Re: Getting back to basics

From: Jim Greenfield (greenfield_7_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/30/04 

Date: 30 Jul 2004 16:58:13 -0700

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<1f3qt1-nvq.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
> In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield
> <greenfield_7@hotmail.com>
> wrote
> on 29 Jul 2004 21:29:08 -0700
> <3c4afb26.0407292029.626f634b@posting.google.com>:
> > "Spaceman" <Spaceman@realspaceman.com> wrote in message news:<qVdOc.53813$eM2.19543@attbi_s51>...
> >> "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:4108F9C2.1CB8C568@hate.spam.net...
> >> } Spaceman wrote:
> >> } >
> >> } > "Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> } > news:3c4afb26.0407281730.7f9189d9@posting.google.com...
> >> } > } Again!
> >> } > } 300,000k/s + 300,000k/s =< 600,000k/s according to SR addition OK??
> >> } >
> >> } > Yup, that is there motto!
> >> } > :)
> >> } > Scary huh?
> >> } > Lorentz created a fab scam.
> >> }
> >> } Does it burn, stooopid Space***, does it burn?
> >>
> >> Yup,
> >> It is burning you so badly that you need to constantly post after almost
> >> each and every one of my posts.
> >> <LOL>
> >
> > James, How long do you reckon, before I get an answer (value given) for c^2???
> > About as long as it takes Tapeworm to add 186,000 186,000 times????????
> >
> > Jim G
> > c'=c+v
>
> Perish the thought that you have to wait for such a simple expression. :-)
>
> c^2 = 89875517873681764. m^2/s^2
>
> (This is an exact value, by definition.)
>
> What the relevance of this request is I can't say.

If you see NO relevence to the fact that DHR's on the one hand claim
as your calculation above, AND on the other, that 300,000k/sec +
300,000k/sec = <600,000
then you are truly confused.
......I suppose that's OK to someone who thought -105sec = +105sec

Jim G