Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > sci.physics > #609428

Re: Faster than c?

From jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Newsgroups sci.physics
Subject Re: Faster than c?
Date 2016-12-17 23:35 +0000
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <onugid-09b.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink)
References <204404f7-2a6e-4fdc-a1f6-f8f27e8c13d7@googlegroups.com> <1f0fe836-7799-4a40-aa37-f50d18176ea6@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw


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.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

Back to sci.physics | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


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> - 2016-12-21 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