1461

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 17, 2021, 03:11:31 PM »

Can you show us your calculation? It could put this to rest once and for all.

Given your willingness to accept any numbers trotted out by SteelyBob or the rest, I will wait to do so until I witness equitable demands made you upon the others.

Hey, if you can’t do it, no skin off my back. I’d just be surprised you can do calculus, since you seem convinced this is an algebra problem.

Hey, I already did it and presented my numbers.

No skin off my back if you desire to continue in your intellectually and philosophically disingenuous demands of one side and not the other.

1462

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 17, 2021, 02:51:48 PM »

Can you show us your calculation? It could put this to rest once and for all.

Given your willingness to accept any numbers trotted out by SteelyBob or the rest, I will wait to do so until I witness equitable demands made by you upon the others.

1463

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 17, 2021, 02:37:25 PM »

Because at a velocity of 16,000 km/h, at 250km, experiencing g=9.08m/s², and decelerating, the rocket will reach 0 in 17 min.

Will not travel the additional 4250 km to apogee given these conditions.

Are you accounting for the fact that as the rocket continues to ascend the value of g will continue to get lower?

If not then you’re doing it wrong. Doing so is complicated, I suggested an iterative way above which I think approximates it, but I simplified and assumed the rocket is going straight up. Feel free to show your workings.

First, let me point out again, I do not believe any of the claims made by RE in regard to g or this rocket.

Second, I am using the figures provided by RE and their proponents here.

Third, I took into account decreasing g and what you left out, the deceleration.

1464

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 17, 2021, 02:15:44 PM »

AATW is busted because Steely Bob said something? Holy North Korea, Batman!

Well, this is what Steely Bob actually said.

The final velocity is more like 25,000km/h

But it’s clear from the above that Bob is not claiming any acceleration after the engines have shut off.

I struck out the incorrect claim you made in your post.

SteelyBob did claim the rocket would continue accelerating, to a final velocity of 25,000km/h.

Because at a velocity of 16,000 km/h, at 250km, experiencing g=9.08m/s², and decelerating, the rocket will reach 0 in 17 min.

Will not travel the additional 4250 km to apogee given these conditions.

1465

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes

« on: July 17, 2021, 12:25:03 PM »

One such example.

You didn't say you had one example. If you look hard enough, you'll find an example of just about anything. You said it applied to the entire medical profession.

And you presented "medical studies," not "medical study." as reliable, when they're not.

Who you tryin to zoom here?

1466

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 17, 2021, 11:32:39 AM »

somehow magically continuing to accelerate without engine power now, upwards to a final velocity of 25,000 km/h!

Who is claiming that?

Acceleration is slow initially, and rapid towards the end. The final velocity is more like 25,000km/h,

Yeah, you are busted.

1467

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 16, 2021, 04:49:32 PM »

supply the average rate of velocity for the profile.

I beg your pardon?

Quite, I'm sure.

Anyway, back to the subject.

Here we have the great fraud, claiming a velocity of 16,000 km/h at end of burn, somehow magically continuing to accelerate without engine power now, upwards to a final velocity of 25,000 km/h!

Even the great DD, proponent and lover of ballistics, will admit a ballistic object will not gain velocity without a source of continued propulsion.

Once the propulsion source is gone, deceleration takes place. Velocity reduces. 

1468

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes

« on: July 16, 2021, 04:00:35 PM »

Like using the word mutilation to describe a surgical procedure.

^And here it is.

Breast cancer patients use the word mutilation after a mastectomy because, like it or not, that is what took place. A mutilation.

You, in support of appeasing some mentally disturbed individual who doesn't likely know their fucking ass from a hole in the ground, want to allow them to feel any way they wish at any given moment in time.

A breast cancer patient?

Fuck their feelings, I suppose, when it comes to labeling the results of their operation a mutilation of their body.

1469

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes

« on: July 16, 2021, 03:31:55 PM »

In that way, I'm not sure that reassignment surgery and mutilating one's genitalia is appropriate.

Mutilating is absolutely the incorrect word. Surgery is not a violent disfigurement. No one says, "hi, I'd like to make an appointment for my breast mutilation."

Yeah, that is why so many live to regret the surgery later on, even utilizing the word, "mutilation," once time has passed.

Females do not feel mutilated and "less than" after a mastectomy.

Regretting a surgery does not make it mutilation. It makes it a surgery they regret. And regretting transitioning, while tragic, is not the topic at hand. The word mutilation for surgeries in this thread is only being used for outrage effect.

No, the word mutilation is being used because it is the correct term.

And like I wrote, breast cancer patients having mastectomies feel mutilated afterwards because they are.

This essentially boils down to what is obviously a small, but very vocal group of morons, not having the slightest clue about life in general, being currently successful in their foisting of bullshit upon the people surrounding them.

The reason it is provably bullshit is the common practice of instantaneous changing of the meaning of the words, the history, or whatever else deemed necessary in order to cater to their current feelings about an issue.

1470

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

« on: July 16, 2021, 03:21:49 PM »

I'm of the opinion that we don't need to change the nature of capitalism because of Covid or climate change.

Tom, you cannot possibly believe there is anything remotely resembling capitalism in action in today's world.

1471

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 16, 2021, 03:16:58 PM »

Yeah, speed at the end of the burn, which happens to be in the scenario discussed here, t+5.

Working with a displacement of 250km at t+5.

Yielding, according to d=rt, an average velocity of 3,000 km/h.

If a man made rocket could even travel at a velocity of 16,000 km/h (I doubt it could), and did reach that speed at the very end of 5 minutes of burn, it blows either the distance traveled figure or the yielded rate of velocity figure out of the water and puts a nail in the coffin of this BS fiction pushed by warmongers.

No wonder you guys don't come up with your supposed saving grace of calculus to supply the average rate of velocity for the profile.

You know it is closer to the 8000 km/h average figure yielded by linear calculation.

1472

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 16, 2021, 01:12:12 PM »

velocity profile

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

And you keep using "that word," when you call out what is, quite obviously, TWO WORDS.

Have a nice day.

1473

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 16, 2021, 11:56:08 AM »

For the final time, any figures relating to acceleration do not interject themselves into calculations regarding average velocity.

You contributions and assertions they somehow do are patently false.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/avari.html

Note that even in this one-dimensional case for non-constant acceleration, the average velocity is not equal to the average of the initial and final velocities.

The average velocity expression from the constant acceleration equations works only for constant acceleration where the graph of velocity as a function of time is a straight line, the average being the midpoint of that line over the chosen time interval

Apology accepted.

And as previously acknowledged elsewhere in this thread, the velocity profile in the case of this particular, given a time frame of five minute burn, varies so little from the vertical, an average velocity figure derived via calculus would not fit a 5 minute flight achieving 250km.

1474

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 15, 2021, 04:22:42 PM »

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.

It is legit IF the rate of acceleration is constant. Which is not the case with rockets or in the examples which have been worked through with you.
Is your entire problem with all of this that you work out the average velocity one way and get 3,000 and you do it another way and get 8,000 and you don't understand why you get two different figures? Reason is what I keep telling you. The 8,000 figure is only valid if the rate of acceleration is constant. It is not constant for rockets, which is how a rocket could end up going 250km in 5 minutes and end up with a final velocity of 16,000. I literally broke that down minute by minute with an example of how that could happen.

But none of this really matters because...

AVERAGE VELOCITY FOR THE BURN PHASE IS A MEANINGLESS VALUE.

Your entire response to that was "Incorrect". Why is it incorrect?
IF the rocket is going at 16,000km/h and is at 250km altitude when the engines shut down then that's all you need to know to calculate the maximum altitude it will reach (well, you need to know the mass and radius of earth too so you can take into account how g varies as the rocket ascends - that is the complex part). The average velocity or acceleration before the point of engine shut down has absolutely no bearing on the answer.

For the final time, any figures relating to acceleration do not interject themselves into calculations regarding average velocity.

You contributions and assertions they somehow do are patently false.

1475

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes

« on: July 15, 2021, 03:43:28 PM »

In that way, I'm not sure that reassignment surgery and mutilating one's genitalia is appropriate.

Mutilating is absolutely the incorrect word. Surgery is not a violent disfigurement. No one says, "hi, I'd like to make an appointment for my breast mutilation."

Yeah, that is why so many live to regret the surgery later on, even utilizing the word, "mutilation," once time has passed.

Females do not feel mutilated and "less than" after a mastectomy.

1476

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

« on: July 15, 2021, 03:31:36 PM »

You, along with the rest of the crew spewing your Henny Penny, idiotic nonsense, should have willingly stayed home of your free will and volition.

I would have got your groceries and delivered them to your doorstep, just to keep your ill conceived thought processes where they belong.

Did you deliver groceries then? I did stay home and have groceries delivered to me often. Maybe it was you delivering them, which is nice.

Has anyone said how covid actually gets us away from capitalism or did I miss that part? Because I remember corporations getting a lot of handouts during the lockdown. And-

"U.S. billionaires have gotten about $1.2 trillion richer during the pandemic."

Yeah, and many other "non-essential," (I thought for the libtards, the concept of everyone being worthwhile, therefore = essential," was a hill worthy to be won in the SJW fight) received theirs much the same.

All musings uttered by such people are so philosophically and intellectually disingenuous it beggars belief.

You, quite obviously, have no clue as to what constitutes free market capitalism (or worse yet, purposefully) choosing to describe any current world economic system in use (including that of the US), as capitalism.

It isn't.

1477

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 15, 2021, 03:24:22 PM »

A Formula 1 race starts when the red lights go out, not when the car starts moving.  If a car is moving when the red lights go out, it is disqualified. 

Its velocity at the start is zero.

I guess once it's finished the race and comes to a halt then its velocity at the end is also 0.
Therefore it's average velocity throughout the race must be 0, according to Lackey's calculator.
I wonder if anyone can spot the flaw in that argument.

Yeah, I am sure they can spot the flaw.

As usual, it is your gaslighting the issue.

The actual end of the race is what is called crossing the FINISH LINE with the required amount of displacement "under your belt" so to speak.

The official declaration of the end of the race does not include the process of bringing the car or other cars to a halt.

1478

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 15, 2021, 03:18:16 PM »

A Formula 1 race starts when the red lights go out, not when the car starts moving.  If a car is moving when the red lights go out, it is disqualified. 

Its velocity at the start is zero.

That is correct for Formula One, which was not the example discussed prior to this.

1479

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 15, 2021, 12:39:41 PM »

The car is starting at 0km/h. What speed is it going when it crosses the finish line? I'd like to plug those 2 values into your calculator and see what it comes up with for average velocity. It'll definitely be very accurate, right?

The car is not starting at 0 km/h in either four lap qualifying or the actual race.

Have you ever watched auto racing?

Go home, boydster. I think timmy is asking for your presence elsewhere.

1480

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

« on: July 15, 2021, 11:23:19 AM »

Oh, so the flu is nearly completely eliminated in the 2020-2021 Flu Season, but COVID runs unchecked during that same period, creating similar numbers to what the flu did in the 2019-2020 Flu Season (38 Million). That definitely makes a lot of sense. 

What's the point you're trying to make? That we shouldn't have had lockdowns, limited travel, mask mandates?

If it isn't Tom's point, I will proudly take that mantle.

You, along with the rest of the crew spewing your Henny Penny, idiotic nonsense, should have willingly stayed home of your free will and volition.

I would have got your groceries and delivered them to your doorstep, just to keep your ill conceived thought processes where they belong.