Originally posted by esecallum
You haven't been insulting anyone at all?
Your logic is flawless.
if they are lying then i say so.
So find someone who's lying and say something about it. This would seem a logical course of action.
that is not insultiing
if i called you a stupid moronic idiot then it would be insulting.
Again with the observational abilities.
i never said that.
I SAID I NEVER SAID THAT.
See the above note.
you are simply trying to divert attention away from the facts.
With more facts that clearly show the truth.
you mentioned the boulton.TO DIVERT ATTENTION
then you talked about ancient planes.
And presented facts.
then you said... ...missiles break up when they clearly don't.
How many do you know of that have been successfully fired sideways?
look atr any airsHow.
you see planes travelling sideways.....SIDEWAYS AT HIGH SPEED.
The worst I've seen them flying is at 150 knots at a 35-45 degree angle. A missile launch like you're speaking of is at a 90 degree angle past
This is like saying "since a man can jump 10 feet, he can also therefore jump 30 feet." There's a reason the aircraft won't fly directly sideways
at mach 1.5. It doesn't work. Logically, this seems a fairly solid reason.
a planes goes in X DIRECTION but turns in Y direction BUT still has a Y component WHICH MEANS IT'S TRAVELLING SIDEWAYS AT HIGH SPEED.
What are you talking about? You're using a coordinate plane that isn't based on the aircraft's attitude.
If we assume up is north on a coordinate grid, an aircraft can move east (or to the right if you graph it). Yes, it's apparently moving sideways. But
based on the direction and attitude of the aircraft it's moving forward
. You can't just say that an aircraft is moving sideways because it's
moving across your field of view. Its motion relative to the way it is pointed is forward. It will not fly sideways at a high speed by nature. If it
is forced to do so by man's intervention, it will not fly sideways at high speed for very long. It will promptly begin falling as large sections of
wing, fuselage, control surface, and pilot are separated by the forces of air resistance and friction.
INCLUDING THE ATTACHED MISSILES WHICH DONT GET RIPPED OF THE PYLONS.
Which are also conveniently flying in a forward
manner. Such that they aren't moving sideways relative to the aircraft's attitude. Which
means that things being ripped off doesn't happen.
this PROVES MY ASSERTION IN TOTAL AND DISPROVES YOURS.
you are wrong again.
the shuttle has no substantial fuel to slow down ...
no SUBSTANTIAL fuel.
it uses air braking to slow down.
How is this relevant to it flying sideways?
nasa showed the zig zag path it followed to decrease speed using air as braking medium.
Yes. while in atmosphere it can use control surfaces much like any other aircraft. It turns. In a nice turning way. Such that it is moving in a very
forwardly way even while the aircraft changes heading to perform these zig-zaggedly formed maneuvers.
the PICTURES showed the shuttle sideways .AND IT DID NOT GET RIPPED APART AS YOU CLAIM.
Shuttle is sideways when there is no air resistance. Shuttle flies forward when there is air resistance.
at one pont in direction of travel.many times.
...Did anyone catch what this means? How can it be many times if it only happened at one particular point?
your wrong claim it slows down in space without substantial fuel. is designed to mislead.
IT glides in using air braking.
Space has no air. Just out of curiosity, then, how can one glide and use air brakes (which through a great deal of trouble, research, and time, I have
discovered require air! If you like, I can provide sources.)
modern fighter jets are also in their flight manoeveres are also traveling sideways to direction of travel.
Maneuvers like Pugachev's Cobra, the Kulbit, etc. Are performed at speeds of the 0-200 knot area, where relatively little air resistance is
encountered. The speeds at which missiles are launched border on 400 knots to well over supersonic. The difference is just noticeable. Just.
watch any movie or documentary on planes.or any airshow.
Wish granted. Now what?
you seem to forget velocity has 2 or 3 components.
x y z.
a plane can have 3 components at the same time...
i.e it can travel along x-axis while moving in y direction...
You're absolutely right. You have successfully proved what has previously been proven, and what has officially entered the realm of the obvious. I
congratulate you on your achievement.
your assertion that a curved missile will break up is absurd...
For some odd, unknown reason they don't exist either.
missiles travel in 3 direction at the same time.
x y z
For the record these are not directions. They are planes. Not airplanes, dimensional planes. If you like, you can also treat them as axes in a
coordinate plane. But they aren't directions.
which means they must be traveling non-nose first in THE OTHER 2 directions.
which means they must be traveling non-nose first in 2 directions.
The coordinate planes on which you are basing this theory must be based upon the attitude of the missile itself. Not a fixed direction. The missile
can encounter winds that are of a different direction, but this is unrelated to a missile that is travelling. You can't just fix a direction and say
that the missile is always pointing "up" (as an example) because it doesn't.
you have been defeated again.
Attack, parry, riposte.
If we have any fencers here who enjoy sabre, you'll get this one. If we have anyone who can understand what these words mean, you'll get this one.
If you don't get it... Well then you don't get it.
I can't wait for Darkpr0's assessment of the situation.
The situation is hopeless.
But the conversation is funny.
So it all works out in the end.
Mod Edit: Removed excessive number of quotes
[edit on 8/7/07 by FredT]
[edit on 8/7/07 by FredT]
[edit on 8/7/07 by FredT]