Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #609473
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Faster than c? |
| Date | 2016-12-18 03:17 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <unbhid-1jc.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink) |
| References | <204404f7-2a6e-4fdc-a1f6-f8f27e8c13d7@googlegroups.com> <1f0fe836-7799-4a40-aa37-f50d18176ea6@googlegroups.com> <onugid-09b.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <5855f07b$0$42971$b1db1813$19ace300@news.astraweb.com> |
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. -- Jim Pennino
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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