I'm a Rocket Scientist 🚀

[grimmolt22]

OK not really but I've read the "rocket scientists" have been lying about how rockets work; I've learned that rocket engines don't actually work in a vacuum.

Of coarse you ask "but why would they lie, I don't understand". They lie because they're hiding the fact the Earth is flat and there is no space to travel to or in. We're inside a giant underwater terrarium and atmospheric life is an artificially created novelty.

Need proof? Differently shaped rocket nozzles produce varying degrees of thrust depending on atmospheric pressure.

Wait... the earth is flat?

Seems you missed a lot of stuff, earth is flat ofc  

I sincerly hope that nobody really believes this. I just assume these people are trolls.

Gotta be kidding us dude ... the earth is flat ... the Hubble Space Telescope uses fish-eye lens hence why we think its rounded

HAHAHA I just want one person to make me a renditioned picture of earth in space as a flat surface... please?

[notbatman]

Are we actually discussing rocket science here? I can address half of the posts that I've seen while skimming through this thread. That said, I haven't been able to tell if they were a joke or not since sarcasm really doesn't translate well through plain text without. Before I spend an hour writing how thrust/motion/momentum/etc works from a current and theoretical standpoint, figured I'd ask if anyone is actually interested, or if this is a joke.

I'm well on my way to getting a PHD in Nuclear Physics. Its not quite Rocket Science, but theres a good deal of overlap with quantum mechanics/dynamics/etc.

FYI Earth isn't flat, rockets do work in space, gravity/light/inertia are really strange subjects that are just best current models and are subject to change.

The Sagnac Experiment.


Here's a video presentation: https://youtu.be/SWmlimH7laY

[BADecker]

Are we actually discussing rocket science here? I can address half of the posts that I've seen while skimming through this thread. That said, I haven't been able to tell if they were a joke or not since sarcasm really doesn't translate well through plain text without. Before I spend an hour writing how thrust/motion/momentum/etc works from a current and theoretical standpoint, figured I'd ask if anyone is actually interested, or if this is a joke.

I'm well on my way to getting a PHD in Nuclear Physics. Its not quite Rocket Science, but theres a good deal of overlap with quantum mechanics/dynamics/etc.

FYI Earth isn't flat, rockets do work in space, gravity/light/inertia are really strange subjects that are just best current models and are subject to change.

The Sagnac Experiment.


Here's a video presentation: https://youtu.be/SWmlimH7laY

The problem with the Sagnac Effect is that it absolutely is explained by Relativity. The thing that is called Aether Effect in the video, works similarly in Relativity.

While Einstein might have claimed that the aether does not exist, he is right at the level of science in which he was working. The fact that there are levels of science beyond Einstein's thinking, shows that in higher science, aether exists just as greater dimensions exist. Neither Sagnac or Einstein go into enough science or enough detail to prove either of them right. That's why both are considered to be SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, and not science fact.

The point, again, is, there is not enough explanation in the video to allow a person to make come to an accurate conclusion. How is this? There are many statements in the video that one needs to take as truth without knowing why he should take them as truth. There are, also, many aspects of this science that are unknown by anybody.

The result is that the video proves nothing, and that the person who uses the video to prove something is really an ignoramus.

[SaltySpitoon]

Are we actually discussing rocket science here? I can address half of the posts that I've seen while skimming through this thread. That said, I haven't been able to tell if they were a joke or not since sarcasm really doesn't translate well through plain text without. Before I spend an hour writing how thrust/motion/momentum/etc works from a current and theoretical standpoint, figured I'd ask if anyone is actually interested, or if this is a joke.

I'm well on my way to getting a PHD in Nuclear Physics. Its not quite Rocket Science, but theres a good deal of overlap with quantum mechanics/dynamics/etc.

FYI Earth isn't flat, rockets do work in space, gravity/light/inertia are really strange subjects that are just best current models and are subject to change.

The Sagnac Experiment.


Here's a video presentation: https://youtu.be/SWmlimH7laY

I'll start by saying, no one really knows what light is. Everyone including Einstein knew that Relativity is not 100% correct, there are a number of experiments that find fundamental flaws in relativity, however the degree of error is so minor, they haven't be consequential to physics applications thus far. Relativity is currently the closest model we have today, but there are some pieces that we are missing about light. Relatively doesn't account for light having momentum but no mass, no mass, but being effected by gravity, etc (relativistic mass aside). The current theory that light is a photon is to some degree wrong. The Aether theories are pretty fundamentally incorrect though. The vast majority of them were based on the classical physics assumption that light is a wave and therefore requires some medium, like sound to travel. Classifying light as a photon states that its some sort of "mass-less particle that exhibits some wave behavior" which rejects the need for a medium. Though I theorize that light does have some amount of mass, just to an inconsequentially small degree.

Neutrinos which share a pretty high rate of similarity with light (minus the wave behavior) were discovered in the 1990s, so the laws of physics are still changing to minor degrees. Both are quazi energy emissions from the sun's fusion reactions. Neutrinos approach the speed of light, but have mass so likely don't exceed the speed of light (though thats been a subject of study for a while).

My point being, there are a ton of topics that haven't quite been proven yet, but that doesn't mean our existing understanding is wrong. Hell, look at magnetic monopoles, there is absolutely no reason that they don't exist, but no one has yet proven their existence. Throw some irregular electric fields into the equation, and that might correct the 0.000000000000000000000000000001% error that exists in current mathematical projections, and solve all of the experiments that had strange conclusions.

I've heard Sagnac's theory mentioned before when talking about orbits/satellites, but I had never looked in depth about it. It has applications within relativity that it wasn't trying to create. From what I read into it (on both sides of the argument pro and against) it looks like a frame of reference experiment. I found that this page pretty well described the experiment and what can be drawn from it, without bias. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

[BADecker]

Are we actually discussing rocket science here? I can address half of the posts that I've seen while skimming through this thread. That said, I haven't been able to tell if they were a joke or not since sarcasm really doesn't translate well through plain text without. Before I spend an hour writing how thrust/motion/momentum/etc works from a current and theoretical standpoint, figured I'd ask if anyone is actually interested, or if this is a joke.

I'm well on my way to getting a PHD in Nuclear Physics. Its not quite Rocket Science, but theres a good deal of overlap with quantum mechanics/dynamics/etc.

FYI Earth isn't flat, rockets do work in space, gravity/light/inertia are really strange subjects that are just best current models and are subject to change.

The Sagnac Experiment.


Here's a video presentation: https://youtu.be/SWmlimH7laY

I'll start by saying, no one really knows what light is. Everyone including Einstein knew that Relativity is not 100% correct, there are a number of experiments that find fundamental flaws in relativity, however the degree of error is so minor, they haven't be consequential to physics applications thus far. Relativity is currently the closest model we have today, but there are some pieces that we are missing about light. Relatively doesn't account for light having momentum but no mass, no mass, but being effected by gravity, etc (relativistic mass aside). The current theory that light is a photon is to some degree wrong. The Aether theories are pretty fundamentally incorrect though. The vast majority of them were based on the classical physics assumption that light is a wave and therefore requires some medium, like sound to travel. Classifying light as a photon states that its some sort of "mass-less particle that exhibits some wave behavior" which rejects the need for a medium. Though I theorize that light does have some amount of mass, just to an inconsequentially small degree.

Neutrinos which share a pretty high rate of similarity with light (minus the wave behavior) were discovered in the 1990s, so the laws of physics are still changing to minor degrees. Both are quazi energy emissions from the sun's fusion reactions. Neutrinos approach the speed of light, but have mass so likely don't exceed the speed of light (though thats been a subject of study for a while).

My point being, there are a ton of topics that haven't quite been proven yet, but that doesn't mean our existing understanding is wrong. Hell, look at magnetic monopoles, there is absolutely no reason that they don't exist, but no one has yet proven their existence. Throw some irregular electric fields into the equation, and that might correct the 0.000000000000000000000000000001% error that exists in current mathematical projections, and solve all of the experiments that had strange conclusions.

I've heard Sagnac's theory mentioned before when talking about orbits/satellites, but I had never looked in depth about it. It has applications within relativity that it wasn't trying to create. From what I read into it (on both sides of the argument pro and against) it looks like a frame of reference experiment. I found that this page pretty well described the experiment and what can be drawn from it, without bias. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Thank you for the link. A layman might even understand it if he went through it slowly enough.

[notbatman]

Are we actually discussing rocket science here? I can address half of the posts that I've seen while skimming through this thread. That said, I haven't been able to tell if they were a joke or not since sarcasm really doesn't translate well through plain text without. Before I spend an hour writing how thrust/motion/momentum/etc works from a current and theoretical standpoint, figured I'd ask if anyone is actually interested, or if this is a joke.

I'm well on my way to getting a PHD in Nuclear Physics. Its not quite Rocket Science, but theres a good deal of overlap with quantum mechanics/dynamics/etc.

FYI Earth isn't flat, rockets do work in space, gravity/light/inertia are really strange subjects that are just best current models and are subject to change.

The Sagnac Experiment.


Here's a video presentation: https://youtu.be/SWmlimH7laY

I'll start by saying, no one really knows what light is. Everyone including Einstein knew that Relativity is not 100% correct, there are a number of experiments that find fundamental flaws in relativity, however the degree of error is so minor, they haven't be consequential to physics applications thus far. Relativity is currently the closest model we have today, but there are some pieces that we are missing about light. Relatively doesn't account for light having momentum but no mass, no mass, but being effected by gravity, etc (relativistic mass aside). The current theory that light is a photon is to some degree wrong. The Aether theories are pretty fundamentally incorrect though. The vast majority of them were based on the classical physics assumption that light is a wave and therefore requires some medium, like sound to travel. Classifying light as a photon states that its some sort of "mass-less particle that exhibits some wave behavior" which rejects the need for a medium. Though I theorize that light does have some amount of mass, just to an inconsequentially small degree.

Neutrinos which share a pretty high rate of similarity with light (minus the wave behavior) were discovered in the 1990s, so the laws of physics are still changing to minor degrees. Both are quazi energy emissions from the sun's fusion reactions. Neutrinos approach the speed of light, but have mass so likely don't exceed the speed of light (though thats been a subject of study for a while).

My point being, there are a ton of topics that haven't quite been proven yet, but that doesn't mean our existing understanding is wrong. Hell, look at magnetic monopoles, there is absolutely no reason that they don't exist, but no one has yet proven their existence. Throw some irregular electric fields into the equation, and that might correct the 0.000000000000000000000000000001% error that exists in current mathematical projections, and solve all of the experiments that had strange conclusions.

I've heard Sagnac's theory mentioned before when talking about orbits/satellites, but I had never looked in depth about it. It has applications within relativity that it wasn't trying to create. From what I read into it (on both sides of the argument pro and against) it looks like a frame of reference experiment. I found that this page pretty well described the experiment and what can be drawn from it, without bias. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

The Sagnac Experiment is irrefutable empirical proof of the aether, I highly recommend and in-depth look at it. Then check out Airy's Failure Experiment, it uses a water filled telescope to slow the speed of light from a star and it empirically proves the Earth is motionless. Finally the Michelson & Morley Experiment corroborates Airy's Failure in providing empirical proof that Earth is motionless.

[SaltySpitoon]

The Sagnac Experiment is irrefutable empirical proof of the aether, I highly recommend and in-depth look at it. Then check out Airy's Failure Experiment, it uses a water filled telescope to slow the speed of light from a star and it empirically proves the Earth is motionless. Finally the Michelson & Morley Experiment corroborates Airy's Failure in providing empirical proof that Earth is motionless.

I'll look into these as well. I'm just wondering if you actually believe in the aether, flat earth, motionless earth, etc, or if you are just curiously looking into the possibilities of phenomenon found from prominent experiments? I absolutely don't reject the idea that you should always question anomalies, if we didn't we wouldn't ever discover new things, but if you do actually believe in the contrarian points of view, I'm genuinely interested why.

As I said, I haven't looked into the cases you recommended I look at yet, and I intend to, but whats great about science, is that its typically mostly absolute, and repeatable. I can probably list 50,000 ways to prove that the earth is round, it is in motion, and that there is likely no aether (that last one I'll put a question mark by, because there could be some medium of interference in the atmosphere which we could call aether). A good portion of them that you can verify for yourself with cheap and simple experiments. If you ever read a lot of posts by flat earthers, they are absolutely ridiculous, and rely heavily on semi logic. Taking bits of conclusive data that progresses their point of view, and rejecting the parts of the same experiments that work against it.

I used to write out this math expression that stated a+b = a^2 + b^2 and solved it algebraically to prove it was true. It had a few conditions, but the algebra stated that it was true. It used to annoy the hell out of my elementary/middle school math teachers, because they couldn't disprove it. After taking differential equations, I figured out that the trick was that half way through, I was using an identity for linear transformations, but the expression was affine rather than linear. It was something like a 50 step problem to setup, no one would notice that I was making a misleading step, because typically it would have been true, except for a tiny detail that most people don't think about. I find that a lot of these countertheory explanations use similar tricks to mislead people.

[BADecker]

The Sagnac Experiment is irrefutable empirical proof of the aether, I highly recommend and in-depth look at it. Then check out Airy's Failure Experiment, it uses a water filled telescope to slow the speed of light from a star and it empirically proves the Earth is motionless. Finally the Michelson & Morley Experiment corroborates Airy's Failure in providing empirical proof that Earth is motionless.

I'll look into these as well. I'm just wondering if you actually believe in the aether, flat earth, motionless earth, etc, or if you are just curiously looking into the possibilities of phenomenon found from prominent experiments? I absolutely don't reject the idea that you should always question anomalies, if we didn't we wouldn't ever discover new things, but if you do actually believe in the contrarian points of view, I'm genuinely interested why.

As I said, I haven't looked into the cases you recommended I look at yet, and I intend to, but whats great about science, is that its typically mostly absolute, and repeatable. I can probably list 50,000 ways to prove that the earth is round, it is in motion, and that there is likely no aether (that last one I'll put a question mark by, because there could be some medium of interference in the atmosphere which we could call aether). A good portion of them that you can verify for yourself with cheap and simple experiments. If you ever read a lot of posts by flat earthers, they are absolutely ridiculous, and rely heavily on semi logic. Taking bits of conclusive data that progresses their point of view, and rejecting the parts of the same experiments that work against it.

I used to write out this math expression that stated a+b = a^2 + b^2 and solved it algebraically to prove it was true. It had a few conditions, but the algebra stated that it was true. It used to annoy the hell out of my elementary/middle school math teachers, because they couldn't disprove it. After taking differential equations, I figured out that the trick was that half way through, I was using an identity for linear transformations, but the expression was affine rather than linear. It was something like a 50 step problem to setup, no one would notice that I was making a misleading step, because typically it would have been true, except for a tiny detail that most people don't think about. I find that a lot of these countertheory explanations use similar tricks to mislead people.

The aether exists. It isn't anything like the flat-earth people think it is. It will take proving out some more dimensions to start finding the proof. A hint about what it is and how it works lies in parallel universe theory.

Essentially, for us laymen, the aether is an elastic solid which makes up all the parallel universes. We use the term "vibration" or "frequency" for understanding electromagnetic spectrum differences. The frequencies of the various parallel universes, that distinguish one from another, are not really electromagnetic. Rather, they are dimensional, in a way that is difficult to explain and not completely understood.

For example... and I won't be saying this entirely correctly. An electron is made up of wave particles that are parts of other universes, where other of the parallel universes touch and then relinquish their touch. When they relinquish their touch, different universes take up the touch and relinquish. Our universe is part of the flow that causes "electrons" in the other universes, just like they are part of the flow that cause electrons in our universe and "electrons" in each other.

The whole thing acts dimensionally, and that is why Einstein, Sagnac and others are never going to be able to explain it clearly. Most Einstein stuff will remain theory. Such theory will only be explained by complex computer calculation figuring out enough dimensional math that we don't presently have... math in directions that we have a difficult time wrapping our heads around.

[notbatman]

I'll just leave this here, it's an uncensored version of Maxwell's Equations.

http://posner.library.cmu.edu/Posner/books/pages.cgi?call=537_M46T_1873_VOL._2&layout=vol0/part0/copy0&file=0263

[Krishnaroy]

Scientists were playing hide & seek in heaven. ..
Einstein was seeker..
Newton didn’t hide & stood in a square of 1 meter ..
Einstein: I found u Newton !! Thhappa !!!
Newton: U are Wrong ..I am not Newton..As I am standing in 1 mtr square, I am Newton/mt sq.
So I am Pascal

[BADecker]

HITLER'S GHOST ISLAND Secret Nazi ‘Treasure Hunter’ base in Arctic found by Russian scientists after being abandoned over 70 years ago when crew was poisoned by polar bear meat


A TOP secret Nazi base in the depths of the Arctic has been found by Russian scientists after more than 70 years.

https://clips.news.co.uk/thesun/sydHl2NjE6gDw-3Crm59A-Eo--EZHpZM/DOcJ-FxaFrRg4gtDEwOnI5OjAwMTvlg2

Ruined bunkers, rusted bullets and even documents among 500 objects found on remote island that may have been used as an outpost to search for mythical treasure trove.

A TOP secret Nazi base in the depths of the Arctic has been found by Russian scientists after more than 70 years.

The mysterious site is located on a remote island in Russian territory – more than 600 miles from the North Pole.

Read more and look at the pictures at https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2020632/secret-nazi-treasure-hunter-base-arctic-found-abandoned-poisoned-polar-bears/.

[farl2web]

From the information on the network that goes Jet engine is the engine that creates the necessary movements for the thrust by converting internal energiitopliva into kinetic energiyureaktivnoy stream of the working fluid. Thus it turns out that the vacuum does not create any obstacles.

[seven4smoke]

HITLER'S GHOST ISLAND Secret Nazi ‘Treasure Hunter’ base in Arctic found by Russian scientists after being abandoned over 70 years ago when crew was poisoned by polar bear meat


A TOP secret Nazi base in the depths of the Arctic has been found by Russian scientists after more than 70 years.

https://clips.news.co.uk/thesun/sydHl2NjE6gDw-3Crm59A-Eo--EZHpZM/DOcJ-FxaFrRg4gtDEwOnI5OjAwMTvlg2

Ruined bunkers, rusted bullets and even documents among 500 objects found on remote island that may have been used as an outpost to search for mythical treasure trove.

A TOP secret Nazi base in the depths of the Arctic has been found by Russian scientists after more than 70 years.

The mysterious site is located on a remote island in Russian territory – more than 600 miles from the North Pole.

Read more and look at the pictures at https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2020632/secret-nazi-treasure-hunter-base-arctic-found-abandoned-poisoned-polar-bears/.

It's an interesting story and a lot is still unknown to the present day. I do not believe that nobody is interested in and what about the treasure forgotten.

[BADecker]

HITLER'S GHOST ISLAND Secret Nazi ‘Treasure Hunter’ base in Arctic found by Russian scientists after being abandoned over 70 years ago when crew was poisoned by polar bear meat


A TOP secret Nazi base in the depths of the Arctic has been found by Russian scientists after more than 70 years.

https://clips.news.co.uk/thesun/sydHl2NjE6gDw-3Crm59A-Eo--EZHpZM/DOcJ-FxaFrRg4gtDEwOnI5OjAwMTvlg2

Ruined bunkers, rusted bullets and even documents among 500 objects found on remote island that may have been used as an outpost to search for mythical treasure trove.

A TOP secret Nazi base in the depths of the Arctic has been found by Russian scientists after more than 70 years.

The mysterious site is located on a remote island in Russian territory – more than 600 miles from the North Pole.

Read more and look at the pictures at https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2020632/secret-nazi-treasure-hunter-base-arctic-found-abandoned-poisoned-polar-bears/.

It's an interesting story and a lot is still unknown to the present day. I do not believe that nobody is interested in and what about the treasure forgotten.

The point is that the Nazis were great rocket scientists. Anything that proves their existence is pro rocketry. Just ask the people of England about the Nazi rockets that destroyed them and their families in WW2.

[notbatman]

^ liar, the elites in the UK were complicit in the re-appropriation of assets and re-location of people; the V2 is 100% propaganda.

[mikecgna]

HITLER'S GHOST ISLAND Secret Nazi ‘Treasure Hunter’ base in Arctic found by Russian scientists after being abandoned over 70 years ago when crew was poisoned by polar bear meat


A TOP secret Nazi base in the depths of the Arctic has been found by Russian scientists after more than 70 years.

https://clips.news.co.uk/thesun/sydHl2NjE6gDw-3Crm59A-Eo--EZHpZM/DOcJ-FxaFrRg4gtDEwOnI5OjAwMTvlg2

Ruined bunkers, rusted bullets and even documents among 500 objects found on remote island that may have been used as an outpost to search for mythical treasure trove.

A TOP secret Nazi base in the depths of the Arctic has been found by Russian scientists after more than 70 years.

The mysterious site is located on a remote island in Russian territory – more than 600 miles from the North Pole.

Read more and look at the pictures at https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2020632/secret-nazi-treasure-hunter-base-arctic-found-abandoned-poisoned-polar-bears/.

It's an interesting story and a lot is still unknown to the present day. I do not believe that nobody is interested in and what about the treasure forgotten.

The point is that the Nazis were great rocket scientists. Anything that proves their existence is pro rocketry. Just ask the people of England about the Nazi rockets that destroyed them and their families in WW2.

Oh oh oh guys, do not try to negotiate such things in Russia forum thread. This is politics. There's all white say black.

[BADecker]

^ liar, the elites in the UK were complicit in the re-appropriation of assets and re-location of people; the V2 is 100% propaganda.

I am really kinda curious as to what your game is. Are you truly a wacko in some kind of funny farm? Or, are you a disgruntled scientist who is out to ruin the science community because they snubbed you somewhere along the line? Or, are you working for the CIA in some kind of psyops testing? Or, might you truly have the goal of becoming part of a minority group that is big enough to get government funding? If it is this last thing, Trump's government will be shutting down a lot of free money, so it will be harder than ever to get your money gravy-train going.

Even amateur rocket scientists know that the V2 flew to the edges of space, and then, simply dropped, free fall style, onto whomever the targets were. By the time they reached thick enough atmosphere where the sound of their coming might be heard, they were already traveling faster than the speed of sound, so that they were ahead of the sound they were making, including the sonic boom they made. In their explosion, nobody could tell the difference between the explosion, and the sonic boom that followed shortly on the heels of the explosion. Besides, nobody knew what a sonic boom was back then... so all they understood was the explosion.

Why are you promoting something as silly as your fake rocket science? Is it a religion for you, and you simply really believe it? I understand that I probably won't get a truthful answer from you, but my curiosity, and that of others, has truly been piqued. Are you totally a troll, attempting to see how long you can push this thread? I mean, everybody has heard the proverbial idea of pushing a rope. But are you really trying to push a thread?

Now, quickly reply, with a bunch of replies, so this post of mine gets hidden in the obscurity of your blabber.

[d-trixx]

^ liar, the elites in the UK were complicit in the re-appropriation of assets and re-location of people; the V2 is 100% propaganda.

I am really kinda curious as to what your game is. Are you truly a wacko in some kind of funny farm? Or, are you a disgruntled scientist who is out to ruin the science community because they snubbed you somewhere along the line? Or, are you working for the CIA in some kind of psyops testing? Or, might you truly have the goal of becoming part of a minority group that is big enough to get government funding? If it is this last thing, Trump's government will be shutting down a lot of free money, so it will be harder than ever to get your money gravy-train going.

Even amateur rocket scientists know that the V2 flew to the edges of space, and then, simply dropped, free fall style, onto whomever the targets were. By the time they reached thick enough atmosphere where the sound of their coming might be heard, they were already traveling faster than the speed of sound, so that they were ahead of the sound they were making, including the sonic boom they made. In their explosion, nobody could tell the difference between the explosion, and the sonic boom that followed shortly on the heels of the explosion. Besides, nobody knew what a sonic boom was back then... so all they understood was the explosion.

Why are you promoting something as silly as your fake rocket science? Is it a religion for you, and you simply really believe it? I understand that I probably won't get a truthful answer from you, but my curiosity, and that of others, has truly been piqued. Are you totally a troll, attempting to see how long you can push this thread? I mean, everybody has heard the proverbial idea of pushing a rope. But are you really trying to push a thread?

Now, quickly reply, with a bunch of replies, so this post of mine gets hidden in the obscurity of your blabber.

At the expense of world politics it is very difficult to say anything at all. We do not participate in any negotiations, or even do not know the real situation regarding the issues that guided policy.

[BADecker]

^ liar, the elites in the UK were complicit in the re-appropriation of assets and re-location of people; the V2 is 100% propaganda.

I am really kinda curious as to what your game is. Are you truly a wacko in some kind of funny farm? Or, are you a disgruntled scientist who is out to ruin the science community because they snubbed you somewhere along the line? Or, are you working for the CIA in some kind of psyops testing? Or, might you truly have the goal of becoming part of a minority group that is big enough to get government funding? If it is this last thing, Trump's government will be shutting down a lot of free money, so it will be harder than ever to get your money gravy-train going.

Even amateur rocket scientists know that the V2 flew to the edges of space, and then, simply dropped, free fall style, onto whomever the targets were. By the time they reached thick enough atmosphere where the sound of their coming might be heard, they were already traveling faster than the speed of sound, so that they were ahead of the sound they were making, including the sonic boom they made. In their explosion, nobody could tell the difference between the explosion, and the sonic boom that followed shortly on the heels of the explosion. Besides, nobody knew what a sonic boom was back then... so all they understood was the explosion.

Why are you promoting something as silly as your fake rocket science? Is it a religion for you, and you simply really believe it? I understand that I probably won't get a truthful answer from you, but my curiosity, and that of others, has truly been piqued. Are you totally a troll, attempting to see how long you can push this thread? I mean, everybody has heard the proverbial idea of pushing a rope. But are you really trying to push a thread?

Now, quickly reply, with a bunch of replies, so this post of mine gets hidden in the obscurity of your blabber.

At the expense of world politics it is very difficult to say anything at all. We do not participate in any negotiations, or even do not know the real situation regarding the issues that guided policy.

That's great. But standard rocket science is real, just the same.   

[berserkinterbuy]

^ liar, the elites in the UK were complicit in the re-appropriation of assets and re-location of people; the V2 is 100% propaganda.

I am really kinda curious as to what your game is. Are you truly a wacko in some kind of funny farm? Or, are you a disgruntled scientist who is out to ruin the science community because they snubbed you somewhere along the line? Or, are you working for the CIA in some kind of psyops testing? Or, might you truly have the goal of becoming part of a minority group that is big enough to get government funding? If it is this last thing, Trump's government will be shutting down a lot of free money, so it will be harder than ever to get your money gravy-train going.

Even amateur rocket scientists know that the V2 flew to the edges of space, and then, simply dropped, free fall style, onto whomever the targets were. By the time they reached thick enough atmosphere where the sound of their coming might be heard, they were already traveling faster than the speed of sound, so that they were ahead of the sound they were making, including the sonic boom they made. In their explosion, nobody could tell the difference between the explosion, and the sonic boom that followed shortly on the heels of the explosion. Besides, nobody knew what a sonic boom was back then... so all they understood was the explosion.

Why are you promoting something as silly as your fake rocket science? Is it a religion for you, and you simply really believe it? I understand that I probably won't get a truthful answer from you, but my curiosity, and that of others, has truly been piqued. Are you totally a troll, attempting to see how long you can push this thread? I mean, everybody has heard the proverbial idea of pushing a rope. But are you really trying to push a thread?

Now, quickly reply, with a bunch of replies, so this post of mine gets hidden in the obscurity of your blabber.

At the expense of world politics it is very difficult to say anything at all. We do not participate in any negotiations, or even do not know the real situation regarding the issues that guided policy.

That's great. But standard rocket science is real, just the same.   

Rockets to measure its superiority in the world, is the destiny of fools. We do come to destroy the whole earth.