But I said, for the sake or argument, they stay in the atmosphere. Space doesn't exist in your model so it's atmosphere or nothing. Unless your dome gets in the way - How high is your dome? Maybe it's a non-issue. We're talking ICBM's. Using your model why wouldn't ICBM's work if they stay in the atmosphere? What specifically in your model prevents them doing what they do as long as they have atmosphere to push off of?
Ok, first of all you've seen what an ICBM is supposed to look like to achieve its so called objectives, which is what the initial's portray. Inter continental ballistic missile.
It's basically saying that this lump of metal tube and fuel, plus warhead can go from one continent to another. Basically they tell us they can travel 5/6/7/8/9 or whatever thousands of miles to a target.
Now think how that could be achieved?
Let's picture the silo shenanigans.
The missile exits the silo and goes ballistic. This means it would literally have to go into extreme low pressure of atmosphere but would have to go high enough in an arc to actually travel to its destination which, as we are told, could be 10,000 miles away.
It has no means of navigation. It has no wings and some don't even have fins, yet we are told a navigation control inside will do the job. It's nonsense just on this note.
However, we are talking extreme low pressure or what you people call, a vacuum.
Now bear in mind that Felix the pretend space jumper was apparently at 128,000 feet in what we were told was as close to a vacuum as to be called a vacuum as his supposed 800 mph free fall apparently proved.
The thing is, what height would your big missile have to reach, bearing in mind it would have to arc consistently to be able to land on its target.
Like throwing a ball to your target. You know you have to arc it to reach that target, so theoretically speaking you'd have to arc the rocket to 5000 miles to the peak of its arc height for it to then travel the remaining 5000 miles to arc into its target.
There's no big wings and stabilisers on some of these things and no zilly little gadget inside is going to change anything like that on something of this apparent size.
Even a silly gimbal would destroy something like this by making it so unstable.
It would be like trying to balance a big stick on your finger with the first 6 inches of it made of lead and on a ball joint as you try to balance it.
Basically the missiles are good sci-fi but that's all they are.
There's a valid reason why small rockets burn their fuel in short order. You see, ballistic is a fuel killer because you are trying to negotiate ever decreasing pressure by thrusting against ever decreasing pressure.
The bigger rockets have the same issue.
The massive rockets that we are shown on TV in the propaganda stakes and space race stakes, are gimmicks and cannot even be fuelled in the way we are told, never mind get off the ground.
But do you know what?
That's my point of view. As for you; feel free to keep yours and good luck to you if you want to hold onto it and accept that everything is above board as a far as you're concerned. I seriously have no issues with you or that thought process.
After all, we were all brought up on it, including myself and if I was still in the frame of mind not to question this kind of stuff, I'd probably be arguing in favour of the mainstream figures, for no other reason than...well...it's authority....it's experts....right?
That's what we are reliant on. I just don't accept it as that for very valid reasons from my side.
Let's make this a bit more clear.
Those supposed rockets are apparently thin skinned tubes with supposed massive engines stuck on the bottom, plus engines so far up the body and again further up.
All this and big tanks holding fuel all stood upright on a launch pad resting on something. What?
Then the engines ignite and throw out thrust of such mental proportions that somehow arse kick this big tube into the sky at speeds beyond comprehension of reality and it's basically swallowed by the sci-fi fans.
How in the hell can I help anyone understand those rockets are gimmicks if they're willing to accept this nonsense?
By all means come back at me with " ohhh but you don't know the calculations for how they can work"......neither do you. You just know of a set of calculations that are put out in order to make it seem feasible.
By all means argue it but my stance is solid.
You must have a cut off in your model or you have no argument at all. Can a 10 pound rocket work in your model? A 100 pound? 1000 pound? 10,000 pound? Just saying, 3000 tonne rocket, no way, doesn't pass muster. At a minimum for your model you should be way more exacting in your argument. You can't refute anything unless you know the limitations.
So again, what specifically in your model prevents them doing what they do as long as they have atmosphere to push off of?
I don't know the cut off point.
All I can say, as far as my mindset goes on it is, the massive rockets are gimmicks. They are not what is portrayed to us as being.
It's not just about what they can push against, it's about the fuel they can store and hold structurally whilst achieving super speed.
If you want to believe 3000 tonnes seems viable to you then you fill your boots.