1441

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 15, 2021, 10:32:02 AM »

Acceleration for a race car is certainly not constant, yet average velocity over the course (also not linear) is expressed as defining the winner.

Yes, it's almost as if they can take the total approximate distance the car has driven, and then divide that number by the amount of time it took the driver to run the course. That is, notably, different than how you're coming up with the (wrong) average velocity in your own example. Do you see the difference?

Of course. That is why I was first in this thread to offer the d=rt solution, using five minutes for t and 250km for d, equaling 3000km/h. As far as your objection to the other calculation of average velocity = final velocity+initial velocity/2, well, you will just need to take that up with physicists and the other "sciency" dudes. Cause it is just as legit and it clearly demonstrates AATW's figures to be totally bogus.

An interesting real-world example to share.

Aerie Luyendyk averaged 236.986mph (381.391km/h) in qualifying for the Indy 500 in 1996, with his four-lap time of 2m31.908s still unmatched today.

That car, like all race cars, starts out at 0km/h. By lackey-math, that means it must have finished the race at 762.79km/h in order to achieve the record-holding average velocity of 381.391km/h. So lackey, can you show us evidence that IndyCars regularly finish races at velocities greater than 700km/h? That seems like a hard thing to just take on faith.

Since you are demonstrating extreme ignorance concerning how an average velocity of a four lap qualifying velocity, or even an average velocity of a whole race, is actually calculated, I doubt you should remain in the conversation any longer.

I will offer you a clue. The average velocity calculation for the four lap qualifier does not, should not, or would not ever include a value of 0 in its calculation. Of course, the average velocity over the entire race would include some 0 velocity figures (dependent on pit stops, wrecks, etc.), but even that calculation would not start with a 0 velocity figure.

Amazingly, your strawmanning was all accomplished much faster than the rocket we are discussing.

boydster, once you come to grips with all this, then come back. Until then, have a great day.

1442

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 15, 2021, 10:21:08 AM »

You can describe the distance travelled in a given time frame for any moving body (whether its accelerating or not) by multiplying its avg velocity by the time. No one disputed this.

But that figure offers zero predictive powers for the instantaneous velocity at any time. For this discussion, AVERAGE VELOCITY FOR THE BURN PHASE IS A MEANINGLESS VALUE.

Please stop repeating this nonsense.

RIP to what started as an interesting thread.

Considering you are the one offering nonsense (a strawman, in other words) that has nothing to do with the incorrect figures offered by AATW (i.e., why a calculation of average velocity over the first five minutes of the flight clearly demonstrating a final velocity of 16,000 km/h at t+5 is not possible), then I will return the favor and ask you to stop repeating the strawman.

AVERAGE VELOCITY FOR THE BURN PHASE IS A MEANINGLESS VALUE.

Correct.

Incorrect.

1443

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 14, 2021, 05:49:03 PM »

When you travel 250 km in 5 minutes, according to the figures provided, you will have achieved an average rate of travel of 3000km/h. Pleaase note that rate of travel = velocity.

Yes

If you have an initial velocity of 0 km/h and your final velocity after 5 minutes is 16,000 km/h, then your average velocity is 8000 km/h.

No.

Or rather "it depends". That is true if and only if your rate of acceleration during those 5 minutes is constant

This is demonstrably false!

Acceleration for a race car is certainly not constant, yet average velocity over the course (also not linear) is expressed as defining the winner.

We are a discussing average velocity not average acceleration or even average speed. Acceleration is simply the variation of speed over time, or in this case: dV/dt where d = change

Take your extreme BS out of here.

Further, an object traveling at a velocity of 16,000km/h at a height of 250 km, is at that moment, subjected to g=9.08m/s². Given those figures, that object will fall to the earth in just over 17 minutes.

This is a fact.

Please show the math which demonstrates this fact. Note that as the object continues to ascend the value of g will continue to reduce.
If you just use a flat rate of 9.08 then you're going to get the wrong answer. I don't know how to do the math to work this out and, with respect, given your second statement above, I don't believe you do either.

It is not a flat rate of 9.08.

I have given the number, which accounts for ascent and velocity.

Since you are trying to claim acceleration can possibly impact the calculation of average velocity, I see no need to further engage you on this subject.

You are proving to be nothing but a troll.

1444

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 14, 2021, 04:07:18 PM »

When you travel 250 km in 5 minutes, according to the figures provided, you will have achieved an average rate of travel of 3000km/h. Pleaase note that rate of travel = velocity.

If you have an initial velocity of 0 km/h and your final velocity after 5 minutes is 16,000 km/h, then your average velocity is 8000 km/h.

There is no dispute here.

Anyone here who claims the scenario provided by AATW is possible is gaslighting, plain, pure, and simple.

Further, an object traveling at a velocity of 16,000km/h at a height of 250 km, is at that moment, subjected to g=9.08m/s². Given those figures, that object will fall to the earth in just over 17 minutes.

This is a fact.

No way this missile flight took place at all in the form or complete fashion expressed on Wikipedia and other sources.

Next.

1445

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

« on: July 14, 2021, 03:29:19 PM »

The point you are repeatedly failing to acknowledge is that whoever’s arse they pulled it from, any definition of where earth’s atmosphere ends and “space” begins is arbitrary. There is no firm line where the sky stops and space starts, the atmosphere just fades away in a gradient.

I am not failing to acknowledge that.

I agree with you.

This fact, that space is arbitrary, and arbitrary essentially = subjective, serves to demonstrate you subscribe to whimsy. You are whimsical. Can't count on you for objective analysis, for there is none to be had here.

1446

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

« on: July 14, 2021, 12:41:31 PM »

Are the FAA trying to fool people too? They agree he's taking people into space.

How?

By using an arbitrary number they pulled from your ass or their ass?

And do not be arbitrary in your response.

1447

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

« on: July 14, 2021, 10:31:06 AM »

The FAA begs to differ, but what do they know? As I said:

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=23395

So I guess you won't be joining this then?

https://www.omaze.com/products/virgin-galactic-2021

Since you first claim space has an arbitrary definition,  you are essentially admitting you are terribly fond of all arbitrary pronouncements, which goes further to diminishing your credibility as a contributor, than it does to supporting Branson actually went to space.

A lot of things in life are just arbitrary definitions.  Why do Americans drive on the left side of the road and the British on the right?

Totally unrelated crap injected, as is par for the course.

By the way, you are required to drive on the side of the road indicted by local ordinance, so it isn't arbitrary.

So now you have 'at what specific altitude does space start?'

You don't know either, which is true and is actually quite refreshing, as a majority of your posts are primarily false. 

I haven't seen even one flat earther specify a specific altitude, but only 'those people didn't go into space'.

Yes, you would see that, of course. The reason happens to be they did not go into space. 

They might as well come to the USA and stand in the middle of a highway and yell 'HEY YOU, you should be driving on the other side of the road'  The FAA says that the pilots were official astronauts. They also have a lot of other arbitrary standards for pilots and proclaim that certain humans are authorized to leave the surface of the Earth in control of an airplane.  So far they haven't started to regulate birds of any kind.  I suspect that a crashing bird would do a lot less damage to someone on the ground than a crashing 747 (which is just another arbitrary model number assigned to that type of aircraft by Boeing).  The bottom line is that someone or some entity must proclaim a standard for behavior and/or licensing for those who engage in certain types of activities.  This has to be done for the overall safety of others.

Again, shouting out admittedly arbitrary proclamations only serves to further discredit your worth as a meaningful contributor.

1448

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: July 13, 2021, 05:43:15 PM »

By the CDC's own data, there were more deaths from the vaccine last week in the US than there were from the Coronavirus

No, Tom. Read your own source again. Carefully this time.

What does this mean?

"there were more Covid vaccine deaths in the United States last week than Covid deaths in the United States last week."

1449

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

« on: July 13, 2021, 03:31:26 PM »

The FAA begs to differ, but what do they know? As I said:

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=23395

So I guess you won't be joining this then?

https://www.omaze.com/products/virgin-galactic-2021

Since you first claim space has an arbitrary definition,  you are essentially admitting you are terribly fond of all arbitrary pronouncements, which goes further to diminishing your credibility as a contributor, than it does to supporting Branson actually went to space.

1450

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

« on: July 13, 2021, 01:16:41 PM »

The stories are all over the place with this crap, because of the need to promote the big lie.

Well, no, it's because it's not an easy thing to define definitively.

You understand that the atmospheric pressure reduces with altitude, yes? Which addresses the "you can't have an atmosphere next to a vacuum without a container nonsense". We know from experience with mountains and airplanes that we have a pressure gradient. So clearly at some point that gradient means that there will be an effective volume. But exactly where that point is, is debatable.

How does that debate help "the big lie"?

The entire thing is a sham.

The media promotes it as space. Branson calls everyone an astronaut.

All of it is a higher altitude version of a vomit comet, only not as long and not as large.

Branson is a fraud. And it is all a lie.

1451

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

« on: July 13, 2021, 10:49:01 AM »

There is no standard universally recognised definition of where space starts. They go to space by some definitions and not others but where is the fraud? Branson is not claiming to take people in to orbit or around the moon. He's advertising an experience and delivering it.

Essentially, space starts in the imagination.

The stories are all over the place with this crap, because of the need to promote the big lie.

The X-15 pilots were classified as astronauts.

LOL!!!

1452

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 09, 2021, 07:03:06 PM »

I am not ignoring it.

Already admitted it is a linear method of calculation several times in the thread.

You are ignoring the fact the velocity profile in this flight took place over a path not varying to a significant degree from vertical.

No, I completely agree with that. In fact, I'm going one further and suggesting we just model it as a vertical flight to keep things simple.

Go ahead, make a horizontal line at each level of velocity achieved at any given split over the five minute time frame you put forth. Try to achieve a significant difference in the average velocity derived via calculus and those given by a linear method as I described.

That's pretty much what I did in one of the many examples you ignored. Here it is again:

1 minute at 0km/h
1 minute at 1000km/h
1 minute at 2000km/h
1 minute at 4000km/h
1 minute at 8000km/h
1 nano second at 16000km/h

Over to you for average speed and distance travelled. Notice how different the results are from a simple average of 0 and 16000km/h

Oh. Remarkable you would spend any amount of time at 0 km/h, but it certainly is keeping with your desperate trolling efforts.

Quite amusing too!

Or perhaps it was the palm in your face from earlier.

Regardless.

If I travel 250km in 5 minutes, I have traveled at an average rate of travel equivalent to 3000km/h for those five minutes.

However, average velocity over a linear trajectory, which you agree is a vertical path, given the figures of 0 initial velocity and a final velocity achieved with five minutes 16,000 km/h work out to 8,000km/h and an altitude achieved of 667km.

Still waiting for you to back your claim (with demonstrable math please) a ballistic object located at an altitude of 250km, subjected to g=9.08m/s² under no propulsion and guidance, can achieve an additional altitude of 4250 km.

I figured this would be easy for you to do since you already admitted the same object would fall back to earth within twelve minutes if subjected to g=9.87m/s².

1453

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 09, 2021, 06:30:39 PM »

Asked and answered.

You are an admitted troll and are continuing to do so here.

Average velocity = (final velocity + initial velocity)/2.

Since we are discussing a portion of a trip, velocity can be considered equivalent to rate of travel.

d=rt has been relevant to all trips taken in the history of humanity.

The figures you provided, 0 - 16000 km/h in the span of 5 minutes, results in an average rate of travel of 8,000 km/h, resulting in an altitude of 667 km.

Bye to the admitted troll.

You're nothing if not persistent, I'll grant you that.

Average velocity only equals (start velocity + end velocity)/2 for a linear velocity profile, ie constant acceleration.

Why do you keep ignoring that?

Why do you keep ignoring the stunningly obvious examples we give you, that quite clearly show that you can be at 16000km/h at the end of a period of time, and average well under 8000km/h?

Like, for example, travelling at 1km/h for 4 minutes and 55 seconds, and then accelerating rapidly to 16,000km/h.

But hey, what's the point? You'll ignore the example and keep saying the same thing, right?

I am not ignoring it.

Already admitted it is a linear method of calculation several times in the thread.

You are ignoring the fact the velocity profile in this flight took place over a path not varying to a significant degree from vertical.

Go ahead, make a horizontal line at each level of velocity achieved at any given split over the five minute time frame you put forth. Try to achieve a significant difference in the average velocity derived via calculus and those given by a linear method as I described.

1454

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 09, 2021, 05:59:27 PM »

Which, when compared to your figures, blow your only figures really offered here (0 to 16,000km/h over the course of that five minutes travel to reach 250 km in altitude) out of the water.

Do they, though?
I broke down that suggested acceleration pretty carefully to show how it could happen.
If you think I’ve made a mistake then can you show where?

But as I and others have explained, the average velocity is irrelevant here. All that matters is the height and velocity at the time of engine shut down.

Asked and answered.

You are a self-admitted troll and are continuing to do so here.

Average velocity = (final velocity + initial velocity)/2.

Since we are discussing a portion of a trip, velocity can be considered equivalent to rate of travel.

d=rt has been relevant to all trips taken in the history of humanity.

The figures you provided, 0 - 16000 km/h in the span of 5 minutes, results in an average rate of travel of 8,000 km/h, resulting in an altitude of 667 km.

Bye to the self-admitted troll, as demonstrated here:

I don't claim to know the specifics of the flight we are talking about.

1455

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 09, 2021, 05:43:31 PM »

You do not now subscribe to the idea the flight has taken place.

I didn't say that either. ICBMs are definitely a thing, and I know tests of them have happened.
I don't claim to know the specifics of the flight we are talking about.
You are asserting that given a starting height and velocity when engines shut off the final height can't be a value claimed.
I would like to see your math which demonstrates that because, frankly, it's really complicated and given that you couldn't work out a simple average I struggle to believe you can work this out. Honestly, it's a bit beyond me.
So all you're left with is an argument from incredulity. I'm not making an argument at all, I'm merely pointing out that you need to understand more about all this before you make claims which you can't back up.

One thing to ponder. If d=rt then r = d/t.
We know the distance, 250km. And we know the time, 5 minutes.
So r = 250/5 = 50km/minute (note, minute, we need to multiply by 60 to get hours)

50 x 60 = 3000km/h average velocity. Not 8,000. See?

Yeah, which was the figure I offered at the onset. It is apparent for anyone reading the thread, I was the first one to offer d=rt in this case is equivalent to 3,000km/h.

Which, when compared to your figures, blow your only figures really offered here (0 to 16,000km/h over the course of that five minutes travel to reach 250 km in altitude) out of the water.

You see, the average velocity of the figures you provided (0-16,000km/h) results in the 8,000km/h, hence not possibly matching d=rt.

Good bye.

You already admitted to trolling the thread.

I suggest you stop.

1456

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

« on: July 09, 2021, 05:41:22 PM »

What evidence do you have that a traveling object striking a physical dome encompassing the flat earth would be "smashed to pieces."?

My evidence is that things going very fast hitting solid things have a tendency to disintegrate.

What evidence do you have that a physical dome encompassing the flat earth would be solid?

It doesn't disintegrate, it doesn't change direction.

So, you are indeed alleging that upon clear audible evidence of the loud pop heard in the video and upon clear visual evidence the rocket stops spinning, it is continuing to travel vertical from point of origin.

Interesting.

Wrong, but interesting. Do go on.

1457

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 09, 2021, 05:16:11 PM »

You are the making that claim, within the parameters of the written record.

When did I make that claim?

I have repeatedly said that I don't know if it's true but have noted it's very complicated, far too complicated for you to understand - I'm basing that assertion on the fact that despite repeated explanations you don't understand much simpler concepts.

You are simply making an argument from incredulity. But if you're able to produce the maths which shows what the true final height would be, given the constantly changing value of g, then I'd like to see it.

Yeah, here we go.

You do not now subscribe to the idea the flight has taken place.

Very well then.

You admit you have simply been trolling the thread.

Since you admit here you do not believe it happened, and you admit it is beyond your level of education, good bye to you.

1458

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

« on: July 09, 2021, 05:14:10 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.

What evidence do you have that a traveling object striking a physical dome encompassing the flat earth would be "smashed to pieces."?

1459

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 09, 2021, 05:08:31 PM »

Average
Velocity
Is
Meaningless
To
This
Entire
Question

d=rt is relevant to every trip taken in the history of humanity.

Bye.

1460

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 09, 2021, 05:07:20 PM »

You also have a claim to substantiate, which you haven’t done.

My claim is this:

The claim made that this flight as described and adhered to by proponents in this thread is bogus and the trip did not take place as offered.

The proponents of this flight being made can quite clearly and definitively close the issue, as is incumbent upon them, not me.

All they need to do is post the math proving a ballistic object traveling at a rate of 16,000km/h, at an altitude of 250km, under no propulsion, g=9.08m/s², will gain an additional altitude of 4250km.

Simple. Go ahead. Have a go.