'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

[gravityblock]

LOL, it is up to you to properly represent your ideas.  If you are unhappy with the way that you think that I or anyone else represents them then it is up to you to set the record straight as to what your ideas are.

The publications, books, and experiments by RD has failed to properly represent the idea to you also.  I understand the ideas as presented by RD, so why can't you?  It's because RD is in disagreement with your own beliefs.  However, this doesn't mean you misrepresent those ideas in which you disagree with.  You and Dan the downer are so much alike.  You don't know your head from your ass.  How can anyone properly represent their ideas to someone else who don't have the capacity to perceive things correctly.  It's like trying to properly represent your ideas to the fly on the wall.

Gravock

[Pirate88179]

That vote makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  So, you think I'm right at this particular time, but will be proven wrong and a crack pot down the road.  Or, you think MarkE is right at this particular time, but will be proven wrong and a crack pot down the road.  Either way, your own thoughts and reasoning skills are conflicted against each other.    This is almost as good as, "you have to speed up to slow down, and slow down to speed up".

Gravock

I just finished reading yet another book where "you have to slow down to speed up" is explained in great detail.  The book is: "Failure Is Not An Option" by Gene Kranz.  He clearly explains the study of orbital mechanics and how they had to learn to perform the essential rendezvous maneuver in order to get to the moon.  Yes, they did have to slow down to speed up.  Hopefully, one day you will be able to grasp this concept. This is the 4th book I have read that explains this principle.  Obviously, you have not read anything on the subject, otherwise, your comments might make some sense.

Oh, to explain, I think MarkE is correct (as well as known science) and you are not correct.  I did not think that I would have to explain that but...there it is.

Bill

PS  That concept could better be explained as having to slow down to CATCH up but, that is not the way all of those books have worded it...it would be more correct in my opinion.

[MarkE]

The publications, books, and experiments by RD has failed to properly represent the idea to you also.  I understand the ideas as presented by RD, so why can't you?  It's because RD is in disagreement with your own beliefs.  However, this doesn't mean you misrepresent those ideas in which you disagree with.  You and Dan the downer are so much alike.  You don't know your head from your ass.  How can anyone properly represent their ideas to someone else who don't have the capacity to perceive things correctly.  It's like trying to properly represent your ideas to the fly on the wall.

Gravock

You have reduced yourself to ad hominem attacks.  Nice.

[gravityblock]

I just finished reading yet another book where "you have to slow down to speed up" is explained in great detail.  The book is: "Failure Is Not An Option" by Gene Kranz.  He clearly explains the study of orbital mechanics and how they had to learn to perform the essential rendezvous maneuver in order to get to the moon.  Yes, they did have to slow down to speed up.  Hopefully, one day you will be able to grasp this concept. This is the 4th book I have read that explains this principle.  Obviously, you have not read anything on the subject, otherwise, your comments might make some sense.

"Failure is not an option" was in fact coined by Bill Broyles, one of the screenwriters of Apollo 13.  I can't believe your reading books about going to the moon, when they clearly faked it.  Each to their own.  We've already had this discussion, so no need in repeating it.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

You have reduced yourself to ad hominem attacks.  Nice.

If that's the way you want to perceive it, then so be it.  It is what it is!

Gravock