Re: +

[Bob Casanova]

On 22 Apr 2015 22:24:48 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by ma...@papa.org (spacesst):

>plus it better
>less it worse
>
>... Intuition, however illogical, is recognized as a command
> prerogative.

Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?

BTW, I'm curious about your handle. Exactly what velocity
would constitute supersonic in space?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:27:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On 22 Apr 2015 22:24:48 -0400, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by ma...@papa.org (spacesst):
>
>>plus it better
>>less it worse
>>
>>... Intuition, however illogical, is recognized as a command
>> prerogative.
>
>Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?
>
>BTW, I'm curious about your handle. Exactly what velocity
>would constitute supersonic in space?

Where did this come from?

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Mike Painter]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:27:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On 22 Apr 2015 22:24:48 -0400, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by ma...@papa.org (spacesst):
>
>>plus it better
>>less it worse
>>
>>... Intuition, however illogical, is recognized as a command
>> prerogative.
>
>Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?
>
>BTW, I'm curious about your handle. Exactly what velocity
>would constitute supersonic in space?

A velocity greater than zero.

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On 22 Apr 2015 22:24:48 -0400, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by ma...@papa.org (spacesst):
>
> >plus it better
> >less it worse
> >
> >... Intuition, however illogical, is recognized as a command
> > prerogative.
>
> Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?
>
> BTW, I'm curious about your handle. Exactly what velocity
> would constitute supersonic in space?

Outside he heliopause,

Jan

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Thursday, 23 April 2015 20:30:04 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2015 22:24:48 -0400, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by ma...@papa.org (spacesst):

> BTW, I'm curious about your handle. Exactly what velocity
> would constitute supersonic in space?

Bob, no matter how ridiculous, you believe that concept to be.

There is actually an answer to that question.

Unless of course, you believe;

1) There are no free floating molicules in space. (Which leads to 2)
2) The concept of pressure & temperature don't apply to the vacuum of space.
3) Space vacuum is constant.
4) There is no heat transfer by radiation.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

Touretts, Remember I before d not before e.

molecules.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:45:44 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
<md.pa...@outlook.com>:

Does that agree with the answer to "how high is up?"? To me,
both are questions with no actual meaning in reality.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:22:14 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

As I said, his handle, "spacesst". Or does that have some
interpretation I missed, something other than "space
supersonic transport"?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:38:09 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

Ummm...That's not a velocity, it's a position (actually, a
locus of positions).

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 03:37:32 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by

pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk:

>On Thursday, 23 April 2015 20:30:04 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On 22 Apr 2015 22:24:48 -0400, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by ma...@papa.org (spacesst):
>
>> BTW, I'm curious about your handle. Exactly what velocity
>> would constitute supersonic in space?
>
>Bob, no matter how ridiculous, you believe that concept to be.
>
>There is actually an answer to that question.

So what's the answer?

>Unless of course, you believe;
>
>1) There are no free floating molicules in space. (Which leads to 2)

Obviously incorrect; there are such molecules, even in
intergalactic space.

>2) The concept of pressure & temperature don't apply to the vacuum of space.

Well, that one's a bit more problematic, given that based on
velocity of the particles alone space is extremely hot. But
the concept of temperature *isn't* based on velocity alone;
density and free path enter into it.

>3) Space vacuum is constant.

Nope. But a bit irrelevant to the question.

>4) There is no heat transfer by radiation.

....which has essentially zero to do with the question
regarding velocity of an "SST" in space.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Friday, 24 April 2015 18:35:00 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:


> But the concept of temperature *isn't* based on velocity alone;

I assure you it is.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Friday, 24 April 2015 18:35:00 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:

> >There is actually an answer to that question.
>
> So what's the answer?

The answer is what it's always been.

You work out the density of your medium, the interactions between them that constitute a wave.

And you travel faster than that wave.

Or are you asking me to give you a specific answer?

If so, I need a few variables.

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:38:09 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> On 22 Apr 2015 22:24:48 -0400, the following appeared in
> >> talk.origins, posted by ma...@papa.org (spacesst):
> >>
> >> >plus it better
> >> >less it worse
> >> >
> >> >... Intuition, however illogical, is recognized as a command
> >> > prerogative.
> >>
> >> Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?
> >>
> >> BTW, I'm curious about your handle. Exactly what velocity
> >> would constitute supersonic in space?
>
> >Outside he heliopause,
>
> Ummm...That's not a velocity, it's a position (actually, a
> locus of positions).

That's where you should measure the velocity.
And just an example.
The idea that you can't talk about 'supersonic in space is silly.

Wherever you look, whenever something violent happens
you see shock waves in the interstellar medium,

Jan

[jillery]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:21:52 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:22:14 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:27:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 22 Apr 2015 22:24:48 -0400, the following appeared in
>>>talk.origins, posted by ma...@papa.org (spacesst):
>>>
>>>>plus it better
>>>>less it worse
>>>>
>>>>... Intuition, however illogical, is recognized as a command
>>>> prerogative.
>>>
>>>Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?
>>>
>>>BTW, I'm curious about your handle. Exactly what velocity
>>>would constitute supersonic in space?
>
>>Where did this come from?
>
>As I said, his handle, "spacesst". Or does that have some
>interpretation I missed, something other than "space
>supersonic transport"?

Sorry, I meant the post to which you replied, not your comments.
Apparently it showed up on Giganews but not Eternal September nor
Albasani. That's the first time I came across a post sent to only some
Usenet servers.

[Erik Simpson]

Are you seeing Eternal September dropping messages, and generally just
not keeping up? I've noticed that a lot the last few days.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 23:03:10 +0200, the following appeared

OK, point taken. But I still find the concept of
"supersonic" in a really good vacuum to be a
bit...ummm...strange.

[jillery]

>Are you seeing Eternal September dropping messages, and generally just
>not keeping up? I've noticed that a lot the last few days.

Other than the one post I mentioned, I haven't noticed anything out of
the ordinary. Eternal September tends to go offline for minutes to
days at arbitrary intervals, but I haven't noticed even that for the
past few months. Even so, considering its cost, no other server beats
it for value.

[J. J. Lodder]

That's because you don't have enough of it.
To see sound, shock waves, etc. you need
to have volumes of 'good vacuum'
that are much longer than the mean free path.

'Really good vacuum'
that is, mean free path > size of the universe
simply does not exist in reality.

Thick soup everywhere,

Jan

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

I have a question at this intersection.


I *FIRST* explained the idea of supersonic speeds in space, and you called me crazy.

J.J. through no magic of his own, agrees with me, & you lick his ass, like a dog on heat.


What is it with you jealous, retarded types?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 3 May 2015 13:03:35 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by

pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk:

>I have a question at this intersection.

Yeah. Nine days later.

>I *FIRST* explained the idea of supersonic speeds in space, and you called me crazy.

Well, you replied to my initial comment. Sort of, as noted
in my response and again below the quoted material:

[begin]

>Bob, no matter how ridiculous, you believe that concept to be.
>

>There is actually an answer to that question.

So what's the answer?

>Unless of course, you believe;
>
>1) There are no free floating molicules in space. (Which leads to 2)

Obviously incorrect; there are such molecules, even in
intergalactic space.

>2) The concept of pressure & temperature don't apply to the vacuum of space.

Well, that one's a bit more problematic, given that based on

velocity of the particles alone space is extremely hot. But

the concept of temperature *isn't* based on velocity alone;

density and free path enter into it.

>3) Space vacuum is constant.

Nope. But a bit irrelevant to the question.

>4) There is no heat transfer by radiation.

....which has essentially zero to do with the question
regarding velocity of an "SST" in space.

[end]

My final comment still applies.

>J.J. through no magic of his own, agrees with me

When did he "agree with you"? About what?

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Monday, 4 May 2015 18:54:29 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:


> >I have a question at this intersection.
>
> Yeah. Nine days later.

Are we married Bob?

I want a divorce.

Now I wan't the circles, genomic databases, & I want my intellectual property.


And you can keep, the shit you leave on the toilet seat, your fag-ash stains on the sofa, your beer-can collection, & your faviourite book, of "Retorts For Dummies!".

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 5 May 2015 11:55:00 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by
pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk:

>On Monday, 4 May 2015 18:54:29 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>
>> >I have a question at this intersection.
>>
>> Yeah. Nine days later.

[Unmarked snippage of the relevant response to the
"question"]

>Are we married Bob?

I am. I have no idea about your marital status, although I
have suspicions as noted below.

>I want a divorce.

I suspect the sheep beat you to it.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 18:14:23 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:

> >I want a divorce.
>
> I suspect the sheep beat you to it.

I have never been married to a sheep Bob.

[Burkhard]

To a sheep Betty then?

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

You know Bu twat tard,

I honestly believe, we would all get along much better here, without insulting each other.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 6 May 2015 10:36:18 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by
pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk:

>On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 18:14:23 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:

>On Tue, 5 May 2015 11:55:00 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by
>pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk:

>> >I want a divorce.

>> I suspect the sheep beat you to it.

>I have never been married to a sheep Bob.

Refused to make an honest ewe of her, huh?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 6 May 2015 14:09:41 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by
pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk:

*Another* test of my IronyMeter!

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Wed, 6 May 2015 10:36:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by
> pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk:
>
> >On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 18:14:23 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 5 May 2015 11:55:00 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by
> >pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk:
>
> >> >I want a divorce.
>
> >> I suspect the sheep beat you to it.
>
> >I have never been married to a sheep Bob.
>
> Refused to make an honest ewe of her, huh?

Perhaps
<http://www.adultsheepfinder.us/>
is more suitable for his tastes,

Jan