Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - SteelyBob

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17  Next >
1
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« 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?

2
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« 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.

3
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« 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?

4
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« 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?

5
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« 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?

6
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« 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?

7
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« 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.

8
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« 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.

9
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 03, 2021, 02:10:11 PM »

It has nothing to do with what kind of points you offer up and you know damn well it doesn't.

Despite your objections, you know damn well it has to do with no defined 0/0.

Without a defined 0/0, the actual distance of each grid set forth by intersecting lines of lat/long, or x/y, or whatever you choose to call them, cannot be officially defined, and hence why you all struggle so mightily with issues of distance when it comes to interpreting whole world maps.

Further, when it comes to mapping specific areas, such as what you have offered up, that is a depicted as FLAT on a flat piece of paper.

Which FE map are you backing, and what are its dimensions?

Why do you refuse to answer such a basic question?

Action80 - still waiting for you to explain which FE map you think best represents the earth, and to give some indication of its dimensions.

Tom - still waiting for you to help Action80 out with the distance-between-two-lat/longs maths challenge.

10
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 27, 2021, 06:26:56 PM »

It has nothing to do with what kind of points you offer up and you know damn well it doesn't.

Despite your objections, you know damn well it has to do with no defined 0/0.

Without a defined 0/0, the actual distance of each grid set forth by intersecting lines of lat/long, or x/y, or whatever you choose to call them, cannot be officially defined, and hence why you all struggle so mightily with issues of distance when it comes to interpreting whole world maps.

Further, when it comes to mapping specific areas, such as what you have offered up, that is a depicted as FLAT on a flat piece of paper.

Which FE map are you backing, and what are its dimensions?

Why do you refuse to answer such a basic question?

11
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 27, 2021, 12:33:49 PM »

I am not struggling with it at all.

I told you how to do it.


No, you didn't. You wheeled out a formula for working out the distance between cartesian coordinates and then, when I pointed out that you can't plug lat/long into that because they are measured in degrees, you went off down some weird rabbit hole about the arbitrary nature of origins, oblivious to the fact that pretty much all coordinate systems are in some way arbitrary, and it doesn't effect the distance between points. I'd be quite happy to do the maths for you, as you quite clearly can't do it yourself, but to do that I'd need you tell me a fair bit more about what size and layout you think the earth actually is - this is your model, not mine. If you can't put your support behind a map, and tell me its dimensions, we can't work out distances, can we?

Unless you want people reading this to assume that you're talking nonsense, I strongly suggest you in some way engage with the debate and put up some actual answers. Which FE map are you backing? Monopole? Something else? And how big is the map? Give us some usable dimension, like a radius, or a distance per degree of latitude, for example.

12
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 27, 2021, 07:56:05 AM »
Tom, can you help Action80 with the fiendish 'finding the distance between two lat/longs' challenge? He's still struggling.

13
I said 50,000 feet to allow enough to angle see the stars, which would be right on the horizon at ground level. I should have said 40,000 feet, because on FE, no problem with the horizon. Does it give you a sense of triumph to have avoided the question of the simple geometry.

The question is, what happens to magnetic compass, gyrocompass, gps, and sighting north star and southern cross at 90 degrees from each side of the plane.

If you keep the north star at 90 degrees, what happens to the southern cross? Does it remain at 90 degrees, and how can this be on the FE map? How can the southern cross appear directly south of two planes traveling opposite directions?

Really, there is no good answer to how a gyroscope works on FE or where is the southern cross, is there? Just another one of those things FE can't explain yet, it would seem. I got no answer.

Try this one:

In the early evening Capetown SA, one can see the southern cross directly south. At the same moment it is predawn morning in Melbourne AUS and the southern cross is visible directly south. How can that be? What happens to a plane that takes off from Capetown and keeps the southern cross at 90 degrees to its left? WHich southern cross does it circle, or does the apparent position of the southern cross travel along the dome?

Are FEs aware when they answer these questions their mental process is to try to think up any possible explanation that allows FE and not to consider the plausibility of their answer? Seems to be all defense strategy, no consideration, and FEs always say we should be skeptical, except for FE.

Where on the FE map is the southern cross? How can it appear on different places on the dome at the same time?

We've been round this buoy a few times now in other threads - see this one, for example: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18036.80. I pointed out that it is in fact dark at the same time in three continents, and then posed a similar question.

The FE debating tactic with this one seems to be a pick-and-mix of the following:

- "no it isn't". This is just a flat refusal to accept any evidence whatsoever with no counterpoint or engagement in debate offered
- pointing out that the southern cross isn't actually the true southern pole. Have a good straw man wrestle and point out that it is visible in the northern hemisphere and therefore call the entire astronomical body of knowledge into question.
- if Sigma Octantis, the closest thing to an actual southern pole star, is used instead of the southern cross, point out that it is too dim to be seen, ignoring the fact that it can be seen (it's just not that bright) with the naked eye, or indeed a scope, and, even if it is hard to see...it's still there.
- ignore the thread and hope it goes away
- throw in some vague possibility that the stars I'm seeing in Africa might be different to the stars you are seeing in Australia.
- under no circumstances discuss the possibility of observing a star, then driving or sailing a few hundred miles east or west and observing the same star continuously throughout on the same bearing
- maybe throw in some mag variation to confuse things

I think that about covers it.
 

14
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 26, 2021, 06:48:27 PM »
I am certainly not stating the distance couldn't be worked out using two points.

You are not paying attention.

I am stating the two points being arbitrary would be close, but it was not used to fire those missiles which you love to use.

Like I wrote earlier, a much more likely scenario  would have been actual distances obtained by close up surveillance of the land, performed by live people.

But the two points aren't themselves arbitrary. They are measured from the same arbitrary datum. As the formula you yourself provided clearly shows, it matters not where that datum is, because the x and y pairs are subtracted from each other to find an x/y pair of differences, which are then squared, summed and rooted to find the hypotenuse - the distance between them. Are you suggesting that your formula would return a different result if I moved the origin for the same pair of points? Because that's basic maths, and if you're struggling with that, then we aren't going to get anywhere.

You and Tom have both acknowledged that people navigated for years using celestial nav to obtain their positions - expressed as a lat/long. You yourself described lat/long as an 'x/y coordinate system' - not strictly true, given that it's an angular system, but never mind. You said you could calculate distances between two points using your formula, but now you seem to have rolled back on that citing some very odd excuse about the arbitrary nature of longitudes - odd because of course that would also apply to the monopole FE map. Where is the zero longitude line on that?

You are refusing to engage in any discussion about how one might convert lat/long into some form of coordinate on the monopole FE map. You are refusing to discuss which FE map you believe to be correct, or what its dimensions are. This stuff should be bread and butter for an FE enthusiast, surely?

Instead, all you do is dodge questions and say everything is lies. Fine by me - I don't suppose I'll ever persuade you to change - I'm just making sure nobody else coming here is persuaded by your arguments, and your total failure to answer questions or engage in any meaningful debate is plain to see, which does rather undermine your position. Entirely up to you how you proceed.

15
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 26, 2021, 04:56:54 PM »

Essentially, being with you requires the thought the latitude/longitude system in place is based on a globe, when it isn't.

So, no.

I will never be "with you."

Because that is a flat out lie.

It's arbitrary, as you just admitted.

All coordinate systems are to some extent arbitrary. You can have any origin you wish. As long as the coordinates all reference the same system, distances between pairs of coordinates will give the same result.

You yourself said you could work it out with your formula, but now you're saying you can't because the system is wrong. But all those mariners through the ages, diligently recording their lat/long based on celestial observations (as per Tom's statement)...were they wrong, then?

And what, exactly, is the lat/long system we should be using then? What system do you suppose our Iraqi Scud aimers were using?

And which FE model are you using?

And how big is the FE?
 

[edited to remove tautology!]

16
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 26, 2021, 04:40:59 PM »
Of course you wouldn't mind which is the point of origin, given there is no true longitudinal zero for the fake sphere.

That's completely irrelevant. Longitudinal datum is indeed entirely arbitrary - a historic debate won by the British. But that's equally true of the monopole FE map, which is, I'm assuming, your preferred model? You and Tom have both agreed that lat/long coordinates work just fine on FE, so where's the problem there?

Origins are generally arbitrary things. Your formula, using cartesian coordinates, would return the same distance between two places regardless of where the origin was placed. It could be one of the two places, or somewhere entirely different - it would all cancel out.

Your problem isn't the origin. Your problem is you've triumphantly presented a formula for cartesian coordinates but you've been given lat/long, measured in degrees. So plugging degrees into a formula designed for distances isn't going to work. You need some way of converting the two, especially since you and Tom keep saying how simple it is and how, for example, mariners have been navigating that way for ages. Well, ok...but they've been using lat/long for centuries, and very happily calculating distance between points. So you need to explain how that could be possible on a FE.

If you are going with the monopole model, what you effectively have in a lat/long is a set of polar coordinates. These are normally a distance and an angle, of course, but on the monopole FE that's kind of what you have. Longitude makes sense on either RE or FE. Latitude though can't be an angle on the monopole FE. So you need some way of converting degrees latitude to a distance from north pole - the origin of your polar coordinate system. I don't know what you want to use for this conversion because you guys never really say - I guess 1nm per minute of latitude, as per conventional navigational thinking? That would give a radial distance for the FE of 180 * 60 = 10,800 nautical miles, which is pretty close to the Wiki's estimate for the radius.

Assuming you're happy with that conversion, you should just be able to plug in any lat/long to a polar/cartesian coordinate converter and, hey presto, out will come the x/y pairings you need to plug into your formula. Then we can get some distances out of you.

With me so far?

17
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 26, 2021, 11:55:35 AM »

I am sure they do.

They also use a point of origin.

What, exactly, do you mean by 'point of origin'?, and how does that facilitate the calculation of a distance between two lat/long points?
Whenever you calculate distance between two point on a x/y coordinate system, there is always a point of origin.

Then it is simply the distance formula d=√((x2-x1)²+(y2-y1)²)

Ok...so one of the two points is your x1y1 and the other point is your x2y2

I gave you two places, one in Iraq and one in Tehran, with a lat/long for each. I don't mind which one you take as your point of origin, if that's how you like to think about it. I just want you to plug the coordinates in to your equation and work out the distance between them.

Quote
If I was struggling with it, then I would not have given the formula for how to do it.

Careful though...your formula there is for cartesian coordinates, so you'll want to convert your lat long before you plug the numbers in, or maybe just come up with a formula that works the distance out directly from the angular coordinates on, presumably, the monopole FE map. Curious to see how you go about doing that.

Looking forward to your answer!

18
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 26, 2021, 11:33:48 AM »

I am sure they do.

They also use a point of origin.

What, exactly, do you mean by 'point of origin'?, and how does that facilitate the calculation of a distance between two lat/long points?

19
RET makes no predictions about planes flying at 50,000 feet.

No one here will ever be in a plane flying at 50,000 feet.

What is the matter with you?

Lots of aircraft fly that high. Concorde used to. Military aircraft do it all the time. And his point would have been equally valid at, say, 38,00ft, where airliners are typically found.

Why not just address the point, instead of deflecting?
 

20
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 26, 2021, 08:54:16 AM »
So Tom has said:

There are ways to get your latitude or longitude from the celestial bodies, such as from the angle of the Sun at noon, but all of the FE models also have a longitude and latitude.

And Action80 said this, a little while ago in a different thread:

As if Lat/Long is not an x-y coordinate system, when it clearly is anyway.

...but now seems to be struggling to calculate the distance between a pair of lat/longs, for want, apparently, of some x-y coordinates on a 'flat chart':

I could calculate the distance given those coordinates on a flat chart.

So now is your chance to shine, FE people. Tom, Action80 or somebody...a really simple task for you, given that you agree that lat/long is a coordinate system and that all FE models have lat/long too, which can be derived from celestial navigation methods. All you have to do is demonstrate how you would calculate the distance between two lat/long pairs of coordinates, like the ones I used in my example earlier in this thread. You keep saying it's really simple to do. So do it, and show your calculations.



Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17  Next >