Aiming Steered Missiles-No Fancy Plane Required.

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I
I
I
I
I
I

becomes...

*boom!*

edit: the sw removes embedded spaces - alas, my ASCII pic of a shattering missile is lost

[edit on 26-8-2007 by Tom Bedlam]




posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
cyberdude/DARKPRO/APEX and you all others are wrong.

i am both unbloodied and unbowed.

when you go into a meeting you are terrified.....

scared....frightened ...

scared of what other people will think of you...

scared of your career and the boss holding your future hostage...


so you go with the flow and herd....

you kiss the bosses backside and lap up his jokes...and so you dont speak up.


You know, I think it's attitudes like this that have caused the decrease in teachers. You try and tell someone something new for their own benefit and get this in return.



you are wrong and so are ignoring facts and the laws of physics.


Technically if I was actually wrong, wouldn't that be the other way around?



look at racing cars around a race track at high speed.

if a car does does a sudden 90 degree LEFT what happens.?

if the tyre friction fails and it skids then EVEN THOUGH THE CAR 'S NOSE HAS TURNED LEFTwards THE CARS CONTINUES TO GO IN THE ORIGINAL DIRECTION DUE TO NEWTON'S LAWS.


And from time to time, meets an incompressible barrier (much like supersonic wind) and gets promptly turned from a precise machine worth thousands and thousands of dollars into flying shrapnel. Doesn't that sound kind of familiar?



WHY CANT U ADMIT THIS AND ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG?


Because the slogan of the site is "Deny Ignorance", which is in the imperative form of speech. This makes it a command, which also means that you're supposed to do it. Hence, I do it.



same with planes ..it does a left turn but despite the noSe POINTING LEFT IT CONTINUES TO GO IN THE ORIGINAL DIRECTION AND IT IS EXPERINCING FULL SIDEWAYS FORCE FROM THE AIR INCLUDING THE PYLONS AND MISSILES....WHICH DONT GET RIPPED OF.....


Have you noticed that the aircaft actually changes direction while turning (hence the use of the turning manoeuvre)? And in this form, it doesn't ever end up 90 degrees sideways. With your pylon rotated, the missile IS 90 degrees into the wind. And it will be a lot more wind than the effect you're describing.

The aircraft does tend to skid a bit in the air at low speeds. Say, 150-300 knots. But it only skids a little bit. Maybe 15-20 degrees max, but that's an estimate. And that's low speed. A missile launch would be a full 90 degrees sideways with a Mach 1+ speed. There's a bit of a difference, wouldn't you say?



the plane is going at high speed sideways...have you go that thru your skull?


For the umpteenth time, no, it isn't. Go on YouTube, find a video of a plane turning. It's never sideways in a turn.



so there...

you have been defeated again....


By Mr. Plum, in the LIbrary, with a candle stick, maybe. But not by Esecallum on ATS with the imaginary physics.



point 2
------------------------------------------------------------

missiles dont tumble when hit with a crosswind...

they cannot TUMBLE AS THE POINTED SIDE PRESENTS LEAST AIR RESISTANCE/FRICTION.


Have you noticed that if you launch a missile to the side it's not presenting the pointed side into the wind? You know, if I get back on my own computer, I'll do a diagram to illustrate this.



look at a javlin..... when thrown it hits the ARBITRARY target ...

but suppose you have a crosswind now...

does the javelin tumble? no


no no nooooo....AND NO...!!!

WHY?


Because the cross wind is probably at 10-15 knots for a bit of nastiness, not Mach 1. Again with the tiny little differences in scenarios.



because the javlin SIMPLY DRIFTS OF THE TARGET.SIDEWAYS.


See above.



SEE?

YOU HAVE BEEN SOUNDLY BEATEN AGAIN...


I'd like to see links showing proof of that. Can you get any credible sources?


[edit on 8/26/2007 by Darkpr0]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Oh man, this is just a joke.

I think he's taking us all for a ride, honestly no one can soundly be this dense.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
SE7EN PAGES OF WHAT? The same thing over and over again. Esecallum is definitely a troll. Please guys, I think we should just ignore it.

Thanks.

P.S. Thanks for the applause.


[edit on 27/8/2007 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 05:02 AM
link   
esecallum, do you really think that when a plane turns it skids side on to the direction it is travelling and then suddenly accelerates in the direction it is now pointing?


No wonder people can't get through to you.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Honestly I'm telling you, I think he's just pulling our leg, I honestly don't think anyone is that dense naturally. I think he's getting a kick out of getting us to respond to 7 pages of pure BS.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Because the slogan of the site is "Deny Ignorance", which is in the imperative form of speech. This makes it a command, which also means that you're supposed to do it. Hence, I do it.
"Peoples called Ro-ma-ny they go the house?" "What's Latin for Roman?...."
Sorry but couldn't help see the simmilarity between what you just said, and that all time classic scene in Monty Pythons Life of Brian.

As for esecallum's claims...
Dude stop it your killing me(and racking up ATS points it would seem).

LEE.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
cyberdude/DARKPRO/APEX and you all others are wrong.
Of course, thats why we are all here, to learn from your scintillating genius and be insulted by someone who doesn't know us or what we do for a living,.... like working in the aerospace industry for example.


i am both unbloodied and unbowed.
Most fools when hopelessly out of their depth don't. Hence the reason for using the term, the definition being: fool/foohl/noun 1a: a person lacking in prudence, common sense, or understanding.


when you go into a meeting you are terrified.....
scared....frightened ...
scared of what other people will think of you...
I avoid workplace meetings at all costs unless I have to, and generally they avoid me
. Mainly because I am notorious for opening my mouth and saying the things that other people won't say, and asking the questions that other people won't ask. And then coping the flak for it. Iam older and wiser now so I stay away, though my views are still widely known.

scared of your career and the boss holding your future hostage...
so you go with the flow and herd....
I worked in a government authority for nearly seven years and partly lost my job(forced resignation in some peoples parlance) because I did speak out, long and loud. I refused to go with the heard and join the Sheeple mentality that pervades bureaucracies every where. I tried "raging against the machine", and guess what? It didn't do a god damned thing.

you kiss the bosses backside and lap up his jokes...and so you dont speak up.
I have NEVER EVER, kissed any bosses arse and never will(unless he has an exceptionally cute daughter
). I will laugh at his jokes IF they are funny. I have nearly hit one boss, had shouting matches when I knew I was right with others(and won), and stood toe to toe in an argument with a currently serving senior Australian federal cabinet minister who was an amateur boxer and is a renowned "head kicker" in parliment. I may not seem an intimidating character and rarely am I, but I have balls and brains when the chips are down.

So what are your credentials?.... or are you not prepared to reveal them. All the way through this thread you have consistently denied reality even when people took the time to explain(repeatedly) politely why you were wrong. Not once have you said, on any single point the words "Ok I might be wrong", take a look esecallum at everyones profile that you have argued with and you will find those words on at least some of their posts. I cannot help but think as others do that you are taking us all for a ride and/or trolling the forum for a fight and some ATS points.

I apologise to the moderators or anyone who was offended by this post, but it is high time someone give this thread author a reality check and a lesson in humility.

LEE.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by thebozeian]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebozeian
I cannot help but think as others do that you are taking us all for a ride and/or trolling the forum for a fight and some ATS points.


Sadly, I fear you are quite mistaken. You're seeing esecallum at his very best here.

The truth is obvious - you are all in the pay of big Aerospace.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 



to you,waynos and the others and to tom bedlam ...your accusations I am a troll are ridiculous...the fact is you are on th cusp of defeat and so the only way you CAN save your ego's is by baseless remarks.


now i quote YOU:-

"esecallum, do you really think that when a plane turns it skids side on to the direction it is travelling and then suddenly accelerates in the direction it is now pointing? "


yes.

because newton 3 law's demand it...because if it suddenly stopped going in the x direction and changed to y direction the pilot would be pulp and the aircraft disintegrate.

I QUOTE 1ST LAW
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

i already explained in the race car analogy but you chose to ignore that knowing i was right...

2ND LAW.
II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

see?

yes the aircraft DOES SKID SIDEWAYS before it can turn left or right..it must per newtons laws...

also why cars skid on icy roads doing corners.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:57 AM
link   
esecallum, instead of debating whether when a plane turns it skids side on to the direction it is travelling and then suddenly accelerates in the direction it is now pointing. How about explaining WHY we need pointable missiles.

I will state what I've said something like five times again,

Missiles can maneuver themselves to the target and you do NOT need to point the plane directly at them. You only need to point the nose in the general direction of them, which really, is essential to get inrange of the enemy plane. You do NOT need to dogfight in real life, and it will almost never happen in a real airwar. With the AMRAAM for example, you only need to point the nose within 60 degrees of the target, and with the Aim-9X 80degrees from the centre line.

WHY DO WE NEED POINTABLE PYLONS?

___

Noone else reply untill he has successfully answered that question.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Has anyone else noted how esecallum is now steering his argument away from the physical problems we have identified that make his idea unworkable or worthless. And is instead trying to claim (again) for the millionth time that he has defeated everyone using his "XYZ" charade. Seems someone HAS been defeated and is backpedaling by obfuscation and smokescreen whilst claiming total victory all along. How very "North Korean" of him.

There is an old saying,
"Never argue with a fool because they will drag you down to their level, and beat you everytime with experience."
Based on this, I think our thread poster might be winning afterall.


LEE.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by thebozeian]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
esecallum has yet to provide a single source of information to back his claims up. He's like a magician only he doesn't pull stuff out of a hat.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
to you,waynos and the others and to tom bedlam ...your accusations I am a troll are ridiculous...the fact is you are on th cusp of defeat and so the only way you CAN save your ego's is by baseless remarks.


Esecallum, you have finally beaten me. Not by facts, or by proof, but by stubbornness. I have decided that arguing with you is going to get nowhere. You have argued every point we've given (along with the coinciding proof) by saying "No, it won't" at most.

I hereby refuse to reply in this thread anymore until you can successfully provide sources and credible proof that we are wrong.

If you want to continue insulting me, you may do so in U2U, however I promise that it will go no better for you.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Esecallum, you have finally beaten me. Not by facts, or by proof, but by stubbornness. I have decided that arguing with you is going to get nowhere. You have argued every point we've given (along with the coinciding proof) by saying "No, it won't" at most.

I hereby refuse to reply in this thread anymore until you can successfully provide sources and credible proof that we are wrong.


Seconded.

Not a one line post, honest.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Guys, Guys, Guys,

I'm shocked at you all!

I'm also shocked that my race car doesn't obey the laws of physics as well, I can tell you
I wonder if the wings and spoilers on it obey the laws of aerodynamics? For more performance, perhaps I should think more outside a circular box (which obviously has no drag or turbulence) instead of outside a square box.

But seriously, let the deluded maintain their delusions. This person is so far off the beaten track that no fact, data or argument is going to influence them, which in turn means that they will play no significant part in the future gene pool anyway. So why bother? Allow this sorry individual to continue to believe that the physics of Star Wars is reality. Alternatively, we could just all admit that we know nothing and make him our hero and technological leader!

It's just a shame that everyone on the planet is wrong and that he is the only person who knows the answers - I guess that's why he's running the world, isn't it.

It can do no real harm.

Entertaining, yes, but getting a little sad now.

esecallum, how long ago did you begin to notice that nobody ever agrees with your beliefs and theories? It must be a conspiracy, I guess.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 30/8/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by esecallum
 





to you,waynos and the others and to tom bedlam ...your accusations I am a troll....


which I never did, I just think you are wrong. I know none of what follows will make any difference to you but I'm still going to type it anyway, which says more about me than you I suppose.




because newton 3 law's demand it...because if it suddenly stopped going in the x direction and changed to y direction the pilot would be pulp and the aircraft disintegrate...................you seem to think that the planes stop instantly turns then accelerates..no noo...NO NOOOO.



But 'the plane' doesn't 'suddenly stop' doing anything, it banks and turns in a gentle curve whilst maintaining a steady speed because sudden instantaneous changes of direction *are* impossible. But of course you MUST already know this, unless you are about 6.




I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.


yes, the external forces being thrust, lift and drag. when the plane turns the ailerons and rudder apply their own forces which result in a gradual change of direction, not an instant one, which is what you are expecting your sideways on mach-1-at-launch missile to achieve.




also why cars skid on icy roads doing corners


if you are talking about a car on an icy road then you are discussing something on the ground that is being propelled forwards on a slippery surface....OF COURSE it is going to slide on! An aeroplane is entirely different, the act of pointing the nose in a direction other than one the plane is travelling was something the aerospace industry spent millions of dollars and the entire 1980's in achieving for the future generation of fighters (ie those of today) it is called 'relaxed static stability' and was pursued in development aircraft like the F-16CCV, F-104CCV, ACT Jaguar and HiMAT, amongst several others. It is not the normal way for an aeroplane to behave. Apart from those very few planes designed to achieve this state for limited periods, any other type of plane that is travelling in a different direction from which it is pointing is out of control and in trouble. You can quote Newton etc as long as you like, when you are quoting it in the wrong context and with no understanding of what it is telling you (see above reply) it proves nothing.

[edit on 30-8-2007 by waynos]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Esecallum, you have finally beaten me. Not by facts, or by proof, but by stubbornness. I have decided that arguing with you is going to get nowhere. You have argued every point we've given (along with the coinciding proof) by saying "No, it won't" at most.

I hereby refuse to reply in this thread anymore until you can successfully provide sources and credible proof that we are wrong.


Seconded...


And I third it.

This has gone waaaaay beyond sad and ridiculous. We are doing nothing but feeding the ranting's of a dillusional mind at best. Unless someone here is brave or silly enough to want to soldier on bashing their head on concrete and has an objection, may I request that a moderator lock this thread? As sooner or later someone might say something that we all regret.


Darkpr0 you want me to U2U you with insults if esecallum fails too? "Hang on now where is my Thesaurus?..."


LEE.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I agree this thread should be locked before it progresses to a point that we all regret.

And someone for the love of all mercy take esecallum's thesaurus away!

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I think you guys are just jealous because you've been DEFEATED.

So, now all the truth is out, accept your DEFEAT and take a look here, where the burning question is "How fast is a g?"

/sorry, Mr Yeats





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join