At sea-level NOBODY has gone faster than 600KPH, but you believe that they reach 1200KPH, don't you?

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:51:05 -0800 in episode
we saw our hero
(bart janssens):

"Mark K. Bilbo" -amikchi wrote in message -amikchi...
On % in episode we saw
our hero (bart janssens):

This is a typical example of doublethink.

From the point of your OWN EXPERIENCE and of your OWN EMPIRICAL
METHOD...you never experienced a velocity of more than 600KPH at
sea-level...and you really do not know a honest person that has gone
faster than 600KPH at sea-level,
however you probably "follow" the believe that many men have already
broken the sound-barrier at sea-level, which means that those men went
FASTER than 1200KPH at sea-level...

In order to neutralize this contradiction most people believe that is
FORBIDDEN BY LAW TO DEMONSTRATE THE BREAKING OF THE SOUND-BARRIER,
and to go faster than 1200KPH, because of the supersonic bang,...

and then they simply forget the difference
between 600KPH and 1200KPH....

None of this makes any damn sense.

I see no reason to doubt reports that the speed of sound was exceeded on
the ground. What would stop them?

Do you know any report that a speed of 600KPH was exceeded
by a man at sea-level?

Sure. Here's one:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5..._speed_pr.html

And he

http://roadsters.com/750/

Their average was 763.035 miles per hour which is... 1227.99 Kilometers
per hour.

So, why do you believe that the speed of sound (1200KPH)
was exceeded at sea-level?

Why shouldn't I?

Or, are you a double-speaker?

Bass or treble?


My words:
And if you claim that "2+2=5" and "600=1200", than you can easily
believe that space-travel, which needs 28000KPH, is possible...

Well, *somebody put some satellites up there. I even watch TV off of one...

...there are some (natural) satellites,
like the moon and the asteroids and the ionosphere....

But, why is necessary to claim that "somebody" has put them there?

You are like a christian who sees proof of the existence of God,
because God PUT "man in the garden of Eden"....

I have a dish aimed at one that's broadcasting TV signals at us. Why is it
doing that? Broadcasting TV signals?

--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."

Ned i bach , bart janssens
teithant i thiw hin:

"Mark K. Bilbo" -amikchi wrote in message
-amikchi...

I see no reason to doubt reports that the speed of sound was exceeded on
the ground. What would stop them?

Do you know any report that a speed of 600KPH was exceeded
by a man at sea-level?

http://www.google.com/
ThrustSSC "sound barrier" 259 hits

See what a little homework can do?

My words:
And if you claim that "2+2=5" and "600=1200", than you can easily
believe that space-travel, which needs 28000KPH, is possible...

Well, *somebody put some satellites up there. I even watch TV off of one...

...there are some (natural) satellites,
like the moon and the asteroids and the ionosphere....

But, why is necessary to claim that "somebody" has put them there?

Are the corner-cube reflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions
"naturally occurring" too, you dimwit? Hell, go outside and look up---the
ISS is naked-eye visible from the ground,

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/station/viewing/issvis.html

--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
http://xaonon.dyndns.org/ Guaranteed content-free since 1999. No refunds.
"Is the surface of a planet the right place for an expanding industrial
civilisation?" -- Gerard K. O'Neill

Ned i bach , bart janssens
teithant i thiw hin:

"Mark K. Bilbo" -amikchi wrote in message
-amikchi...

I see no reason to doubt reports that the speed of sound was exceeded on
the ground. What would stop them?

Do you know any report that a speed of 600KPH was exceeded
by a man at sea-level?

http://www.google.com/
ThrustSSC "sound barrier" 259 hits

See what a little homework can do?

My words:
And if you claim that "2+2=5" and "600=1200", than you can easily
believe that space-travel, which needs 28000KPH, is possible...

Well, *somebody put some satellites up there. I even watch TV off of one...

...there are some (natural) satellites,
like the moon and the asteroids and the ionosphere....

But, why is necessary to claim that "somebody" has put them there?

Are the corner-cube reflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions
"naturally occurring" too, you dimwit? Hell, go outside and look up---the
ISS is naked-eye visible from the ground,

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/station/viewing/issvis.html

--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
http://xaonon.dyndns.org/ Guaranteed content-free since 1999. No refunds.
"Is the surface of a planet the right place for an expanding industrial
civilisation?" -- Gerard K. O'Neill

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:48:12 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Baruch." $PAM came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism

OK, but were these flights at sea level? I think maybe Bart's contention
is
that the speed is impossible at sea level - though I can't for the life
of
me imagine why he thinks that...

3,848 ft above sea level. Which means the air pressure is 0.999.

No difference, really.
--
Respectfully, I question your figure of 0.999. When I am in an elevator
that goes only a few hundred feet, I notice a change in pressure within my
ears. I doubt whether my ears are sensitive enough to detect a change of
less than 0.1%.

Also, ordinary changes in air pressure from weather are fare greater than
0.999.

I don't know the facts about atmospheric pressure, but I am fairly certain
that my comments are relevant...

If you know of some information that suggests otherwise, could you kindly
point it out to me? Thanks...

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:48:12 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Baruch." $PAM came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism

OK, but were these flights at sea level? I think maybe Bart's contention
is
that the speed is impossible at sea level - though I can't for the life
of
me imagine why he thinks that...

3,848 ft above sea level. Which means the air pressure is 0.999.

No difference, really.
--
Respectfully, I question your figure of 0.999. When I am in an elevator
that goes only a few hundred feet, I notice a change in pressure within my
ears. I doubt whether my ears are sensitive enough to detect a change of
less than 0.1%.

Also, ordinary changes in air pressure from weather are fare greater than
0.999.

I don't know the facts about atmospheric pressure, but I am fairly certain
that my comments are relevant...

If you know of some information that suggests otherwise, could you kindly
point it out to me? Thanks...

On 25 Feb 2004 09:51:05 -0800, (bart
janssens) wrote:

snip idiocy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
speed of sound

The speed of sound, or of acoustic traveling waves, is a physical
constant for any given medium at a specific pressure and temperature.
In dry air at sea level at 0 degrees Celsius, the speed of sound is
approximately 331.4 meters per second (m/s). Temperature, pressure,
and humidity affect this value to some extent.
In most liquids and solids, the speed of sound is greater than in air
at sea level. In part, this is because traveling waves in air occur
because of compression, but traveling waves in solids and liquids
occur because of lateral motion of the molecules, a phenomenon that
generally propagates faster. The higher speed of sound in liquids and
solids, compared with gases, is also partly the result of the fact
that liquids and solids are usually more dense than gases.
Traveling-wave speed generally increases with increasing density and
hardness of the medium.

http://www.gmi.edu/~drussell/Demos/doppler/mach1.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check out the Mpeg on the above site. It's awesome!

Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly

On 25 Feb 2004 09:51:05 -0800, (bart
janssens) wrote:

snip idiocy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
speed of sound

The speed of sound, or of acoustic traveling waves, is a physical
constant for any given medium at a specific pressure and temperature.
In dry air at sea level at 0 degrees Celsius, the speed of sound is
approximately 331.4 meters per second (m/s). Temperature, pressure,
and humidity affect this value to some extent.
In most liquids and solids, the speed of sound is greater than in air
at sea level. In part, this is because traveling waves in air occur
because of compression, but traveling waves in solids and liquids
occur because of lateral motion of the molecules, a phenomenon that
generally propagates faster. The higher speed of sound in liquids and
solids, compared with gases, is also partly the result of the fact
that liquids and solids are usually more dense than gases.
Traveling-wave speed generally increases with increasing density and
hardness of the medium.

http://www.gmi.edu/~drussell/Demos/doppler/mach1.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check out the Mpeg on the above site. It's awesome!

Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly

Steve Knight wrote:
On 25 Feb 2004 09:51:05 -0800, (bart
janssens) wrote:

snip idiocy


Please note that there is no one in
"alt.christnet.christianlife"
who is interested in this discussion.

Thank you.

--
+-[:-)- oldwetdog
-----
"Truth is a hard master, and difficult to serve, but it simplifies all
problems." Ellis Peters
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/
..

Steve Knight wrote:
On 25 Feb 2004 09:51:05 -0800, (bart
janssens) wrote:

snip idiocy


Please note that there is no one in
"alt.christnet.christianlife"
who is interested in this discussion.

Thank you.

--
+-[:-)- oldwetdog
-----
"Truth is a hard master, and difficult to serve, but it simplifies all
problems." Ellis Peters
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/
..

Well, *somebody put some satellites up there. I even watch TV off of one...

...there are some (natural) satellites,
like the moon and the asteroids and the ionosphere....

But, why is necessary to claim that "somebody" has put them there?

You are like a christian who sees proof of the existence of God,
because God PUT "man in the garden of Eden"....


What the heck are you talking about?
I cannot believe you are as crazy as you sound.
My bet is still that you are a joker.

Nobody is claiming that "somebody" has put natural satellite
objects into orbit.

I understand that you "believe" that there are no man-made
satellites in orbit.

Unfortunately. there is ample evidence that communication
satellites have been in use for decades.

There is NO evidence of your INSANE alternate scenario that
for over 40 years some other means of accomplishing what they
have been doing has actually been the case. You have none.
You cannot point to anything that supports your belief in what
must be a massive industry considering the vast use the world
makes of telecom services. How about showing us a spec manual
with a chapter on how to cope with irregular asteroid surfaces,
anything technical that deals with how real equpment works with
anything other than man-made orbitals. You have nothing, but
foolishly plod on, ignoring every fact that crosses your path.
And you call yourself a scientist!

There is a big difference between what MIGHT be true
and what is DEMONSTRABLY true.

I suspect that when you came up with your wrong little physics
theory, you got so excited that you failed to think it all the
way through. You forgot about all the consequences of your theory.
You forgot about satellites and what they have obviously been
doing and now you have no way to debunk this glaring error of yours.

And, you have still not shown that you are a scientist
rather than a priest. I will ask you yet again:

What evidence will convince you that orbital satellites
exist? If you have no answer, you are not seeking scientifically.
What evidence would falsify your hypotesis that there are no
man-made satellites in orbit?