*

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Nobody Important
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #300 on: July 08, 2021, 05:45:03 PM »
If you think you are somehow claiming that on the one hand, I am wrong by giving the average velocity of 8000km/h derived by your figures, then only to provide the displacement/t as the correct figure, then you would need to counter this: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/velocity_avg.php
Type in 0 for initial velocity and 16,000 km/h for final velocity.

See what you get.

Finally people can see where you're getting your information.

Riddle me this, Batman.

My initial velocity is 0.  In one second I accelerate to 16,000 km/hr.  I travel at 16,000 km/hr for 4:59 for a final velocity of 16,000 km/hr.  Same numbers in your calculator.

Are you telling me my average velocity over the 5 minutes was 8,000 km/hr??????
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #301 on: July 08, 2021, 05:58:23 PM »
If you think you are somehow claiming that on the one hand, I am wrong by giving the average velocity of 8000km/h derived by your figures, then only to provide the displacement/t as the correct figure, then you would need to counter this: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/velocity_avg.php
Type in 0 for initial velocity and 16,000 km/h for final velocity.

See what you get.

I get exactly what I would expect if the acceleration is constant.
The acceleration is not constant in the scenario we are discussing. This is the thing you are continually failing to understand.
And if you don't understand that - which is the fairly simple bit - the idea that you have the ability to calculate the other stuff given the constantly changing value of g with height is a little far fetched. You need calculus for this sort of thing.
We are not discussing acceleration.

And we are not discussing constant velocity either.

We are discussing exponential velocity.

You do not need calculus to determine g at altitude.

As you stated, you are clearly demonstrating the reality of the issues discussed being beyond your ability.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2021, 06:01:27 PM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #302 on: July 08, 2021, 06:00:34 PM »
As you stated, you are clearly demonstrating the reality of the issues discussed being beyond your ability.
OK. How about we both calculate the average velocity in WTF's scenario. I've already done it by the way. Do you want to have a go?
Let's see who has the better understanding, shall we?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #303 on: July 08, 2021, 06:08:32 PM »
As you stated, you are clearly demonstrating the reality of the issues discussed being beyond your ability.
OK. How about we both calculate the average velocity in WTF's scenario. I've already done it by the way. Do you want to have a go?
Let's see who has the better understanding, shall we?
Use the calculator provided.

That is what I used.

I am not going to drift off the subject here, despite your desperate desire to do so.

As I stated earlier, and in agreement with SteelyBob, the velocity profile of a missile is not linear in form and is exponential.

However, in the case of this particular claim, the exponential velocity profile of this happens to achieve the claimed velocity over a displacement of 250km, while not drifting very far from vertical, nor does it drift very far from vertical relative to t.

Either way, the average velocity measures are not going to be that significantly different from a linear calculation.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #304 on: July 08, 2021, 06:12:12 PM »
If the missile is no longer under additional power at an altitude of 250km, and is being subjected to g=9.08m/s2, demonstrate how it is possible for the missile to continue to gain 4250 km of additional altitude to apogee while decelerating.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #305 on: July 08, 2021, 06:17:21 PM »
As you stated, you are clearly demonstrating the reality of the issues discussed being beyond your ability.
OK. How about we both calculate the average velocity in WTF's scenario. I've already done it by the way. Do you want to have a go?
Let's see who has the better understanding, shall we?
Use the calculator provided.

That is what I used.

I know you did. That calculator is for kids doing simple problems. It doesn't make that clear, but this is where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
It's obvious that you can't just take the start and end velocities and take an average. For the last time: you can only do that if the acceleration is constant.

It's obvious that in WTF's example that the average velocity must be very close to 16,000km/h because that is how fast he's going for almost the whole time.
So to calculate the average you have to split it into sections (which is what I did when I outlined how a rocket could end up at 16,000km/h and go approximately 250km/h)

In WTF's example there are only 2 sections - the first second where he accelerates and then the rest of the time when he's going at 16,000km/h.
You need to calculate the distance of each part, add them up and then you can calculate the average velocity:

1 second
0-16,000 - average = 8000km/h (you CAN do that here because it's a constant acceleration)

Distance = speed * time
= 8000 * 1/3600 = 2.22222km [divide by 3600 so the units of hours match]

4m 59 seconds = 299 seconds
Distance = 16,000 * 299 / 3600 = 1328.88888km

Total distance = 2.22222 + 1328.88888 = 1331.11111

Velocity = distance / time = 1331.11111 / 5 * 60 = 15973.333km/h [times by 60 to get back to hours].

See? Not that hard. And here's the point. The fact you didn't understand that should tell you that you do not understand any of this as well as you think you do.
And when you get into variations of g with height you're into a whole other level of complication.

You do not have the understanding to discuss this. Which isn't a crime, but in this thread you are just being a breathing Dunning-Kruger curve. My friendly advice is to recognise your own limitations in understanding before talking so confidently on things you don't know much about.



Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

SteelyBob

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #306 on: July 08, 2021, 08:22:27 PM »
As you stated, you are clearly demonstrating the reality of the issues discussed being beyond your ability.
OK. How about we both calculate the average velocity in WTF's scenario. I've already done it by the way. Do you want to have a go?
Let's see who has the better understanding, shall we?
Use the calculator provided.

That is what I used.

I am not going to drift off the subject here, despite your desperate desire to do so.

As I stated earlier, and in agreement with SteelyBob, the velocity profile of a missile is not linear in form and is exponential.

However, in the case of this particular claim, the exponential velocity profile of this happens to achieve the claimed velocity over a displacement of 250km, while not drifting very far from vertical, nor does it drift very far from vertical relative to t.

Either way, the average velocity measures are not going to be that significantly different from a linear calculation.

You now appear to be throwing in the horizontal aspect of the missile’s trajectory and muddling that with the vertical velocity profile. That has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing here. For the sake of argument, everything we have discussed would be entirely valid for a missile going vertically straight up. The exponential velocity growth, the decreasing g profile as altitude increases…just keep it simple and vertical until you’ve grasped this basic concept.

Why don’t you have a go at calculating the average speed of a velocity profile like the one I suggested earlier. Go ahead…what would the average velocity of this profile be?  :

1 minute stationary
1 minute at 1000km/h
1 minute at 2000km/h
1 minute at 4000km/h
1 minute at 8000km/h
0 minutes at 16000km/h

Go ahead - do the maths. Then repeat, but reduce the time step to 30 seconds, with speeds altered accordingly but still following the same exponential growth. Then do it again at 15 seconds, 7 seconds, 3 seconds….now you’re getting close to a numerical solution of a simple integral.

Then we can talk about how to calculate the velocity profile, and how to find the area under the velocity time graph.

Then we can develop a function for g with increasing altitude, and use it to develop another velocity profile for the missile as it decelerates. Then we can integrate that one too.

Then we can throw in the x axis, and start discussing elliptical versus parabolic trajectories and the effect of the curvature of the earth.

But I think we’re a long way off that, don’t you? Given that you seem to be massively struggling with the whole 250km thing.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #307 on: July 09, 2021, 10:25:46 AM »
As you stated, you are clearly demonstrating the reality of the issues discussed being beyond your ability.
OK. How about we both calculate the average velocity in WTF's scenario. I've already done it by the way. Do you want to have a go?
Let's see who has the better understanding, shall we?
Use the calculator provided.

That is what I used.

I am not going to drift off the subject here, despite your desperate desire to do so.

As I stated earlier, and in agreement with SteelyBob, the velocity profile of a missile is not linear in form and is exponential.

However, in the case of this particular claim, the exponential velocity profile of this happens to achieve the claimed velocity over a displacement of 250km, while not drifting very far from vertical, nor does it drift very far from vertical relative to t.

Either way, the average velocity measures are not going to be that significantly different from a linear calculation.

You now appear to be throwing in the horizontal aspect of the missile’s trajectory and muddling that with the vertical velocity profile. That has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing here. For the sake of argument, everything we have discussed would be entirely valid for a missile going vertically straight up. The exponential velocity growth, the decreasing g profile as altitude increases…just keep it simple and vertical until you’ve grasped this basic concept.

Why don’t you have a go at calculating the average speed of a velocity profile like the one I suggested earlier. Go ahead…what would the average velocity of this profile be?  :

1 minute stationary
1 minute at 1000km/h
1 minute at 2000km/h
1 minute at 4000km/h
1 minute at 8000km/h
0 minutes at 16000km/h

Go ahead - do the maths. Then repeat, but reduce the time step to 30 seconds, with speeds altered accordingly but still following the same exponential growth. Then do it again at 15 seconds, 7 seconds, 3 seconds….now you’re getting close to a numerical solution of a simple integral.

Then we can talk about how to calculate the velocity profile, and how to find the area under the velocity time graph.

Then we can develop a function for g with increasing altitude, and use it to develop another velocity profile for the missile as it decelerates. Then we can integrate that one too.

Then we can throw in the x axis, and start discussing elliptical versus parabolic trajectories and the effect of the curvature of the earth.

But I think we’re a long way off that, don’t you? Given that you seem to be massively struggling with the whole 250km thing.
There is no muddying the vertical velocity profile with the trajectory profile.

As stated, the trajectory profile, according to you, achieved a 250km altitude, at a velocity of 16,000 km/h.

The trajectory profile is such that it does not vary too widely from vertical, so little in fact, that any derived measure using calculus to gain the result will not vary too far from the result using a linear method.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #308 on: July 09, 2021, 10:26:47 AM »
but in this thread you are just being a breathing Dunning-Kruger curve.
My friendly advice is to heed your own advice and bow out.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #309 on: July 09, 2021, 10:37:49 AM »
but in this thread you are just being a breathing Dunning-Kruger curve.
My friendly advice is to heed your own advice and bow out.
I think I will, because I don't feel I have the ability to do the calculations given the varying 'g' with altitude. As I've said, this stuff is complex.
And, with respect, you definitely don't have the ability. The fact that you couldn't calculate the average speed in WTF's scenario demonstrates that.
If an object is accelerates to 16,000km/h in 1 second and then goes at that speed for 4m 59s then clearly the average speed over the 5 minutes can't be 8,000km/h.
That's like saying that the average of a sequence of numbers like:

 0 | 16,000 | 16,000 | 16,000 | 16,000 | 16,000 | 16,000 | 16,000

is 8000 simply because the first number is 0 and the last is 16,000. Of course it isn't. That is not how you calculate averages.
So your simple calculator won't work in that scenario, and the fact you didn't understand that or know how to calculate the actual average shows that you don't have the ability to do these even more complicated calculations.

So you are basically reduced to making an argument from incredulity. That's all you've got.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #310 on: July 09, 2021, 11:20:42 AM »
but in this thread you are just being a breathing Dunning-Kruger curve.
My friendly advice is to heed your own advice and bow out.
I think I will, because I don't feel I have the ability to do the calculations given the varying 'g' with altitude.
And, with respect, you definitely don't have the ability.
a=GM/r2

Add the additional altitude to the r value.

See ya.

PS: Quit claiming these calculators online are not acceptable because they do not provide the answers you want them to have. People use these calculators all the time to perform university classwork, which is accepted in the university.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2021, 11:24:43 AM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #311 on: July 09, 2021, 11:26:03 AM »
but in this thread you are just being a breathing Dunning-Kruger curve.
My friendly advice is to heed your own advice and bow out.
I think I will, because I don't feel I have the ability to do the calculations given the varying 'g' with altitude.
And, with respect, you definitely don't have the ability.
a=GM/r2

Add the additional altitude to the r value.

See ya.
You've simply presented a formula which I guess you looked up just like you looked up the calculator which you didn't understand.
Can you work it through and work out the maximum height of the missile?
I suspect not but prove me wrong, let's see your workings.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #312 on: July 09, 2021, 11:27:32 AM »
PS: Quit claiming these calculators online are not acceptable because they do not provide the answers you want them to have. People use these calculators all the time to perform university classwork, which is accepted in the university.
Like any calculator, you have to understand how to use them and in which scenarios they apply and which ones they do not.
You have demonstrated that you do not understand this even when I have explained it multiple times.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #313 on: July 09, 2021, 11:58:12 AM »
but in this thread you are just being a breathing Dunning-Kruger curve.
My friendly advice is to heed your own advice and bow out.
I think I will, because I don't feel I have the ability to do the calculations given the varying 'g' with altitude.
And, with respect, you definitely don't have the ability.
a=GM/r2

Add the additional altitude to the r value.

See ya.
You've simply presented a formula which I guess you looked up just like you looked up the calculator which you didn't understand.
Can you work it through and work out the maximum height of the missile?
I suspect not but prove me wrong, let's see your workings.
I certainly didn't look to you for the formula, but along with what has proven to be the rest of your nonsense, it seems to now be a prerequisite for people who you deem to be worthy to contribute that they be born with formulas already included if they choose to contribute here in order to be valid. Never mind, they need to consume formula prior to understanding language.

Nonetheless, check out the figures I already provided at 250km, which happens to be 9.08m/s2 and at 667km, which happens to be around 8m/s2.

According to RET:
G = 6.67408 * 1011
M = 5.972 * 1024
r = 6.371 * 102

At 250km, you add 2.5 *105 to the radius, resulting in 6.621 *106.

6.67408 * 1011 * 5.972 * 1024
        (6.621 *106)2

I can't post the picture of the calculator I used to find the result of this equation here, but doing so would probably only result in you claiming I do not know how to use that calculator either or even worse (God forbid), I didn't make the calculator myself, therefore it isn't valid.

You are dismissed now.

Have a nice day.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2021, 12:37:03 PM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #314 on: July 09, 2021, 12:55:19 PM »
I certainly didn't look to you for the formula, but along with what has proven to be the rest of your nonsense, it seems to now be a prerequisite for people who you deem to be worthy to contribute they be born with formulas they choose to contribute here in order to be valid. Never mind, they need to consume formula prior to understanding language.

You need to be able to understand how to use formulas and calculators. You demonstrated above that you do not.
And you can say that it has been "proven to be the rest of your nonsense" as much as you like, that proof seems to only exist in your own mind.
You showed above that you can't work out averages correctly because you didn't understand in which circumstances some calculator you found online applied and when it doesn't apply.
I'm sorry if you didn't understand my explanation but I don't think I can make it any clearer. You not understanding this doesn't make you right.

Quote
At 250km, you add 2.5 *105 to the radius, resulting in 6.621 *106.

6.67408 * 1011 * 5.972 * 1024
        (6.621 *106)2

Well colour me surprised but it seems in this instance you have used a calculator correctly. Well done you.
But what makes calculating the maximum height so complicated is that as the height increases g continues to decrease.
So that has to be taken into account - as has been explained to you, you need calculus for this sort of thing and it's complicated.
Given that you don't understand averages, I'd gently suggest this is above your level of understanding and math.
But if you want to have a go and show you're workings then I'm happy to have a look

(Spoiler: You won't)

Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #315 on: July 09, 2021, 01:33:55 PM »
^Translation of above post for those in need.

"I am relatively peeved you demonstrated you do know how to use calculators and that you have blown a tremendous hole in our fictional working. How dare you!"

To summarize again for those unfortunate enough to be relegated to sifting through all the attempts to bury the obviously correct math:

Average velocity (linear) is calculated by (final velocity+ initial velocity)/2 as demonstrated here: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/velocity_avg.php

It has already been admitted the calculation I provided is correct.

At issue is whether the trajectory profile and the velocity profile of the November 2017 Hwasong-15 missile are such that they vary so far from vertical as to fundamentally affect the results if they were measured using calculus to derive average velocity.

They will not.

The other fundamental question is this: "If the missile is no longer under additional power at an altitude of 250km, and is being subjected to g=slightly over 9m/s2,  how it is possible for the missile to continue to gain 4250 km of additional altitude while decelerating."
« Last Edit: July 09, 2021, 02:02:29 PM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #316 on: July 09, 2021, 02:22:08 PM »
Average velocity (linear) is calculated by (final velocity+ initial velocity)/2 as demonstrated here: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/velocity_avg.php
That is true if - and try and stay with me here - if and only if the acceleration is at a constant rate between the initial velocity and final velocity.
That is not the case with WTF's example. That is not the case with rockets.
I'm sorry you don't understand that but you are the only person in this thread who is confused about this.

Quote
The other fundamental question is this: "If the missile is no longer under additional power at an altitude of 250km, and is being subjected to g=slightly over 9m/s2,  how it is possible for the missile to continue to gain 4250 km of additional altitude while decelerating."
I actually don't know if that is possible, the math is beyond me and thus it's definitely beyond you.
I had a look at an online calculator too and it appeared you'd need to be going a lot faster than that.
BUT that calculator did not take into account the effect of g decreasing with altitude. The difference between us is I understood that the calculator wasn't appropriate for answering this question.
It's taking the variations in g with altitude into account which makes this so complex.

So all you're left with is an argument from incredulity. Weak.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Nobody Important
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #317 on: July 09, 2021, 02:33:25 PM »

Average velocity (linear) is calculated by (final velocity+ initial velocity)/2 as demonstrated here: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/velocity_avg.php


I'm going to paraphrase a comment made to me in another thread.

To be frank, if you believe the above applies to rocket trajectory you're not qualified to be having this discussion.
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #318 on: July 09, 2021, 02:50:32 PM »
It has already been admitted the calculation I provided is correct.

I'm not so sure of that at all. This rocket trajectory estimation business is way more complicated than what you lay out.

This from an MIT Lab notes called, "Trajectory Calculation - Lab 2 Lecture Notes"
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiklKfV-NXxAhUKDzQIHclzAj4QFjAMegQIAhAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.mit.edu%2F16.unified%2Fwww%2FFALL%2Fsystems%2FLab_Notes%2Ftraj.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1JqxPzrCnEHqwBJZyr-9ys

Here's all the stuff you have to take into consideration when it comes to calculating rocket trajectories and such. It's not just a simple average of velocity equals altitude/distance. It's way, way more complicated:



The lab notes go on to bring all of these factors to the fore. Through a slew of daunting equations. You're factoring like two or three parameters out of the 16+ that need to be taken into account. Just try and bend your mind around fuel mass flow rate, for one, and your head will explode.

So no, you are no where near qualified to say your calculations show that ICBM's aren't viable (neither am I), but there are people that are able to show that they are viable.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #319 on: July 09, 2021, 03:11:39 PM »
It has already been admitted the calculation I provided is correct.

I'm not so sure of that at all. This rocket trajectory estimation business is way more complicated than what you lay out.

This from an MIT Lab notes called, "Trajectory Calculation - Lab 2 Lecture Notes"
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiklKfV-NXxAhUKDzQIHclzAj4QFjAMegQIAhAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.mit.edu%2F16.unified%2Fwww%2FFALL%2Fsystems%2FLab_Notes%2Ftraj.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1JqxPzrCnEHqwBJZyr-9ys

Here's all the stuff you have to take into consideration when it comes to calculating rocket trajectories and such. It's not just a simple average of velocity equals altitude/distance. It's way, way more complicated:



The lab notes go on to bring all of these factors to the fore. Through a slew of daunting equations. You're factoring like two or three parameters out of the 16+ that need to be taken into account. Just try and bend your mind around fuel mass flow rate, for one, and your head will explode.

So no, you are no where near qualified to say your calculations show that ICBM's aren't viable (neither am I), but there are people that are able to show that they are viable.
Nice strawman.

I was referring to the calculation regarding average velocity I provided.

Since the flight in question has already been taken and the flight path along with trajectory has already been established for the record, no need to go back and calculate a trajectory.

The claims (according to RE adherents here) is the trajectory was such as to not vary from vertical to a wide degree.

Using calculus to determine average velocity over the given profile would not yield a significantly different result from a linear calculation.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.