Discussion History VisualNovel / Clannad

->\\\'\\\'You claim that I am wrong, but you present no example of me being wrong. You cannot dispute that the car as a whole decreases in mass, so you now have added the qualification of \\\"body\\\" of the car, conveniently excluding the fuel. What else are you going to exclude? Radiator fluid? Oil? Tires? All of them experience a decrease in mass that massively outweighs the relativistic effects. \\\'\\\'

This is true, but it ignores there \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' relativistic effects that are making the car heavier than it would otherwise be, which is the point of the example. The car gets heavier; it also gets lighter due to other factors, but if you instantaneously stopped the vehicle it would be slightly lighter at any given instant than if it was moving. That\\\'s the point.

The example is supposed to be someone over-simplifying relativity in a way that, while technically accurate, is absurd. Imagine it as a big hairy guy who\\\'s just had relativistic change in mass and Lorentz contraction explained to him boiling it down to \\\"so if I\\\'m going fast, my car gets shorter and heavier? That\\\'s weird, you\\\'re making that up!\\\" and it makes sense.

The reason I removed your initial point about the car \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' getting lighter:

-->\\\'\\\'And an accelerating object will not gain mass unless its acceleration is accomplished through an outside energy source...\\\'\\\'

is it makes it look like the example is saying relativistic change in mass is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' and the vehicle will \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' gain mass as a result of increased speed; it will, despite that the mass will be decreasing at a much more significant rate. The addition appeared to claim that relativistic change in mass \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' incorrect, which isn\\\'t something we ought to be doing.

->\\\'\\\'As for citing Wikipedia, there are probably half a dozen of these fallacies that I could describe that as falling under.\\\'\\\'

And I notice you removed a section from ad hominem regarding dismissing an encyclopedia on the basis of errors. That\\\'s a perfectly good example; the fact that a \\\'\\\'publication\\\'\\\' might be unreliable is not proof that a given piece of information from that publication cannot be correct.

I wasn\\\'t trying to say that it was correct because Wikipedia said so, though, merely to point out (a) it\\\'s regarded as a good enough example there (check the talk page) and (b) that calling \\\'\\\'me\\\'\\\' ignorant is hardly valid when it isn\\\'t my example in the first place. At worst, I\\\'d be being \\\'\\\'lazy\\\'\\\' by using an example I haven\\\'t checked properly.

->\\\'\\\'I am absolutely not splitting hairs about what \\\"gets shorter\\\" means.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s just a simple way to say \\\"experiences Lorentz contraction to an observer outside the vehicle\\\" that makes the Theory of Relativity look absurd. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'technically\\\'\\\' a correct way to describe what is happening; again, that\\\'s the point, to make Relativity look as bizarre as possible.

->\\\'\\\'You have presented no example of me failing to understand logic or of me calling you names.\\\'\\\'

You\\\'re repeatedly called me ignorant on the basis of an example which is \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be making physics look stupid. Didn\\\'t you think to stop and consider that I might fully understand relativity, but that the purpose of the example is to describe it in such a way as to make it seem bizarre and illogical?

The actual issue here is I\\\'m willing to make the assumptions required to make it a valid example without needing them spelled out, while you\\\'d prefer the page to present them in detail. That\\\'s just an issue of presentation, and has nothing to do with ignorance. You\\\'ve been extremely aggressive over this whole thing, which could easily have been solved with a more civil discussion.

->\\\'\\\'I don\\\'t understand your claim that my example has no \\\"appeal\\\".\\\'\\\'

Your example is simply a statement; no conclusion was made that anything was incorrect in it. It certainly describes cosmology in a way that seems strange, but never actually declares it must be \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' because it is strange.

->\\\'\\\'And my \\\"not an example\\\" is not an example of ad hominem.\\\'\\\'

It is. Saying your opponent is too stupid to understand a rebuttal as a reason for not giving one is a classic ad hominem fallacy, as it dismisses the opponent\\\'s arguments on the basis of their supposed lack of intelligence rather than anything the arguments might actually contain. Pointing out an opponent is making errors is not reason to refuse to address their arguments; at least, not a \\\'\\\'logical\\\'\\\' reason to do so.

\\\'\\\'\\\'Someguy\\\'\\\'\\\'

->\\\'\\\'Actually, I\\\'d prefer you didn\\\'t, since this sounds like a stupid argument. Example changed. \\\'\\\'

I think we\\\'ve finally got it to a point we\\\'ve agreed on the example, so we\\\'re ok with the currently-up wording.

->\\\'\\\'You claim that I am wrong, but you present no example of me being wrong. You cannot dispute that the car as a whole decreases in mass, so you now have added the qualification of \\\"body\\\" of the car, conveniently excluding the fuel. What else are you going to exclude? Radiator fluid? Oil? Tires? All of them experience a decrease in mass that massively outweighs the relativistic effects. \\\'\\\'

This is true, but it ignores there \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' relativistic effects that are making the car heavier than it would otherwise be, which is the point of the example. The car gets heavier; it also gets lighter due to other factors, but if you instantaneously stopped the vehicle it would be slightly lighter at any given instant than if it was moving. That\\\'s the point.

The example is supposed to be someone over-simplifying relativity in a way that, while technically accurate, is absurd. Imagine it as a big hairy guy who\\\'s just had relativistic change in mass and Lorentz contraction explained to him boiling it down to \\\"so if I\\\'m going fast, my car gets shorter and heavier? That\\\'s weird, you\\\'re making that up!\\\" and it makes sense.

The reason I removed your initial point about the car \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' getting lighter:

-->\\\'\\\'And an accelerating object will not gain mass unless its acceleration is accomplished through an outside energy source...\\\'\\\'

is it makes it look like the example is saying relativistic change in mass is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' and the vehicle will \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' gain mass as a result of increased speed; it will, despite that the mass will be decreasing at a much more significant rate. The addition appeared to claim that relativistic change in mass \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' incorrect, which isn\\\'t something we ought to be doing.

->\\\'\\\'As for citing Wikipedia, there are probably half a dozen of these fallacies that I could describe that as falling under.\\\'\\\'

And I notice you removed a section from ad hominem regarding dismissing an encyclopedia on the basis of errors. That\\\'s a perfectly good example; the fact that a \\\'\\\'publication\\\'\\\' might be unreliable is not proof that a given piece of information from that publication cannot be correct.

I wasn\\\'t trying to say that it was correct because Wikipedia said so, though, merely to point out (a) it\\\'s regarded as a good enough example there (check the talk page) and (b) that calling \\\'\\\'me\\\'\\\' ignorant is hardly valid when it isn\\\'t my example in the first place.

->\\\'\\\'I am absolutely not splitting hairs about what \\\"gets shorter\\\" means.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s just a simple way to say \\\"experiences Lorentz contraction to an observer outside the vehicle\\\" that makes the Theory of Relativity look absurd. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'technically\\\'\\\' a correct way to describe what is happening; again, that\\\'s the point, to make Relativity look as bizarre as possible.

->\\\'\\\'You have presented no example of me failing to understand logic or of me calling you names.\\\'\\\'

You\\\'re repeatedly called me ignorant on the basis of an example which is \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be making physics look stupid. Didn\\\'t you think to stop and consider that I might fully understand relativity, but that the purpose of the example is to describe it in such a way as to make it seem bizarre and illogical?

The actual issue here is I\\\'m willing to make the assumptions required to make it a valid example without needing them spelled out, while you\\\'d prefer the page to present them in detail. That\\\'s just an issue of presentation, and has nothing to do with ignorance. You\\\'ve been extremely aggressive over this whole thing, which could easily have been solved with a more civil discussion.

->\\\'\\\'I don\\\'t understand your claim that my example has no \\\"appeal\\\".\\\'\\\'

Your example is simply a statement; no conclusion was made that anything was incorrect in it. It certainly describes cosmology in a way that seems strange, but never actually declares it must be \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' because it is strange.

->\\\'\\\'And my \\\"not an example\\\" is not an example of ad hominem.\\\'\\\'

It is. Saying your opponent is too stupid to understand a rebuttal as a reason for not giving one is a classic ad hominem fallacy, as it dismisses the opponent\\\'s arguments on the basis of their supposed lack of intelligence rather than anything the arguments might actually contain. Pointing out an opponent is making errors is not reason to refuse to address their arguments; at least, not a \\\'\\\'logical\\\'\\\' reason to do so.

\\\'\\\'\\\'Someguy\\\'\\\'\\\'

->\\\'\\\'Actually, I\\\'d prefer you didn\\\'t, since this sounds like a stupid argument. Example changed. \\\'\\\'

I think we\\\'ve finally got it to a point we\\\'ve agreed on the example, so we\\\'re ok with the currently-up wording.

->\\\'\\\'You claim that I am wrong, but you present no example of me being wrong. You cannot dispute that the car as a whole decreases in mass, so you now have added the qualification of \\\"body\\\" of the car, conveniently excluding the fuel. What else are you going to exclude? Radiator fluid? Oil? Tires? All of them experience a decrease in mass that massively outweighs the relativistic effects. \\\'\\\'

This is true, but it ignores there \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' relativistic effects that are making the car heavier than it would otherwise be, which is the point of the example. The car gets heavier; it also gets lighter due to other factors, but if you instantaneously stopped the vehicle it would be slightly lighter at any given instant than if it was moving. That\\\'s the point.

The example is supposed to be someone over-simplifying relativity in a way that, while technically accurate, is absurd. Imagine it as a big hairy guy who\\\'s just had relativistic change in mass and Lorentz contraction explained to him boiling it down to \\\"so if I\\\'m going fast, my car gets shorter and heavier? That\\\'s weird, you\\\'re making that up!\\\" and it makes sense.

The reason I removed your initial point about the car \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' getting lighter:

-->\\\'\\\'And an accelerating object will not gain mass unless its acceleration is accomplished through an outside energy source...\\\'\\\'

is it makes it look like the example is saying relativistic change in mass is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' and the vehicle will \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' gain mass as a result of increased speed; it will, despite that the mass will be decreasing at a much more significant rate. The addition appeared to claim that relativistic change in mass \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' incorrect, which isn\\\'t something we ought to be doing.

->\\\'\\\'As for citing Wikipedia, there are probably half a dozen of these fallacies that I could describe that as falling under.\\\'\\\'

And I notice you removed a section from ad hominem regarding dismissing an encyclopedia on the basis of errors. That\\\'s a perfectly good example; the fact that a \\\'\\\'publication\\\'\\\' might be unreliable is not proof that a given piece of information from that publication cannot be correct.

I wasn\\\'t trying to say that it was correct because Wikipedia said so, though, merely to point out (a) it\\\'s regarded as a good enough example there (check the talk page) and (b) that calling \\\'\\\'me\\\'\\\' ignorant is hardly valid when it isn\\\'t my example in the first place.

->\\\'\\\'I am absolutely not splitting hairs about what \\\"gets shorter\\\" means.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s just a simple way to say \\\"experiences Lorentz contraction to an observer outside the vehicle\\\" that makes the Theory of Relativity look absurd. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'technically\\\'\\\' a correct way to describe what is happening; again, that\\\'s the point, to make Relativity look as bizarre as possible.

->\\\'\\\'You have presented no example of me failing to understand logic or of me calling you names.\\\'\\\'

You\\\'re repeatedly called me ignorant on the basis of an example which is \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be making physics look stupid. Didn\\\'t you think to stop and consider that I might fully understand relativity, but that the purpose of the example is to describe it in such a way as to make it seem bizarre and illogical?

The actual issue here is I\\\'m willing to make the assumptions required to make it a valid example without needing them spelled out, while you\\\'d prefer the page to present them in detail. That\\\'s just an issue of presentation, and has nothing to do with ignorance. You\\\'ve been extremely aggressive over this whole thing, which could easily have been solved with a more civil discussion.

->\\\'\\\'I don\\\'t understand your claim that my example has no \\\"appeal\\\".\\\'\\\'

Your example is simply a statement; no conclusion was made that anything was incorrect in it. It certainly describes cosmology in a way that seems strange, but never actually declares it must be \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' because it is strange.

->\\\'\\\'And my \\\"not an example\\\" is not an example of ad hominem.\\\'\\\'

It is. Saying your opponent is too stupid to understand a rebuttal as a reason for not giving one is a classic ad hominem fallacy, as it dismisses the opponent\\\'s arguments on the basis of their supposed lack of intelligence rather than anything the arguments might actually contain. Pointing out an opponent is making errors is not reason to refuse to address their arguments.

\\\'\\\'\\\'Someguy\\\'\\\'\\\'

->\\\'\\\'Actually, I\\\'d prefer you didn\\\'t, since this sounds like a stupid argument. Example changed. \\\'\\\'

I think we\\\'ve finally got it to a point we\\\'ve agreed on the example, so we\\\'re ok with the currently-up wording.

->\\\'\\\'You claim that I am wrong, but you present no example of me being wrong. You cannot dispute that the car as a whole decreases in mass, so you now have added the qualification of \\\"body\\\" of the car, conveniently excluding the fuel. What else are you going to exclude? Radiator fluid? Oil? Tires? All of them experience a decrease in mass that massively outweighs the relativistic effects. \\\'\\\'

This is true, but it ignores there \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' relativistic effects that are making the car heavier than it would otherwise be, which is the point of the example. The car gets heavier; it also gets lighter due to other factors, but if you instantaneously stopped the vehicle it would be slightly lighter at any given instant than if it was moving. That\\\'s the point.

The example is supposed to be someone over-simplifying relativity in a way that, while technically accurate, is absurd. Imagine it as a big hairy guy who\\\'s just had relativistic change in mass and Lorentz contraction explained to him boiling it down to \\\"so if I\\\'m going fast, my car gets shorter and heavier? That\\\'s weird, you\\\'re making that up!\\\" and it makes sense.

The reason I removed your initial point about the car \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' getting lighter:

-->\\\'\\\'And an accelerating object will not gain mass unless its acceleration is accomplished through an outside energy source...\\\'\\\'

is it makes it look like the example is saying relativistic change in mass is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' and the vehicle will \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' gain mass as a result of increased speed; it will, despite that the mass will be decreasing at a much more significant rate. The addition appeared to claim that relativistic change in mass \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' incorrect, which isn\\\'t something we ought to be doing.

->\\\'\\\'As for citing Wikipedia, there are probably half a dozen of these fallacies that I could describe that as falling under.\\\'\\\'

And I notice you removed a section from ad hominem regarding dismissing an encyclopedia on the basis of errors. That\\\'s a perfectly good example; the fact that a \\\'\\\'publication\\\'\\\' might be unreliable is not proof that a given piece of information from that publication cannot be correct.

I wasn\\\'t trying to say that it was correct because Wikipedia said so, though, merely to point out (a) it\\\'s regarded as a good enough example there (check the talk page) and (b) that calling \\\'\\\'me\\\'\\\' ignorant is hardly valid when it isn\\\'t my example in the first place.

->\\\'\\\'I am absolutely not splitting hairs about what \\\"gets shorter\\\" means.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s just a simple way to say \\\"experiences Lorentz contraction to an observer outside the vehicle\\\" that makes the Theory of Relativity look absurd. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'technically\\\'\\\' a correct way to describe what is happening; again, that\\\'s the point, to make Relativity look as bizarre as possible.

->\\\'\\\'You have presented no example of me failing to understand logic or of me calling you names.\\\'\\\'

You\\\'re repeatedly called me ignorant on the basis of an example which is \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be making physics look stupid. Didn\\\'t you think to stop and consider that I might fully understand relativity, but that the purpose of the example is to describe it in such a way as to make it seem bizarre and illogical?

The actual issue here is I\\\'m willing to make the assumptions required to make it a valid example, while you are not. That\\\'s just an issue of approach, and has nothing to do with ignorance. You\\\'ve been extremely aggressive over this whole thing, which could easily have been solved with a more civil discussion.

->\\\'\\\'I don\\\'t understand your claim that my example has no \\\"appeal\\\".\\\'\\\'

Your example is simply a statement; no conclusion was made that anything was incorrect in it. It certainly describes cosmology in a way that seems strange, but never actually declares it must be \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' because it is strange.

->\\\'\\\'And my \\\"not an example\\\" is not an example of ad hominem.\\\'\\\'

It is. Saying your opponent is too stupid to understand a rebuttal as a reason for not giving one is a classic ad hominem fallacy, as it dismisses the opponent\\\'s arguments on the basis of their supposed lack of intelligence rather than anything the arguments might actually contain. Pointing out an opponent is making errors is not reason to refuse to address their arguments.

\\\'\\\'\\\'Someguy\\\'\\\'\\\'

->\\\'\\\'Actually, I\\\'d prefer you didn\\\'t, since this sounds like a stupid argument. Example changed. \\\'\\\'

I think we\\\'ve finally got it to a point we\\\'ve agreed on the example, so we\\\'re ok with the currently-up wording.

->\\\'\\\'You claim that I am wrong, but you present no example of me being wrong. You cannot dispute that the car as a whole decreases in mass, so you now have added the qualification of \\\"body\\\" of the car, conveniently excluding the fuel. What else are you going to exclude? Radiator fluid? Oil? Tires? All of them experience a decrease in mass that massively outweighs the relativistic effects. \\\'\\\'

This is true, but it ignores there \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' relativistic effects that are making the car heavier than it would otherwise be, which is the point of the example. The car gets heavier; it also gets lighter due to other factors, but if you instantaneously stopped the vehicle it would be slightly lighter at any given instant than if it was moving. That\\\'s the point.

The example is supposed to be someone over-simplifying relativity in a way that, while technically accurate, is absurd. Imagine it as a big hairy guy who\\\'s just had relativistic change in mass and Lorentz contraction explained to him boiling it down to \\\"so if I\\\'m going fast, my car gets shorter and heavier? That\\\'s weird, you\\\'re making that up!\\\" and it makes sense.

The reason I removed your initial point about the car \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' getting lighter:

-->\\\'\\\'And an accelerating object will not gain mass unless its acceleration is accomplished through an outside energy source...\\\'\\\'

is it makes it look like the example is saying relativistic change in mass is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' and the vehicle will \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' gain mass as a result of increased speed; it will, despite that the mass will be decreasing at a much more significant rate. The addition appeared to claim that relativistic change in mass \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' incorrect, which isn\\\'t something we ought to be doing.

->\\\'\\\'As for citing Wikipedia, there are probably half a dozen of these fallacies that I could describe that as falling under.\\\'\\\'

And I notice you removed a section from ad hominem regarding dismissing an encyclopedia on the basis of errors. That\\\'s a perfectly good example; the fact that a \\\'\\\'publication\\\'\\\' might be unreliable is not proof that a given piece of information from that publication cannot be correct.

->\\\'\\\'I am absolutely not splitting hairs about what \\\"gets shorter\\\" means.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s just a simple way to say \\\"experiences Lorentz contraction to an observer outside the vehicle\\\" that makes the Theory of Relativity look absurd. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'technically\\\'\\\' a correct way to describe what is happening; again, that\\\'s the point, to make Relativity look as bizarre as possible.

->\\\'\\\'You have presented no example of me failing to understand logic or of me calling you names.\\\'\\\'

You\\\'re repeatedly called me ignorant on the basis of an example which is \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be making physics look stupid. Didn\\\'t you think to stop and consider that I might fully understand relativity, but that the purpose of the example is to describe it in such a way as to make it seem bizarre and illogical?

The actual issue here is I\\\'m willing to make the assumptions required to make it a valid example, while you are not. That\\\'s just an issue of approach, and has nothing to do with ignorance. You\\\'ve been extremely aggressive over this whole thing, which could easily have been solved with a more civil discussion.

->\\\'\\\'I don\\\'t understand your claim that my example has no \\\"appeal\\\".\\\'\\\'

Your example is simply a statement; no conclusion was made that anything was incorrect in it. It certainly describes cosmology in a way that seems strange, but never actually declares it must be \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' because it is strange.

->\\\'\\\'And my \\\"not an example\\\" is not an example of ad hominem.\\\'\\\'

It is. Saying your opponent is too stupid to understand a rebuttal as a reason for not giving one is a classic ad hominem fallacy, as it dismisses the opponent\\\'s arguments on the basis of their supposed lack of intelligence rather than anything the arguments might actually contain. Pointing out an opponent is making errors is not reason to refuse to address their arguments.

\\\'\\\'\\\'Someguy\\\'\\\'\\\'

->\\\'\\\'Actually, I\\\'d prefer you didn\\\'t, since this sounds like a stupid argument. Example changed. \\\'\\\'

I think we\\\'ve finally got it to a point we\\\'ve agreed on the example, so we\\\'re ok with the currently-up wording.

->\\\'\\\'You claim that I am wrong, but you present no example of me being wrong. You cannot dispute that the car as a whole decreases in mass, so you now have added the qualification of \\\"body\\\" of the car, conveniently excluding the fuel. What else are you going to exclude? Radiator fluid? Oil? Tires? All of them experience a decrease in mass that massively outweighs the relativistic effects. \\\'\\\'

This is true, but it ignores there \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' relativistic effects that are making the car heavier than it would otherwise be, which is the point of the example. The car gets heavier; it also gets lighter due to other factors, but if you instantaneously stopped the vehicle it would be slightly lighter at any given instant than if it was moving. That\\\'s the point.

The example is supposed to be someone over-simplifying relativity in a way that, while technically accurate, is absurd. Imagine it as a big hairy guy who\\\'s just had relativistic change in mass and Lorentz contraction explained to him boiling it down to \\\"so if I\\\'m going fast, my car gets shorter and heavier? That\\\'s weird, you\\\'re making that up!\\\" and it makes sense.

The reason I removed your initial point about the car \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' getting lighter:

-->\\\'\\\'And an accelerating object will not gain mass unless its acceleration is accomplished through an outside energy source...\\\'\\\'

is it makes it look like the example is saying relativistic change in mass is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' and the vehicle will \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' gain mass as a result of increased speed; it will, despite that the mass will be decreasing at a much more significant rate. The addition appeared to claim that relativistic change in mass \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' incorrect, which isn\\\'t something we ought to be doing.

->\\\'\\\'As for citing Wikipedia, there are probably half a dozen of these fallacies that I could describe that as falling under.\\\'\\\'

And I notice you removed a section from ad hominem regarding dismissing an encyclopedia on the basis of errors. That\\\'s a perfectly good example; the fact that a \\\'\\\'publication\\\'\\\' might be unreliable is not proof that a given piece of information from that publication cannot be correct.

->\\\'\\\'I am absolutely not splitting hairs about what \\\"gets shorter\\\" means.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s just a simple way to say \\\"experiences Lorentz contraction to an observer outside the vehicle\\\" that makes the Theory of Relativity look absurd. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'technically\\\'\\\' a correct way to describe what is happening; again, that\\\'s the point, to make Relativity look as bizarre as possible.

->\\\'\\\'You have presented no example of me failing to understand logic or of me calling you names.\\\'\\\'

You\\\'re repeatedly called me ignorant on the basis of an example which is \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be making physics look stupid. Didn\\\'t you think to stop and consider that I might fully understand relativity, but that the purpose of the example is to describe it in such a way as to make it seem bizarre and illogical?

The actual issue here is I\\\'m willing to make the assumptions required to make it a valid example, while you are not. That\\\'s just an issue of approach, and has nothing to do with ignorance. You\\\'ve been extremely aggressive over this whole thing, which could easily have been solved with a more civil discussion.

->\\\'\\\'I don\\\'t understand your claim that my example has no \\\"appeal\\\".\\\'\\\'

Your example is simply a statement; no conclusion was made that anything was incorrect in it. It certainly describes cosmology in a way that seems strange, but never actually declares it must be \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' because it is strange.

->\\\'\\\'And my \\\"not an example\\\" is not an example of ad hominem.\\\'\\\'

It is. Saying your opponent is too stupid to understand a rebuttal as a reason for not giving one is a classic ad hominem fallacy, as it dismisses the opponent\\\'s arguments on the basis of their supposed lack of intelligence rather than anything the arguments might actually contain. Pointing out an opponent is making errors is not reason to refuse to address their arguments.

->\\\'\\\'You claim that I am wrong, but you present no example of me being wrong. You cannot dispute that the car as a whole decreases in mass, so you now have added the qualification of \\\"body\\\" of the car, conveniently excluding the fuel. What else are you going to exclude? Radiator fluid? Oil? Tires? All of them experience a decrease in mass that massively outweighs the relativistic effects. \\\'\\\'

This is true, but it ignores there \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' relativistic effects that are making the car heavier than it would otherwise be, which is the point of the example. The car gets heavier; it also gets lighter due to other factors, but if you instantaneously stopped the vehicle it would be slightly lighter at any given instant than if it was moving. That\\\'s the point.

The example is supposed to be someone over-simplifying relativity in a way that, while technically accurate, is absurd. Imagine it as a big hairy guy who\\\'s just had relativistic change in mass and Lorentz contraction explained to him boiling it down to \\\"so if I\\\'m going fast, my car gets shorter and heavier? That\\\'s weird, you\\\'re making that up!\\\" and it makes sense.

The reason I removed your initial point about the car \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' getting lighter:

-->\\\'\\\'And an accelerating object will not gain mass unless its acceleration is accomplished through an outside energy source...\\\'\\\'

is it makes it look like the example is saying relativistic change in mass is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' and the vehicle will \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' gain mass as a result of increased speed; it will, despite that the mass will be decreasing at a much more significant rate. The addition appeared to claim that relativistic change in mass \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' incorrect, which isn\\\'t something we ought to be doing.

->\\\'\\\'As for citing Wikipedia, there are probably half a dozen of these fallacies that I could describe that as falling under.\\\'\\\'

And I notice you removed a section from ad hominem regarding dismissing an encyclopedia on the basis of errors in irrelevant articles. Seems you just want the pages to reflect \\\'\\\'your\\\'\\\' idea of logic here.

->\\\'\\\'I am absolutely not splitting hairs about what \\\"gets shorter\\\" means.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s just a simple way to say \\\"experiences Lorentz contraction to an observer outside the vehicle\\\" that makes the Theory of Relativity look absurd. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'technically\\\'\\\' a correct way to describe what is happening; again, that\\\'s the point, to make Relativity look as bizarre as possible.

->\\\'\\\'You have presented no example of me failing to understand logic or of me calling you names.\\\'\\\'

You\\\'re repeatedly called me ignorant on the basis of an example which is \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be making physics look stupid. Didn\\\'t you think to stop and consider that I might fully understand relativity, but that the purpose of the example is to describe it in such a way as to make it seem bizarre and illogical?

The actual issue here is I\\\'m willing to make the assumptions required to make it a valid example, while you are not. That\\\'s just an issue of approach, and has nothing to do with ignorance. You\\\'ve been extremely aggressive over this whole thing, which could easily have been solved with a more civil discussion.

->\\\'\\\'I don\\\'t understand your claim that my example has no \\\"appeal\\\".\\\'\\\'

Your example is simply a statement; no conclusion was made that anything was incorrect in it. It certainly describes cosmology in a way that seems strange, but never actually declares it must be \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' because it is strange.

->\\\'\\\'And my \\\"not an example\\\" is not an example of ad hominem.\\\'\\\'

It is. Saying your opponent is too stupid to understand a rebuttal as a reason for not giving one is a classic ad hominem fallacy, as it dismisses the opponent\\\'s arguments on the basis of their supposed lack of intelligence rather than anything the arguments might actually contain. Pointing out an opponent is making errors is not reason to refuse to address their arguments.

->\\\'\\\'You claim that I am wrong, but you present no example of me being wrong. You cannot dispute that the car as a whole decreases in mass, so you now have added the qualification of \\\"body\\\" of the car, conveniently excluding the fuel. What else are you going to exclude? Radiator fluid? Oil? Tires? All of them experience a decrease in mass that massively outweighs the relativistic effects. \\\'\\\'

This is true, but it ignores there \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' relativistic effects that are making the car heavier than it would otherwise be, which is the point of the example. The car gets heavier; it also gets lighter due to other factors, but if you instantaneously stopped the vehicle it would be slightly lighter at any given instant than if it was moving. That\\\'s the point.

The example is supposed to be someone over-simplifying relativity in a way that, while technically accurate, is absurd. Imagine it as a big hairy guy who\\\'s just had relativistic change in mass and Lorentz contraction explained to him boiling it down to \\\"so if I\\\'m going fast, my car gets shorter and heavier? That\\\'s weird, you\\\'re making that up!\\\" and it makes sense.

The reason I removed your initial point about the car \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' getting lighter:

\\\'\\\'And an accelerating object will not gain mass unless its acceleration is accomplished through an outside energy source...\\\'\\\'

is it makes it look like the example is saying relativistic change in mass is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' and the vehicle will \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' gain mass as a result of increased speed; it will, despite that the mass will be decreasing at a much more significant rate. The addition appeared to claim that relativistic change in mass \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' incorrect, which isn\\\'t something we ought to be doing.

->\\\'\\\'As for citing Wikipedia, there are probably half a dozen of these fallacies that I could describe that as falling under.\\\'\\\'

And I notice you removed a section from ad hominem regarding dismissing an encyclopedia on the basis of errors in irrelevant articles. Seems you just want the pages to reflect \\\'\\\'your\\\'\\\' idea of logic here.

->\\\'\\\'I am absolutely not splitting hairs about what \\\"gets shorter\\\" means.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s just a simple way to say \\\"experiences Lorentz contraction to an observer outside the vehicle\\\" that makes the Theory of Relativity look absurd. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'technically\\\'\\\' a correct way to describe what is happening; again, that\\\'s the point, to make Relativity look as bizarre as possible.

->\\\'\\\'You have presented no example of me failing to understand logic or of me calling you names.\\\'\\\'

You\\\'re repeatedly called me ignorant on the basis of an example which is \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be making physics look stupid. Didn\\\'t you think to stop and consider that I might fully understand relativity, but that the purpose of the example is to describe it in such a way as to make it seem bizarre and illogical?

The actual issue here is I\\\'m willing to make the assumptions required to make it a valid example, while you are not. That\\\'s just an issue of approach, and has nothing to do with ignorance. You\\\'ve been extremely aggressive over this whole thing, which could easily have been solved with a more civil discussion.

->\\\'\\\'I don\\\'t understand your claim that my example has no \\\"appeal\\\".\\\'\\\'

Your example is simply a statement; no conclusion was made that anything was incorrect in it. It certainly describes cosmology in a way that seems strange, but never actually declares it must be \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' because it is strange.

->\\\'\\\'And my \\\"not an example\\\" is not an example of ad hominem.\\\'\\\'

It is. Saying your opponent is too stupid to understand a rebuttal as a reason for not giving one is a classic ad hominem fallacy, as it dismisses the opponent\\\'s arguments on the basis of their supposed lack of intelligence rather than anything the arguments might actually contain. Pointing out an opponent is making errors is not reason to refuse to address their arguments.

->\\\'\\\'You claim that I am wrong, but you present no example of me being wrong. You cannot dispute that the car as a whole decreases in mass, so you now have added the qualification of \\\"body\\\" of the car, conveniently excluding the fuel. What else are you going to exclude? Radiator fluid? Oil? Tires? All of them experience a decrease in mass that massively outweighs the relativistic effects. \\\'\\\'

This is true, but it ignores there \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' relativistic effects that are making the car heavier than it would otherwise be, which is the point of the example. The car gets heavier; it also gets lighter due to other factors, but if you instantaneously stopped the vehicle it would be slightly lighter at any given instant than if it was moving. That\\\'s the point.

The example is supposed to be someone over-simplifying relativity in a way that, while technically accurate, is absurd. Imagine it as a big hairy guy who\\\'s just had relativistic change in mass and Lorentz contraction explained to him boiling it down to \\\"so if I\\\'m going fast, my car gets shorter and heavier? That\\\'s weird, you\\\'re making that up!\\\" and it makes sense. The reason I removed your initial point about the car \\\'\\\'actually\\\'\\\' getting lighter is it makes it look like the example is saying relativistic change in mass is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\', which it really, really shouldn\\\'t do.

->\\\'\\\'As for citing Wikipedia, there are probably half a dozen of these fallacies that I could describe that as falling under.\\\'\\\'

And I notice you removed a section from ad hominem regarding dismissing an encyclopedia on the basis of errors in irrelevant articles. Seems you just want the pages to reflect \\\'\\\'your\\\'\\\' idea of logic here.

->\\\'\\\'I am absolutely not splitting hairs about what \\\"gets shorter\\\" means.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s just a simple way to say \\\"experiences Lorentz contraction to an observer outside the vehicle\\\" that makes the Theory of Relativity look absurd. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'technically\\\'\\\' a correct way to describe what is happening; again, that\\\'s the point, to make Relativity look as bizarre as possible.

->\\\'\\\'You have presented no example of me failing to understand logic or of me calling you names.\\\'\\\'

You\\\'re repeatedly called me ignorant on the basis of an example which is \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be making physics look stupid. Didn\\\'t you think to stop and consider that I might fully understand relativity, but that the purpose of the example is to describe it in such a way as to make it seem bizarre and illogical?

The actual issue here is I\\\'m willing to make the assumptions required to make it a valid example, while you are not. That\\\'s just an issue of approach, and has nothing to do with ignorance. You\\\'ve been extremely aggressive over this whole thing, which could easily have been solved with a more civil discussion.

->\\\'\\\'I don\\\'t understand your claim that my example has no \\\"appeal\\\".\\\'\\\'

Your example is simply a statement; no conclusion was made that anything was incorrect in it. It certainly describes cosmology in a way that seems strange, but never actually declares it must be \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' because it is strange.

->\\\'\\\'And my \\\"not an example\\\" is not an example of ad hominem.\\\'\\\'

It is. Saying your opponent is too stupid to understand a rebuttal as a reason for not giving one is a classic ad hominem fallacy, as it dismisses the opponent\\\'s arguments on the basis of their supposed lack of intelligence rather than anything the arguments might actually contain. Pointing out an opponent is making errors is not reason to refuse to address their arguments.

->\\\'\\\'You claim that I am wrong, but you present no example of me being wrong. You cannot dispute that the car as a whole decreases in mass, so you now have added the qualification of \\\"body\\\" of the car, conveniently excluding the fuel. What else are you going to exclude? Radiator fluid? Oil? Tires? All of them experience a decrease in mass that massively outweighs the relativistic effects. \\\'\\\'

This is true, but it ignores there \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' relativistic effects that are making the car heavier than it would otherwise be, which is the point of the example. The car gets heavier; it also gets lighter due to other factors, but if you instantaneously stopped the vehicle it would be slightly lighter at any given instant than if it was moving. That\\\'s the point.

The example is supposed to be someone over-simplifying relativity in a way that, while technically accurate, is absurd. Imagine it as a big hairy guy who\\\'s just had relativistic change in mass and Lorentz contraction explained to him boiling it down to \\\"so if I\\\'m going fast, my car gets shorter and heavier? That\\\'s weird, you\\\'re making that up!\\\" and it makes sense.

->\\\'\\\'As for citing Wikipedia, there are probably half a dozen of these fallacies that I could describe that as falling under.\\\'\\\'

And I notice you removed a section from ad hominem regarding dismissing an encyclopedia on the basis of errors in irrelevant articles. Seems you just want the pages to reflect \\\'\\\'your\\\'\\\' idea of logic here.

->\\\'\\\'I am absolutely not splitting hairs about what \\\"gets shorter\\\" means.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s just a simple way to say \\\"experiences Lorentz contraction to an observer outside the vehicle\\\" that makes the Theory of Relativity look absurd. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'technically\\\'\\\' a correct way to describe what is happening; again, that\\\'s the point, to make Relativity look as bizarre as possible.

->\\\'\\\'You have presented no example of me failing to understand logic or of me calling you names.\\\'\\\'

You\\\'re repeatedly called me ignorant on the basis of an example which is \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be making physics look stupid. Didn\\\'t you think to stop and consider that I might fully understand relativity, but that the purpose of the example is to describe it in such a way as to make it seem bizarre and illogical?

The actual issue here is I\\\'m willing to make the assumptions required to make it a valid example, while you are not. That\\\'s just an issue of approach, and has nothing to do with ignorance. You\\\'ve been extremely aggressive over this whole thing, which could easily have been solved with a more civil discussion.

->\\\'\\\'I don\\\'t understand your claim that my example has no \\\"appeal\\\".\\\'\\\'

Your example is simply a statement; no conclusion was made that anything was incorrect in it. It certainly describes cosmology in a way that seems strange, but never actually declares it must be \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' because it is strange.

->\\\'\\\'And my \\\"not an example\\\" is not an example of ad hominem.\\\'\\\'

It is. Saying your opponent is too stupid to understand a rebuttal as a reason for not giving one is a classic ad hominem fallacy, as it dismisses the opponent\\\'s arguments on the basis of their supposed lack of intelligence rather than anything the arguments might actually contain. Pointing out an opponent is making errors is not reason to refuse to address their arguments.

->\\\'\\\'You claim that I am wrong, but you present no example of me being wrong. You cannot dispute that the car as a whole decreases in mass, so you now have added the qualification of \\\"body\\\" of the car, conveniently excluding the fuel. What else are you going to exclude? Radiator fluid? Oil? Tires? All of them experience a decrease in mass that massively outweighs the relativistic effects. \\\'\\\'

This is true, but it ignores there \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' relativistic effects that are making the car heavier than it would otherwise be, which is the point of the example. The car gets heavier; it also gets lighter due to other factors, but if you instantaneously stopped the vehicle it would be slightly lighter at any given instant than if it was moving. That\\\'s the point.

->\\\'\\\'As for citing Wikipedia, there are probably half a dozen of these fallacies that I could describe that as falling under.\\\'\\\'

And I notice you removed a section from ad hominem regarding dismissing an encyclopedia on the basis of errors in irrelevant articles. Seems you just want the pages to reflect \\\'\\\'your\\\'\\\' idea of logic here.

->\\\'\\\'I am absolutely not splitting hairs about what \\\"gets shorter\\\" means.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s just a simple way to say \\\"experiences Lorentz contraction to an observer outside the vehicle\\\" that makes the Theory of Relativity look absurd. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'technically\\\'\\\' a correct way to describe what is happening; again, that\\\'s the point, to make Relativity look as bizarre as possible.

->\\\'\\\'You have presented no example of me failing to understand logic or of me calling you names.\\\'\\\'

You\\\'re repeatedly called me ignorant on the basis of an example which is \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be making physics look stupid. Didn\\\'t you think to stop and consider that I might fully understand relativity, but that the purpose of the example is to describe it in such a way as to make it seem bizarre and illogical?

The actual issue here is I\\\'m willing to make the assumptions required to make it a valid example, while you are not. That\\\'s just an issue of approach, and has nothing to do with ignorance. You\\\'ve been extremely aggressive over this whole thing, which could easily have been solved with a more civil discussion.

->\\\'\\\'I don\\\'t understand your claim that my example has no \\\"appeal\\\".\\\'\\\'

Your example is simply a statement; no conclusion was made that anything was incorrect in it. It certainly describes cosmology in a way that seems strange, but never actually declares it must be \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' because it is strange.

->\\\'\\\'And my \\\"not an example\\\" is not an example of ad hominem.\\\'\\\'

It is. Saying your opponent is too stupid to understand a rebuttal as a reason for not giving one is a classic ad hominem fallacy, as it dismisses the opponent\\\'s arguments on the basis of their supposed lack of intelligence rather than anything the arguments might actually contain. Pointing out an opponent is making errors is not reason to refuse to address their arguments.

->\\\'\\\'You claim that I am wrong, but you present no example of me being wrong. You cannot dispute that the car as a whole decreases in mass, so you now have added the qualification of \\\"body\\\" of the car, conveniently excluding the fuel. What else are you going to exclude? Radiator fluid? Oil? Tires? All of them experience a decrease in mass that massively outweighs the relativistic effects. \\\'\\\'

This is true, but it ignores there \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' relativistic effects that are making the car heavier than it would otherwise be, which is the point of the example. The car gets heavier; it also gets lighter due to other factors, but if you instantaneously stopped the vehicle it would be slightly lighter at any given instant than if it was moving. That\\\'s the point.

->\\\'\\\'As for citing Wikipedia, there are probably half a dozen of these fallacies that I could describe that as falling under.\\\'\\\'

And I notice you removed a section from ad hominem regarding dismissing an encyclopedia on the basis of errors in irrelevant articles. Seems you just want the pages to reflect \\\'\\\'your\\\'\\\' idea of logic here.

->\\\'\\\'I am absolutely not splitting hairs about what \\\"gets shorter\\\" means.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s just a simple way to say \\\"experiences Lorentz contraction to an observer outside the vehicle\\\" that makes the Theory of Relativity look absurd. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'technically\\\'\\\' a correct way to describe what is happening; again, that\\\'s the point, to make Relativity look as bizarre as possible.

->\\\'\\\'You have presented no example of me failing to understand logic or of me calling you names.\\\'\\\'

You\\\'re repeatedly called me ignorant on the basis of an example which is \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be making physics look stupid. Didn\\\'t you think to stop and consider that I might fully understand relativity, but that the purpose of the example is to describe it in such a way as to make it seem bizarre and illogical?

The actual issue here is I\\\'m willing to make the assumptions required to make it a valid example, while you are not. That\\\'s just an issue of approach, and has nothing to do with ignorance. You\\\'ve been extremely aggressive over this whole thing, which could easily have been solved with a more civil discussion.

->\\\'\\\'I don\\\'t understand your claim that my example has no \\\"appeal\\\".\\\'\\\'

Your example is simply a statement; no conclusion was made that anything was incorrect in it.

->\\\'\\\'And my \\\"not an example\\\" is not an example of ad hominem.\\\'\\\'

It is. Saying your opponent is too stupid to understand a rebuttal as a reason for not giving one is a classic ad hominem fallacy, as it dismisses the opponent\\\'s arguments on the basis of their supposed lack of intelligence rather than anything the arguments might actually contain. Pointing out an opponent is making errors is not reason to refuse to address their arguments.

->\\\'\\\'You claim that I am wrong, but you present no example of me being wrong. You cannot dispute that the car as a whole decreases in mass, so you now have added the qualification of \\\"body\\\" of the car, conveniently excluding the fuel. What else are you going to exclude? Radiator fluid? Oil? Tires? All of them experience a decrease in mass that massively outweighs the relativistic effects. \\\'\\\'

This is true, but it ignores there \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' relativistic effects that are making the car heavier than it would otherwise be, which is the point of the example. The car gets heavier; it also gets lighter due to other factors, but if you instantaneously stopped the vehicle it would be slightly lighter at any given instant than if it was moving. That\\\'s the point.

->\\\'\\\'As for citing Wikipedia, there are probably half a dozen of these fallacies that I could describe that as falling under.\\\'\\\'

And I notice you removed a section from ad hominem regarding dismissing an encyclopedia on the basis of errors in irrelevant articles. Seems you just want the pages to reflect \\\'\\\'your\\\'\\\' idea of logic here.

->\\\'\\\'I am absolutely not splitting hairs about what \\\"gets shorter\\\" means.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s just a simple way to say \\\"experiences Lorentz contraction to an observer outside the vehicle\\\" that makes the Theory of Relativity look absurd. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'technically\\\'\\\' a correct way to describe what is happening; again, that\\\'s the point, to make Relativity look as bizarre as possible.

->\\\'\\\'You have presented no example of me failing to understand logic or of me calling you names.\\\'\\\'

You\\\'re repeatedly called me ignorant on the basis of an example which is \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be making physics look stupid. Didn\\\'t you think to stop and consider that I might fully understand relativity, but that the purpose of the example is to describe it in such a way as to make it seem bizarre and illogical?

->\\\'\\\'I don\\\'t understand your claim that my example has no \\\"appeal\\\".\\\'\\\'

Your example is simply a statement; no conclusion was made that anything was incorrect in it.

->\\\'\\\'And my \\\"not an example\\\" is not an example of ad hominem.\\\'\\\'

It is. Saying your opponent is too stupid to understand a rebuttal as a reason for not giving one is a classic ad hominem fallacy, as it dismisses the opponent\\\'s arguments on the basis of their supposed lack of intelligence rather than anything the arguments might actually contain. Pointing out an opponent is making errors is not reason to refuse to address their arguments.

->\\\'\\\'You claim that I am wrong, but you present no example of me being wrong. You cannot dispute that the car as a whole decreases in mass, so you now have added the qualification of \\\"body\\\" of the car, conveniently excluding the fuel. What else are you going to exclude? Radiator fluid? Oil? Tires? All of them experience a decrease in mass that massively outweighs the relativistic effects. \\\'\\\'

This is true, but it ignores there \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' relativistic effects that are making the car heavier than it would otherwise be, which is the point of the example. The car gets heavier; it also gets lighter due to other factors, but if you instantaneously stopped the vehicle it would be slightly lighter at any given instant than if it was moving. That\\\'s the point.

->\\\'\\\'As for citing Wikipedia, there are probably half a dozen of these fallacies that I could describe that as falling under.\\\'\\\'

And I notice you removed a section from ad hominem regarding dismissing an encyclopedia on the basis of errors in irrelevant articles. Seems you just want the pages to reflect \\\'\\\'your\\\'\\\' idea of logic here.

->\\\'\\\'I am absolutely not splitting hairs about what \\\"gets shorter\\\" means.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s just a simple way to say \\\"experiences Lorentz contraction to an observer outside the vehicle\\\" that makes the Theory of Relativity look absurd. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'technically\\\'\\\' a correct way to describe what is happening; again, that\\\'s the point, to make Relativity look as bizarre as possible.

->\\\'\\\'I don\\\'t understand your claim that my example has no \\\"appeal\\\".\\\'\\\'

Your example is simply a statement; no conclusion was made that anything was incorrect in it.

->\\\'\\\'And my \\\"not an example\\\" is not an example of ad hominem.\\\'\\\'

It is. Saying your opponent is too stupid to understand a rebuttal as a reason for not giving one is a classic ad hominem fallacy, as it dismisses the opponent\\\'s arguments on the basis of their supposed lack of intelligence rather than anything the arguments might actually contain. Pointing out an opponent is making errors is not reason to refuse to address their arguments.

->\\\'\\\'You claim that I am wrong, but you present no example of me being wrong. You cannot dispute that the car as a whole decreases in mass, so you now have added the qualification of \\\"body\\\" of the car, conveniently excluding the fuel. What else are you going to exclude? Radiator fluid? Oil? Tires? All of them experience a decrease in mass that massively outweighs the relativistic effects. \\\'\\\'

This is true, but it ignores there \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' relativistic effects that are making the car heavier than it would otherwise be, which is the point of the example. The car gets heavier; it also gets lighter due to other factors, but if you instantaneously stopped the vehicle it would be slightly lighter at any given instant than if it was moving. That\\\'s the point.

->\\\'\\\'As for citing Wikipedia, there are probably half a dozen of these fallacies that I could describe that as falling under.\\\'\\\'

And I notice you removed a section from ad hominem regarding dismissing an encyclopedia on the basis of errors in irrelevant articles. Seems you just want the pages to reflect \\\'\\\'your\\\'\\\' idea of logic here.

->\\\'\\\'I am absolutely not splitting hairs about what \\\"gets shorter\\\" means.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s just a simple way to say \\\"experiences Lorentz contraction to an observer outside the vehicle\\\" that makes the Theory of Relativity look absurd. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'technically\\\'\\\' a correct way to describe what is happening; again, that\\\'s the point, to make Relativity look as bizarre as possible.

->\\\'\\\'I don\\\'t understand your claim that my example has no \\\"appeal\\\".\\\'\\\'

Your example is simply a statement; no conclusion was made that anything was incorrect in it.

->\\\'\\\'And my \\\"not an example\\\" is not an example of ad hominem.\\\'\\\'

It is. Saying your opponent is too stupid to understand a rebuttal as a reason for not giving one is a classic ad hominem fallacy, as it dismisses the opponent\\\'s arguments on the basis of their supposed lack of intelligence rather than anything the arguments might actually contain.