1541

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 15, 2021, 03:39:09 PM »

Further, a parabola extending 4500km to the y and 950km to the x in the span of a 5 minute burn, with a total flight time of 53 minutes?

LOL!!!

You're almost at the 'aha!' moment you so desperately need to arrive at.

Already there.

Regardless of anything else related to missile functioning, d=rt remains something that cannot be explained away in this case.

It's not like you're insistent a 5 minute burn from 177,000lbf engine can elevate 159,000lbs to 4500km. You want people to believe the engine doesn't need to be operational in order to achieve such a feat (which isn't possible to begin with, as no such altitude exists).

But by all means.

Continue with your fairytale. I understand they go quite well with binkies.

1542

Suggestions & Concerns / What happened to giving full credit for references?

« on: June 15, 2021, 12:44:45 PM »

SteelyBob and AATW are acting in concert, posting material to serve as a reference in the thread here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18167.0

You can see that AATW went so far as to totally clip out the fact the table was found to originally be in a WordPress document.

At minimum, I thought authorship was required.

But with these two, they do not care from where they pull their garbage, they just want to strew it about.

1543

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 15, 2021, 12:37:09 PM »

Further, a parabola extending 4500km to the y and 950km to the x in the span of a 5 minute burn, with a total flight time of 53 minutes?

LOL!!!

1544

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 15, 2021, 12:29:50 PM »

Still waiting on the math disproving 32,000 MPH wrong.

Because you haven't presented your maths so we can look at what you get wrong.
Do that, then we can talk.

At this point, I will further point out that if one clicks on this link:
https://physicsfromplanetearth.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/papertable-1-e1515874894590.png
with a different browser (this is important) you will see a distinct difference in rendering, perhaps leading one to believe the handlers of SteelyBob and AATW are certainly one in the same, with instructions on the level of,"QUICK, go fix my screw up!"

RE Supporters - "We are are wondering how you got your figures. Can you show us? In the meantime, allow us to post this BS WordPress table with figures that have no explanation as to how they were derived and furthermore, no author to which it can be attributed for verification. We are sure you will not catch this."

Sane person - " You are kidding, right?"

Note differences in rendering of the webpage, one, and then note it is just a stupid WordPress document, with no mention of the author, two, and no accounting of how they arrived at their math presented in their useless table.

Clicking on AATW's, link shows the table clipped from the WordPress page, a sure sign of dishonesty.

Either way, both SteelyBob and AATW, are guilty of not providing the name of the author of this piece of trash table, something I thought TFES was keen on avoiding. If you cannot provide proper references, both of you should stop posting.

1545

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 15, 2021, 11:38:55 AM »

Yes.

Here is the summary:

I. 404 Not Found

Tut. The link was bad, but it didn't take too much figuring out. For the hard of thinking though, here:

https://physicsfromplanetearth.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/papertable-1-e1515874894590.png

Yeah, a wordpress file.

With just an analysis.

LOL!

You guys are rich!

Still waiting on the ICBM.

Still waiting on the math disproving 32,000 MPH wrong.

You got jack here and you all know it.

1546

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 15, 2021, 10:41:03 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.

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?

Yes.

Here is the summary:

I. 404 Not Found

1547

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.

1548

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.

1549

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.

1550

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!"

1551

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.

1552

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!

1553

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!

1554

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.

1555

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!

1556

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?

1557

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?

1558

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

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.

1559

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.

1560

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?