Re: Meier Pictures
From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 17:16:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 17:41:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Meier Pictures
>Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:07:08 -0700
>From: Don Ecker <decker@ufomag.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Meier Pictures
>>Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 12:31:33 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
>>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Meier Pictures
>>>Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 21:03:29 -0400
>>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>>>Subject: UFO UpDate: Kinetic Energy Bullets
>>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>>>Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 09:41:31 -0700
>>>>From: Don Ecker <decker@ufomag.com>
>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Meier Pictures
>><snip>
>>>Don't forget that the definition of "kinetic energy" is the
>>>product of the mass times the velocity squared. If I knew the
>>>speed and mass of the .22 WNR I could calculate its K.E. and
>>>compare with the 45 (234 grain, 870 ft/sec; KE = 234 x 870^2 =
>>>177,114,600 in the appropriate units.
>>Bruce, looks like you also forgot the definition of kinetic
>>energy (the energy of moving objects). It is equal to the mass
>>times the velocity squared divided by 2. As a result, your
>>value above is twice as large as it should be.
>>Of course, if a given mass is totally converted into energy,
>>then the energy obtained is the product of the mass time the
>>velocity of light squared (Einstein's mass-energy formula).
>>Nick
>Gentlemen;
>Let us not forget what we are referencing. The kinetic energy of
>a .45 ACP 234 Grn. projectile in comparison to a .22 WMR
>projectile. Neither a .45 nor a .22 will be totally converted
>into energy. This is a bit simpler than that. Brooksmith
>suggested that a .22 caliber bullet will deliver, weighing
>between 45 to perhaps 60 Grns. traveling around 1000 to perhaps
>1150 fps., depending on the loading, will give more energy to
>the target than a .45 ACP, weighing between 185 Grns. lower end,
>to 234 Grns. upper end. The velocity from a 185 Grn. "hollow
>point" or controlled expansion projectile, around 1000 feet per
>second, or the heavier 234 Grn. round at about 870 feet per
>second. You can play with the math, but real experience taught
>me that if I have to be shot, and I have no option, use the .22
>over the .45 PLEASE!!
>Don Ecker
>
>--
>Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with
>confidence.
>Don Ecker
>UFO Magazine
>www.ufomagazine.com
>[Gentlemen:
> I'm trying to figure how this relates to the purpose
> of this List..... am having difficuly. Could someone
> please give my brain a nudge or failing that take
> this tangent to direct E-Mail? --ebk]
Errol,
You just don't understand! See, if Nick's response to Bruce is
traveling at a speed of 89.9 mps. and approaching at a 45 degree
angle to the ecliptic plane, the momentum of Don's contribution
will introduce a random element of increased entropy. This,
according to Einstien, will cause the mass of the dialog to
impact on all three objects (Bruce, Nick and Don) simultaneously,
causing anal retention on a Galactic scale.
And in some way that I haven't yet figured out, (I've have difficulties
doing math) we are all going to be shot in the head, (and preferably
with the .45! You don't want that .22 rattling around in your skull
processing your brain like liver in a blender,) or at this point in
the thread, we hope we will be. Ah, at least I 'think' that's what
they're talking about. I hope this alters your tangent for you.
Now do you understand?
C'mon dude, get on the stick. It's the, "kOoKy WoRld oF sCieNcE !"
(LMAO!) Thanx for the roll on the floor man! ;-D
John Velez, (S.)M.o.-A.t.S.o.T
(Stationary) Moving object- About the Size of Texas
[Dang! An' here ah thort _ah_ wuz loozin' it wunerin' whut
it haid ta doo with yew-foes! TGIF-- ebk]