't knock you for that but I can sit back and shake my head and wonder why people choose not to at least see past some of the (what I believe) clear and utter nonsense.

I've seen inside silo's. They show you a big hole where a supposed ICBM was but there's never anything else going from that.
And even so, the one's where there is some underground rooms. They could be anything. They could be test labs and basically hidden behind the scare of a so called ready to go warhead enabled nuke continent destroyer.


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39336
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1638 on: February 22, 2019, 11:44:45 AM »
Most scientists will freely admit that gravity is still something of a mystery.  However, scientists have learned enough about atmospheric pressure over the course of a lot years of study and experimentation to be certain that it could not be mistaken for gravity.  How you could confuse the two is a mystery to me.
Not most scientists. All scientists. There's a reason for that. It's called knowing the word gravity is complete nonsense and is just a cover word to pass off fictional forces that aren't apparent forces in order for their silly universal type model works with their Earth model.
You really don't understand the first thing about science, do you?


As for scientists discarding atmospheric pressure. No they don't. Real scientists know what's what, I believe. The problem is in being allowed to tell the truth because to tell the truth would be to scupper the fantasy and the duping of the public for as long as it's been going on.
I never said that scientists discard atmospheric pressure.  They've been studying if for many, many years.  I'm saying that not one of them would ever say that atmospheric pressure is responsible for the phenomenon commonly referred to as gravity.  They'll talk about the atmosphere's buoyant properties, but that tends to work in the opposite direction of gravity.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1639 on: February 22, 2019, 12:05:55 PM »
You really don't understand the first thing about science, do you?
You need to understand what science is before you start with that nonsense.


Quote from: markjo
As for scientists discarding atmospheric pressure. No they don't. Real scientists know what's what, I believe. The problem is in being allowed to tell the truth because to tell the truth would be to scupper the fantasy and the duping of the public for as long as it's been going on.
I never said that scientists discard atmospheric pressure.  They've been studying if for many, many years.  I'm saying that not one of them would ever say that atmospheric pressure is responsible for the phenomenon commonly referred to as gravity.
Of course they won't. To do that would lose them their status. Their bread and butter and even their sanity.
Follow the narrative. Toe the line. Do as you're told. Do not question your pay masters or your authority figures.
And still nobody knows what gravity is.
There's a valid reason for that. Can you guess?

Quote from: markjo
  They'll talk about the atmosphere's buoyant properties, but that tends to work in the opposite direction of gravity.
You mean this magical pull force? What is the force?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1640 on: February 22, 2019, 12:08:56 PM »
We can clearly see with real rockets how quickly their fuel is spent...except for the rockets of space and war.
You mean we see with little toy rockets just how quickly their fuel is spent.
Likewise we see just how quickly little toy cars and planes use their fuel. That doesn't mean much larger ones will deplete the fuel in the same time.
Again, that stupidity is saying cars are fake because they should use their fuel far too quickly and only be able to go a few km at most.

There's a real good reason for that which you already know.
Yes, because all you have is BS. You have no rational arguments or evidence

To keep trying to gain more height or distance, you need to reduce the mass of your rocket, not add in bigger engines and structural mass, plus liquid fuel.
Again, we can try the same insanity with cars and planes.
According to you, if we want our cars or planes to go further or higher, we need to make them smaller, and that bigger engines and more fuel wont help.
Yet the exact opposite is observed in reality.
Small cars and planes, e.g. toy ones) go for quite a short distance.
Larger ones, i.e. one people can travel in, go for much further, and even bigger ones can typically go further still.

You clearly don't understand scale at all.

If you think they need to be smaller you should be able to show some formulas to show that is the case.
Yet all you can do is baselessly assert it.

To understand it all you have to do is look at a helicopter or a hovercraft
No I don't, as they operate via fundamentally different principles.

A helicopter operates by having a rotary wing. This wing moves through the air creating a pressure differential across the rotary wing which results in lift. Or at a simpler level, it deflects the air down and is pushed up in the process.
But even here it still just what is happening at the wing, not below.

To understand how a rocket works, all you need to understand is pressure.
If the pressure isn't balanced (such as because gas can escape out one opening), then it will impart a force.

If you have no resistance to the thrust you don't lift off.
Again, this makes no sense.
If you have thrust, you will lift off, at least if the thrust is large enough.
If you are throwing the exhaust gas one way, it necessitates a force in the opposite direction on the rocket.
No air is needed.

A drone in a low pressure chamber proves the point.
Again, the operate via fundamentally different principles and thus it proves nothing in regards to rockets.

The impossible setting off of of gunpowder in a low pressure chamber proves
Nothing more than that they were unable to set off that particular type of gunpowder.

You take away the medium and you take away the lift or movement.
Again, stop just baselessly asserting garbage. PROVE IT!

And before you say helicopters and hovercrafts are different
No. I will say it. They fly via fundamentally different mechanisms.
So before you try pretending they are the same, they fly via fundamentally different mechanisms.

You need to understand what science is before you start with that nonsense.
That would have been great advice for you before you started with all this nonsense. You seem to have no idea at all.

Of course they won't. To do that would lose them their status. Their bread and butter and even their sanity.
Yes, because it shows that they aren't being scientists at all and instead are spouting delusional nonsense, not backed up by anything at all and repeatedly contradicted by many experiments.
That is all. Nothing to do with any narrative.

Now, can you either back up your insane claim of everything requiring air for motion, or explain how your air magically pushes the rocket up without touching it as you have clearly dismissed the ability for a pressure to push the rocket up. If you accept pressure can push it up that means the pressurised exhaust gas can without the atmosphere.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1641 on: February 22, 2019, 12:15:35 PM »
You need to understand what science is

Exactly, yuo do not know jack shit about it. You look at something and then make up things. That is not science.

Of course they won't. To do that would lose them their status. Their bread and butter and even their sanity.
Follow the narrative. Toe the line. Do as you're told. Do not question your pay masters or your authority figures.
And that paragraph is the proof that you don't  know jack shit about science. What you wrot ehere is 100% incorrect.

You mean this magical pull force?
Says a person who only and only talks about magic. Isn't it ironic.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23312
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1642 on: February 22, 2019, 12:43:33 PM »
Again, this makes no sense.
If you have thrust, you will lift off, at least if the thrust is large enough.
If you are throwing the exhaust gas one way, it necessitates a force in the opposite direction on the rocket.
No air is needed.
Atmospheric resistance is imperative. No air needed means no resistance, means no reaction to flow, means no opposite movement.


Quote from: JackBlack

And before you say helicopters and hovercrafts are different
No. I will say it. They fly via fundamentally different mechanisms.
So before you try pretending they are the same, they fly via fundamentally different mechanisms.

The principle is the same for them all. It's to compress air using energy, whether it's an internal combustion engine turning a rotor blade or you have no engine and only a fuel mix to burn directly into atmospheric resistance to compress it to create a reaction to move the object.

All the same principle.

But to tell the truth would be destroying the entire global system and space antics.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39336
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1643 on: February 22, 2019, 12:57:04 PM »
You really don't understand the first thing about science, do you?
You need to understand what science is before you start with that nonsense.
I understand what science is.  I'm just not sure what you think science is.


Quote from: markjo
As for scientists discarding atmospheric pressure. No they don't. Real scientists know what's what, I believe. The problem is in being allowed to tell the truth because to tell the truth would be to scupper the fantasy and the duping of the public for as long as it's been going on.
I never said that scientists discard atmospheric pressure.  They've been studying if for many, many years.  I'm saying that not one of them would ever say that atmospheric pressure is responsible for the phenomenon commonly referred to as gravity.
Of course they won't. To do that would lose them their status. Their bread and butter and even their sanity.
Follow the narrative. Toe the line. Do as you're told. Do not question your pay masters or your authority figures.
Do you think that Newton, Einstein, Hawking and countless others toed the line and did what they were told? 
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

rabinoz

  • 25653
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1644 on: February 22, 2019, 01:54:49 PM »
But to tell the truth would be destroying the entire global system and space antics.
Closer to the truth would be to say:
The fact that rocket engines have been shown to provide thrust up to quite high altitudes, where there is virtually no air, destroys the basis of your hypothesis.

Still, it's all THE conspiracy so . . . . See Place of the Conspiracy in FET.

*

Stash

  • 4067
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1645 on: February 22, 2019, 02:10:10 PM »
200 miles distance, not altitude. Max altitude for the ones fired at London, 55 miles high, not space. Still in the atmosphere. My point is, contrary to what you have stated before, in both models, the V2's could have worked. Your version pushed off the atmosphere, my doesn't. But it still does just work. Would you agree?
First of all I don't believe the sky is 55 miles high but that's irrelevant.
What is relevant is the vertical push through ever weakening atmosphere against ever weakening stack.
We can clearly see with real rockets how quickly their fuel is spent...except for the rockets of space and war.
There's a real good reason for that which you already know. It starts with a B and ends with a T with a ULL in the first and a SHI in the second.
Those V2 rockets look like gimmicks and act like them as they supposedly lift off.
At best they were framed upright airships.
Potentially they were just a big old firework.
What they weren't; they weren't a big high flying hundreds and hundreds of miles of arcing destruction, in my opinion.

Quote from: Stash
The point being, as long as the rocket remains in the atmosphere, it has something to push against in your model. So theoretically, regardless of the size or weight of the rocket, with a big enough engine with enough fuel, it could go very, very long distances as long as it's in the atmosphere and therefore has something to push off of in your model. Agree?
No, not at all.
Your rocket has a limit.
To keep trying to gain more height or distance, you need to reduce the mass of your rocket, not add in bigger engines and structural mass, plus liquid fuel.
There's a reason why fireworks are made of cardboard and carry solid fuel.
It's one big max thrust and a springboard acceleration and momentum from it. In seconds.

Your modern missiles are no more than fireworks, except they can go a bit further for their fuel. But not much further.

All these hundreds of miles or thousands, are nice stories or scary thoughts in terms of ICBM's, etc...but it's just sci-fi In my opinion, for reasons I explained earlier in the topic.

You're literally not making any sense. On the most simplistic level, you say to go farther you need to reduce mass. What do you think is happening when fuel is spent?

We've shown you plenty of amateur rockets that go way longer than just a few seconds.

What don't you get about scale? And what don't you get about your own model? You said it yourself, the atmosphere provides the resistance for the rocket to push off of. So why all of a sudden rockets can't use your model to fly at all?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1646 on: February 22, 2019, 02:26:39 PM »
Atmospheric resistance is imperative. No air needed means no resistance
Stop just asserting the same BS.
That is what you need to substantiate. You are yet to do so.
No air means no air resistance, which acts to resist relative motion.
It doesn't mean no resistance at all.

means no reaction to flow, means no opposite movement.
If anything it would mean no movement at all.
So instead of having the hot pressurised gas expand and come out the nozzle of the rocket, you have it magically stay put inside the rocket.
Once you have an acceleration with an action, you must have a reaction.

The principle is the same for them all.
No they are not. The principle of flight used in each is fundamentally different.
A rocket gains lift by expelling exhaust at high pressure and velocity.
A helicopter gains lift by airflow over its wing.
They are not alike at all.

You can easily have a battery powered helicopter (e.g. a drone), which weighs basically the same before flight with a full battery and after flight with a depleted battery.
But for a rocket a very large portion of the mass goes into the fuel and oxidiser which is burnt and thrown out at high velocity.

So no, they are not the same at all.
Stop pretending they are.

or you have no engine
And thus don't go anywhere. Remember, a solid rocket engine, is still an engine.

But to tell the truth would be destroying the entire global system and space antics.
No, telling the truth would be admitting your nonsense is pure nonsense.
Admitting the truth would mean acknowledging the differences between a helicopter and a rocket and thus no longer being able to claim that a drone in a vacuum disproves rockets working in a vacuum.
Admitting the truth would mean admitting that air isn't required all motion and that rockets can work in a vacuum.
It would completely destroy all your claims.

Now are you going to justify your lie that all motion requires air?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1647 on: February 22, 2019, 04:27:25 PM »
Again, this makes no sense.
If you have thrust, you will lift off, at least if the thrust is large enough.
If you are throwing the exhaust gas one way, it necessitates a force in the opposite direction on the rocket.
No air is needed.
Atmospheric resistance is imperative. No air needed means no resistance, means no reaction to flow, means no opposite movement.


Quote from: JackBlack

And before you say helicopters and hovercrafts are different
No. I will say it. They fly via fundamentally different mechanisms.
So before you try pretending they are the same, they fly via fundamentally different mechanisms.

The principle is the same for them all. It's to compress air using energy, whether it's an internal combustion engine turning a rotor blade or you have no engine and only a fuel mix to burn directly into atmospheric resistance to compress it to create a reaction to move the object.

All the same principle.

But to tell the truth would be destroying the entire global system and space antics.

Interesting.
You say these scientists are alll paying homage to the overlords.
But...competing companies and differing industries can all use the "gullible" maths to come up with fixed wing vs rotary wing vs jet vs rocket flight.
All these duped and tricked people beliving in fakenews math all being highly sucessful in developing flight for commercial use.
Not using guesswork.
But highly detailed drawings, involing math, windtunnel tests, etc.

Shall we add all of airline industry to your fake news list?

Can you recreate a repeatable reproducable system we can base knowledge on?
Yes no?
Wheres your diagram?
Stfu then.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1648 on: February 23, 2019, 03:49:52 AM »
Atmospheric resistance is imperative. No air needed means no resistance, means no reaction to flow, means no opposite movement.

 That is demonstrably incorrect. Among many videos demonstrating this
Some explanations about it also here - https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/4p3nq0/how_do_rocket_engines_transfer_the_force_upwards/
But  Iguess it is just wasted on you.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 407
  • resident of Equestria Weather Pegasus
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1649 on: February 23, 2019, 04:19:10 AM »
Do you really think this can be on a spherical earth? What missiles will be needed in this case?

Chinese Sci-Fi Blockbuster ‘Wandering Earth’ Lands on Netflix

https://www.caixinglobal.com/2019-02-21/chinese-sci-fi-blockbuster-wandering-earth-lands-on-netflix-101382217.html
« Last Edit: February 23, 2019, 04:22:14 AM by Heavenly Breeze »

Are you sure that the earth is not such?