[ale] From DSL to Fiber

[Thompson Freeman]

On 08/24/2006 03:38:14 PM, Jeff Lightner wrote:
> But knots per hour = 1.15 statute miles per hour per hour
> which would denote acceleration.  Therefore knots per hour
> itself is not wrong.

Errr. I'm not so sure about that. There is redundant  
information in "an aircraft flies". Now if the statement  
read "an aircraft accelerates..." I might buy the argument,  
but flying (to me at least, and I suspect in general) would  
rather imply essentially steady flight with just sufficient  
various accelerations necessary for stable flight.


> 
> What is wrong is it implies you could actually reach the
> speed of light.  Due to time/mass dilation effects at
> relativistic velocities (1/4 C or greater) it would be
> impossible to do even if your poor little plane didn't
> melt from heat in the atmosphere.  (It would have to be in
> the atmosphere of course because propellers and [air] jets
> don't work in a vacuum.)
> 
> :-)
> 

Of course, being of the nature of a thought problem, the  
physics of flight (such as air resistance) can be ignored.

8-)

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On
> Behalf Of Sean Kilpatrick
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:30 PM
> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [ale] From DSL to Fiber
> 
> On Thursday 24 August 2006 13:36, David A. De Graaf wrote:
> | Precision in speaking and writing is essential for those
> who are
> | learning, and a great timesaver for everyone.
> |
> | Question: ?If an airplane flies at 200 knots/hr how long
> will it take
> | to reach the speed of light?
> |
> 
> Hmmmmm
> 
> Knots = nautical miles (which equal 1.15 statute miles)
> per hour. I'm
> not certain what "knots per hour" would mean.  And I'm all
> for
> precision in speaking and writing. <grin>
> 
> Sean,
> who in another life was a newspaper editor.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> 
>