Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #180 on: June 10, 2021, 03:24:03 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.

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 450
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #181 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.
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.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2070
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #182 on: June 10, 2021, 04:17:15 PM »
See if you can come up with how I arrived at 32,000 mph.

How'd you come up with 32k mph? I can't figure out where nor how you arrived at that number. Fastest known ICBM:

LGM-30 Minuteman Maximum speed:
Mach 23
(17,508 miles per hour; 28,176 kilometers per hour; 7.8267 kilometers per second)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #183 on: June 10, 2021, 04:35:35 PM »
Just ry and do the math using the figures you used.

See if you can come up with how I arrived at 32,000 mph.

A perfect opportunity for you to write, "WRONG and HERE is WHY!"

I'm assuming you've done something like running 53 minutes, g, and 950km through a ballistic trajectory calculator or perhaps s=ut+1/2at2 and ended up with 32,000+mph, but I don't know, as you haven't shown any of your calculations. The ball is very much in your court here - you can't just pluck a number out of nowhere and then use it in your arguments - nobody is going to take you seriously unless you 'show your working', as the teachers like to say.

Like I said, I'm curious to see if you've incorporated the burn phase, change of mass and drag into your calculations. I suspect you haven't, but I can't tell because you aren't showing us. Why not just show us?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #184 on: June 11, 2021, 10:25:32 AM »
Just try and do the math using the figures you used.

See if you can come up with how I arrived at 32,000 mph.

A perfect opportunity for you to write, "WRONG and HERE is WHY!"

I'm assuming you've done something like running 53 minutes, g, and 950km through a ballistic trajectory calculator or perhaps s=ut+1/2at2 and ended up with 32,000+mph, but I don't know, as you haven't shown any of your calculations. The ball is very much in your court here - you can't just pluck a number out of nowhere and then use it in your arguments - nobody is going to take you seriously unless you 'show your working', as the teachers like to say.

Like I said, I'm curious to see if you've incorporated the burn phase, change of mass and drag into your calculations. I suspect you haven't, but I can't tell because you aren't showing us. Why not just show us?
Whether or not you take me seriously is not the subject, nor is it any concern of mine.

I hold globular believers in very low regard, especially those incapable of performing very basic math.

So far, no one has demonstrated an ICBM even exists.

So, this entire topic belongs in CN.

How much stuff that has been thrown into the mix just on this thread is a typical display of RE-supporters.

Sane person - "You know something, not one ICBM has even been used, RE or FE. Why try to link an ICBM to the shape of the earth, if this is a fact?"

RE supporter - "Because ICBM's are REAL!"

Sane person - "OK. Show me some evidence they are real."

RE supporter - "These reports from government officials, repeated by MSM."

Sane person - "The same governments that are demonstrably lying to you each and every day and have been for millenia? The same MSM that serves as nothing but a propaganda arm for those governments?"

RE supporters - "OK, what about shipping routes and missing land area?"

It really is getting tiresome.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7820
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #185 on: June 11, 2021, 11:25:08 AM »
Small missiles work. Large ones don’t. Total Lackey, folks. You can’t make it up.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 450
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #186 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.
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.

*

Offline Dr Van Nostrand

  • *
  • Posts: 456
  • There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #187 on: June 11, 2021, 03:30:03 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.


Have you ever seen the Eiffel Tower?
How do you know the Eiffel Tower is real?

I'm guessing you believe in the Eiffel Tower because it doesn't conflict with your worldview even though you've never seen it.
Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2070
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #188 on: June 11, 2021, 05:24:44 PM »
It really is getting tiresome.

Indeed, quite tiresome. So you've decided to not show us your math as to how you arrived at 32k mph? Is there a reason you won't show us?

As well, yes, straight from the Military Industrial Complex and MSM from 1962, there has actually been a live firing of a ballistic missile with a warhead detonation - Granted, it wasn't flown intercontinentally, but it did leave and re-enter the atmosphere after traveling a 1000+ or so nautical miles, minimum-maximum altitude 98,000' - 260,000' (my bolding):

Test:   Frigate Bird
Time:   23:30 6 May 1962 (GMT)
Location:   Johnston Island
Test Height and Type:   SLBM Airburst; 11,000 Feet
Yield:   600 kt
Device Diameter (inches):   18
Device Length (inches):   46.6
Device Weight (lb.):   717
Frigate Bird was the only US test of an operational ballistic missile with a live warhead. This test involved firing a Polaris A1 missile from a ballistic missile submarine. The missile was launched by the USS Ethan Allen (SSBN-608) at 13:18 (local) from a position 1500 nm east-northeast of Christmas Island. The re-entry vehicle (RV) and warhead flew 1020 nm downrange toward Christmas Island before re-entering the atmosphere 12.5 minutes later, and detonating in an airburst at 11,000 feet. The system tested was a combination of a Polaris A1 SLBM, and a W-47Y1 warhead in a Mk-1 RV. The Mk-1 RV had a beryllium heat-sink heat shield, and with the 717 lb warhead had a gross weight of 900 lb. The missile/RV demonstrated an accuracy on the order of 2200 yards. This warhead had a yield-to-weight ratio of 1.84 kt/kg, but the higher yield Y2 variant tested in Dominic Harlem doubled the yield and nearly doubled tht YTW ratio to 3.61 kt/kg.

The image of the Frigate Bird mushroom cloud was taken through the periscope of the USS Carbonero (SS-337) 480 nm ENE of Christmas Island. The Carbonero (along with the USS Medregal, SS-480) was within 30 miles of the burst point.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Dominic.html

Other than riding a missile yourself, I'm not sure what you're looking for...


Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #189 on: June 11, 2021, 09:03:08 PM »
Whether or not you take me seriously is not the subject, nor is it any concern of mine.

It's not me you need to worry about - it's the undecided folks reading this. Your refusal to respond to any basic questions, like whether or not you accept the time of flight figure, or to support your apparently arbitrary figure of 32000mph, just makes it look like you're hiding something. The sum total of your arguments on this thread, and indeed others, is simply saying that stuff isn't true. That's not a debate - you need to actually engage in some kind of discussion, providing evidence and data to support your position.

I hold globular believers in very low regard, especially those incapable of performing very basic math.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but levelling an accusation of an inability to perform basic math when you have, on this thread, completely failed to demonstrate any math(s) skills whatsoever is somewhat hypocritical. In this thread alone you've demonstrated a lack of understanding of cartesian and polar coordinates, claimed that ballistic missiles can be aimed by means of a simple quadratic equation...although you've failed to provide that equation, and failed to comprehend that it ain't that simple. You've then plucked a random figure out of thin air, without any evidence at all, and expected us all to accept it as fact to support your argument.

There's a good reason you aren't providing your calculations, isn't there? If you're embarrassed by your mathematical skills, and you're interested in ballistic missile principles, this website has a useful estimate of the NK missile capabilities based on flight time: https://physicsfromplanetearth.wordpress.com/2017/08/18/the-range-of-north-korean-ballistic-missiles/

They have two pages - the second one has a more precise calculation, but that involves trusting the reported apogee height, which I'm assuming you don't.

So far, no one has demonstrated an ICBM even exists.

But you've demonstrated that you won't accept any evidence that contradicts your worldview - what's the point of engaging in debate if you aren't willing to either change your own position, or to offer up compelling evidence in order to change other peoples'? You're just sat there shouting 'it isn't true'.

So, this entire topic belongs in CN.

How much stuff that has been thrown into the mix just on this thread is a typical display of RE-supporters.

Sane person - "You know something, not one ICBM has even been used, RE or FE. Why try to link an ICBM to the shape of the earth, if this is a fact?"

RE supporter - "Because ICBM's are REAL!"

Sane person - "OK. Show me some evidence they are real."

RE supporter - "These reports from government officials, repeated by MSM."

Sane person - "The same governments that are demonstrably lying to you each and every day and have been for millenia? The same MSM that serves as nothing but a propaganda arm for those governments?"

RE supporters - "OK, what about shipping routes and missing land area?"

It really is getting tiresome.

But you yourself have willingly accepted the reported range of a ballistic missile test - you've used that same statistic to argue against RE proponents. At the above link you can see that, if you also accept the time of flight reports to be true, then that's all the information you need to work out that the range of those missiles is indeed intercontinental. You don't need anything else - no NASA, no governments...nothing. If a ballistic missile can fly for 40 or 50 minutes, then it is capable of flying many thousands of miles.

If you're genuinely curious, there's a wealth of information out there. If you're just here to cynically shout that stuff isn't true, then we can't help.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #190 on: June 14, 2021, 10:45:46 AM »
Having difficulty with the OP title there, Bob?
Indeed, the reported apogee was very high - 4500km. (the reported burn time was around 5 minutes)
Again, I refer you to your own quote.
If you are genuinely intellectually curious, then do the maths and let us know how you get on.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2021, 12:26:33 PM by Action80 »

*

Online Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 948
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #191 on: June 14, 2021, 01:11:01 PM »
OK, those are two of the numbers that could come into play.... still waiting to see the Action80mathTM that got you your magic number

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #192 on: June 14, 2021, 02:58:02 PM »
This is like he's lost in the desert, and he wants us to find him by working out how he misread the map.  It's purely conjecture, but here's some calculations:

Action80 highlighted the altitude, which corresponds to 2796 miles.  If he assumed that it reached this altitude in (the highlighted) 5 minutes, at a constant velocity of 2796/5 x 60, that would give a speed of 33,500 mph, which is "over 32,000 mph". 

Of course, that would mean that he thought "end of burn time" = "apogee", and that it didn't either accelerate or decelerate during its ascent, and I'm sure he wouldn't be that dumb, because he tells us that knows what the B (and all the other letters) in ICBM stands for. 

However, as many correspondents have already said, we have no idea how he got where he is, so all we have is conjecture. 


Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #193 on: June 14, 2021, 05:36:56 PM »
Having difficulty with the OP title there, Bob?
Indeed, the reported apogee was very high - 4500km. (the reported burn time was around 5 minutes)
Again, I refer you to your own quote.
If you are genuinely intellectually curious, then do the maths and let us know how you get on.

Like I said, in the same quote you are referring to, all the maths you need is here: /https://physicsfromplanetearth.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/papertable-1-e1515874894590.png

It covers speed calculations for the apogee / flight time in question.

Have you read it?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #194 on: June 15, 2021, 10:41:03 AM »
Having difficulty with the OP title there, Bob?
Indeed, the reported apogee was very high - 4500km. (the reported burn time was around 5 minutes)
Again, I refer you to your own quote.
If you are genuinely intellectually curious, then do the maths and let us know how you get on.

Like I said, in the same quote you are referring to, all the maths you need is here: /https://physicsfromplanetearth.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/papertable-1-e1515874894590.png

It covers speed calculations for the apogee / flight time in question.

Have you read it?
Yes.

Here is the summary:

I. 404 Not Found

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #195 on: June 15, 2021, 10:54:52 AM »
Yes.

Here is the summary:

I. 404 Not Found
Tut. The link was bad, but it didn't take too much figuring out. For the hard of thinking though, here:

https://physicsfromplanetearth.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/papertable-1-e1515874894590.png
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #196 on: June 15, 2021, 11:38:55 AM »
Yes.

Here is the summary:

I. 404 Not Found
Tut. The link was bad, but it didn't take too much figuring out. For the hard of thinking though, here:

https://physicsfromplanetearth.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/papertable-1-e1515874894590.png
Yeah, a wordpress file.

With just an analysis.

LOL!

You guys are rich!

Still waiting on the ICBM.

Still waiting on the math disproving 32,000 MPH wrong.

You got jack here and you all know it.

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #197 on: June 15, 2021, 11:44:01 AM »
Still waiting on the math disproving 32,000 MPH wrong.
Because you haven't presented your maths so we can look at what you get wrong.
Do that, then we can talk.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #198 on: June 15, 2021, 12:29:50 PM »
Still waiting on the math disproving 32,000 MPH wrong.
Because you haven't presented your maths so we can look at what you get wrong.
Do that, then we can talk.
At this point, I will further point out that if one clicks on this link:
https://physicsfromplanetearth.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/papertable-1-e1515874894590.png
with a different browser (this is important) you will see a distinct difference in rendering, perhaps leading one to believe the handlers of SteelyBob and AATW are certainly one in the same, with instructions on the level of,"QUICK, go fix my screw up!"

RE Supporters - "We are are wondering how you got your figures. Can you show us? In the meantime, allow us to post this BS WordPress table with figures that have no explanation as to how they were derived and furthermore, no author to which it can be attributed for verification. We are sure you will not catch this."

Sane person - " You are kidding, right?"

Note differences in rendering of the webpage, one, and then note it is just a stupid WordPress document, with no mention of the author, two, and no accounting of how they arrived at their math presented in their useless table.

Clicking on AATW's, link shows the table clipped from the WordPress page, a sure sign of dishonesty.

Either way, both SteelyBob and AATW, are guilty of not providing the name of the author of this piece of trash table, something I thought TFES was keen on avoiding. If you cannot provide proper references, both of you should stop posting.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2021, 12:40:31 PM by Action80 »

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #199 on: June 15, 2021, 12:37:09 PM »
Further, a parabola extending 4500km to the y and 950km to the x in the span of a 5 minute burn, with a total flight time of 53 minutes?

LOL!!!