🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <87fvac$oct$1@news.fsu.edu>,
  jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>
>  ... off-topic newsgroups snipped ...
>
> In article <86g9g7$rs3$1@news.fsu.edu>,
> jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> |
> | ... some off-topic newsgroups snipped, note followups ...
> |
> | In article <388A0A73.11DD08EA@hate.spam.net>,
> | Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> | }
> | }
> | } sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> | } >
> | } > > But we haven't tested in real life what happens when we

accelerate
> | } > > our spaceship towards the speed of light (or maybe we should

say
> | } > > towards 300.000 km/s ).
> | } >
> | } > We have, however, the evidence of particle accelerators
> | } > which find that, indeed, mass increases "with velocity."
> | } > This is a misinterpretation at a more fundamental level,
> | } > but not at the level of Einstein's theories.
> | }
> | } Atomic clocks have been taken aboard the Concorde in both

directions,
> | } originally synchronized with identical ground clocks.  Time

dilation
> | } works by the book, and in both directions re Sagnac Effect.
> |
> | All documented in the Relativity FAQ, by the way, along with
> | other corrections to errors in the comments by "sdrodrian".
> |
> | } Do you have a problem with physical meaurement, as opposed to
> | } unfounded philosophical maunder?
> |
> | In article <86fov0$3bm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
> | sdrodrian@aol.com writes:
> | >
> | >Goodness me! Snippy Uncle Al, didn't they pull the chain on you
> | >a while back? (Seems as if you've been "constantly" floating
> | >in "your medium" at the same stall-ed velocity for what seems

ages!)
> |
> | Cute ad hominem but not responsive.
> |
> | >But, in any case: What talks thou of?
> |
> | Experiments such as those listed in the FAQ.
> |
> | >I refuse to accept the successful experiments you cite above!
> |
> | Feel free to deny reality, just don't expect anyone to join
> | you in yours.
>
> In article <86jbvc$n0d$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
> sdrodrian@aol.com writes:
> >
> >Dear Jim, it would be nice if once in a blue moon
> >you decided to
> >
> >A) not be such a blatant liar (after all, you're quoting
> >   from documents which have been  eternally enshrined
> >   by DejaNews, and which anyone may find with a simple
> >   search such as: "rodrian AND keyword AND keyword" ~!
>
>  Sorry, but what I wrote in the article above is accurate.  In fact,
>  the URLs you cite in your article show that it is accurate.
>
> >B) actually bother to ascertain what it is you're actually
> >   talking about (if all it is is that you're just a simpleton
> >   who can't figure out the Dewey decimal system and
> >   you just like to pick facts off the air, whether they are
> >   facts or delusions--perhaps you really believe this is the
> >   scientific approach (which would explain a lot about you).
>
>  Your ad hominem remarks show how weak your argument is.
>
>  I note that you did not address the simple fact that all physics
>  cares about is the result of experiments such as those that set
>  an upper limit on the photon mass, not whether _you_ accept them.
>
> >Here, for the benefit of your sanity I have documented
> >with actual TRUTHS your childish lies about me below:
> >
> >> } sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> >> } >
> >> } > > But we haven't tested in real life what happens when we
> >> } > > accelerate
> >> } > > our spaceship towards the speed of light (or maybe we should

say
> >> } > > towards 300.000 km/s ).
> >
> >This was written not by me but by a  Mika Luostarinen in this post:
> >
>

>http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=575485225&search=thread&CONTEXT=948771

8
> >15.1661599773&HIT_CONTEXT=948771815.1661599773&HIT_NUM=1&hitnum=116
> >
> >(Remember to enter the entire URL above into your browser.)
>
>  That URL demonstrates that you did, indeed, quote Mika just as
>  I said you did.  If you had cited
>
>       http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=576217364&fmt=text
>
>  this would be even clearer.  Anyone who is familiar with Usenet
>  quoting would figure this out and see how transparently wrong
>  your observation was.
>
> >> } > We have, however, the evidence of particle accelerators
> >> } > which find that, indeed, mass increases "with velocity."
> >> } > This is a misinterpretation at a more fundamental level,
> >> } > but not at the level of Einstein's theories.
> >
> >Please note that I said it is NOT at the level of Einstein's

theories:
> >At the level of Einstein's theories mass is interpreted to increase
> >with increasing velocity  (if you don't agree with Einstein on this
> >take it up with him, not with me).
>
>  Only Einstein did not say that.  Read the FAQ as I suggested.

Ok, SO he accepted that: Big difference!

>  There is a full statement from him saying the opposite of what
>  you think he said.  You see, you have much to learn.

Einstein rejected Lorentz's finding that the mass of a charged
particle increases with velocity?!?!?! That IS news to me!

> >> } Atomic clocks have been taken aboard the Concorde in both
> >> } directions,
> >> } originally synchronized with identical ground clocks.  Time

dilation
> >> } works by the book, and in both directions re Sagnac Effect.
> >>
> >>  All documented in the Relativity FAQ, by the way, along with
> >>  other corrections to errors in the comments by "sdrodrian".
> >>
> >> } Do you have a problem with physical meaurement, as opposed to
> >> } unfounded philosophical maunder?
> >
> >The above was authored by Uncle Al, and not me. Ask him.
>
>  I did not ask him any questions, I pointed out to you and others
>  that what he wrote is documented at a specific place.  The
>  question you refer to was one that Uncle Al asked you, and
>  that you did not give a yes-or-no answer to.

Net nanny, net nanny, net nanny! That's basically
all I have time for this time, Jim.

Catch you later,

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity


> >> In article <86fov0$3bm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >> sdrodrian@aol.com writes:
> >> >
> >> >Goodness me! Snippy Uncle Al, didn't they pull the chain on you
> >> >a while back? (Seems as if you've been "constantly" floating
> >> >in "your medium" at the same stall-ed velocity for what seems

ages!)
> >>
> >>  Cute ad hominem but not responsive.
> >
> >That's because you are reading my personal salutation
> >to a beloved old character of these newsgroups (a salutation
> >is never intended to respond to any substantive matter, but only
> >and purely to the pleasure of meeting an old pal once more).
>
>  Still quite unresponsive.
>
> >> >But, in any case: What talks thou of?
> >>
> >>  Experiments such as those listed in the FAQ.
> >
> >Dear Jim, my: "What talks thou of?" does not refer to any
> >ignorance on my part of whatever good experiments! It was
> >addressed to Uncle Al, as in: "What the Hell you talking about?"
>
>  Which was precisely what I pointed out to you.  The experiments.
>  And that you did not answer his question.
>
> >> >I refuse to accept the successful experiments you cite above!
> >
> >Dear, dear! Could I have possibly have said that?!?! Let's see...
>
>  Yep.  http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=576626277&fmt=text.

Jim: I am going to PASTE from that post the following:

" It appears as if you think
I refuse to accept the successful experiments you cite above!"

This CLEARLY says the direct opposite of what you suggest it says!
The above translates as: "I accept the successful experiments
you cite, although it appears you think I do not."

Do you suffer from intellectual dyslexia? It's possible!
I'n NOT looking into it, Jim, if I WEREN'T you.


> >>  Feel free to deny reality, just don't expect anyone to join
> >>  you in yours.
> >
> >Goodness gracious, Jim! You are doing everything in your power
> >to prove yourself a pathetic little worm! And I am truly left
> >dumbfound by your incredible inability to see how easy it would be
> >for ANYONE to find you out!!!! I'm speechless (and that's
> >an almost impossible thing to accomplish, believe you me).
>
>  Your ad hominems establish that you have no physics argument
>  on your side, and that you would rather attack the messenger
>  than admit that you rejected reality in the form of successful
>  experiments in the article I replied to and cited again above.
>
> --
>  James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>

Are you a mathematician, Jim. If you are, here's a truism from
the S D Rodrian Bible (which you will NEVER understand
(much less accept, obviously)):

    "Mathematicians don't count."  Rodrian 14:3








Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.