I'll bring the popcorn. Save me a seat man.

__________________
For the Saved, this world is the worst it will ever get.
For the unSaved, this world is the best it will ever get.

Clk's Ebay Stuff BUY SOMETHING NOW!!!

Troublemaker.

funola is welcome to come & sit on the fence as well !!!

__________________
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club group

I no longer question authority, I annoy authority. More effect, less effort....

1967 230-6 auto parts car. rust bucket.
1980 300D now parts car 800k miles
1984 300D 500k miles
1987 250td 160k miles English import
2001 jeep turbo diesel 130k miles
1998 jeep tdi ~ followed me home. Needs a turbo.
1968 Ford F750 truck. 6-354 diesel conversion.
Other toys ~J.D.,Cat & GM ~ mainly earth moving

If anyone wishes to talk about the study behind this thread without being childish (at least it has been pretty legit so far) I had already created a thread

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/open-discussion/305597-new-top-speed-record-faster-than-light.html

not trying to advertise or anything but I know there are some on here with real interest in this stuff (including me, obviously) and this thread went down the tubes pretty quickly. Ah, c'est la vie...et la conversation des enfants and the reality of internet discussion boards.

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

This was my original comment -

it is correct and appropriate. Instead of being accepted and moving on it became absurd.

Not my doing. My original comment is valid.

If you repeat it often enough you will believe what you wrote is relevant to what I had originally posted.

Actually, I posted this thread 16 hours ahead of the thread you posted..but yours is better- I will recommend that folks go over there now.

__________________
CHILCUTT~
The secret to a long life. Is knowing when it is time to leave.

Ah nuts! Guess I just totally missed it when I did mine. Oh well, no harm no foul. I'm glad so many people find this area interesting and engaging in conversation.

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

True that. I posted because I figured someone here would know smthng about all this, and I could learn something.
Anyway its all good TBO.

__________________
CHILCUTT~
The secret to a long life. Is knowing when it is time to leave.

A bunch of folks have been discussing the topic.

I don't know what happened with bots and myself - I've had many pleasant interactions with him - but he's set in his way and my comment above, which could have and should have been easily accepted resulted in what we've seen.

Pride's quite a monster in some instances.

Now bots get's to come back and make some grand declaration or one could just click on some of the links I've offered or go do a simple search themselves.

My pride, not yours. My inflexibility, not yours. Got it.

I have read numerous articles on the original story and seen a number of postings here and elsewhere.

They all have made the important error of stating something like this, " ... nothing can go faster than the speed of light.."

None made the correct statement, "nothing may exceed the speed of light in a vacuum." (It actually needs to be stated slightly more rigorously but let's just let it be more the moment)

I thought folks might like to be more precise.

I had no idea it was going to be a big deal.

I honestly do not know why it became a source of contention. It is very easy to verify. If anyone is interested in the truth instead of two grown and accomplished men argue just go look it up.

If anyone finds a valid link that states that I am in error I will gladly retract and apologize.

How about go back and see what was originally written and compare it to where and how the dialogue devolved?

Which is correct. A quick yes or even ignoring would have been fine.

Which is an atypical of use of the term in this area. Typically, if asked the value of C a physicist would inquire, "in vacuo or in meida"

Now the discussion devolves to an argument about semantics.

That's fine it confuses my initial and valid point.

So I respond with a gentle, non-confrontational remark -

Things seem pretty silly to me at this point. The initial important point (C in vacuo is being ignored). But we're all different so that's just how it is.

Now the thread devolves we 2 faults.

1. I have never spoken to you in that manner and will not let you speak with me that way.

2. I never said C is only constant in vacuo. You deliberately mis-stated my remarks to serve your purpose.

---

The words are available for all to see.

You insulted me and falsely characterized my words.

Didn't ignore your clinging tenaciously to a convention. Comparing things to another thing is what we do as a species. By convention, we agree on a standard. It doesn't convey a special attribute other than popularity. A convenience. Like SI units. It could be furlongs, slugs and fahrenheit. The relationship stays the same. Just different constants.

It is a fundamental characteristic of nature that space is a medium. Were it not a medium it would not be deformable. That you argue with that fact is kind of silly, but you ran with it.

Then you introduced the ad hominem as part of your argument, which set me off because I thought that was cheap shot. Unfortunately, I sought to return in kind. You seem to have forgotten that little bit. Go back and look. You began with the whole puerile exchange (to borrow a wholly appropriate term from your usage in another thread). Until you did that I was okay with the give and take. But you personalized it. Your card. I followed suit.

Want to play nice? Fine with me.