i couldn't agree more. i see profiles as similar to classified adds. some people have something to sell, others have something they want to buy. when i'm looking to buy a used car i don't look in the 'used cars wanted' section, instead i go to the 'used cars for sale' section. if i'm to click on the 'send message' thingy i'll do so because i see something that i like. i'm not about to click it because i meet a requirement or preference.

but hell, rarely do ladies reply to my messages and i can't think when the last time someone just messaged me out of the blue anyway so what do i know, huh?

i don't see much of a difference between any of the religions, assuming that is that we accept the definition of religion as based on a belief in a deity, god, supreme being, etc. they are all inventions of mankind to provide answers to questions for which there are no answers.

how so?

hardly a reflection of what cain said. the national parks employ about a third of their workers each season from foreign countries simply because they cannot get enough americans to work. when i spent a summer at mt. rainier my neighbor was there from spain so he could at least earn enough to pay his mortgage so his family would not lose their home. i see people on unemployment who simply will not work until their benefits run out. blackberries are rotting on the vines and farmers are going bankrupt in georgia because illegals have left the state because of increased immigration inforcement and no americans will lower themselves to pick the berries. cain never suggested that the poor are to blame for being poor. what he meant was that the first place to look when you're down and out is at yourself and what you are doing to correct the problem. if everybody accepted their share of personal responsibility unemployment figures would improve dramatically.

believe nothing. said it's absurd.

that's the problem. the 'slowly builds momentum' part. how does the craft stay in the thin air after release from the balloon until it finally builds orbital speed? what provides the lift required while it slowly spirals into orbit. three g's is about what the shuttle astronauts experience during launch and can hardly be called 'slowly building momentum'. have you ever felt 3 g's? imagine your body weighing three times what it weighs. no human has ever withstood three g's for ten hours. not even close. i wonder how fast the shuttle would be going if it could maintain that acceleration for eight to ten hours especially once it reached thin atmosphere and beyond? likely millions of mph if you did the math.

at any rate, there is simply no way to deal with lift in an atmosphere, especially a thin atmosphere, that does not involve lots of airspeed. in any atmosphere there are four forces acting on an aircraft. gravity [load factor], lift, drag and thrust. until the craft has escaped the atmosphere and reached orbital speed drag must be overcome by thrust and lift must counter gravity if the craft is to remain aloft. i can think of no way for a craft to slowly build momentum from zero airspeed when released from the balloon to orbital speed without an adequate amount of lift. and in a thin atmosphere the slightest amount of lift requires alot of airspeed.

ah, my appologies. i did miss the decimal point. okay, let's assume .3 gs acceleration. first of all, ground speed has nothing in the least to do with anything. when speaking speed as regards aerodynamics, airspeed is all that matters. with any increase in airspeed, there will be an increase in drag equal to the airspeed increase squared. that means if you double the airspeed you will QUADRUPLE the drag coeficient. when you do finally reach the point where drag and thrust balance, as you say '75 miles [qoughly]' all accerleration stops. when lift balances out weight and thrust balances out drag the aircraft is in a state we refer to as "straight and level unaccelerated flight." think of an airliner cruising at altitude.

the point being, how do you maintain even .3 g acceleration while the craft is in the atmosphere? as far as i know, ion propulsion is an idea for use in outer space where there is no atmosphere. we have electric motors that can produce much more than the .3 g's you're talking about to accelerate to the point that thrust and drag are in balance. that's the problem. you need a propulsion system that can produce enough thrust that drag NEVER balances out so that you can leave earth's atmosphere.

i think where you're having a problem is with your thinking of engines producing x number of g's or acceleration. propulsion systems do not measure power as such. weight, altitude, temperature, or being in outer space will all play a role in the ammount of acceleration any given craft will maintain. you say an ion engine will maintain .3 g's acceleration for eight to ten hours even in the upper atmosphere but you've not explained how it will do that. for an aircraft to maintain acceleration it must have an engine powerful enought to overcome the greatly increased drag that builds up as the airspeed increases. if that were a simple matter i can assure you that boeing would produce an airliner that can do just that. fact is, it ain't a simple matter.

rarely have i read anything more absurd on the forums.