2e06131c   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv, alt.startrek   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article   
   <840393a7-1d92-4833-b47f-1ea51da3330e@r2g2000pbs.googlegroups.com>, Duggy   
    wrote:   
   > On May 4, 5:57=A0pm, mcar...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:   
   > > In article   
   > > <2c515af9-02eb-410e-bcfb-c096d769e...@p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,   
   > >   
   > > Remysun  wrote:   
   > > >On May 2, 10:22=3DA0pm, mcar...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:   
   > > >> In article   
   > > >> <00ce304b-ccfa-497d-8801-83f94a2e2...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,   
   > > >> Duggy   
   > >   
   > > >>  wrote:   
   > > >> But the collision was a bit slow to my thinking.   
   > >   
   > > >> The explosion of Alderaan was a counterexample. If something large   
   > > >> explodes (or collides) in space it will be s l o w . But it would have   
   > > >> been counterproductive in Star Wars to have the planet explode so   
   > > >> slowly it would take five minutes before you could see anything.   
   > >   
   > > >Why would it necessarily be slow when it's a matter of scale.   
   > >   
   > > If the pieces were moving at near lightspeed, from a big distance they   
   > > would still seem slow. In this case we have no reason to believe the   
   > > pieces would be anywhere near that speed.   
   >   
   > True, but the image were saw was probably Earth-from-the-Moon sized.   
   > That's less than 1.5 light seconds away.  Obviously Alderaan could be   
   > bigger, but it would still be a matter of light seconds.   
      
   It of course depends on how far away you are, but when an object that's   
   moving at thousands of miles per hour through space explodes, the pieces   
   will be moving even faster - much faster than anything you'll see on Earth   
   moving.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)