SRT4 is NOT fastar

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Jul 15, 2004 | 06:05 PM

#16

Kevin M

Registered User

iTrader: (12)

Joined: Nov 2002

Posts: 18,369

From: Reno, NV

Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue blurr

haha what about light years?

Probably because light years are a measure of distance and not of velocity.

Jul 15, 2004 | 06:41 PM

#17

Ex-ricer

Registered User

iTrader: (2)

Joined: Aug 2003

Posts: 2,294

From: The confines of my own mind.

Car Info: 180sx super drift machine!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

Probably because light years are a measure of distance and not of velocity.

Isn't velocity relative? I thought speed was the more constant measure?

Jul 15, 2004 | 06:47 PM

#18

blaznasn

Registered User

iTrader: (5)

Joined: Nov 2002

Posts: 701

From: norcal

yeah velocity is relative to ones frame of reference

Last edited by blaznasn; Jul 15, 2004 at 06:50 PM.

Jul 16, 2004 | 11:20 AM

#19

Kevin M

Registered User

iTrader: (12)

Joined: Nov 2002

Posts: 18,369

From: Reno, NV

Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ex-ricer

Isn't velocity relative? I thought speed was the more constant measure?

Yes, velocity is relative. But light years are still a measure of distance. Like saying "How many feet does an SRT4 go?"

Jul 16, 2004 | 11:27 AM

#20

ryball

VIP Member

iTrader: (6)

Joined: Nov 2002

Posts: 17,617

From: pew, pew, pew!!!

Car Info: nonplussed

Just you watch...

I'll bet you anything that within a month of that thing going Mach 10.. the air force will release documents showing the SR71 (and its alien technology) did Mach 11 back in 1967. (along with a post-it that says "Suck it, NASA!!")

Every time anyone breaks a new speed mark, the air force "declassifies" (readjusts) the released top speed of the SR71.