Intercontinental ballistic missile

  • 1723 Replies
  • 56796 Views
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1680 on: February 26, 2019, 02:05:57 AM »
The point is, all the stuff you've said to date about rockets/missiles being 'gimmicks' is not true as long as they stay in the atmosphere. They work just fine as long as they are not in space. So in your model, a V2 is not a gimmick as long as it had air as resistance to push off of. Correct? Literally, your only sticking point is a rocket working in the atmosphere as opposed to working in no atmosphere, correct?

If not correct explain how rockets/missiles as we see them don't work in the atmosphere.
Are you admitting that your V2 uses the atmosphere to push against?

no.
he's trying to get you to admit rockets are real.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1681 on: February 26, 2019, 03:35:12 AM »
Your facts are on a platter for you. What you physically know, is zero but you will continue to ride on the coat-tails of those who write the stories.
Fair enough but don't take it as a fact when you have no proof of it.
Again, not everyone is as wilfully ignorant as you.
Just because you choose to bury your head in the sand and reject evidence doesn't mean no one else has it.

That alone should show you exactly why atmosphere does the work or resistance to the burn.
Not in the slightest.
Why do you continually resort to this handwavy BS, rather than providing an actual explanation?

How about you actually provide an explanation as to why everything magically needs air to accelerate from a force?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23310
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1682 on: February 26, 2019, 03:49:25 AM »


How about you actually provide an explanation as to why everything magically needs air to accelerate from a force?
Because it's literally all around us and in everyday life. It's there for all to understand.
The only time it changes is when it's taken out of the equation so magical mysteries can be added in to dupe people into believing in fantasies.

This is why space rocket fantasies have to be changed and nukes, etc.
You keep reading your fiction and I'll keep questioning.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1683 on: February 26, 2019, 07:37:36 AM »
Sceptimatic, you never answered the question.  In those videos in slow motion, where is the layer of gas providing a push.  If you have a force pushing to the right in the video, where is the line or any resistance at all.  The fumes are useful to show there is no pushback.

If that video canít show the pushback, then what experiment will show it?  I am looking for some resistance slowing that smoke and I canít see it. You need evidence to show the air stacks and provides the resistance to push against.  What experiment will show this?  Thought experiments with magic physics are not good enough. 

Why donít we all design such an experiment together that will test your theory? 

Maybe we make a vacuum, measure the force of the rocket moving forward then measure the force of the exhaust behind with a scale and bowl attached and the scale zeroed.   If the rocket is a centimeter in front of the bowl, would that test your theory?

*

The_Heeter

  • 45
  • Globe earth is the ONLY earth
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1684 on: February 26, 2019, 08:11:19 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.

A few silos? There are at least 50 you can go to and see the inside of. What do you mean "Set alarm bells ringing?" Care to explain how any of that is unreal? Many of the "Models" are just that... recreations of what was actually used. Often times they are scaled down so you can see the small details. This is often done with the larger space going rockets because they couldn't possibly fit them in most locations. I know they are real because everything they say is backed by mounds of EVIDENCE, which is something you are sorely lacking. You've not yet sited a shred of evidence, you've just denied and denied. I could provide hours, probably even days worth of video evidence, not to mention millions of pages of data.

And yes, some of the silos are just holes in the ground. That's because they could be launched remotely from another, larger facility. You can see EVIDENCE that there were rockets in them through the videos of them launching, pictures of them on the inside, ETC. Sure there may have been other things going on, such as labs and research stations, but that's really not uncommon. missile silos were incredibly secure, so its not hard to fathom other research going on at the same time.

I do often look past the "Clear and utter nonsense" and wonder what if the government was lying to us? Then I realize that it would be pretty much impossible for that to be pulled off. It would require every scientist, world leader, government official and governing body to have the exact same story, same data, same backing EVIDENCE, same everything. Think about that... the U.S. government can't get along for five minutes, and many countries hate each other. Why would they even attempt to collude on something like this? It would be a perfect weapon for-say- North Korea, to break the egg on this whole issue. We would lose all credibility. The only reason they haven't done something of the sort, is because there is no such thing.



Globe earth is the ONLY earth

*

Stash

  • 4067
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1685 on: February 26, 2019, 08:34:06 AM »
The point is, all the stuff you've said to date about rockets/missiles being 'gimmicks' is not true as long as they stay in the atmosphere. They work just fine as long as they are not in space. So in your model, a V2 is not a gimmick as long as it had air as resistance to push off of. Correct? Literally, your only sticking point is a rocket working in the atmosphere as opposed to working in no atmosphere, correct?

If not correct explain how rockets/missiles as we see them don't work in the atmosphere.
Are you admitting that your V2 uses the atmosphere to push against?

The question is, in your model, rockets/missiles require atmosphere so explain how they don't work as we see them if they remain in the atmosphere?   
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1686 on: February 26, 2019, 09:28:02 AM »
What are you trying to prove here?
If this is the best you people can do it's no wonder your space and globe nonsense is being shown up for the fiction it is.
I am not trying to prove anything. I just showed the evidence that you are wrong.
Then you failed miserably.
No, I did not fail. I showed the evidence that you are wrong. Rocket motors do not need the atmosphere to push against. You are demonstrably wrong, that is a fact.
Your facts are on a platter for you. What you physically know, is zero but you will continue to ride on the coat-tails of those who write the stories.
Fair enough but don't take it as a fact when you have no proof of it.
I have actual, physical and demonstrable evidence, that is enough. You don't have anything except your speculations. Talk, talk, talk, talk.... and same talk all these years. Nothing new, no progress and no any demonstrable or physical evidence.
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.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1687 on: February 26, 2019, 11:50:19 AM »
Because it's literally all around us and in everyday life. It's there for all to understand.
It being there doesn't mean it is needed.
Nitrogen in the air is all around you, but you can live in an atmosphere without nitrogen. The only things which need nitrogen are nitrogen fixing bacteria, but you can have an entire ecosystem without them.
So something being there, all around us, doesn't actually mean it is needed.
So again, How about you actually try explaining why you need the atmosphere for Newton's second law of motion?

*

Stash

  • 4067
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1688 on: February 28, 2019, 12:54:45 AM »
The point is, all the stuff you've said to date about rockets/missiles being 'gimmicks' is not true as long as they stay in the atmosphere. They work just fine as long as they are not in space. So in your model, a V2 is not a gimmick as long as it had air as resistance to push off of. Correct? Literally, your only sticking point is a rocket working in the atmosphere as opposed to working in no atmosphere, correct?

If not correct explain how rockets/missiles as we see them don't work in the atmosphere.
Are you admitting that your V2 uses the atmosphere to push against?

no.
he's trying to get you to admit rockets are real.

No, not exactly. I'm trying to take skepti's model and apply it to what is evidenced, witnessed. Not falling into the ridiculous trap of, "Oh, that's just mass CGI, and gimmicks, conspiracy...blah, blah, blah." Take his model and say, "Ok, rockets in your world need to stay in the atmosphere in order to work." 'Cool'. So what in your model prevents rockets as we've been shown to NOT work in your model as long as they stay in the atmosphere?

If they have atmosphere to push off of, what would be the matter if they were 10lbs or 10k lbs? They are still pushing off the atmosphere in the model. What prevents them from going 10 miles or 100 in the skepti model? All the while, with atmosphere to push off of, no 'space' involved.

That is the question.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23310
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1689 on: February 28, 2019, 12:56:49 AM »
Sceptimatic, you never answered the question.  In those videos in slow motion, where is the layer of gas providing a push.  If you have a force pushing to the right in the video, where is the line or any resistance at all.  The fumes are useful to show there is no pushback.

If that video canít show the pushback, then what experiment will show it?  I am looking for some resistance slowing that smoke and I canít see it. You need evidence to show the air stacks and provides the resistance to push against.  What experiment will show this?  Thought experiments with magic physics are not good enough. 

Why donít we all design such an experiment together that will test your theory? 



Maybe we make a vacuum, measure the force of the rocket moving forward then measure the force of the exhaust behind with a scale and bowl attached and the scale zeroed.   If the rocket is a centimeter in front of the bowl, would that test your theory?
Let's clear a few things up.

1. No vacuum can be made, only reduction of pressure. Note the reduction of pressure because it's key to understanding that using a so called vacuum chamber is doing nothing of the sort.

2. When genuine low pressure is attained in a chamber, the rockets do not work. They cannot be ignited.
This should tell you everything you need to know about what else is required in order for them to work. It's pressurised atmosphere.

You are duped into believing rockets carry their own oxygen for fuel mix to burn and you're made to forget the fact that external atmosphere is absolutely required in order for this to work, because you are duped into a belief that this mix will simply eject and push the rocket with no need for a resistance to that push externally to it.
It's absolutely nuts that people who study this cannot see the dupe.

You all know what logic is telling you yet you are willing to abandon it for the comfort of adhering to sci-fi ideals.
I wouldn't waste my time arguing this if I thought for even one second that I may be wrong, even if it was a few percent. The fact is, I'm not wrong on this by any percent.

What people like yourself would be best off doing is actually looking at all this stuff independently using no influence at all from anywhere and actually trying to dissect the actual process of why and how these supposed rockets are said to work against what they should, by logic, work in reality as a legitimate atmospheric flying object..

Not one person has shown me where this rocket gets it's push from. Not one person.
All I ever see is, "it's action and reaction"..."it's all done inside the rocket"...."it's the neck of the nozzle that creates the push"...etc.

Nobody points out why it supposedly works and yet it seems fine to accept that. Weird as all hell in one respect but understandable in another as to how easy it is to dupe the masses to follow a narrative, even if they have no clue about something.
The beauty about those who follow a narrative is, they can simply pick up a book or a picture and argue from that, knowing that mainstream have their back and yet they need nothing other than the ability to read and recite. Mimicking at its finest.


Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1690 on: February 28, 2019, 01:10:58 AM »
1.   What is pressure or more to how is pressure achieved?   Does pv=nrt exist in your worldview?

2.  Ignition you already accepted can be in forn of chemical make up where all prodcuts of combustion are in the fuel itself.

3.   Not worng as in 100% correct?   You flipflop between your opinion and claiming fact.    Looks like youre back to claiming fact.   Lets see some diagrams and math then.  Wheres your youtube experiemt?
Gtfo of here and finish your 10000pg denP thread.



?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23310
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1691 on: February 28, 2019, 01:23:57 AM »
A few silos? There are at least 50 you can go to and see the inside of. What do you mean "Set alarm bells ringing?" Care to explain how any of that is unreal? Many of the "Models" are just that... recreations of what was actually used. Often times they are scaled down so you can see the small details.
So I can go and see at least 50 of these but they are scaled down.
Tell me what you mean by scaled down compared to what they were supposedly once were.

Quote from: The_Heeter
This is often done with the larger space going rockets because they couldn't possibly fit them in most locations. I know they are real because everything they say is backed by mounds of EVIDENCE, which is something you are sorely lacking.
Mounds of evidence that you've physically seen, right?



Quote from: The_Heeter
You've not yet sited a shred of evidence, you've just denied and denied. I could provide hours, probably even days worth of video evidence, not to mention millions of pages of data.
Ok so you can provide a lot of video evidence and data.
I can provide you with days worth of video on the star ship enterprise and much of the star wars space vehicles, including data for how they work and such like.
I can delve right in and find you all kinds of video and data on a lot of stuff pertaining to this type.
Does this make it real or am I being stupid because we all know this is sci-fi, because it tells us it is?

But because your videos and books do not say sci-fi, it has to be accepted as real, right?



Quote from: The_Heeter
And yes, some of the silos are just holes in the ground. That's because they could be launched remotely from another, larger facility. You can see EVIDENCE that there were rockets in them through the videos of them launching, pictures of them on the inside, ETC. Sure there may have been other things going on, such as labs and research stations, but that's really not uncommon. missile silos were incredibly secure, so its not hard to fathom other research going on at the same time.
Just holes in the ground. A big so called ICBM from a hole in the ground. No venting and an easy launch with the so called hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of thrust just happening inside this hole.
Really?



Quote from: The_Heeter
I do often look past the "Clear and utter nonsense" and wonder what if the government was lying to us? Then I realize that it would be pretty much impossible for that to be pulled off.
Impossible to be pulled off?
 compartmentalisation?
Plausible deniability?
We all don't have access to sky eyes.
We all don't have access to overlooking countries by magnification of them from outside or inside what rules them.
We are reliant on a little screen spewing pictures/videos under narration... and tabloids, plus radio broadcasts.
a massive percentage of what you watch on TV is acting. You know this.
You also know that news is sold to you as propaganda in many cases. If you don;t know this then I can understand why everything is true to you.
If you follow this train of thought then nothing anyone can say to you will change your stance on what you scoff on the platter offered up by mainstream.

Quote from: The_Heeter
It would require every scientist, world leader, government official and governing body to have the exact same story, same data, same backing EVIDENCE, same everything. Think about that... the U.S. government can't get along for five minutes, and many countries hate each other.
Here a video. Watch it and think of every gang as a government of a country all getting together to control their turf and the overall people of the world.
Because this is basically what we're dealing with.

Look past the fiction of the video and replace it with world leaders. Think of Cyrus being one of the elite.



Quote from: The_Heeter
Why would they even attempt to collude on something like this? It would be a perfect weapon for-say- North Korea, to break the egg on this whole issue. We would lose all credibility. The only reason they haven't done something of the sort, is because there is no such thing.
There's a reason why nobody is getting nuked.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23310
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1692 on: February 28, 2019, 01:24:48 AM »


The question is, in your model, rockets/missiles require atmosphere so explain how they don't work as we see them if they remain in the atmosphere?
Are you being cryptic?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23310
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1693 on: February 28, 2019, 01:25:20 AM »

 I have actual, physical and demonstrable evidence, that is enough. You don't have anything except your speculations. Talk, talk, talk, talk.... and same talk all these years. Nothing new, no progress and no any demonstrable or physical evidence.
What physical evidence do you have?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23310
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1694 on: February 28, 2019, 01:31:05 AM »
Because it's literally all around us and in everyday life. It's there for all to understand.
It being there doesn't mean it is needed.
You keep believing that. All you're doing is cheating yourself of the facts.

Quote from: JackBlack
Nitrogen in the air is all around you, but you can live in an atmosphere without nitrogen. The only things which need nitrogen are nitrogen fixing bacteria, but you can have an entire ecosystem without them.
So something being there, all around us, doesn't actually mean it is needed.
Add anything you want to in the air. We are dealing with ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE as it stands but any gas/fluid is a resistance for and to motion. It's as simple as that.
Take that away and you take away life itself, never mind arguing for movement.


Quote from: JackBlack

So again, How about you actually try explaining why you need the atmosphere for Newton's second law of motion?
I think it's been explained and better explained.
You'll never accept it because you want to hang onto that supposed law working without matter. It's nuts to think people fall into this. I'm actually hoping you're juust game playing and arguing for the sake of ensuring the gatekeeping of nonsense in order for fictional stories to appear true.

*

Stash

  • 4067
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1695 on: February 28, 2019, 02:02:27 AM »


The question is, in your model, rockets/missiles require atmosphere so explain how they don't work as we see them if they remain in the atmosphere?
Are you being cryptic?

Can you read? Take your own model and apply it to rockets as we see them. Forget about space. Your rockets push off the atmosphere. Fine. What about all the evidence you see, we have shown, of rockets doing what they do - How do they NOT work in your model as long as they are in the atmosphere? And explain how they can't do what they do if they are still in the atmosphere? Capiche? Forget 'space' and forget 'vacuums'. Your model. Why don't they work in atmosphere?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1696 on: February 28, 2019, 02:34:15 AM »
1. No vacuum can be made, only reduction of pressure.
i.e. a vacuum.

2. When genuine low pressure is attained in a chamber, the rockets do not work. They cannot be ignited.
This should tell you everything you need to know about what else is required in order for them to work. It's pressurised atmosphere.
You have a video of a specific rocket engine not igniting under vacuum. That doesn't show that all can't, nor does it show that an atmosphere is required once it is ignited.

You are duped into believing rockets carry their own oxygen for fuel mix to burn and you're made to forget the fact that external atmosphere is absolutely required in order for this to work
Yes, people have been "duped" into believing that rockets carry their own oxidiser, because they do.
No one has forgetting the fact that external atmosphere is absolutely required because there is absolutely no indication that it is.

You all know what logic is telling you yet you are willing to abandon it for the comfort of adhering to sci-fi ideals.
No, I stick to the logic, rather than abandoning it to adopt your sci fa ideas.

The fact is, I'm not wrong on this by any percent.
Then why are you repeatedly unable to defend any of your claims?
This shows you do not know that you are correct.

Not one person has shown me where this rocket gets it's push from. Not one person.
Yes they have, stop lying.
Again, it is very simple. The rocket contains fuel and oxidiser. This is burnt. This results in a large release of energy and a conversion of the fuel and oxidiser to gaseous products. This results in a hot pressurised gas which begins to expand as it is not entirely contained.
This pressure exerts a force on the rocket, on every surface it touches. For a significant portion of it, this force is balanced by a force on another part of the rocket, which means it just contains the pressure in that direction.
But for plenty, there is unbalanced as the pressure is pushing in a direction without pushing on the rocket in the opposite direction.
This results in a net force on the rocket from the pressure.
This net force results in an acceleration.

You ignoring these explanations doesn't magically mean they don't exist.
Meanwhile, you have been completely unable to show why it needs the atmosphere.

You keep believing that. All you're doing is cheating yourself of the facts.
No, that is merely not making delusional claims.
You clearly have no understanding of causality at all. Something being there doesn't mean it is causing an event/phenomenon nor that the event/phenomenon requires it.
Pretending it does is just cheating yourself of actual understanding.

We are dealing with ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE
No, in this particular case we are dealing with your nonsense claim that if X is all around for lots of observations of Y, then X is needed for Y.
It is pure garbage.

Take that away and you take away life itself, never mind arguing for movement.
We aren't discussing life. We are discussing movement. Much simpler.

I think it's been explained and better explained.
You have never explained it.
So far all you have done is provide reasoning along the lines of a horse needs a cart in order to be able to move, and the air is there so must be needed.
You are yet to explain any mechanism of action nor provide any justification for why it is needed.

It's nuts to think people fall into this.
No, it's nuts to think anyone would fall for your nonsense when you are repeatedly unable to provide any explanation yet continually assert you have already explained things.

Now, can you provide any explanation for why everything needs air to move/accelearate?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1697 on: February 28, 2019, 04:59:12 AM »

You are duped into believing rockets carry their own oxygen for fuel mix to burn and you're made to forget the fact that external atmosphere is absolutely required in order for this to work, because you are duped into a belief that this mix will simply eject and push the rocket with no need for a resistance to that push externally to it.
It's absolutely nuts that people who study this cannot see the dupe.


Most of the model rockets on the market use black powder (gunpowder) as the fuel. If, as you imply you believe, this fuel needs atmospheric oxygen to burn, would black powder burn underwater?

It is fairly simple to try for yourself:

Get a firework.
Pull the fuse out.
Light the fuse.
Drop the fuse into a basin of water.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23310
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1698 on: February 28, 2019, 05:57:25 AM »
If they have atmosphere to push off of, what would be the matter if they were 10lbs or 10k lbs? They are still pushing off the atmosphere in the model. What prevents them from going 10 miles or 100 in the skepti model? All the while, with atmosphere to push off of, no 'space' involved.

That is the question.
The strength of atmosphere to push against against the mass of a rocket like we are told would be a massive stumbling block.
Theoretically you could thrust harder against atmospheric resistance to it but there comes a time when a limit would become fixed in terms of getting extra speed from a rocket.
Once this applies then a rocket is worthless.

3000 tonne rockets are the stuff of super imaginary sci-fi sold as a truth.
There's a valid reason for the nonsense and I can accept it as a sci-fi concept if that was the aim.

The problem is, it's not the aim and has gotten more and more silly as time goes on, yet people just refuse to accept that they are being taken the pee out of.

Real rockets works as simple as this: Fuel to mass ratio against atmospheric resistance above and below.

A rocket will max thrust against atmospheric resistance below (the stack it thrusts against) and pushes through the atmosphere above which is a lesser stack than below due to natural stacking.

In order for the rocket to carry on in a vertical motion it must lose mass as it negotiates each atmospheric sandwich layer, which is every micro millimetre (stack).

This enables the rocket to negotiate the ever lessending pressure of the stack as the rocket rises, meaning it will keep a consistent push until burn out, which would be in short order on  near plumb vertical ascent.

For rockets to work in the way we are told is to play sci-fi, because that's all they would ever be,

To understand in simple terms how a rocket really works, just go to basics and get a large foam can. Tip it upside down as if the nozzle was a rocket nozzle.
Now release the foam and picture that foam as burning rocket fuel and atmosphere as you see the expansion.

You'll notice that as long as you keep the nozzle thrusting into the foam below, it will stack and expand.
Nothing inside that foam tin is pushing UP.
All that's happening is happening external to the tin and the resistance of the fuel being expelled.

It can be thought of as the rocket riding on a molecular cushion, just like you would see in those capsules that skydivers use.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23310
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1699 on: February 28, 2019, 06:01:35 AM »


The question is, in your model, rockets/missiles require atmosphere so explain how they don't work as we see them if they remain in the atmosphere?
Are you being cryptic?

Can you read? Take your own model and apply it to rockets as we see them. Forget about space. Your rockets push off the atmosphere. Fine. What about all the evidence you see, we have shown, of rockets doing what they do - How do they NOT work in your model as long as they are in the atmosphere? And explain how they can't do what they do if they are still in the atmosphere? Capiche? Forget 'space' and forget 'vacuums'. Your model. Why don't they work in atmosphere?
Rockets do work in atmosphere. Just the so called heavy one's don't and it should be obvious really.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23310
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1700 on: February 28, 2019, 06:06:51 AM »

You are duped into believing rockets carry their own oxygen for fuel mix to burn and you're made to forget the fact that external atmosphere is absolutely required in order for this to work, because you are duped into a belief that this mix will simply eject and push the rocket with no need for a resistance to that push externally to it.
It's absolutely nuts that people who study this cannot see the dupe.


Most of the model rockets on the market use black powder (gunpowder) as the fuel. If, as you imply you believe, this fuel needs atmospheric oxygen to burn, would black powder burn underwater?

It is fairly simple to try for yourself:

Get a firework.
Pull the fuse out.
Light the fuse.
Drop the fuse into a basin of water.
I have no issue with a burn under water. The water is a resistance to the effects of the burn of the powder and oxy.

You're not helping yourself by using a water burn.
We are talking about the rocket using NOTHING as a resistance to its ejected mass of fuel and oxy, remember.
Let's stick with that.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1701 on: February 28, 2019, 06:24:56 AM »

You are duped into believing rockets carry their own oxygen for fuel mix to burn and you're made to forget the fact that external atmosphere is absolutely required in order for this to work, because you are duped into a belief that this mix will simply eject and push the rocket with no need for a resistance to that push externally to it.
It's absolutely nuts that people who study this cannot see the dupe.


Most of the model rockets on the market use black powder (gunpowder) as the fuel. If, as you imply you believe, this fuel needs atmospheric oxygen to burn, would black powder burn underwater?

It is fairly simple to try for yourself:

Get a firework.
Pull the fuse out.
Light the fuse.
Drop the fuse into a basin of water.
I have no issue with a burn under water. The water is a resistance to the effects of the burn of the powder and oxy.

You're not helping yourself by using a water burn.
We are talking about the rocket using NOTHING as a resistance to its ejected mass of fuel and oxy, remember.
Let's stick with that.

You still have not answered the question.  What experiment could be designed to display the atmosphere is providing the resistance to the rocket?  Thought experiments are not good enough to stand alone.  You need actual repeatable, predictable data.  If a rocket is too difficult to work with, then a firehose reactionary nozzle force is the same principle, perhaps you could experiment with that and show how that is pushing off the air and why If it can push off the air why it canít push off solid objects even better.

You havenít even debunked the rockets, you just claim they are balloons or something.  You have not even taken the time to visit a launch and take measurements or anything to see for yourself how it could be faked.  No one will stop you, you could announce you are there to prove the Earthis flat, no one would do anything to you except maybe laugh.  If it is all fake, why would they need to continue faking hundreds if not thousands of launches all around the world?  Eventually, theyíd mess up and the scam it all is would be laid bare for the world to see.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23310
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1702 on: February 28, 2019, 06:34:03 AM »
You still have not answered the question.  What experiment could be designed to display the atmosphere is providing the resistance to the rocket?  Thought experiments are not good enough to stand alone.  You need actual repeatable, predictable data.  If a rocket is too difficult to work with, then a firehose reactionary nozzle force is the same principle, perhaps you could experiment with that and show how that is pushing off the air and why If it can push off the air why it canít push off solid objects even better.

You havenít even debunked the rockets, you just claim they are balloons or something.  You have not even taken the time to visit a launch and take measurements or anything to see for yourself how it could be faked.  No one will stop you, you could announce you are there to prove the Earthis flat, no one would do anything to you except maybe laugh.  If it is all fake, why would they need to continue faking hundreds if not thousands of launches all around the world?  Eventually, theyíd mess up and the scam it all is would be laid bare for the world to see.
I think there's enough evidence to show rockets do not work in low pressure.
Many an experiment was done with a rocket in a chamber of lower pressure and the rocket failed to ignite.
Gunpowder/cordite was placed into a chamber and pressure lowered. It would not ignite yet ignited extremely well when the pressure was there.

Simple experiments have been done to prove rockets cannot work in extreme low pressure and experiments have been done to show rockets cannot kick themselves up their own arses to gain vertical flight.

No explanation has ever been given as to how a rocket works without external atmospheric resistance of pressure.
The explanation (if it can be called that) is the use of Newton's so called law of action and reaction. That's it. No real explanation as to why.

I keep asking and none of you explain it. Mainstream don't so how can you lot?
THis is why nobody does.
There's simply no legitimate answer to how it works in so called space, as we are told.

If you think you can answer it then describe exactly what happens.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 06:36:06 AM by sceptimatic »

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1703 on: February 28, 2019, 07:05:42 AM »
Blahblah blah scepti
More denial.


How about putting forwaard some thought


What makes pressure?
What is the cause of pressure?

*

Stash

  • 4067
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1704 on: February 28, 2019, 09:53:52 AM »


The question is, in your model, rockets/missiles require atmosphere so explain how they don't work as we see them if they remain in the atmosphere?
Are you being cryptic?

Can you read? Take your own model and apply it to rockets as we see them. Forget about space. Your rockets push off the atmosphere. Fine. What about all the evidence you see, we have shown, of rockets doing what they do - How do they NOT work in your model as long as they are in the atmosphere? And explain how they can't do what they do if they are still in the atmosphere? Capiche? Forget 'space' and forget 'vacuums'. Your model. Why don't they work in atmosphere?
Rockets do work in atmosphere. Just the so called heavy one's don't and it should be obvious really.

Good. So what does 'heavy' mean? What's the cut off on weight? When does the atmosphere no longer allow a rocket to push against it because of its weight no matter the thrust or fuel capacity?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1705 on: February 28, 2019, 12:23:37 PM »
but there comes a time when a limit would become fixed in terms of getting extra speed from a rocket.
And what would this limit be? Do you have the math, preferably backed with experiments, to show what it would be?
Yes, I understand that would actually require a model which includes understanding and mechanisms.
But unless you have that there is literally no basis to claim rockets (at those operating int he atmosphere) are fiction.

Real rockets works as simple as this: Fuel to mass ratio against atmospheric resistance above and below.
Then prove it.
So far all evidence indicates it is thrust to mass ratio, with the atmosphere only playing a minor role.

For rockets to work in the way we are told is to play sci-fi, because that's all they would ever be,
Again, WHY?
You are yet to demonstrate any problem with the way rockets are claimed to work.

To understand in simple terms how a rocket really works, just go to basics
Yes, go to basics. You have stuff burning, producing pressure, which acts to push the rocket. Not that difficult.

An even simpler (and valid, the foam comes out with insignificant force) alternative to yours is a balloon. The gas inside is representative of the burnt rocket fuel under pressure.
There is no indication it needs the atmosphere, and you have been completely unable to demonstrate or explain how the atmosphere would be required.

We are talking about the rocket using NOTHING as a resistance to its ejected mass of fuel and oxy, remember.
No, when discussing real rockets we are talking about the mass itself of the ejected burnt fuel and oxygen proving the resistance, all substances do.
We are also talking about the pressure of the burnt fuel and oxygen acting on the rocket.

I think there's enough evidence to show rockets do not work in low pressure.
You are yet to provide any.
Showing a particular engine, which was made for a model rocket, doesn't ignite in a vacuum, shows nothing other than that particular engine can't ignite in a vacuum.
It does nothing to show that a different engine can't ignite in a vacuum.
It does nothing to show the rocket can't move in a vacuum.

show rockets cannot kick themselves up their own arses to gain vertical flight.
Again, you are the only one claiming such nonsense.

No explanation has ever been given as to how a rocket works without external atmospheric resistance of pressure.
Again, they have been provided, repeatedly. You are yet to show any problem with them.
Repeatedly lying by claiming no explanation has been given doesn't help your case. It just shows you have no case.

The explanation (if it can be called that) is the use of Newton's so called law of action and reaction.
Which you are yet to show any problem with and which you are yet to get to because you can't even get past the second law.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23310
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1706 on: February 28, 2019, 11:17:25 PM »


Good. So what does 'heavy' mean? What's the cut off on weight? When does the atmosphere no longer allow a rocket to push against it because of its weight no matter the thrust or fuel capacity?
I don't know what the cut off rate would be. All I'm saying is, those rockets that supposedly go to space are not real working rockets like we are told. That's my belief.
Let's just agree to disagree on this bit because you will still believe they can throw 3000 tonne rockets into the sky at super speeds. I can't help you with that. You need to help yourself with that by escaping from mainstream brainwashing like I did.

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.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23310
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1707 on: February 28, 2019, 11:19:05 PM »

*

Stash

  • 4067
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1708 on: March 01, 2019, 12:14:05 AM »
Good. So what does 'heavy' mean? What's the cut off on weight? When does the atmosphere no longer allow a rocket to push against it because of its weight no matter the thrust or fuel capacity?
I don't know what the cut off rate would be. All I'm saying is, those rockets that supposedly go to space are not real working rockets like we are told. That's my belief.

Let's just agree to disagree on this bit because you will still believe they can throw 3000 tonne rockets into the sky at super speeds. I can't help you with that. You need to help yourself with that by escaping from mainstream brainwashing like I did.

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?

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?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23310
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1709 on: March 01, 2019, 01:00:47 AM »
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.

Quote from: Stash

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.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2019, 01:04:07 AM by sceptimatic »