Re: Faster than c?

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Faster than c?
Date	2016-12-20 01:12 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<i5dmid-n64.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <1f0fe836-7799-4a40-aa37-f50d18176ea6@googlegroups.com> <onugid-09b.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <5855f07b$0$42971$b1db1813$19ace300@news.astraweb.com> <unbhid-1jc.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <5858602e$0$51676$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com>

Show all headers | View raw

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 12/17/2016 10:17 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2016 6:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 12:56:07 PM UTC-8, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>>>>>> Is not possible.Instant action is not possible.I have a time lapse theory that is now accepted.I even prove it. Trebert
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think c may be like the sound barrier, they used to say it could never be broken!
>>>>>
>>>>> Double-A
>>>>
>>>> What some said was that a manned vehicle couldn't  break the sound barrier.
>>>>
>>>> That rifle bullets go faster than sound was noticed not too long after
>>>> rifles were invented.
>>>
>>> Not the same thing as humans going faster.
>>
>> Yet another blinding insight from Captain Obvious.
>>
>>> Everybody knows if humans go faster than sound, they die. That's science.
>>
>> Actually the belief was they would likely die as a result of the aircraft
>> breaking up from the "strange forces" (at that time) that resulted as
>> one neared Mach 1 such as control reversal.
>>
> Which did happen until some design changes were ironed out.

Yet another blinding insight from Captain Obvious.

<snip ad hominem screed>


-- 
Jim Pennino

Thread

Faster than c? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 12:56 -0800
  Re: Faster than c? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-12-17 13:02 -0800
    Re: Faster than c? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 13:32 -0800
    Re: Faster than c? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-12-17 23:35 +0000
      Re: Faster than c? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-17 21:12 -0500
        Re: Faster than c? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-12-18 03:17 +0000
          Re: Faster than c? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-19 17:33 -0500
            Re: Faster than c? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-12-20 01:12 +0000
      Re: Faster than c? pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-12-19 07:50 -0800
        Re: Faster than c? Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-19 10:00 -0600
        Re: Faster than c? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 11:48 -0800
          Re: Faster than c? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-19 12:37 -0800
          Re: Faster than c? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-12-19 12:50 -0800
            Re: Faster than c? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-19 14:58 -0800
              Re: Faster than c? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-12-20 13:59 -0800
                Re: Faster than c? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-20 15:00 -0800
                Re: Faster than c? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 12:31 -0800
                Re: Faster than c? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-22 14:52 -0800
                Re: Faster than c? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 15:38 -0800
                Re: Faster than c? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-24 17:59 -0800
                Re: Faster than c? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 15:15 -0800
                Re: Faster than c? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-26 18:37 -0800
                Re: Faster than c? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-12-26 15:12 -0800
                Re: Faster than c? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 11:58 -0800
                Re: Faster than c? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-27 12:32 -0800
            Re: Faster than c? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 13:29 -0800
              Re: Faster than c? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-21 15:28 -0800
        Re: Faster than c? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-12-19 12:48 -0800
    Re: Faster than c? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 11:43 -0800
      Re: Faster than c? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-19 12:28 -0800
  Re: Faster than c? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-17 13:54 -0800

csiph-web