[OT] Speed of Light

[Davey Crockett[_5_]]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-light-broken-again-as-scientists-test-neutrino-result.html

--
Davey Crockett
Flying the Flag of the English
The Flag of Hengest and Horsa
http://azurservers.com:7080/rbr/englishdragon.jpg

[Michael Press]

In article >,
Davey Crockett > wrote:

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-light-broken-again-as-scientists-test-neutrino-result.html

An experiment was performed. What reliable
inferences can be made remains to be seen.
A better expression of the speed of light as an
upper limit is that information cannot transfer
in an inertial frame of reference faster than c.
Building a neutrino radio poses a severe challenge.

--
Michael Press

[atriage[_6_]]

On 20/11/2011 20:10, Michael Press wrote:
> In >,
> Davey > wrote:
>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-light-broken-again-as-scientists-test-neutrino-result.html
>
> An experiment was performed. What reliable
> inferences can be made remains to be seen.
> A better expression of the speed of light as an
> upper limit is that information cannot transfer
> in an inertial frame of reference faster than c.
> Building a neutrino radio poses a severe challenge.
>
Well yeah except that neutrinos have mass so we are not talking about just
information, we are talking about something with actual mass that *appears* to
be able to travel > c. If this turns out to be true (we are still far from
establishing that for sure) then some brand new physics is gonna be needed.

--

[Davey Crockett[_5_]]

atriage a écrit profondement:

| On 20/11/2011 20:10, Michael Press wrote:
| > In >,
| > Davey > wrote:
| >
| >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-light-broken-again-as-scientists-test-neutrino-result.html
| >
| > An experiment was performed. What reliable
| > inferences can be made remains to be seen.
| > A better expression of the speed of light as an
| > upper limit is that information cannot transfer
| > in an inertial frame of reference faster than c.
| > Building a neutrino radio poses a severe challenge.
| >
| Well yeah except that neutrinos have mass so we are not talking about
| just information, we are talking about something with actual mass that
| *appears* to be able to travel > c. If this turns out to be true (we
| are still far from establishing that for sure) then some brand new
| physics is gonna be needed.

I want to wait and see what Penrose has to say about it.

But in all probability the community is going to split between the
pro-Einsteinists and the New-Science factions with the arguments going
on for decades.

--
Davey Crockett
Flying the Flag of the English
The Flag of Hengest and Horsa
http://azurservers.com:7080/rbr/englishdragon.jpg

[atriage[_6_]]

On 20/11/2011 21:33, Davey Crockett wrote:
> atriage a écrit profondement:
>
> | On 20/11/2011 20:10, Michael Press wrote:
> |> In >,
> |> Davey > wrote:
> |>
> |>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-light-broken-again-as-scientists-test-neutrino-result.html
> |>
> |> An experiment was performed. What reliable
> |> inferences can be made remains to be seen.
> |> A better expression of the speed of light as an
> |> upper limit is that information cannot transfer
> |> in an inertial frame of reference faster than c.
> |> Building a neutrino radio poses a severe challenge.
> |>
> | Well yeah except that neutrinos have mass so we are not talking about
> | just information, we are talking about something with actual mass that
> | *appears* to be able to travel> c. If this turns out to be true (we
> | are still far from establishing that for sure) then some brand new
> | physics is gonna be needed.
>
> I want to wait and see what Penrose has to say about it.
>
> But in all probability the community is going to split between the
> pro-Einsteinists and the New-Science factions with the arguments going
> on for decades.
>

Physicists *really* don't want this result to stand. Physicists hate tachyons
because the retro-causality found in quantum physics would suddenly get upgraded
to *real* world status. This is not something physicists like.

--

[Uncle Dave]

On 20/11/2011 20:21, atriage wrote:

> If this turns out to be true (we are still far from establishing that
> for sure) then some brand new physics is gonna be needed.

Maybe it's because I'm not a scientist, but it has always seemed obvious
to me that there can be no "laws" of physics, nature, whatever, because
we know very little about anything, not even ourselves. Of course,
mankind being inherently stupid, always think they do despite
generations of change.

You can extrapolate all you like on seemingly irrefutable evidence but
the odds are you'll be proven wrong one day. The "laws" of physics are
simply more evidence of man's immaturity and lack of understanding.

OTOH, who gives a ****? None of it's real...

UD

[atriage[_6_]]

On 20/11/2011 22:21, Uncle Dave wrote:
> On 20/11/2011 20:21, atriage wrote:
>
>> If this turns out to be true (we are still far from establishing that
>> for sure) then some brand new physics is gonna be needed.
>
> Maybe it's because I'm not a scientist, but it has always seemed obvious to me
> that there can be no "laws" of physics, nature, whatever, because we know very
> little about anything, not even ourselves. Of course, mankind being inherently
> stupid, always think they do despite generations of change.
>
> You can extrapolate all you like on seemingly irrefutable evidence but the odds
> are you'll be proven wrong one day. The "laws" of physics are simply more
> evidence of man's immaturity and lack of understanding.

The Laws of Physics are an interesting discussion...where do they exist?...when
were they created or are they prior to time?...why do they exist?...When will
the Jan Ullrich verdict be reached...all these are seemingly unanswerable questions.


> OTOH, who gives a ****? None of it's real...

It's all in the eye of the beholder...as they say.
http://www.oikos.org/radcon.htm


--

[Scott]

On Nov 20, 1:10*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> In article >,
> *Davey Crockett > wrote:
>
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-ligh...
>
> An experiment was performed. What reliable
> inferences can be made remains to be seen.

We'll know next Tuesday

[Phil H]

On Nov 20, 2:43*pm, atriage > wrote:
> On 20/11/2011 21:33, Davey Crockett wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > atriage a écrit profondement:
>
> > | On 20/11/2011 20:10, Michael Press wrote:
> > |> *In >,
> > |> * *Davey > * wrote:
> > |>
> > |>> *http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-ligh...
> > |>
> > |> *An experiment was performed. What reliable
> > |> *inferences can be made remains to be seen.
> > |> *A better expression of the speed of light as an
> > |> *upper limit is that information cannot transfer
> > |> *in an inertial frame of reference faster than c.
> > |> *Building a neutrino radio poses a severe challenge.
> > |>
> > | Well yeah except that neutrinos have mass so we are not talking about
> > | just information, we are talking about something with actual mass that
> > | *appears* to be able to travel> *c. If this turns out to be true (we
> > | are still far from establishing that for sure) then some brand new
> > | physics is gonna be needed.
>
> > I want to wait and see what Penrose has to say about it.
>
> > But in all probability the community is going to split between the
> > pro-Einsteinists and the New-Science factions with the arguments going
> > on for decades.
>
> Physicists *really* don't want this result to stand. Physicists hate tachyons
> because the retro-causality found in quantum physics would suddenly get upgraded
> to *real* world status. This is not something physicists like.
>
> --- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The physicists I know don't get emotional about these kind of
discoveries. As the late great Richard Feynman said, if you don't like
the way physical reality works (quantum lecture), then go and find
something else to do.
Phil H

[Fredmaster of Brainerd]

On Nov 20, 5:33*pm, Scott > wrote:
> On Nov 20, 1:10*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > *Davey Crockett > wrote:
>
> > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-ligh....
>
> > An experiment was performed. What reliable
> > inferences can be made remains to be seen.
>
> We'll know next Tuesday

You'll know next Tuesday, but I've made arrangements
with CERN to get the message on Monday.

Fredmaster Ben

[Jute Andre]

On Nov 20, 11:06*am, Davey Crockett > wrote:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-ligh...
>
> --
> Davey Crockett
> Flying the Flag of the English
> The Flag of Hengest and Horsahttp://azurservers.com:7080/rbr/englishdragon.jpg
..
..
..
So, what's nu? Answer: c/ë
..
..

[Fredmaster of Brainerd]

On Nov 20, 3:21*pm, Uncle Dave > wrote:
> On 20/11/2011 20:21, atriage wrote:
>
> > If this turns out to be true (we are still far from establishing that
> > for sure) then some brand new physics is gonna be needed.
>
> Maybe it's because I'm not a scientist, but it has always seemed obvious
> to me that there can be no "laws" of physics, nature, whatever, because
> we know very little about anything, not even ourselves. *Of course,
> mankind being inherently stupid, always think they do despite
> generations of change.
>
> You can extrapolate all you like on seemingly irrefutable evidence but
> the odds are you'll be proven wrong one day. *The "laws" of physics are
> simply more evidence of man's immaturity and lack of understanding.
>
> OTOH, who gives a ****? *None of it's real...
>
> UD

Dumbass,

Yes, I think it's because you're not a scientist.

Laws are descriptions of natural phenomena, not
rules of a game. They''re known to be incomplete.
When some anomaly happens that breaks the previously
known laws, that's when we learn something new.
This is as distinct from, say, the UCI, who find a way
to outlaw the anomaly (example: Graeme Obree).

I think many physicists still suspect this neutrino
result is likely to be a subtle problem with the timing
(like synchronizing the timing at the two locations,
which is non trivial since they're both moving).
This isn't because scientists wish it would go away and
stop distracting us from our lunchtime training rides,
but because extraordinary discoveries require
extraordinarily good evidence.

Fredmaster Ben

[Fred Flintstein]

On 11/20/2011 6:57 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On Nov 20, 5:33 pm, > wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 1:10 pm, Michael > wrote:
>>
>>> In >,
>>> Davey > wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-ligh...
>>
>>> An experiment was performed. What reliable
>>> inferences can be made remains to be seen.
>>
>> We'll know next Tuesday
>
> You'll know next Tuesday, but I've made arrangements
> with CERN to get the message on Monday.
>
> Fredmaster Ben

Dumbass,

I consult with people in pro cycling in
California on stuff like this.

F

[dave a]

On 11/20/2011 4:57 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On Nov 20, 5:33 pm, > wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 1:10 pm, Michael > wrote:
>>
>>> In >,
>>> Davey > wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-ligh...
>>
>>> An experiment was performed. What reliable
>>> inferences can be made remains to be seen.
>>
>> We'll know next Tuesday
>
> You'll know next Tuesday, but I've made arrangements
> with CERN to get the message on Monday.
>
> Fredmaster Ben

If it's verified, they could send the message on Wednesday.

[raamman]

On Nov 20, 2:06*pm, Davey Crockett > wrote:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-ligh...
>
> --
> Davey Crockett
> Flying the Flag of the English
> The Flag of Hengest and Horsahttp://azurservers.com:7080/rbr/englishdragon.jpg

get obree on it, he'll find a way to make it go faster

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 11/20/2011 7:57 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On Nov 20, 5:33 pm, > wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 1:10 pm, Michael > wrote:
>>
>>> In >,
>>> Davey > wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-ligh...
>>
>>> An experiment was performed. What reliable
>>> inferences can be made remains to be seen.
>>
>> We'll know next Tuesday
>
> You'll know next Tuesday, but I've made arrangements
> with CERN to get the message on Monday.
>
> Fredmaster Ben


One hamburger, for which I'll gladly pay you on Tuesday.


Fred Wimpie

[atriage[_6_]]

On 21/11/2011 00:41, Phil H wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2:43 pm, > wrote:
>> On 20/11/2011 21:33, Davey Crockett wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> atriage a écrit profondement:
>>
>>> | On 20/11/2011 20:10, Michael Press wrote:
>>> |> In >,
>>> |> Davey > wrote:
>>> |>
>>> |>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-ligh...
>>> |>
>>> |> An experiment was performed. What reliable
>>> |> inferences can be made remains to be seen.
>>> |> A better expression of the speed of light as an
>>> |> upper limit is that information cannot transfer
>>> |> in an inertial frame of reference faster than c.
>>> |> Building a neutrino radio poses a severe challenge.
>>> |>
>>> | Well yeah except that neutrinos have mass so we are not talking about
>>> | just information, we are talking about something with actual mass that
>>> | *appears* to be able to travel> c. If this turns out to be true (we
>>> | are still far from establishing that for sure) then some brand new
>>> | physics is gonna be needed.
>>
>>> I want to wait and see what Penrose has to say about it.
>>
>>> But in all probability the community is going to split between the
>>> pro-Einsteinists and the New-Science factions with the arguments going
>>> on for decades.
>>
>> Physicists *really* don't want this result to stand. Physicists hate tachyons
>> because the retro-causality found in quantum physics would suddenly get upgraded
>> to *real* world status. This is not something physicists like.
>>
>
> The physicists I know don't get emotional about these kind of
> discoveries. As the late great Richard Feynman said, if you don't like
> the way physical reality works (quantum lecture), then go and find
> something else to do.

No doubt he was right but emotional isn't quite what that meant, I was referring
to the way that some flavours of 'theories of everything' that give rise to the
existence of tachyons (there are quite a few) are often seen as too
*problematical* to consider because of the retro-causality issue (among others).
Of course quantum guys accept retro-causality in their domain since it has been
seen and confirmed experimentally in quantum behaviour. However there is a
considerable disconnect between the quantum and GR worlds. Even the great Albert
some *emotional* problems with this. :)

--

[atriage[_6_]]

On 21/11/2011 08:57, atriage wrote:

> Even the great Albert some *emotional* problems with this. :)
>
I missed out the 'had'. It arrived a day ago further up the thread.

--

[Simply Fred]

atriage wrote:
> Well yeah except that neutrinos have mass so we are not talking about
> just information, we are talking about something with actual mass that
> *appears* to be able to travel > c.

That can't be possible. Nothing is supposed to have more mass that a
fully kitted out FM.

[Simply Fred]

raamman wrote:
> get obree on it, he'll find a way to make it go faster

Must have been a washing machine made of neutrinos.

[Simply Fred]

On 11/20/11 21:06, Davey Crockett wrote:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-light-broken-again-as-scientists-test-neutrino-result.html

The obvious answer is to get WADA to test the neutrinos. Its probably
just Spanish beef and the problem will go away if you ban them.

[Simply Fred]

Phil H wrote:
> The physicists I know don't get emotional about these kind of
> discoveries. As the late great Richard Feynman said, if you don't like
> the way physical reality works (quantum lecture), then go and find
> something else to do.

Like go ride your bike.

[atriage[_6_]]

On 21/11/2011 09:25, Simply Fred wrote:
> atriage wrote:
>> Well yeah except that neutrinos have mass so we are not talking about
>> just information, we are talking about something with actual mass that
>> *appears* to be able to travel > c.
>
> That can't be possible. Nothing is supposed to have more mass that a fully
> kitted out FM.

Not much danger of one of them varmints exceeding c though.

--

[atriage[_6_]]

On 21/11/2011 00:57, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On Nov 20, 5:33 pm, > wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 1:10 pm, Michael > wrote:
>>
>>> In >,
>>> Davey > wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-ligh...
>>
>>> An experiment was performed. What reliable
>>> inferences can be made remains to be seen.
>>
>> We'll know next Tuesday
>
> You'll know next Tuesday, but I've made arrangements
> with CERN to get the message on Monday.
>

Great, post the result immediately and I'll look forward (or do I mean
backward?) to receiving it on Sunday.


--

[Phil H]

On Nov 21, 2:32*am, Simply Fred > wrote:
> Phil H wrote:
> > The physicists I know don't get emotional about these kind of
> > discoveries. As the late great Richard Feynman said, if you don't like
> > the way physical reality works (quantum lecture), then go and find
> > something else to do.
>
> Like go ride your bike.

That's when this stuff gets comtemplated the most. Go ride your bike
and think about something else would be better advice. Do you think BL
rides his bike without thinking about LA? Good for him if he can do
it.
Phil H

[Frederick the Great]

In article >,
Steven Bornfeld > wrote:

> On 11/20/2011 7:57 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 5:33 pm, > wrote:
> >> On Nov 20, 1:10 pm, Michael > wrote:
> >>
> >>> In >,
> >>> Davey > wrote:
> >>
> >>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-ligh...
> >>
> >>> An experiment was performed. What reliable
> >>> inferences can be made remains to be seen.
> >>
> >> We'll know next Tuesday
> >
> > You'll know next Tuesday, but I've made arrangements
> > with CERN to get the message on Monday.
> >
> > Fredmaster Ben
>
>
> One hamburger, for which I'll gladly pay you on Tuesday.

You'll be hungry on Tuesday as well.

--
Old Fritz

[Simply Fred]

Phil H wrote:
> That's when this stuff gets comtemplated the most. Go ride your bike
> and think about something else would be better advice. Do you think BL
> rides his bike without thinking about LA? Good for him if he can do
> it.

BL has a Lemond steel fork.

[Phil H]

On Nov 20, 3:21*pm, Uncle Dave > wrote:
> On 20/11/2011 20:21, atriage wrote:
>
> > If this turns out to be true (we are still far from establishing that
> > for sure) then some brand new physics is gonna be needed.
>
> Maybe it's because I'm not a scientist, but it has always seemed obvious
> to me that there can be no "laws" of physics, nature, whatever, because
> we know very little about anything, not even ourselves. *Of course,
> mankind being inherently stupid, always think they do despite
> generations of change.
>
> You can extrapolate all you like on seemingly irrefutable evidence but
> the odds are you'll be proven wrong one day. *The "laws" of physics are
> simply more evidence of man's immaturity and lack of understanding.
>
> OTOH, who gives a ****? *None of it's real...
>
> UD

UD, what a sad take on science. It strives to understand how the
universe works so it can predict outcomes; a very important ingredient
to technological development. Rather than being proved wrong, often a
more inclusive truth is discovered. In the case of Newton's laws of
motion, they work very well at lower velocities but not at velocities
approaching the speed of light. Hence Einstein's more inclusive
special relativity.
Phil 'I give a ****' H

[Simply Fred]

Uncle > wrote:
>> OTOH, who gives a ****? None of it's real...

Phil H wrote:
> In the case of Newton's laws of motion, they work very well at lower velocities but not at velocities
> approaching the speed of light. Hence Einstein's more inclusive
> special relativity.
> Phil 'I give a ****' H

At least you don't find it bohring.

[Uncle Dave]

On 22/11/2011 21:26, Phil H wrote:

> Phil 'I give a ****' H

Good for you! I suspect you might still be relatively young. You'll
learn ;-)

UD

[Phil H]

On Nov 21, 9:28*am, atriage > wrote:
> On 21/11/2011 09:25, Simply Fred wrote:
>
> > atriage wrote:
> >> Well yeah except that neutrinos have mass so we are not talking about
> >> just information, we are talking about something with actual mass that
> >> *appears* to be able to travel > c.
>
> > That can't be possible. Nothing is supposed to have more mass that a fully
> > kitted out FM.
>
> Not much danger of one of them varmints exceeding c though.
>
> --

I have a buddy who has a Litespeed. When I overtake him I'm going
faster than litespeed :)
Phil H

[Phil H]

On Nov 23, 8:10*am, Uncle Dave > wrote:
> On 22/11/2011 21:26, Phil H wrote:
>
> > Phil 'I give a ****' H
>
> Good for you! *I suspect you might still be relatively young. *You'll
> learn ;-)
>
> UD

61 next month........it's too late for me to not give a ****. I missed
that boat.
Phil H

[atriage[_4_]]

On 24/11/2011 02:52, Phil H wrote:
> On Nov 23, 8:10 am, Uncle > wrote:
>> On 22/11/2011 21:26, Phil H wrote:
>>
>>> Phil 'I give a ****' H
>>
>> Good for you! I suspect you might still be relatively young. You'll
>> learn ;-)
>>
>> UD
>
> 61 next month........it's too late for me to not give a ****. I missed
> that boat.
> Phil H

Just a whipper snapper, UD thinks 'changing gear' means getting off and
reversing the back wheel.

--

[Uncle Dave]

On 24/11/2011 10:05, atriage wrote:
> On 24/11/2011 02:52, Phil H wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 8:10 am, Uncle > wrote:
>>> On 22/11/2011 21:26, Phil H wrote:
>>>
>>>> Phil 'I give a ****' H
>>>
>>> Good for you! I suspect you might still be relatively young. You'll
>>> learn ;-)
>>>
>>> UD
>>
>> 61 next month........it's too late for me to not give a ****. I missed
>> that boat.
>> Phil H
>
> Just a whipper snapper, UD thinks 'changing gear' means getting off and
> reversing the back wheel.

When I started we never had any of this pedals and chains nonsense,
though we did have wheels. We used to propel ourselves with our feet
which is how mankind is supposed to travel...

UD

[Frederick the Great]

In article >,
Uncle Dave > wrote:

> On 24/11/2011 10:05, atriage wrote:
> > On 24/11/2011 02:52, Phil H wrote:
> >> On Nov 23, 8:10 am, Uncle > wrote:
> >>> On 22/11/2011 21:26, Phil H wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Phil 'I give a ****' H
> >>>
> >>> Good for you! I suspect you might still be relatively young. You'll
> >>> learn ;-)
> >>>
> >>> UD
> >>
> >> 61 next month........it's too late for me to not give a ****. I missed
> >> that boat.
> >> Phil H
> >
> > Just a whipper snapper, UD thinks 'changing gear' means getting off and
> > reversing the back wheel.
>
> When I started we never had any of this pedals and chains nonsense,
> though we did have wheels. We used to propel ourselves with our feet
> which is how mankind is supposed to travel...

Obviating the need for compression hose.

--
Old Fritz

[atriage[_4_]]

On 24/11/2011 18:37, Uncle Dave wrote:
> On 24/11/2011 10:05, atriage wrote:
>> On 24/11/2011 02:52, Phil H wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 8:10 am, Uncle > wrote:
>>>> On 22/11/2011 21:26, Phil H wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Phil 'I give a ****' H
>>>>
>>>> Good for you! I suspect you might still be relatively young. You'll
>>>> learn ;-)
>>>>
>>>> UD
>>>
>>> 61 next month........it's too late for me to not give a ****. I missed
>>> that boat.
>>> Phil H
>>
>> Just a whipper snapper, UD thinks 'changing gear' means getting off and
>> reversing the back wheel.
>
> When I started we never had any of this pedals and chains nonsense, though we
> did have wheels. We used to propel ourselves with our feet which is how mankind
> is supposed to travel...
>

Always amazes me how you used to get round corners with ginourmous wheel at the
front.

--

[atriage[_4_]]

On 24/11/2011 19:05, Frederick the Great wrote:
> In >,
> Uncle > wrote:
>
>> On 24/11/2011 10:05, atriage wrote:
>>> On 24/11/2011 02:52, Phil H wrote:
>>>> On Nov 23, 8:10 am, Uncle > wrote:
>>>>> On 22/11/2011 21:26, Phil H wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil 'I give a ****' H
>>>>>
>>>>> Good for you! I suspect you might still be relatively young. You'll
>>>>> learn ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> UD
>>>>
>>>> 61 next month........it's too late for me to not give a ****. I missed
>>>> that boat.
>>>> Phil H
>>>
>>> Just a whipper snapper, UD thinks 'changing gear' means getting off and
>>> reversing the back wheel.
>>
>> When I started we never had any of this pedals and chains nonsense,
>> though we did have wheels. We used to propel ourselves with our feet
>> which is how mankind is supposed to travel...
>
> Obviating the need for compression hose.
>
Yeah but they used to wear cleats out at hellava rate.

--

[Fredmaster of Brainerd]

On Nov 24, 1:04*pm, atriage > wrote:
> On 24/11/2011 18:37, Uncle Dave wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 24/11/2011 10:05, atriage wrote:
> >> On 24/11/2011 02:52, Phil H wrote:
> >>> On Nov 23, 8:10 am, Uncle > wrote:
> >>>> On 22/11/2011 21:26, Phil H wrote:
>
> >>>>> Phil 'I give a ****' H
>
> >>>> Good for you! I suspect you might still be relatively young. You'll
> >>>> learn ;-)
>
> >>>> UD
>
> >>> 61 next month........it's too late for me to not give a ****. I missed
> >>> that boat.
> >>> Phil H
>
> >> Just a whipper snapper, UD thinks 'changing gear' means getting off and
> >> reversing the back wheel.
>
> > When I started we never had any of this pedals and chains nonsense, though we
> > did have wheels. We used to propel ourselves with our feet which is how mankind
> > is supposed to travel...
>
> Always amazes me how you used to get round corners with ginourmous wheel at the
> front.

'Twas even harder earlier when the wheels were square,
before we learned how to make round ones.

Happy Thanksgiving to all the Dumbasses everywhere
(except the Canadians).

Fredmaster Ben

[Uncle Dave]

On 24/11/2011 20:04, atriage wrote:
> On 24/11/2011 18:37, Uncle Dave wrote:
>> On 24/11/2011 10:05, atriage wrote:
>>> On 24/11/2011 02:52, Phil H wrote:
>>>> On Nov 23, 8:10 am, Uncle > wrote:
>>>>> On 22/11/2011 21:26, Phil H wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil 'I give a ****' H
>>>>>
>>>>> Good for you! I suspect you might still be relatively young. You'll
>>>>> learn ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> UD
>>>>
>>>> 61 next month........it's too late for me to not give a ****. I missed
>>>> that boat.
>>>> Phil H
>>>
>>> Just a whipper snapper, UD thinks 'changing gear' means getting off and
>>> reversing the back wheel.
>>
>> When I started we never had any of this pedals and chains nonsense,
>> though we
>> did have wheels. We used to propel ourselves with our feet which is
>> how mankind
>> is supposed to travel...
>>
>
> Always amazes me how you used to get round corners with ginourmous wheel
> at the front.
>
I didn't mean one of those modern contraptions, I meant one of these -
http://www.philaprintshop.com/images/velocipede.jpg.

Ah, halcyon days of yore.

UD

[atriage[_4_]]

On 24/11/2011 21:50, Uncle Dave wrote:
> On 24/11/2011 20:04, atriage wrote:
>> On 24/11/2011 18:37, Uncle Dave wrote:
>>> On 24/11/2011 10:05, atriage wrote:
>>>> On 24/11/2011 02:52, Phil H wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 23, 8:10 am, Uncle > wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/11/2011 21:26, Phil H wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phil 'I give a ****' H
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good for you! I suspect you might still be relatively young. You'll
>>>>>> learn ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> UD
>>>>>
>>>>> 61 next month........it's too late for me to not give a ****. I missed
>>>>> that boat.
>>>>> Phil H
>>>>
>>>> Just a whipper snapper, UD thinks 'changing gear' means getting off and
>>>> reversing the back wheel.
>>>
>>> When I started we never had any of this pedals and chains nonsense,
>>> though we
>>> did have wheels. We used to propel ourselves with our feet which is
>>> how mankind
>>> is supposed to travel...
>>>
>>
>> Always amazes me how you used to get round corners with ginourmous wheel
>> at the front.
>>
> I didn't mean one of those modern contraptions, I meant one of these -
> http://www.philaprintshop.com/images/velocipede.jpg.
>

That's non-UCI legal, where's Pat McQuaid when you need him?

--

[Uncle Dave]

On 24/11/2011 22:36, atriage wrote:
> On 24/11/2011 21:50, Uncle Dave wrote:
>> On 24/11/2011 20:04, atriage wrote:
>>> On 24/11/2011 18:37, Uncle Dave wrote:
>>>> On 24/11/2011 10:05, atriage wrote:
>>>>> On 24/11/2011 02:52, Phil H wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 23, 8:10 am, Uncle > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/11/2011 21:26, Phil H wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phil 'I give a ****' H
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good for you! I suspect you might still be relatively young. You'll
>>>>>>> learn ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UD
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 61 next month........it's too late for me to not give a ****. I
>>>>>> missed
>>>>>> that boat.
>>>>>> Phil H
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a whipper snapper, UD thinks 'changing gear' means getting off
>>>>> and
>>>>> reversing the back wheel.
>>>>
>>>> When I started we never had any of this pedals and chains nonsense,
>>>> though we
>>>> did have wheels. We used to propel ourselves with our feet which is
>>>> how mankind
>>>> is supposed to travel...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Always amazes me how you used to get round corners with ginourmous wheel
>>> at the front.
>>>
>> I didn't mean one of those modern contraptions, I meant one of these -
>> http://www.philaprintshop.com/images/velocipede.jpg.
>>
>
> That's non-UCI legal, where's Pat McQuaid when you need him?

:-) Mind you, I'm not sure you would ever *need* him. Knead him
perhaps or kneed him but not need him.

UD