221

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 18, 2021, 01:55:23 PM »

You contend that 159,000 lbs consisted of a, "majority of which is fuel," based on "what exactly?"

Based on the fact that it's going to be quite similar to this:

https://minutemanmissile.com/solidrocketboosters.html as well as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman#:~:text=The%20Minuteman%2DIII%20has%20a,800%20ft%20(240%20m).

I'll highlight the pertinent points for the Minuteman II and III since it appears reading isn't your thang.

1st stage weight 51,251 lbs.  Fuel weight 45,670 lbs.
2nd stage weight 16,057 lbs. Fuel weight 13,680lbs.
3rd stage weight 8,187 lbs. Fuel weight 7,292 lbs.

In case math ain't your deal either, that's total stage weight 75,795.  Total fuel weight 66,642. With the total missile weight of 79,432 that would be 83+% fuel.  I'll give you credit for knowing the definition of majority.

Any idea on the altitude and rate of travel achieved by the time of engine cut off? It is apparent you disagree with the 4500 km achieved at that time, contending an unpowered ballistic object can continue gaining a significant amount of altitude after impetus is removed.

Didn't take my advice on that high school physics class evidently.  I even pointed out the important things here like initial velocity and acceleration (hint: in this case it's G).  I did forget to mention how to calculate distance traveled.

Extremely curious how high you think a bullet travels when shot straight up.  You do realize a bullet is an 'unpowered ballistic object' once it leaves the barrel, right?

If you'd like to continue your 'Nuh uh!' game that's great.  But please, try not to embarrass yourself in the process.

222

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 17, 2021, 06:23:17 PM »

I feel like playing the game this morning.

^Now admits the missile had no fuel at launch?

Evidently your reading comprehension is poor as your understanding of physics.  Nowhere is it stated there is no fuel at launch.  There's a huge weight of fuel at launch which decreases to zero at the end of burn which is the point of Duncan's post with regards to how much mass would be left at the end of the burn to continue to apogee.

Regardless, 5 minutes of burn cannot in any form or fashion satisfy requirements of d=rt given 4500km yand 950 km x.

Please enroll in a first year high school physics class and learn about things like acceleration and initial velocity and then reassess this and get back to us.

Burn must take place in total from time of ignition to end of burn.

Who said differently?  Back to the reading comprehension again I guess.

No on, then off, then on again.

See comment immediately above.

223

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 11, 2021, 01:42:03 PM »

Sane person: Here's all the evidence of test launches of ICBMs

Action 80.  Nuh uh!

It really is getting tiresome.

224

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 10, 2021, 03:42:57 PM »

The bottom line for all of this thread is this.

The only evidence that exists for ICBM's is some propaganda and gullible believers.

I've been happy to let you go on and on.  Give a man enough rope kind of thing

But Jesus F*&@ing Christ.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2021/02/24/air-force-launches-unarmed-unarmed-minuteman-3-missile-from-vandenberg-afb/

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/first-2020-minuteman-iii-test-launches-as-new-start-countdown-begins/

As for Dear Leader go ahead and look foolish as long as you'd like.

Bye now!

The bottom line for all of this thread is this.

The only evidence that exists for ICBM's is some propaganda and gullible believers.

I've been happy to let you go on and on.  Give a man enough rope kind of thing

But Jesus F*&@ing Christ.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2021/02/24/air-force-launches-unarmed-unarmed-minuteman-3-missile-from-vandenberg-afb/

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/first-2020-minuteman-iii-test-launches-as-new-start-countdown-begins/

As for Dear Leader go ahead and look foolish as long as you'd like.

Bye now!

Pff. You can prove anything with facts.
So what now, Action80? CGI? We weren't there so can't know it happened? There's always some excuse...

So, how much was missile and how much was re-entry vehicle, I wonder.

Not an ICBM.

But, by all means, continue.

Bye now.

That's what you're going with?  LMFAO.

225

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA and China sitting in a tree...

« on: June 10, 2021, 02:15:38 PM »

...on Mars.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57427797

I thought this was interesting. So I guess now NASA are faking images of other countries' craft I guess to keep the whole "spaceflight is a thing" ruse going?

Wonder how much China had to pay for time on the sound stage?

226

Science & Alternative Science / Re: The June Eclipse

« on: June 10, 2021, 01:49:35 PM »

Was fortunate to enjoy a nice cigar while watching the 2017 eclipse from my back yard.  Spectacular.  So much so I'm seriously contemplating a little vacay to Mexico in 2024.

Would love to witness an annular eclipse but I live on the wrong coast for this one.

227

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 10, 2021, 01:45:18 PM »

The bottom line for all of this thread is this.

The only evidence that exists for ICBM's is some propaganda and gullible believers.

I've been happy to let you go on and on.  Give a man enough rope kind of thing

But Jesus F*&@ing Christ.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2021/02/24/air-force-launches-unarmed-unarmed-minuteman-3-missile-from-vandenberg-afb/

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/first-2020-minuteman-iii-test-launches-as-new-start-countdown-begins/

As for Dear Leader go ahead and look foolish as long as you'd like.

Bye now!

228

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with Southern Astronomy

« on: June 07, 2021, 07:56:51 PM »

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17601.0

229

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New to Flat Earth - curious

« on: June 07, 2021, 01:56:01 PM »

The great circle path is simply what happens when you draw a straight line on a sphere.

Navigation of all sorts has remained essentially unchanged, is all based on celestial sphere navigation, with simply different methods of accomplishing that type of navigation as technology has improved.

TGWATY. Just remember to do your own research into some statements you may find here.  Everyone here has some form of bias and no one is correct all of the time, especially me.

The great circle path is not simply "what happens when you draw a straight line on a sphere" as you probably are already aware.



The great circle path is one that appears as an arc when the shortest 3-D path along a sphere is represented on 2-D representation as shown.

Also, almost all travel these days is done using GPS which has nothing to do with a celestial sphere unless you want to consider all of the GPS satellites orbiting earth as a 'celestial sphere.'

230

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 04, 2021, 08:40:33 PM »

There's nothing hilarious about this, and I don't believe for a second that Trump really thinks he'll be reinstated. This is all part of his strategy to maintain his political relevance, a strategy that has so far been enormously successful. Since losing the election and crying foul, Trump has solidified his dominance of the Republican Party, endeared his base to him all the more, and raised over two hundred million dollars. There's no dignity in being a sore loser, and it's easy to mock Trump for that, but he's not delusional or desperate. He knows exactly what he's doing, and it's a very smart move.

Exactly.  He's played 1/2 the American population like Itzhak Perlman plays a Stradivarius.

231

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 04, 2021, 08:14:03 PM »

58 Days to Reinstatement.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-to-be-reinstated-in-august-as-president-of-trump-university

232

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes

« on: June 04, 2021, 05:21:09 PM »

this is a savagely misguided and antiquated understanding of psychological disorders — especially schizophrenia — but let's set that aside for a moment. suppose that it were the case that one could treat schizophrenics by indulging their beliefs. suppose you could just be like "yeah man, the cia and aliens, cool beans" and doing so made them happy, productive members of their communities instead of suicidal social pariahs. would you have a problem with that treatment option?

Kinda unrelated but we saw first hand on Jan. 6 the potential of what happens when you continually feed the fantasies of delusional people.

233

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 04, 2021, 05:16:44 PM »

I think it's more like so the guy pulls out the gun and fires it at the wall but since the bullet didn't hit you right between the eyes it really wasn't a bullet so the guy really doesn't have a gun like he claims because guns fire bullets.

234

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 03, 2021, 08:14:31 PM »

I believe we were talking about whether the Republican Legislature in the states were being nefarious about the audits. If it was found that they lied about audits, or audits in the past, that would be evidence against them. In that case we had Rama Set calling everything that disagreed with him to be wrong or a lie.

What, exactly does this have to do anything?

In this case we do have evidence that Russia has lied about ICBM technologies, with you summarily declaring that there is no evidence of them being nefarious about ICBMs. Quite the opposite of your portrait of the situation.

Do you sell cherries?  You sure do seem to do a lot of cherry picking.

You seemed to overlook this:

with respect to any information regarding whether or not ICBMs exist.

part of my post.

The nefarious activity was in effort to imply more power than may have actually been the case.  The fact that ICBM technology existed wasn't in question.

235

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 03, 2021, 04:35:03 PM »

I never stated his/her testimony was bogus.

Quit lying.

You most certainly did.  After being given a firsthand account, you continued with your narrative of:

Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"

with respect to any information regarding whether or not ICBMs exist.  That's a direct assertion that RonJ's testimony was bogus.

Bye now.

236

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 03, 2021, 03:27:26 PM »

When you cannot produce evidence of use, I would suppose.

I have seen Tomahawks in use, hitting their intended targets.

I have also seen mortars in use, hitting their intended targets.

Just my own testimony.

Why should we believe your testimony?  To anyone else but you it is just unverified second hand drivel.  The exact thing you have completely dismissed and ignored this entire thread and deemed as proof of nothing.

RonJ gave his own personal testimony of witnessing the test of a North Korean ICBM yet you have completely dismissed it and discounted it. 

I'll give out a clue.  Yes 'rocket man' can launch ICBM's.  I did a little checking in my personal records that did indicate that I was aboard a ship that did transit the Sea of Japan between North Korea and Japan during the launch of Hwasong 14.  That voyage was a little unique in that we had alarms going off and incoming traffic telling us that North Korea had launched a missile.  This was a warning to us because what goes up has to come down.  That missile was spotted on a trajectory that did pass over our ship and did come back down and landed in the sea near Japan.  We were quite a distance from where the missile landed but what if something went wrong on the assent and we got hit when the missile finally landed?  It was a small chance but it's something to be concerned about.   So again here are some observations from first hand personal experience so I didn't have to spend any time doing Google searches.

What makes your testimony so special?  Short answer is it isn't.  Yours is no more proof of something as anyone else's.

In the end, Tom Bishop can sum up your entire line of debate in this thread way better than I can:

Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"
That is a desperate argument from a losing position. An argument from a position of strength would have positive evidence for that position.

237

Technology & Information / Re: NFT my posts

« on: June 02, 2021, 01:28:17 PM »

There's no telling what STD's would accompany said NFT.  I'm out.

238

Flat Earth Community / Re: Add the Three Pole variants to the FE Maps Page?

« on: May 28, 2021, 12:58:49 PM »

Presumably someone could just adopt same arguments used for the Monopole model for that one, since there are anomalous winds in the particular latitudes that race takes place in. That version of a three pole model is somewhat similar to the classic one.

The point of adding them would really just be to open more options in user creativity more than anything, since people go there to that page to look at variations. There is also a historical component since the first pre-Robotham FE model of the 1800's was a three pole model.

I'll paraphrase something I saw Pete write.  Just because you say something over and over again doesn't make it true.  There's nothing 'anomalous' about the winds in the south.  We know about them and we measure and predict them.  I knew you were going to bring up this worn out untruth like you always do.  In this case, it doesn't hold up.  The navigational route I mentioned is all contained within the same 'anomalous wind' zone.  The winds would affect the route sailed equally through both sections as to make a 7 fold difference in distance absurd.  Please stop with this tact, if makes you look quite foolish.

I get the point of soliciting creativity, but IMO, if the example of 'creativity' is so outlandish as to be laughably stupid it may not be the best example to use.

239

Flat Earth Community / Re: Add the Three Pole variants to the FE Maps Page?

« on: May 27, 2021, 08:51:29 PM »

So Tom is actually wanting us to consider that the sailing distance from the Cape of Good Hope to New Zealand may be roughly 7 times the sailing distance from New Zealand to Cape Horn.

In other words, the Indian Ocean is 7 times larger than the Pacific Ocean.

Tom, the Vendée Globe sailors would like to have a word with you.

240

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 25, 2021, 06:02:43 PM »

Are high commodity prices necessarily negative? Don't you want commodities producers to make money?

Heavens no.  We want to get involved in a silly trade war with one of the biggest consumers so that we are required to spend billions in subsidies to keep them afloat.