Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #160 on: June 04, 2021, 11:21:10 AM »
Please do your research first. Your non-ICBM statement might possibly be a bit incorrect!
If I buy a Lamborghini and only drive it to the grocery store and someone says "That's a sub-100 mph vehicle"  I say "do some research". 
North Korean 'rocket man' has to be a bit careful doing his tests.  The exact capabilities of his missiles are not exactly public knowledge and nether are those of the missiles in USA's arsenal.  It's safe to assume, from the known results of all the previous tests, that these missiles could reach the USA.  That would make them an ICBM. 


Who would have thought that the Japanese could launch a devastating attack on Hawaii in 1941.  Do you blame Hawaiians for being cautious?  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me!
Actually,  it is more safe to assume this renegade despot has no missile capable of reaching the US.

Two launches, neither coming close to defining an ICBM.
A wise man once showed me something about the word ASSUME.  It makes an ASS out of  U and ME.  We try to assume nothing while at sea.  King Neptune can and will come back and bite you, hard.  It's much better to prepare for what the potential facts could be.  You have no way of knowing what rocket man's hole card may actually be.  You don't think the missiles that were actually tested were fully fueled do you?  Perhaps you should just send an email saying that you are putting a bulls eye target in the middle of Jack London Square in Oakland, CA and say 'here you go, rocket man, here's your test target, give it your best shot'.  That way we will both know if you have an ICBM or just a toy.
The bottom line for all of this thread is this.

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

You know, the same type that confront Bible enthusiasts with words like, "How can you believe that garbage!?"

Guys like you and Rama.

I thought the bottom line of this thread was you and Tom studiously avoiding any commitment to any particular map of the FE, or any dimensions thereof. The ICBM discussion seems to be a useful distraction from that issue.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1606
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #161 on: June 04, 2021, 02:15:41 PM »
It's like a guy comes up to you on the street.  He says "give me some money, I have a gun in my pocket".  You look down and see a bulge there and say "I don't believe you have a gun, I'm not gullible and it's just propaganda."  Then the guy says "OK, I'll prove that I have a gun by shooting you between the eyes."  What's the smart thing to do?   On one side of your bet is your life and the other side is just some money. Do you feel lucky, Punk?  Well do ya?     
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #162 on: June 04, 2021, 05:03:20 PM »
I think its more fundamental than that Ron; before you left home, the guy placed an ad in the paper claiming to have a gun, and the local PD, the Sheriff's Dept and State cops also were on TV telling you he has a gun. 

And the cops should know, because they also have guns. 

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 562
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #163 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.
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1606
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #164 on: June 04, 2021, 06:21:05 PM »
Or maybe:
There's been a bunch of news stories about a sniper.  The sniper has been doing some observed and documented quality tests on his rifle, scope, and bullets.  There have been a few test shots and so far and all those have fallen way short of expectations. Some time passes.  There's some articles in the newspapers and on TV saying that there's some rumors claiming that the sniper has been doing more research on guns & ammo lately and now has a new and improved system that is sure to be deadly and has a much longer range.  Then someone steps up and makes the claim, "its all propaganda and you are all being gullible".  That same person then says, "I'm so confident that I'm correct that I'm willing to have someone else stand there and be a test target".  In the mean time I'll just stand behind this bulletproof wall and give the sniper the finger.  When the sniper misses I get to say "told ya".   
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 667
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #165 on: June 07, 2021, 10:34:46 AM »
Please do your research first. Your non-ICBM statement might possibly be a bit incorrect!
If I buy a Lamborghini and only drive it to the grocery store and someone says "That's a sub-100 mph vehicle"  I say "do some research". 
North Korean 'rocket man' has to be a bit careful doing his tests.  The exact capabilities of his missiles are not exactly public knowledge and nether are those of the missiles in USA's arsenal.  It's safe to assume, from the known results of all the previous tests, that these missiles could reach the USA.  That would make them an ICBM. 


Who would have thought that the Japanese could launch a devastating attack on Hawaii in 1941.  Do you blame Hawaiians for being cautious?  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me!
Actually,  it is more safe to assume this renegade despot has no missile capable of reaching the US.

Two launches, neither coming close to defining an ICBM.
A wise man once showed me something about the word ASSUME.  It makes an ASS out of  U and ME.  We try to assume nothing while at sea.  King Neptune can and will come back and bite you, hard.  It's much better to prepare for what the potential facts could be.  You have no way of knowing what rocket man's hole card may actually be.  You don't think the missiles that were actually tested were fully fueled do you?  Perhaps you should just send an email saying that you are putting a bulls eye target in the middle of Jack London Square in Oakland, CA and say 'here you go, rocket man, here's your test target, give it your best shot'.  That way we will both know if you have an ICBM or just a toy.
The bottom line for all of this thread is this.

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

You know, the same type that confront Bible enthusiasts with words like, "How can you believe that garbage!?"

Guys like you and Rama.

I thought the bottom line of this thread was you and Tom studiously avoiding any commitment to any particular map of the FE, or any dimensions thereof. The ICBM discussion seems to be a useful distraction from that issue.
Having difficulty with the OP title there, Bob?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13212
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #166 on: June 07, 2021, 11:06:48 AM »
Having difficulty with the OP title there, Bob?
I have to concur with A80. Bob, if you don't know what the topic of a discussion is, consider finding out before posting. Moreover, do not post mid-thread just to explain that you're lost. There are better places to do that.

As for other super-clever RE trolls in this thread: please don't force me to clean this up. You'll be grumpy when it happens. Get back on topic or get out of the thread.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 667
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #167 on: June 07, 2021, 12:35:19 PM »
It's like a guy comes up to you on the street.  He says "give me some money, I have a gun in my pocket".  You look down and see a bulge there and say "I don't believe you have a gun, I'm not gullible and it's just propaganda."  Then the guy says "OK, I'll prove that I have a gun by shooting you between the eyes."  What's the smart thing to do?   On one side of your bet is your life and the other side is just some money. Do you feel lucky, Punk?  Well do ya?     
I think its more fundamental than that Ron; before you left home, the guy placed an ad in the paper claiming to have a gun, and the local PD, the Sheriff's Dept and State cops also were on TV telling you he has a gun. 

And the cops should know, because they also have guns.
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.
Or maybe:
There's been a bunch of news stories about a sniper.  The sniper has been doing some observed and documented quality tests on his rifle, scope, and bullets.  There have been a few test shots and so far and all those have fallen way short of expectations. Some time passes.  There's some articles in the newspapers and on TV saying that there's some rumors claiming that the sniper has been doing more research on guns & ammo lately and now has a new and improved system that is sure to be deadly and has a much longer range.  Then someone steps up and makes the claim, "its all propaganda and you are all being gullible".  That same person then says, "I'm so confident that I'm correct that I'm willing to have someone else stand there and be a test target".  In the mean time I'll just stand behind this bulletproof wall and give the sniper the finger.  When the sniper misses I get to say "told ya".   
Superb strawmanning harmony fellas!

Tell us, which of you is responsible to see the conductor is recompensed after the nightly performance?

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #168 on: June 08, 2021, 05:21:26 PM »
Having difficulty with the OP title there, Bob?

Well, if we're not happy talking about the shape and size of the earth, let's go back to N Korea's missile test and do some maths, shall we?

You seem reasonably happy that the reported range of the NK missile test, 950km, is accurate. You also seem content that it was indeed a ballistic missile, meaning that after a short burn its trajectory was entirely ballistic, ie dictated by gravity (if you like that sort of thing) or UA (if you don't). I'm going to go out on a limb and also assume that you also agree with with the reported flight time of 53 minutes, although do please let me know if not.

The reason the experts are coming up with ICBM ranges for the missile, despite it flying a relatively short distance, is that if something flies ballistically for that long and only travels 950km, it has to have a very steep launch angle. Indeed, the reported apogee was very high - 4500km. If it was launched at a shallower angle, it would go much further. But you don't need me to tell you that - as you keep saying, the equations are very simple. Even if you dispense with heretical things like the reduction in g as you get away from the earth, if you calculate the speed necessary at 'launch' (more accurately, the end of burn, but let's keep it simple) to fly ballistically for something like 50 minutes (the reported burn time was around 5 minutes), and then try a shallower launch angle, you'll get much bigger ranges than 950km.

If you are genuinely intellectually curious, then do the maths and let us know how you get on.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 667
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #169 on: June 10, 2021, 10:39:22 AM »
Having difficulty with the OP title there, Bob?

Well, if we're not happy talking about the shape and size of the earth, let's go back to N Korea's missile test and do some maths, shall we?

You seem reasonably happy that the reported range of the NK missile test, 950km, is accurate. You also seem content that it was indeed a ballistic missile, meaning that after a short burn its trajectory was entirely ballistic, ie dictated by gravity (if you like that sort of thing) or UA (if you don't). I'm going to go out on a limb and also assume that you also agree with with the reported flight time of 53 minutes, although do please let me know if not.

The reason the experts are coming up with ICBM ranges for the missile, despite it flying a relatively short distance, is that if something flies ballistically for that long and only travels 950km, it has to have a very steep launch angle. Indeed, the reported apogee was very high - 4500km. If it was launched at a shallower angle, it would go much further. But you don't need me to tell you that - as you keep saying, the equations are very simple. Even if you dispense with heretical things like the reduction in g as you get away from the earth, if you calculate the speed necessary at 'launch' (more accurately, the end of burn, but let's keep it simple) to fly ballistically for something like 50 minutes (the reported burn time was around 5 minutes), and then try a shallower launch angle, you'll get much bigger ranges than 950km.

If you are genuinely intellectually curious, then do the maths and let us know how you get on.
The reason why the experts (henceforth warmongers) come up with the ICBM ranges for the missile is the perceived need to govern through means of fear, successfully pushed on the masses for millenia.

You can certainly keep mentally subjugating yourself to these clowns and asshats. I DNGAF what you do.

Plus, you want everyone here to believe this Kim Jong Un is capable of forcing missiles to achieve speeds approaching 32,000 MPH!

What a joke!

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #170 on: June 10, 2021, 11:11:35 AM »

The reason why the experts (henceforth warmongers) come up with the ICBM ranges for the missile is the perceived need to govern through means of fear, successfully pushed on the masses for millenia.

You can certainly keep mentally subjugating yourself to these clowns and asshats. I DNGAF what you do.

Plus, you want everyone here to believe this Kim Jong Un is capable of forcing missiles to achieve speeds approaching 32,000 MPH!

What a joke!

Do you accept the reported distance flown and time of flight as being accurate?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7957
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #171 on: June 10, 2021, 11:12:49 AM »
No ICBM is reported to or required to exceed escape velocity.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 667
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #172 on: June 10, 2021, 11:38:29 AM »

The reason why the experts (henceforth warmongers) come up with the ICBM ranges for the missile is the perceived need to govern through means of fear, successfully pushed on the masses for millenia.

You can certainly keep mentally subjugating yourself to these clowns and asshats. I DNGAF what you do.

Plus, you want everyone here to believe this Kim Jong Un is capable of forcing missiles to achieve speeds approaching 32,000 MPH!

What a joke!

Do you accept the reported distance flown and time of flight as being accurate?
No ICBM is reported to or required to exceed escape velocity.
I believe the real concern and follow up questions should be focused on the warmongering figures presented as translating into the reported "ICBM" as traveling over 32,000 mph!

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #173 on: June 10, 2021, 12:09:45 PM »
I believe the real concern and follow up questions should be focused on the warmongering figures presented as translating into the reported "ICBM" as traveling over 32,000 mph!

I may have missed something, in which case my apologies, but where did the 32,000mph figure come from?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 667
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #174 on: June 10, 2021, 12:14:26 PM »
I believe the real concern and follow up questions should be focused on the warmongering figures presented as translating into the reported "ICBM" as traveling over 32,000 mph!

I may have missed something, in which case my apologies, but where did the 32,000mph figure come from?
Do the math.

Using the figures you provided.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1056
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #175 on: June 10, 2021, 12:25:53 PM »
I believe the real concern and follow up questions should be focused on the warmongering figures presented as translating into the reported "ICBM" as traveling over 32,000 mph!

I may have missed something, in which case my apologies, but where did the 32,000mph figure come from?
Do the math.

Using the figures you provided.
C'mon lackey, you have to show your work if you want full marks on your homework...

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #176 on: June 10, 2021, 01:35:56 PM »
Do the math.

Using the figures you provided.

I too am keen to see how you've arrived at 32,000mph. How did you model the effect of drag on the missile? What about the reduction in mass as the fuel is consumed during the burn? I haven't had time to do the maths I'm afraid. It's not at all 'simple' - that was your word. You keep saying it's just a simple quadratic equation. The truth is far from that - you end up with a set of differential equations that can't be solved analytically, so you have to use some kind of time step solution. Tom would of course say that means rockets aren't real, given his hostility to numerical solutions of n-body problems, but that's best left to another thread.

Nevertheless, even without calculating the numbers accurately, you can presumably see that a flight time of 53 minutes for a downrange distance of just 950km is clearly not a projectile operating at maximum rage. Unless, as per my previous post, you disagree with the figures? Are you saying it wasn't a flight time of 53 minutes? Or the range wasn't as advertised?

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 562
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #177 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!
« Last Edit: June 10, 2021, 02:04:05 PM by WTF_Seriously »
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #178 on: June 10, 2021, 03:00:17 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!
Pff. You can prove anything with facts.
So what now, Lackey? CGI? We weren't there so can't know it happened? There's always some excuse...
"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: 667
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #179 on: June 10, 2021, 03:19:33 PM »
Do the math.

Using the figures you provided.

I too am keen to see how you've arrived at 32,000mph. How did you model the effect of drag on the missile? What about the reduction in mass as the fuel is consumed during the burn? I haven't had time to do the maths I'm afraid. It's not at all 'simple' - that was your word. You keep saying it's just a simple quadratic equation. The truth is far from that - you end up with a set of differential equations that can't be solved analytically, so you have to use some kind of time step solution. Tom would of course say that means rockets aren't real, given his hostility to numerical solutions of n-body problems, but that's best left to another thread.

Nevertheless, even without calculating the numbers accurately, you can presumably see that a flight time of 53 minutes for a downrange distance of just 950km is clearly not a projectile operating at maximum rage. Unless, as per my previous post, you disagree with the figures? Are you saying it wasn't a flight time of 53 minutes? Or the range wasn't as advertised?
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!"