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 - Action80

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18  Next >
1
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 14, 2021, 10:45:46 AM »
Having difficulty with the OP title there, Bob?
Indeed, the reported apogee was very high - 4500km. (the reported burn time was around 5 minutes)
Again, I refer you to your own quote.
If you are genuinely intellectually curious, then do the maths and let us know how you get on.

2
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 11, 2021, 10:25:32 AM »
Just try and do the math using the figures you used.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, this entire topic belongs in CN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It really is getting tiresome.

3
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 10, 2021, 03:24:03 PM »

The bottom line for all of this thread is this.

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


I've been happy to let you go on and on.  Give a man enough rope kind of thing

But Jesus F*&@ing Christ.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2021/02/24/air-force-launches-unarmed-unarmed-minuteman-3-missile-from-vandenberg-afb/

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/first-2020-minuteman-iii-test-launches-as-new-start-countdown-begins/

As for Dear Leader go ahead and look foolish as long as you'd like.

Bye now!

The bottom line for all of this thread is this.

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


I've been happy to let you go on and on.  Give a man enough rope kind of thing

But Jesus F*&@ing Christ.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2021/02/24/air-force-launches-unarmed-unarmed-minuteman-3-missile-from-vandenberg-afb/

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/first-2020-minuteman-iii-test-launches-as-new-start-countdown-begins/

As for Dear Leader go ahead and look foolish as long as you'd like.

Bye now!
Pff. You can prove anything with facts.
So what now, Action80? CGI? We weren't there so can't know it happened? There's always some excuse...
So, how much was missile and how much was re-entry vehicle, I wonder.

Not an ICBM.

But, by all means, continue.

Bye now.

4
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« 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!"

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

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

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

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 09, 2021, 10:05:59 AM »
You advocate listening to drug dealers for sound advice of any sort?

You clearly do:

In my sister's case, a combination of pneumonia (doctor stated bacterial, likely due to the issue of MASK BS) and undiagnosed (due to no regular screenings) spreading of prior breast cancer.

Good to hear you know more than a licensed MD.

This is you holding up MDs as authorities. I recommend you stay consistent, one way or the other.
If you were holding up solicited advice or opinion as a point, you would have one.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 08, 2021, 04:18:54 PM »
Where no advantage is conferred, we already mix the sexes. Horse riding for example has no men's and women's. They compete on an equal footing.

However ... there are sports at a first glance you'd expect men and women to be equal at. Snooker is one. I mean, that's not strength or stamina based. Its all about skill and hand eye co-ordination. And yet women do not stand a chance against the men.

Watch the video below. In it ... snooker supremo Ronnie O'Sullivan plays the current reigning female world champion.


He laid a 147 on her in the opening frame!

No woman has ever hit a 147 in the history of the game. And there at an exhibition he just smokes her. She has never ever faced firepower like that in her career.

That women in the video is the greatest female player ever and has been female world champion 12 times!

Her highest ever break is 118. She has only ever hit 2 century breaks in her life. How can she possibly compete against a guy that just dropped a 147 in an exhibition and who has made over 1000 century breaks over his career?

If she were to compete against men, she wouldn't even be in the top 10,000. In other words there would be no women's professional snooker if you mixed the sexes. No women would ever qualify for a tournament. So ... if a half decent male snooker player decides to identify as a woman ... do you think a drop in testosterone is going to make it fair?

It is the exact same story with darts. You'd expect parity. The average for the top female darts player this year for women is Anca Zijlstra averaging 88.41 and it s a huge drop off to second place where a few ladies average around 82ish per 3 darts. The top guy this year is averaging 123.4. It isn't remotely close.

No tiered structure you could imagine is going to give women an equal footing. It is not just about height, weight or hormones. There are so many differences and they are not addressed during sex change operations. They don't make you terrible at snooker when they try to turn you into a woman, nor do they make you terrible at darts and nor do they make you terrible at driving. ... They cannot make you a woman. Only a pale imitation that is pretty unconvincing.
That was goddamn amazing!

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 08, 2021, 03:48:09 PM »
That clearly does not state trans kids are banned from playing sports.
Ah, I assume you're suggesting they play sports on the team they don't identify with. Neat.
How you identify is irrelevant.

If I suddenly show up demanding a senior citizen discount at my local restaurant because I feel 65 years old, they are under no obligation to cater to my feelings because the reality is I am not 65 years old despite my feelings.

How does this fact escape you?

You should discuss this with doctors. The medical professionals have been studying transgendered people for 100+ years and the consensus is that your characterization is incorrect. Despite the protests against acting on feelings, you, Thork and Tom have been making emotional pleas draped in post hoc  rationalizations.
I have discussed it with doctors. They simply want to push more pills.

Still doesn't change the fact that I am not 65 years old.

You advocate listening to drug dealers for sound advice of any sort?

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 08, 2021, 10:17:51 AM »
That clearly does not state trans kids are banned from playing sports.
Ah, I assume you're suggesting they play sports on the team they don't identify with. Neat.
How you identify is irrelevant.

If I suddenly show up demanding a senior citizen discount at my local restaurant because I feel 65 years old, they are under no obligation to cater to my feelings because the reality is I am not 65 years old despite my feelings.

How does this fact escape you?

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 07, 2021, 04:11:10 PM »
The OP is about banning kids from sports.
Hmmm...

How can you possibly comment on this issue at all, when you have no clue about what the OP even is?

I defy you to find mention of banning kids from sports in the OP.

The first sentence of the article posted in the OP
Quote
On June 1, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law that would ban trans athletes from participating on female sports teams at the high school and college level.
That clearly does not state trans kids are banned from playing sports.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 07, 2021, 03:35:30 PM »
The OP is about banning kids from sports.
Hmmm...

How can you possibly comment on this issue at all, when you have no clue about what the OP even is?

I defy you to find mention of banning kids from sports in the OP.

14
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« 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?

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 07, 2021, 11:41:52 AM »
You say that a girl isn't necessarily one that wears dresses or has long hair, so we can't go by physical choices, then. So, what does a girl have that a boy does not? If we go back to 'female brain', what does a female brain do that a male brain does not?
According to the link I posted it has more to do with structure and volume as opposed to what a female brain "does." You're going to have to ask these medical researchers what the significance of the brain structure is.

You're not going to get anything you want from me with this question. There is no one way to be or do anything. Hell, I break a lot of typical female stereotypes. I know of a couple trans women that are way more feminine than I am. This is pointless.
Yeah, it's pointless, because you know damn good and well what a girl is and it just so happens to be you don't have the balls to answer the fucking question.

Which happens to be a good thing, by the way.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 07, 2021, 11:17:17 AM »
So I’ve just decided that I identify as a woman so can I go into the women’s locker rooms now? What do you mean no? Don’t you oppress me.

It's interesting how skeptics always seem to take it for granted that support for trans rights goes hand in hand with a credulous acceptance of anyone acting in bad faith as long as they say the magic words. I have absolutely no problem with using some common sense when allowing claimed transwomen into women's spaces. Saying "I identify as a woman" doesn't make you trans, and neither does wearing a wig and a dress.

Quote
I’m not convinced that pandering to people’s psychological issues is helping them.

You can call it whatever you want, but the phenomenon is very real. There are millions of people who feel the way they do, and they're not going to just "snap out of it" or go away no matter how certain you are that scientifically they shouldn't exist. We can either treat them with compassion or continue to marginalize and isolate them, and I feel that making appeals to scientific accuracy is a very poor justification for the latter, especially when the burden placed on society and individuals for "pandering" to them is such a trivial one.

It should be utterly illegal to prevent a person going through puberty and mucking about with their development whilst they are children. You do not know your own mind as a child and should not be able to consent. If you can't consent to sex until you are 16/17, why is it you can consent to being castrated and filled with hormones at the age of 10? That's some pretty fucked up liberal logic right there.

This does not happen. If there's one piece of misinformation above all that needs to be corrected, it's this. Children who believe they may be transgender are not given life-altering surgeries or chemical treatments. At most, they receive puberty blockers in their adolescence to delay - not permanently prevent, but delay - the effects of puberty until they're old enough to make a decision about how they want to live their life. It's not always perfect. I feel awful for the woman in the article you linked, but she was seventeen when she began taking male hormones, and twenty when she had her breasts removed. She wasn't a brainwashed child. Wherever there are major medical procedures, there will be people who undergo them and later regret doing so. I don't think that's an effective argument for getting rid of them altogether.

Also, here is a good article that details much of the science behind all this, as well as the rules and procedures for treating trans youth. A lot of this is admittedly specific to America, but I would be astonished if things were especially different in any other Western nation.
Yeah, the typical response from a lib.

"I feel oppressed!" - lib

"Why? What happened?" - Anyone

"Nothing!" I just feel oppressed!" - lib

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 07, 2021, 11:12:32 AM »
I don't see why kids, who have transitioned during or before puberty and have the estrogen levels of other girls can't compete in sports with other girls.
Well how about we get schools girls running against greyhounds? Or racehorses? Young racehorses of course. I mean, we wouldn't want them to have an age advantage. A genetic advantage such as 4 legs or a Y-chromosome, no problem though.  ::)

And the arguments get sillier and sillier.

"I do not like your argument, therefore I will call it silly." - Rama Set

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 07, 2021, 11:04:26 AM »
Non-elite males will beat ultra-elite females, quite soundly.
Just because you write it, does not make it true.

Like, I'm, pretty sure you can't run 100 meters in 10.49 seconds.  And I'm willing to bet that your local HS team of men can't either.
Yes, high school boys can run faster than 10.49 seconds in the 100 meters.

Yes, high school boys teams can beat elite national women teams.

Just do your own research to understand who is writing the crap here.

Hint, it isn't me.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: New to Flat Earth - curious
« on: June 07, 2021, 10:53:52 AM »
So I am new to the Flat Earth Theory.  I don't know much about it other than "The earth is flat."  I am curious about a few things.  This is not a challenge to debate. I am not that interested in proving you wrong. I am just curious about the Flat Earth answers. 

1) Seen from earth, the night sky apparently revolves around the Pole Star.  Whether this is due to the earth's motion, or the celestial sphere's motion.. doesn't matter to me.  But as you travel south, eventually the Pole Star disappears below the northern horizon.  If the earth is flat, this shouldn't happen. No matter what the distance to the pole star is, if it is visible from one point on the plane of the earth, it should be visible from any other point.  Maybe it could be obscured by dust or just be too faint to see as you get farther away, but it should never dip below the horizon.
This is a common misconception.

Eventually, things that are above you in the sky will disappear from your sight for a multitude of reasons, two of which you mentioned in your post.

The earth has many objects existing on its surface, all of which serve to act as potential obstacles when viewing objects located in the sky.
2) similar question (geometrically speaking).. how does the Flat Earth theory explain that the people in, say, China have daylight after America has seen the sun dip below the horizon?
The sun happens to be lighting that portion of the earth's surface during that time.
3) If the earth is flat, then the shortest distance between two points is a simple straight line. Yet ship captains and airline pilots follow a great circle path, which is the shortest distance between two points on a sphere.  Are sailors and pilots deceived? Or is there a vast conspiracy where sailors and pilots are following straight lines and pretending to use spherical geometry for navigation?   It is true that on a circular map centered on the north pole that straight lines in northern latitudes can be very close to their great circle counterparts, but then south of the equator (as measured on sphere) the difference between straight lines and great circle paths is much greater.  What does Flat Earth Theory say to this?
The great circle path is simply what happens when you draw a straight line on a sphere.

Navigation of all sorts has remained essentially unchanged, is all based on celestial sphere navigation, with simply different methods of accomplishing that type of navigation as technology has improved.

20
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« 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?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18  Next >