I loved the given etymology of 'understand' so much I almost didn't verify it... but alas, before quoting to someone else and so forth, I did... unfortunately:http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... understand
But kudos for creativity, nonetheless. (Or perhaps provide your source; I'd love to be able to repeat that one.)
Although it's only been a day since the posting and possibly more input is in the offing, it looks like I made a point, since - respectfully - the above replies, having nothing to do with the principles of rocketry, reads red herringish.
Lest you guys think I have any love for or belief in NASA and it's frauds, here are a few of my videos on the subject:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP0TQ99bMrwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tAAsyBYczshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmcwW-8CC6Ehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXRXHyNFRh8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV9tG2jnUzIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4PBgq8PfPQ
In spite of their naive acceptance of NASA data, I'm a fan of Electric Universe. Maybe someone can respond to my confusion re the following (posted elsewhere on CF):
'I attended the 2015 EU conference and was even asked to speak there -- my novel Cosmic Banditos (a cult semi-hit) plus my weird sense of humor was behind the invite. In the end I declined -- I realized that they will have nothing to do with 'conspiracy theories'. They even invited Michael Shermer to speak! (I know!) Had I actually spoken I would have pissed everyone off, which I didn't want to do.
I got to know Dave Talbott and found him genuine though super naive. I could not even talk to him about NASA frauds, but, again, this is/was due to his own brand of cognitive dissonance. I was tossed out of the online forum for bringing up Apollo.
They are afraid to be lumped together with 'conspiracy' types; yes that is dumb in the extreme but I suggest we all give them a break and not toss the baby, etc. The EU has been behind many epiphanies for me, especially re the f-ing big bang and all the expanding space and GR nonsense.
A detail: Wal Thornhill predicted there would be arcing between the (whatsis) probe that supposedly collided with the comet (I'm blanking the name/details, sorry!) I too see NASA as a complete fraud but why would they 'find' and report the exact arcing that Thornhill did predict, and which, if anything, ends up an embarrassment to NASA? Given NASA's total ignoring of EU, I don't see why they would do this. NASA/JPL's treatment of Anthony Peratt after his petroglyph (etc) studies tell us that no way would NASA do anything to help EU. I don't know what to make of the comet/Thornhill prediction issue. Whaddya think?
If you need details on any of the above, I'd be glad to provide them, but I suspect you all know to what I am referring. (I'm at the end of a long day so excuse my sloppiness here...)'
No one at that thread answered, btw...