1081

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 09, 2021, 05:10:35 PM »

Average
Velocity
Is
Meaningless
To
This
Entire
Question

lol, I have given up trying to explain that.

1082

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !

« on: July 09, 2021, 04:11:35 PM »

You are claiming the rocket in the video is still traveling vertical from point of origin?

I'm claiming that had it hit a physical dome it would have been smashed to pieces.
And had it just caught a glancing blow it could have survived that maybe, but it would certainly have changed direction. All that actually happened when it "hit the dome" is it stopped spinning.
Because a despinning device was activated.

1083

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 09, 2021, 04:09:20 PM »

This from the same guy who tried to make up numbers so it would fit an average speed of 3000km/h for an object to travel 250km in 5 minutes.

Yeah. You couldn't get through your head how it was possible. So I showed one way it's possible. No need to thank me.
But, again, the average velocity isn't the issue here, the final velocity is.
But the fact you don't know how to calculate the average velocity is telling, it shows that you are not qualified to make statements like:

an object under no propulsion at an altitude of 250km, experiencing g=9.08m/s2, will not, under any circumstance, gain an additional 4250km of altitude.

Can you show the math which proves that - given that g decreases with altitude which makes these calculations extremely complex.
You need to account for the constantly changing value of g as the rocket ascends. If you think you can do that then great, let's see your working

(Spoiler - you can't)

1084

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !

« on: July 09, 2021, 03:50:25 PM »

As we witnessed the dome appears at 73 miles

Why do you keep posting that video and saying it's a rocket "hitting the dome"?
It's a despinning device. You can see that the rocket stops spinning, it doesn't stop or smash into pieces as it would it if was hitting something solid at that speed.

1085

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 09, 2021, 03:39:53 PM »

I believe the above calculator performs the function of calculating average velocity very well.

IF the acceleration is constant from the starting velocity to the final velocity.
That is not the case with rockets and it's not the case with the example WTF gave.
This is all a diversion, it actually doesn't matter what the average velocity is. What matters it the height and velocity at the time of engine shutdown.
THAT is what determines how high it will go.

But the answer is complicated for reasons which have been explained to you.
The average speed doesn't matter, but what does matter is that you don't understand how to calculate it. The fact you can't do that relatively simple math shows that you are nowhere near qualified to do the far more complex calculations needed to work out how high the rocket will go given the starting conditions.

So all you're left with is an argument from incredulity.

1086

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« 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.

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.

1087

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« 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.

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)

1088

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« 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.

1089

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« 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.

1090

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« 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.

1091

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes

« on: July 09, 2021, 10:22:47 AM »

Oh, we're doing that again are we? Cherry picking an interpretation? I can do that too, look!:

http://www.steppesoffaith.com/apologetics/god-okay-eat-bacon

I'm just telling you one of the justifications I've heard. There's more in the above.
If you disagree and you consider yourself a Christian then feel free to follow the old rules.

1092

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 09, 2021, 09:49:16 AM »

Excellent 

https://kotaku.com/sonic-smut-is-flooding-trump-s-new-social-network-1847226591

1093

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes

« on: July 09, 2021, 07:52:18 AM »

Paul's vision in Acts 10 is generally why Christians don't feel bound by OT rules on food.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010&version=NIV

1094

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« 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.

1095

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« 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?

1096

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 08, 2021, 05:40:22 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.

1097

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes

« on: July 08, 2021, 05:10:09 PM »

Well, we are told that God doesn't change or lie

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A38-48&version=NIV

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also

God's nature doesn't change, but we are no longer under the law or the old covenent.
And while this is a complicated subject, the Jesus I see in the Gospels didn't preach hate.

1098

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 08, 2021, 04:33:46 PM »

If you travel 250km in 5 minutes, you would certainly need to end up at some final velocity.

Yes

But given a starting velocity of 0 and a final velocity of whatever you choose it to be (in your example it was 16000km/h), that currently results in an 8000km/h average velocity.

That is a fact.

It is literally the opposite of a fact. That only works if the acceleration was constant over the 5 minutes, which in the case of a rocket it is not.

The average velocity is simply the distance travelled divided by the time it took.

250km / 5minutes = 50 (kilometers per minute). To get to km/h multiply by the 60 minutes in an hour 50 x 60 = 3000km/h

It is also a fact if the average velocity of 8000km/h is distributed over a period of time = 5 minutes, that does not = 250km traveled.

That is a meaningless statement, you don't "distribute" an average over a period of time, the average is just what it is, and I've explained how to calculate it.

It is also a given that at 250km, RET demands g=9.08m/s². A missile under no further engine power will certainly not continue its parabolic trajectory in order to gain an additional 4250 km in altitude while decelerating.

I am less sure about this. I found an online calculator for projectiles and that appears to be correct BUT I don't know if that was clever enough to take into account how g varies with altitude. This stuff is complicated, to be honest the maths is beyond me and, with respect, from this conversation I think it's beyond you too.

1099

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes

« on: July 08, 2021, 04:13:47 PM »

That's some OT stuff right there. I thought Jesus made things better after that?

Indeed.

But people with certain agendas like to cherry pick certain verses to make their point but conveniently ignore others which they'd rather not want to worry about.

1100

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 08, 2021, 04:10:37 PM »

Now your just throwing bogus numbers and argumentation in the mix. 15000 doesn't even get you to, what was it again? 7.17 m/s, right?

"you're".

And all I'm doing is explaining that final speed and average speed are not related. 15,000 is arbitrary as is the speed of light in my other example.
I was just making the point that you could travel 250km in 5 minutes and end up at pretty much any final speed.