I do add to a conversation
Not really.
You dismiss things as fake and ridicule it and appeal to horribly flawed analogies and ignore everything showing you are wrong.
That isn't adding to a conversation.
They probably don't fake some explosions.
The only reason for those explosions is if it is functioning as a rocket.
If it isn't, and instead is just a magic balloon, then there would be no explosion.
No I haven't.
Yes you have. You ignoring those videos don't make them cease to exist or mean you haven't been shown them.
The person who flew to Australia non-stop. Do you know of anyone?
I know plenty, including my close friends.
You people change it up as and when it suits.
No we don't. You just blatantly misrepresent things to pretend there is an issue.
The issue is.....why ?
See above, you offer nothing to any argument. You just scream fake, dismiss/ignore any evidence provided that shows you are wrong, continually assert the same refuted nonsense and ignore all the problems people point out with it. You then run away for a while and do it all over again.
It makes no sense and always shoehorned to fit whatever narrative, as and when.
What makes no sense?
You are completely unable to show anything wrong with it.
I fully understand the sci-fi that you people push. It's sci-fi by 100%.
See, this isn't you stating an opinion. This is you making a claim as a fact. Just like you repeatedly dismissing it as nonsense.
accept the calculations for stuff that your own logical sense should tell you is impossible.
WHY?
Why should our logical sense tell us it is impossible? You are yet to show a single problem with it. Instead all you have done is appeal to ridicule and spout unsubstantiated nonsense.
This is why people like you think 3000 tonne rockets can launch without simply blasting to smithereens on the launch pad
No. It is because we actually understand. The math has been shown to you which shows this isn't going to cause it to blow up just from the launch. But you ignore all that because it shows your argument is crap.
The calculations you talk about are basically sci-fi.
No, the calculations we talk about are those which allow us to determine some basic feasibility of a rocket. You just need to dismiss them because they show that rockets can work just fine.
Do you know what the important calculations/values are here?
The first ones to go through
The amount of thrust required to get the rocket off the ground and accelerating as seen.
The area this thrust acts upon.
Thus the pressure required to generate this thrust at the nozzle, and also in the combustion chamber itself (if separate from the nozzle).
This pressure can then easily be compared with known values that various materials can support.
If this pressure is small, like a few hundred bar, then it is basically nothing and can easily be held by the rocket without blowing up.
If it is large, like a few million bar, then it would raise very serious questions and cause people to doubt it's authenticity.
After that calculations would include how much fuel is required to get it into orbit, checking that fits within the mass of the rocket.
Notice how we have a sane method of doing some calculations to determine the feasibility, while all you can do is just scream fake and claim it can't happen?
We can all easily confirm for ourselves that small rockets work. Yet you wish to claim this 3000 tonne rocket can't, yet you can provide no justification for why.
If the 3000 tonne rocket should blow itself up, why shouldn't the small rocket?
Just where should the threshold be? What calculations can you make to see if a rocket will blow up or work?
Tell me what Brian Cox did then when he caught up to the sun by... in his words equalling the rotation of the Earth.
One excuse after another when it's called out.
You mean one pathetic distraction after another?
We are discussing rockets here.
Try and stay on topic.