Why hasn't Figure 4-4 Been Corrected?

[Gary Harnagel]

Figure 4-4 in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Causality_and_prohibition_of_motion_faster_than_light

purports to demonstrate that causality is violated by "fictitious
instantaneous communicators" possessed by observers A, B, C and D.
However, the author states that, "The velocity composition formula
applies to all speeds" so why hasn't he applied it to Figure 4-4?

u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)

is the equation in question, where u' is the velocity of the signal
produced by the "fictitious instantaneous communicators" used to
send a message from D to C and v < c is the velocity of the moving
frame in which C and D are stationary. By the above equation, for
u' = -infinity, u = -c^2/v. That is, the red arrow should be slanted
UPWARD rather than downward since -c^2/v is somewhere between -infinity
(a horizontal line, 180 degrees) and -c (a 135 degree line) in the
stationary frame of A and B as presented in the Minkowski diagram of
Figure 4-4.

This has been explained two weeks ago:

http://vixra.org/abs/1908.0306

and the author has been aware of it nearly as long, so why does his
misrepresentation of causality persist?

[Dono,]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 7:56:58 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Figure 4-4 in
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Causality_and_prohibition_of_motion_faster_than_light
>
> purports to demonstrate that causality is violated by "fictitious
> instantaneous communicators" possessed by observers A, B, C and D.
> However, the author states that, "The velocity composition formula
> applies to all speeds" so why hasn't he applied it to Figure 4-4?
>

Because it doesn't. You need to stop lying.
For v>c \gamma(v) is imaginary.

[Gary Harnagel]

"v" never exceeded c. You are delusional if you believe it did.
You dishonestly snipped the part where I said just that:

"u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)

"is the equation in question, where u' is the velocity of the signal
produced by the "fictitious instantaneous communicators" used to
send a message from D to C and v < c is the velocity of the moving
frame in which C and D are stationary."

Your duplicity brands you as a purveyor of baloney.

[Dono,]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:39:21 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:04:47 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 7:56:58 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Figure 4-4 in
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Causality_and_prohibition_of_motion_faster_than_light
> > >
> > > purports to demonstrate that causality is violated by "fictitious
> > > instantaneous communicators" possessed by observers A, B, C and D.
> > > However, the author states that, "The velocity composition formula
> > > applies to all speeds" so why hasn't he applied it to Figure 4-4?
> > >
> >
> > Because it doesn't. You need to stop lying.
> > For v>c \gamma(v) is imaginary.
>
> "v" never exceeded c.

Then, this is not truly superluminal. You have been told that, yet you persist.

> You are delusional if you believe it did.
> You dishonestly snipped the part where I said just that:
>
> "u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)
>
> "is the equation in question, where u' is the velocity of the signal
> produced by the "fictitious instantaneous communicators" used to
> send a message from D to C and v < c is the velocity of the moving
> frame in which C and D are stationary."
>

The "equation in question" is part of the general equation of velocity transformation. That equation is derived ONLY for v<c. Meaning that it does NOT apply to superluminal physics. SR domain of applicability is subluminal ONLY. You need to get this into your thick skull.

[Dustin Butler]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> is the equation in question, where u' is the velocity of the signal
> produced by the "fictitious instantaneous communicators" used to send a
> message from D to C and v < c is the velocity of the moving frame in
> which C and D are stationary. By the above equation, for u' =
> -infinity, u = -c^2/v. That is, the red arrow should be slanted UPWARD
> rather than downward since -c^2/v is somewhere between -infinity (a
> horizontal line, 180 degrees) and -c (a 135 degree line) in the
> stationary frame of A and B as presented in the Minkowski diagram of
> Figure 4-4. This has been explained two weeks ago:
> http://vixra.org/abs/1908.0306
> and the author has been aware of it nearly as long, so why does his
> misrepresentation of causality persist?

You are lying your teeth v1.0.1, try again. Please update.

[Dustin Butler]

Dono, wrote:

> On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:39:21 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:04:47 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>> > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 7:56:58 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel
>> > wrote: Figure 4-4 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Special_relativity#Causality_and_prohibition_of_motion_faster_than_light
>> > >
>> > > purports to demonstrate that causality is violated by "fictitious
>> > > instantaneous communicators" possessed by observers A, B, C and D.
>> > > However, the author states that, "The velocity composition formula
>> > > applies to all speeds" so why hasn't he applied it to Figure 4-4?
>> > >
>> > Because it doesn't. You need to stop lying.
>> > For v>c \gamma(v) is imaginary.
>>
>> "v" never exceeded c.
>
> Then, this is not truly superluminal. You have been told that, yet you
> persist.

Gary is totally absent.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:44:41 AM UTC-6, Dono, cluelessly wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:39:21 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >

> > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:04:47 AM UTC-6, Dono, babbled:

> > >
> > > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 7:56:58 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Figure 4-4 in
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Causality_and_prohibition_of_motion_faster_than_light
> > > >
> > > > purports to demonstrate that causality is violated by "fictitious
> > > > instantaneous communicators" possessed by observers A, B, C and D.
> > > > However, the author states that, "The velocity composition formula
> > > > applies to all speeds" so why hasn't he applied it to Figure 4-4?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Because it doesn't. You need to stop lying.
> > > For v>c \gamma(v) is imaginary.
> >
> > "v" never exceeded c.
>
> Then, this is not truly superluminal.
> You have been told that, yet you persist.

Man, are you CLUELESS! u' is superluminal, so is u. You need to lay
off the cannabis cookies.

> > You are delusional if you believe it did.
> > You dishonestly snipped the part where I said just that:
> >
> > "u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)
> >
> > "is the equation in question, where u' is the velocity of the signal
> > produced by the "fictitious instantaneous communicators" used to
> > send a message from D to C and v < c is the velocity of the moving
> > frame in which C and D are stationary."
> >
>
> The "equation in question" is part of the general equation of velocity
> transformation. That equation is derived ONLY for v<c.

YOU are the only fool claiming this, and YOU are dead wrong.

If what you claim were true, then it would be impossible for delta_t' in

delta_t' = gamma*(delta_t - v*delta_x/c^2)

to be less than delta_x'/c. This is CLEARLY false since physicists can
measure time differences of femtoseconds over centimeters.

As I said, "Your duplicity brands you as a purveyor of baloney." This
plus your vacuous assertions plus propensity for personal verbal attack
disqualifies you from any further "discussion" on this subject.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 7:56:58 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> "The velocity composition formula applies to all speeds" so why
> hasn't he applied it to Figure 4-4?
> u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)

It is applied to Figure 4-4. Note that the relevant value of v is negative in that figure. (The unprimed frame is moving in the negative x direction in terms of the primed frame.)

> By the above equation, for u' = -infinity, u = -c^2/v.

Right, and since v is negative, this means u is positive, so the delta t and delta x are both negative, so the red arrow going to the left slants downward as shown.

This is obvious at a glance, knowing that the speed formula is nothing but the ratio of the space and time components of the Lorentz transformation.

[Dustin Butler]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> > > Because it doesn't. You need to stop lying.
>> > > For v>c \gamma(v) is imaginary.
>> >
>> > "v" never exceeded c.
>>
>> Then, this is not truly superluminal. You have been told that, yet you
>> persist.
>
> Man, are you CLUELESS! u' is superluminal, so is u. You need to lay
> off the cannabis cookies.

Now you change your story, caught with your pants down.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 11:32:51 AM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 7:56:58 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > "The velocity composition formula applies to all speeds" so why
> > hasn't he applied it to Figure 4-4?
> > u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)
>
> It is applied to Figure 4-4.

No, it's not. The red arrow starts at x = L, t = vL/c^2 and ends at
x = 0, t = 0. That represents a velocity of u = (0 - L)/(0 - vL/c^2).
That's a PLUS c^/v, not a MINUS c^2/v.

The red arrow is actually meant to represent infinite signal speed in
the moving frame (t_D' = t_C' = 0), but that is inappropriate because
the diagram is drawn applicable to the stationary frame of A and B.

For u' = -infinity, u = -c^2/v in the stationary frame. That means
u starts at x = L, t = vL/c^2 and ends at x = 0, t = vL/c^2 + L/(c^2/v).

> Note that the relevant value of v is negative in that figure.

The diagram CLEARLY shows that C and D are moving in the POSITIVE x
direction (i.e., v is POSITIVE). The LT for that case is

x' = gamma*(x - v*t)
t' = gamma*(t - v*x/c^2)

The value of v is POSITIVE.

> (The unprimed frame is moving in the negative x direction in terms of the
> primed frame.)

In Figure 4-4, the unprimed frame is STATIONARY.

> > By the above equation, for u' = -infinity, u = -c^2/v.
>
> Right, and since v is negative, this means u is positive, so the delta t
> and delta x are both negative, so the red arrow going to the left slants
> downward as shown.
>
> This is obvious at a glance, knowing that the speed formula is
> nothing but the ratio of the space and time components of the Lorentz
> transformation.

Obviously, and it is also obvious that v is POSITIVE, not negative.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:54:56 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> It is also obvious that v is POSITIVE, not negative.

No, again the transformation is from the primed to the unprimed, and the latter is moving in the negative x direction at speed v in terms of the former, hence v is negative.

[Dustin Butler]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 11:32:51 AM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 7:56:58 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> >
>> > "The velocity composition formula applies to all speeds" so why
>> > hasn't he applied it to Figure 4-4?
>> > u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)
>>
>> It is applied to Figure 4-4.
>
> No, it's not. The red arrow starts at x = L, t = vL/c^2 and ends at x =
> 0, t = 0. That represents a velocity of u = (0 - L)/(0 - vL/c^2).
> That's a PLUS c^/v, not a MINUS c^2/v.

There are no arrows in that figure, meine gutte freunde. And no red lines
starts at L. Take a look. Do it again, redoed.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 12:00:17 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:54:56 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > It is also obvious that v is POSITIVE, not negative.
>
> No, again the transformation is from the primed to the unprimed,

NO! The transform is

x' = gamma*(x - v*t)

It is from the right side to the left side. This is the usual way
algebraic equations work and it is true in this case, too.

> and the latter is moving in the negative x direction at speed v in
> terms of the former, hence v is negative.

The x' = 0 axis is depicted in Figure 4-4 as a line with positive slope.
It is obvious that when x' = 0, x = v*t. v is POSITIVE.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 11:26:44 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> NO! The transform is
> x' = gamma*(x - v*t)

> t' = gamma*(t - vx/c^2)

That's the transformation from the unprimed to the primed coordinates. But you're using the speed composition formula in the opposite direction, from the primed to the unprimed. So what you need is the inverse transformation

x = gamma*(x' + vt')
t = gamma*(t' + vx'/c^2)

with speed v, which corresponds to the speed composition formula

(x/t) = [(x'/t') + v] / [1 + v(x'/t')/c^2]

> The x' = 0 axis is depicted in Figure 4-4 as a line with positive slope.

Right, which signifies that S' is moving at speed v in the positive x direction in terms of S, and so S is moving at speed v in the negative x' direction in terms of S'.

> It is obvious that when x' = 0, x = v*t. v is POSITIVE.

Again, S' is moving in the positive x direction in terms of S', and reciprocally S' is moving in the negative x direction in terms of S. The transformation you are using is from S' to S, so the relevant v in your formula is negative (because you're using the formulas for the S to S' transformation).

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

A couple of typos, but it is obvious what you mean.

My REAL reason for posting is to thank you for your patience with Gary. In
the earlier thread on this topic, I was so upset at seeing a person whom I had
previously considered a good, reliable poster descend into crankhood, that
I blew my stack. It's the first time that I had ever seen this happen.

In Gary's defense, he is quite technically skilled, and he has an impressive
homebrew science project that's been going for several years analyzing Cs137
beta decay rates to see whether he could validate apparent yearly cycles
reported by others, such as those by a Purdue group:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

I'm hoping that with patience on your part, you can get Gary to understand
where he went wrong. I don't seem up to discussing the subject with him
without blowing a fuse. I'm obviously a little too emotionally wrapped up in
this.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> A couple of typos, but it is obvious what you mean.

Yes, the primes got misplaced in that last sentence. The point is, S' is moving in the positive x direction in terms of S, and reciprocally S is moving in the negative x' direction in terms of S'.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 12:45:56 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 11:26:44 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > NO! The transform is
> > x' = gamma*(x - v*t)
> > t' = gamma*(t - vx/c^2)
>
> That's the transformation from the unprimed to the primed coordinates.

Yes.

> But you're using the speed composition formula in the opposite direction,
> from the primed to the unprimed. So what you need is the inverse
> transformation
>
> x = gamma*(x' + vt')
> t = gamma*(t' + vx'/c^2)
>
> with speed v, which corresponds to the speed composition formula
>
> (x/t) = [(x'/t') + v] / [1 + v(x'/t')/c^2]

Or

u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2)

which says that when u' = -c^2/v, u = -infinity. So what happens when
u' becomes even more negative than -c^2/v? The equation says that u
becomes positive, but what's happening in the LT equation for t, t is
going negative and u goes positive because it's in the third quadrant
of the Minkowski diagram: the signal arrives before it started.

Another way of saying this is that the speed of the signal is faster
than infinite in the stationary frame! I don't know how this sounds
to you, but it sounds totally absurd to me since NOTHING can be greater
than infinity.

> > The x' = 0 axis is depicted in Figure 4-4 as a line with positive slope.
>
> Right, which signifies that S' is moving at speed v in the positive x
> direction in terms of S, and so S is moving at speed v in the negative x'
> direction in terms of S'.

Right.

> > It is obvious that when x' = 0, x = v*t. v is POSITIVE.
>
> Again, S' is moving in the positive x direction in terms of S',

typo: in terms of S

> and reciprocally S' is moving in the negative x direction in terms of S.

typo: S and S' should be reversed?

> The transformation you are using is from S' to S, so the relevant v in
> your formula is negative (because you're using the formulas for the S
> to S' transformation).

You make a good point. There are two cases for u' and v: when they are
both in the same direction and when they are opposite. I called them
Case I and case II, respectively. I thought I had the bases covered, so
I need to go back and follow my chicken tracks. Could be I messed up
with a minus sign somewhere.

Thanks for your input.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 1:41:44 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > with speed v, which corresponds to the speed composition formula
> > (x/t) = [(x'/t') + v] / [1 + v(x'/t')/c^2]
> Or
> u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2)

Right.

> which says that when u' = -c^2/v, u = -infinity.

Wait... Your premise is that u' = -inf (meaning the putative signal has infinite speed in terms of S'), and it follows that u = c^2/v, consistent with the fact that the arrow goes backwards in time in terms of S. (Remember, in these equations, v is positive.)

> Another way of saying this is that the speed of the signal is faster
> than infinite in the stationary frame!

If by "faster than infinite" you mean going backward in time, then yes. More precisely, if the event at the point of the arrow is simultaneous with the beginning of the arrow in terms of S', then the arrow is pointing backwards in time in terms of S. That's what people mean when they say superluminal communication violates causality. It implies you could send a message to your past.

> I don't know how this sounds to you, but it sounds totally absurd
> to me since NOTHING can be greater than infinity.

It isn't about being "greater than infinity", it's about going backwards in time. And, yes, it is absurd. It doesn't happen.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 1:10:24 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 1:45:56 PM UTC-5, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
> >

> > ....

>
> My REAL reason for posting is to thank you for your patience with Gary.
> In the earlier thread on this topic, I was so upset at seeing a person
> whom I had previously considered a good, reliable poster descend into
> crankhood, that I blew my stack. It's the first time that I had ever
> seen this happen.

And I was very upset at seeing a person that I had previously thought
very, very highly of "blowing his stack" with ad hominem attacks.
I hope we can bury the hatchet now (not in each other, of course :-)
and the three of us have a cool, calm discussion of the LT and its
derivative, RVC.

> In Gary's defense, he is quite technically skilled, and he has an impressive
> homebrew science project that's been going for several years analyzing Cs137
> beta decay rates to see whether he could validate apparent yearly cycles
> reported by others, such as those by a Purdue group:
> https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

Yeah, well, the experimental setup went south in July of 2018. I got it
back up and running 2/1/19 with a 32-bit counter IC being controlled by
an Arduino Mega and the Arduino sending the counts to a Raspberry Pi which
stores it on a thumb drive. Periodically, I upload data files to the
cloud and download them my desktop for analysis. So I have a hole in
the data between 7/18 and 2/19 :-(.

I suffered a back injury in June of this year which prevented me from
uploading data and analyzing it because I could only sit up (like at a
computer) for a few minutes before it got to me, so I reclined a lot
and thought about FTL and causality (dropping minus signs all over the
place most likely - I'm not Stephen Hawking). I can do better now but
I'm not out of the woods yet. The doc said these things take weeks to
months and it's already been more than two months.

> I'm hoping that with patience on your part, you can get Gary to understand
> where he went wrong. I don't seem up to discussing the subject with him
> without blowing a fuse. I'm obviously a little too emotionally wrapped up
> in this.

Aw, c'mon, you can do it! Listen in, anyway. I'm sure we can ALL contribute
to the advancement of science. Just to show that I still have some
crackpotism swirling around me, if you consider Case I where u' and v are
both positive:

u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2)

when u' goes to infinity, u does indeed go to c^2/v. And because space
is isotropic, if u' and v are both negative, it follows that when u'
goes to -infinity, u goes to -c^2/v.

The problem comes when u' and v are in opposite directions (Case II).
The question is, is Case II substantially different from Case I? I
think that's where the discussion should go ...

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 4:48:02 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 1:10:24 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 1:45:56 PM UTC-5, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > ....
> >
> > My REAL reason for posting is to thank you for your patience with Gary.
> > In the earlier thread on this topic, I was so upset at seeing a person
> > whom I had previously considered a good, reliable poster descend into
> > crankhood, that I blew my stack. It's the first time that I had ever
> > seen this happen.
>
> And I was very upset at seeing a person that I had previously thought
> very, very highly of "blowing his stack" with ad hominem attacks.
> I hope we can bury the hatchet now (not in each other, of course :-)
> and the three of us have a cool, calm discussion of the LT and its
> derivative, RVC.

I based the Wikipedia section* on David Morin's presentation from
his book, Special Relativity for the Enthusiastic Beginner
https://drive.google.com/open?id=10_h10qbI6YB64xjKZggQj2o2ivEvoYHC

Why don't you write to Prof. Morin (who is on the faculty at Harvard) to
let him know that he completely, totally screwed up.
https://www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/morin

I have a very strong feeling that he won't bother answering your email.

-------------------------------
*Disclaimer: At this point, my authorship of the WORDS in this section stands
at maybe only about 90%. Another editor, "Purgy Purgatorio", insisted on
expanding the verbiage at various points in this section for greater precision
at the cost, in my opinion, of conciseness and clarity. Purgy and I tend to
disagree a lot in the debate between precision versus conciseness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Causality_and_prohibition_of_motion_faster_than_light

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 12:53:38 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 4:48:02 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 1:10:24 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 1:45:56 PM UTC-5, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ....
> > >
> > > My REAL reason for posting is to thank you for your patience with Gary.
> > > In the earlier thread on this topic, I was so upset at seeing a person
> > > whom I had previously considered a good, reliable poster descend into
> > > crankhood, that I blew my stack. It's the first time that I had ever
> > > seen this happen.
> >
> > And I was very upset at seeing a person that I had previously thought
> > very, very highly of "blowing his stack" with ad hominem attacks.
> > I hope we can bury the hatchet now (not in each other, of course :-)
> > and the three of us have a cool, calm discussion of the LT and its
> > derivative, RVC.
>
> I based the Wikipedia section* on David Morin's presentation from
> his book, Special Relativity for the Enthusiastic Beginner
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=10_h10qbI6YB64xjKZggQj2o2ivEvoYHC
>
> Why don't you write to Prof. Morin (who is on the faculty at Harvard) to
> let him know that he completely, totally screwed up.
> https://www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/morin
>
> I have a very strong feeling that he won't bother answering your email.

Actually, I was thinking of doing something like that, but after talking
with coea... I don't think I will :-|

[Dono,]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:16:30 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:44:41 AM UTC-6, Dono, cluelessly wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:39:21 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:04:47 AM UTC-6, Dono, babbled:
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 7:56:58 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Figure 4-4 in
> > > > >
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Causality_and_prohibition_of_motion_faster_than_light
> > > > >
> > > > > purports to demonstrate that causality is violated by "fictitious
> > > > > instantaneous communicators" possessed by observers A, B, C and D.
> > > > > However, the author states that, "The velocity composition formula
> > > > > applies to all speeds" so why hasn't he applied it to Figure 4-4?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Because it doesn't. You need to stop lying.
> > > > For v>c \gamma(v) is imaginary.
> > >
> > > "v" never exceeded c.
> >
> > Then, this is not truly superluminal.
> > You have been told that, yet you persist.
>
> Man, are you CLUELESS! u' is superluminal, so is u. You need to lay
> off the cannabis cookies.
>

Sooo, v<c but u can be larger than c? This makes the theory inconsistent. Even if we accepted that, the next problem arises immediately:

p=\frac{mu}{\sqrt{1-u^2/c^2} is imaginary
and
E\frac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1-u^2/c^2} is imaginary

So, tachyons would have imaginary energy-momentum

> > The "equation in question" is part of the general equation of velocity
> > transformation. That equation is derived ONLY for v<c.
>
> YOU are the only fool claiming this, and YOU are dead wrong.
>

Errr, the derivation comes from the Lorentz transforms:

x'=\gamma(v)(x-vt)
t'=\gamma(v)(t-vx/c^2)

plus u=dx/dt, u'=dx'dt'

The Lorentz transforms come from (see Einstein's paper) , right at the start of the derivation:

ct=x+vt

If one takes u>c this means dx>cdt meaning x>ct (spacelike separation) meaning that ct=x+vt is an impossibilty from get-go since t<0. As explained, SR does NOT apply and CANNOT apply to tachyons.

> If what you claim were true, then it would be impossible for delta_t' in
>
> delta_t' = gamma*(delta_t - v*delta_x/c^2)
>
> to be less than delta_x'/c. This is CLEARLY false since physicists can
> measure time differences of femtoseconds over centimeters.
>

Wee, this has nothing to do with the SR domain of applicability. It only showcases your imbecility.

> As I said, "Your duplicity brands you as a purveyor of baloney." This
> plus your vacuous assertions plus propensity for personal verbal attack
> disqualifies you from any further "discussion" on this subject.

Can't educate the Gary Harnagel imbecile <shrug>

[Dustin Butler]

Dono, wrote:

>> If what you claim were true, then it would be impossible for delta_t'
>> in delta_t' = gamma*(delta_t - v*delta_x/c^2)
>> to be less than delta_x'/c. This is CLEARLY false since physicists can
>> measure time differences of femtoseconds over centimeters.
>
> Wee, this has nothing to do with the SR domain of applicability. It only
> showcases your imbecility.

"femtoseconds over centimeters" local time. But let him revolutionize
physics, invalidate relativity. As a subset. Why not him.

[Dustin Butler]

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> In Gary's defense, he is quite technically skilled, and he has an
> impressive homebrew science project that's been going for several years
> analyzing Cs137 beta decay rates to see whether he could validate
> apparent yearly cycles reported by others, such as those by a Purdue
> group: https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283
> I'm hoping that with patience on your part, you can get Gary to
> understand where he went wrong. I don't seem up to discussing the
> subject with him without blowing a fuse. I'm obviously a little too
> emotionally wrapped up in this.

Inclined to the blowing fuse. But I don't want to become rude. Gary is a
nice person. Worth exchanging arduino setups and experiments.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 6:28:41 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 12:53:38 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> > I based the Wikipedia section* on David Morin's presentation from
> > his book, Special Relativity for the Enthusiastic Beginner
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=10_h10qbI6YB64xjKZggQj2o2ivEvoYHC
> >
> > Why don't you write to Prof. Morin (who is on the faculty at Harvard) to
> > let him know that he completely, totally screwed up.
> > https://www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/morin
> >
> > I have a very strong feeling that he won't bother answering your email.
>
> Actually, I was thinking of doing something like that, but after talking
> with coea... I don't think I will :-|

I can supply you with the names of other physics faculty members to contact
as well, if you are not comfortable with contacting Prof Morin.

Just for starters:

Matthew R Buckley, Assistant Professor of Physics and Astronomy
Rutgers University
http://www.physicsmatt.com/blog/2016/8/25/why-ftl-implies-time-travel

[Dustin Butler]

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

>> Actually, I was thinking of doing something like that, but after
>> talking with coea... I don't think I will :-|
>
> I can supply you with the names of other physics faculty members to
> contact as well, if you are not comfortable with contacting Prof Morin.
> Just for starters:
> Matthew R Buckley, Assistant Professor of Physics and Astronomy Rutgers
> University
> http://www.physicsmatt.com/blog/2016/8/25/why-ftl-implies-time-travel

*facepalm* what do you mean by "for starters"?? There is no enlisted
requirement for doing that. We are not taking advice from assistants.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 8:54:11 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 6:28:41 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 12:53:38 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > >
> > > I based the Wikipedia section* on David Morin's presentation from
> > > his book, Special Relativity for the Enthusiastic Beginner
> > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=10_h10qbI6YB64xjKZggQj2o2ivEvoYHC
> > >
> > > Why don't you write to Prof. Morin (who is on the faculty at Harvard) to
> > > let him know that he completely, totally screwed up.
> > > https://www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/morin
> > >
> > > I have a very strong feeling that he won't bother answering your email.
> >
> > Actually, I was thinking of doing something like that, but after talking
> > with coea... I don't think I will :-|
>
> I can supply you with the names of other physics faculty members to contact
> as well, if you are not comfortable with contacting Prof Morin.

Why would I do that if Case II, the condition u' and v are in opposite
directions, is fundamentally different from Case I, the condition that
u' and v are in the same direction? If it could be demonstrated that
an infinite velocity in u' results in u = c^2/v (with the same sign as
u') for Case II, then the conclusion of my paper would be correct.

So far, all I have for the scenario under investigation (u' < 0, v > 0)
is that when u = -infinity, u' =-c^2/v. Close, but doesn't win the
brass ring.

> Just for starters:
>
> Matthew R Buckley, Assistant Professor of Physics and Astronomy
> Rutgers University
> http://www.physicsmatt.com/blog/2016/8/25/why-ftl-implies-time-travel

I have my own list of potentials, but I'd have to be able to show them
the brass ring :-)

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 12:01:02 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Why would I do that if Case II, the condition u' and v are in opposite
> directions, is fundamentally different from Case I, the condition that
> u' and v are in the same direction? If it could be demonstrated that
> an infinite velocity in u' results in u = c^2/v (with the same sign as
> u') for Case II, then the conclusion of my paper would be correct.
>
> So far, all I have for the scenario under investigation (u' < 0, v > 0)
> is that when u = -infinity, u' =-c^2/v. Close, but doesn't win the
> brass ring.

Inspired by your misunderstandings, I'm working on an animation for Wikipedia.
I don't expect it to cause you to see the light, but it *will* be a good
addition to some article or other (I haven't decided which).

Re-read what coea has written. Check out Prof. Buckley's blog. You have a
mental block that prevents you from seeing just how silly you have been.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 2:42:50 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 12:01:02 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Why would I do that if Case II, the condition u' and v are in opposite
> > directions, is fundamentally different from Case I, the condition that
> > u' and v are in the same direction? If it could be demonstrated that
> > an infinite velocity in u' results in u = c^2/v (with the same sign as
> > u') for Case II, then the conclusion of my paper would be correct.
> >
> > So far, all I have for the scenario under investigation (u' < 0, v > 0)
> > is that when u = -infinity, u' =-c^2/v. Close, but doesn't win the
> > brass ring.
>
> Inspired by your misunderstandings, I'm working on an animation for
> Wikipedia.
> I don't expect it to cause you to see the light, but it *will* be a good
> addition to some article or other (I haven't decided which).

Your prejudice is showing again. You unfairly attacked me when I posted
a link to my paper by falsely insisting that A, B, C and D were events
and not observers, then you claimed I "had difficulty with Minkowski
diagrams" when I actually have a different approach based upon presentism
rather than the block universe concept. Later you claimed I hadn't "the
foggiest notion of how to apply the Lorentz transformations correctly"
(partly true) and my "basic arithmetic skills are lacking" (VERY nasty
of you, although I do have some trouble with minus signs).

I don't know why you're feeling so defensive. After all, by saying that

"Case II, the condition u' and v are in opposite directions, is
fundamentally different from Case I, the condition that u' and v are in

the same direction" I'm agreeing with you.

> Re-read what coea has written. Check out Prof. Buckley's blog. You have a
> mental block that prevents you from seeing just how silly you have been.

I don't have a "mental block." I'm merely considering how to save SR when
(not if) faster-than-light communication is confirmed experimentally (see
Clarke's first law), so my "quest" is not "silly" at all.

I made several errors in my paper. One was in assuming that "u = -c^2/v
when u' = -infinity" was correct for Case II. It's not, and I have coea
to thank for that. That makes the case for FTL more difficult, but not
impossible. The theory of presentism becomes central to the argument and
RVC is still important.

[Dono,]

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 6:16:22 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> I don't have a "mental block." I'm merely considering how to save SR when
> (not if) faster-than-light communication is confirmed experimentally (see
> Clarke's first law), so my "quest" is not "silly" at all.
>

Seriously? SE doesn't need any saving, especially from a crank like you.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 6:16:22 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> I made several errors in my paper. One was in assuming that "u = -c^2/v

> when u' = -infinity" was correct for Case II. It's not... That makes

> the case for FTL more difficult, but not impossible.

In the context of special relativity, the ability to send signals superluminally implies the ability to send signals into our causal past. You've seen the simple proof of this proposition. It seems there really isn't any more to be said about it.

[Gary Harnagel]

But if the "causal past" does not exist, then the implication is false.
You seem to be quite sure that it does exist, and I'm quite sure that
it doesn't. We both lack any physical evidence for our views. You just
have an "implication" from SR and I point to the lack of physical
evidence of an existing past as significant.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

Within the mathematical structure of special relativity, superluminal
signaling inevitably implies the ability to violate causal relationships.
This is an almost trivial result, and your insistence of trying to find a
way around it within the context of special relativity is as futile as, say,
the efforts of generations of amateur mathematicians to trisect an arbitrary
angle using only a compass and unmarked straghtedge.

Special relativity, however, only APPROXIMATELY describes our universe,
and although most physicists find the notion of time travel offensive, the
"chronology protection conjecture" remains only a conjecture. It has not been
proven, and indeed may very well be violated at submicroscopic scales.

Just as it is possible to trisect an angle if you relax the classical
strictures on the use of compass and straightedge by allowing, say, the ability
to place marks on the straightedge, so the laws of physics may allow FTL
signaling if SR fails as an approximation to how space and time are related.
However, SR *itself* does not allow FTL signaling unless you are unperturbed
by causality violation.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 6:56:37 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > In the context of special relativity, the ability to send signals
> > superluminally implies the ability to send signals into our causal past.
> > You've seen the simple proof of this proposition.
>

> But if the "causal past" does not exist, then the implication is false.

The causal past is the causal past. The proof of the above proposition relies only on this, which is true by definition. You're just confusing yourself with the temporal tenses of English words such as "exist" as opposed to "existed", and "is" as opposed to "was". Obviously one time for a given object does not "exist at" (or "in") any other time. And, of course, you're completely unable to define what "exists" even means, so that's all just pure sophistry.

Again, the only relevant point is that, in the context of special relativity, the ability to send signals superluminally implies the ability to send signals into our causal past, and since we cannot send signals into our causal past, we cannot send signals superluminally. The proof you've been shown does not rely on any metaphysical assumption about the "existence" of the causal past... indeed the proof supports the irrevocable "pastness" of the causal past.

> You seem to be quite sure that it does exist...

That's insane. Again, the causal past is the causal past. Deploying juvenile sophistries over the tense of the word "exist" can't change the facts. You've been shown the simple proof of the above proposition, and you are completely unable to find any fault in it, so you just begin babbling senselessly.

> We both lack any physical evidence for our views.

No, you misunderstand entirely. We aren't discussing the empirical evidence for special relativity (of which there is an abundance, but never mind). The proposition is purely logical, stating that in the context of special relativity (i.e., IF special relativity applies), THEN the ability to send signals superluminally implies the ability to send signals into our causal past. Of course, since we can't do the latter, we can't do the former.

> You just have an "implication" from SR...

Well, that was the exam question: In the context of special relativity, does the ability to signal superluminally imply the ability to signal into the causal past? And the answer, as you now know, is yes. And since the latter is not possible (we can't communicate with our past), the former is also not possible (we can't send superluminal signals). Of course, if your claim is that special relativity is false, then that's a separate question entirely, and in that case you just need to acquaint yourself with the empirical evidence for it.

> I point to the lack of physical evidence of an existing past as significant.

Strictly speaking your words are gibberish, but even under the most charitable possible interpretation, you have everything exactly backwards, because the impossibility of communicating with the causal past is a large part of what makes the past the past, which, in your parlance, you would call "not (presently) existing".

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 10:16:28 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 6:56:37 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > In the context of special relativity, the ability to send signals
> > > superluminally implies the ability to send signals into our causal past.
> > > You've seen the simple proof of this proposition.
> >
> > But if the "causal past" does not exist, then the implication is false.
>
> The causal past is the causal past. The proof of the above proposition
> relies only on this, which is true by definition.

You are conflating two different meanings of the past. Are you referring
to "the causal past" as if it actually, physically exists? This has not
been confirmed experimentally so it is an unsubstantiated belief. OTOH,
are you maintaining that only the present exists? That is also a belief.

> You're just confusing yourself with the temporal tenses of English words
> such as "exist" as opposed to "existed", and "is" as opposed to "was".

You don't think there's any difference present and past tense?

> Obviously one time for a given object does not "exist at" (or "in") any
> other time. And, of course, you're completely unable to define what
> "exists" even means, so that's all just pure sophistry.

It's easy to confuse oneself, or others, with imprecise language. The
sophistry is claiming present and past tense are the same.

> Again, the only relevant point is that, in the context of special
> relativity, the ability to send signals superluminally implies the
> ability to send signals into our causal past, and since we cannot send
> signals into our causal past, we cannot send signals superluminally.

The LT SEEMS to imply that. I hope you're not trying to quash an honest
investigation of that implication.

> The proof you've been shown does not rely on any metaphysical assumption
> about the "existence" of the causal past... indeed the proof supports the
> irrevocable "pastness" of the causal past.

So you are ABSOLUTELY convinced that NO future experiment will EVER
confirm the existence of FTL signalling. How can you be so certain?

> > You seem to be quite sure that it does exist...
>
> That's insane. Again, the causal past is the causal past. Deploying
> juvenile sophistries over the tense of the word "exist" can't change the
> facts. You've been shown the simple proof of the above proposition,
> and you are completely unable to find any fault in it, so you just begin
> babbling senselessly.

Now, now, you're getting emotional about the subject. Why are you SO
anxious to get me to agree with your line of reasoning?

> > We both lack any physical evidence for our views.
>
> No, you misunderstand entirely. We aren't discussing the empirical
> evidence for special relativity (of which there is an abundance,
> but never mind). The proposition is purely logical, stating that in
> the context of special relativity (i.e., IF special relativity applies),
> THEN the ability to send signals superluminally implies the ability
> to send signals into our causal past. Of course, since we can't do
> the latter, we can't do the former.

So, you don't believe in the block universe concept. You seem to embrace
presentism, as I do. Unlike me, however, you believe that FTL is not
possible ... in the context of SR. I, OTOH, believe that if FTL is
possible in ANY context, it must be possible in the context of SR.

> > You just have an "implication" from SR...
>
> Well, that was the exam question: In the context of special relativity,
> does the ability to signal superluminally imply the ability to signal
> into the causal past? And the answer, as you now know, is yes.

Well, no, I don't know that. It bothers me that for Case I,

u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2)

u' = infinity means that u = c^2/v, but not vice versa; whereas for Case II,

u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)

u = infinity means that u' = c^2/v, but not vice versa. But I believe
that it is possible to get signal S from A to B faster than light can
do so in SOME context. If the conditions of that context allow such a
transfer and then those conditions no longer exist in the region of A
and B, then SR has a problem because S has potentially violated causality.

> And since the latter is not possible (we can't communicate with our past),
> the former is also not possible (we can't send superluminal signals). Of
> course, if your claim is that special relativity is false, then that's a
> separate question entirely, and in that case you just need to acquaint
> yourself with the empirical evidence for it.

I'm well aware of the empirical evidence and agree that SR is valid in
its domain of applicability.

> > I point to the lack of physical evidence of an existing past as
> > significant.
>
> Strictly speaking your words are gibberish,

You're being VERY uncharitable. I assumed you were a proponent of the
block universe concept and that you were arguing that the past
actually, physically exists; therefore, there can't be causality
violation; ergo, there cannot be FTL communication. I misunderstood.
You are arguing that there is no actual, physical past; therefore, any
condition where the LT is forced into it is impossible, namely FTL
communication.

If, however, u' = infinity for Case II meant u = c^2/v, FTL communication
would be possible without causality violation in the context of SR. I
hope you don't mind if I continue to investigate this :-)

“Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible. I think
it's in my basement... let me go upstairs and check.” – M. C. Escher

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 12:33:27 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > Again, the only relevant point is that, in the context of special
> > relativity, the ability to send signals superluminally implies the
> > ability to send signals into our causal past, and since we cannot send
> > signals into our causal past, we cannot send signals superluminally.
>
> The LT SEEMS to imply that.

"SEEMS"? Again, in the context of special relativity, the ability to send signals superluminally implies the ability to send signals into our causal past. You've seen the simple proof of this, so continuing to say "seems" is intellectually dishonest.

> I hope you're not trying to quash an honest investigation of that
> implication.

I don't think you are honestly investigating anything. You're just struggling with 4th grade algebra.

> So you are ABSOLUTELY convinced that NO future experiment will EVER
> confirm the existence of FTL signalling. How can you be so certain?

Again, you've lapsed into insanity. Take it slowly: Within the context of special relativity , the ability to send signals superluminally implies the ability to send signals into our causal past. You've been shown the simple proof of this, and you had no rational objection. If you want to argue that special relativity is false, or that you want to consider things outside the context of special relativity, that's a different subject, and does not contradict the stated proposition.

> Why are you SO anxious to get me to agree with your line of reasoning?

Huh? You've already agreed with it. Remember? You got your signs reversed, and clearly had a gross lack of understanding of special relativity. Now that it's been corrected, I'm not aware that you have any rational disagreement.

> So, you don't believe in the block universe concept. You seem to embrace
> presentism, as I do.

None of that is relevant.

> I believe that if FTL is possible in ANY context, it must be possible

> in the context of SR.

Wait... you mean you believED that - past tense - right? Surely now that we've cleared up your misconception about the signs, you aren't being so intellectually dishonest as to continue with your baseless denialism?

> It bothers me that for Case I,
> u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2)
> u' = infinity means that u = c^2/v, but not vice versa; whereas for Case II,
> u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)
> u = infinity means that u' = c^2/v, but not vice versa.

Huh? You're just struggling with 4th grade algebra.

> If, however, u' = infinity for Case II meant u = c^2/v, FTL communication
> would be possible without causality violation in the context of SR.

Huh? You're saying that if only 1 = -1, then you could communicate faster than light (and your grandmother would be a trolley car)?

> I hope you don't mind if I continue to investigate this

Be my guest. I'm just saying that I think you will find, ultimately, that +1 does not equal -1. Fourth grade algebra. But don't take my word for it. By all means, continue your, um, "investigation".

[Dono,]

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 1:19:18 PM UTC-7, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
> (and your grandmother would be a trolley car)?
>

Hey

This is my line :-)

[Lední Tuláku]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Well, no, I don't know that. It bothers me that for Case I,
> u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2)
> u' = infinity means that u = c^2/v, but not vice versa; whereas for Case
> II, u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)
> u = infinity means that u' = c^2/v, but not vice versa. But I believe
> that it is possible to get signal S from A to B faster than light can do
> so in SOME context. If the conditions of that context allow such a
> transfer and then those conditions no longer exist in the region of A
> and B, then SR has a problem because S has potentially violated
> causality.

Because you come up with your dishes full, but the food not edible. It
makes no any sense, I guess. If don't have an academic PhD, I will not
debate my tensors with you.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 2:19:18 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I don't think you are honestly investigating anything. You're just
> struggling with 4th grade algebra.

Algebra is not a 4th grade subject. NOW who's being dishonest?

> > So you are ABSOLUTELY convinced that NO future experiment will EVER
> > confirm the existence of FTL signalling. How can you be so certain?
>
> Again, you've lapsed into insanity.

Your behavior is shameful.

> Take it slowly: Within the context of special relativity , the
> ability to send signals superluminally implies the ability to
> send signals into our causal past.

Not necessarily. By limiting the LT time equation to positive values
for t and t' removes that ability. Surely that is reasonable considering
that presentism is valid.

> > I believe that if FTL is possible in ANY context, it must be possible
> > in the context of SR.
>
> Wait... you mean you believED that - past tense - right? Surely now
> that we've cleared up your misconception about the signs, you aren't being
> so intellectually dishonest as to continue with your baseless denialism?

So you believe that FTL is impossible in ANY context?

> > It bothers me that for Case I,
> > u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2)
> > u' = infinity means that u = c^2/v, but not vice versa; whereas for Case II,
> > u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)
> > u = infinity means that u' = c^2/v, but not vice versa.
>
> Huh? You're just struggling with 4th grade algebra.

You're being dishonest ... again.

> > If, however, u' = infinity for Case II meant u = c^2/v, FTL communication
> > would be possible without causality violation in the context of SR.
>
> Huh? You're saying that if only 1 = -1, then you could communicate
> faster than light (and your grandmother would be a trolley car)?

Bogus conclusion. FTL communication works just fine provided no moving
entity intercepts the signal. That's ONE way to get around the back-in-
time conundrum.

> > I hope you don't mind if I continue to investigate this
>
> Be my guest. I'm just saying that I think you will find, ultimately,
> that +1 does not equal -1. Fourth grade algebra. But don't take my
> word for it. By all means, continue your, um, "investigation".

And, BTW, my Figure 5 is correct IF superluminal velocity is limited
to -c^2/v in the moving frame (u = -infinity in the stationary frame).
That's ANOTHER way to get around back-in-time.

So there are TWO ways to get around the problem without denying "4th
grade algebra" :-)) They aren't optimal, but doesn't that pique your
curiosity just a tiny, tiny bit?

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 2:27:30 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Algebra is not a 4th grade subject. NOW who's being dishonest?

It's really just arithmetic that you're struggling with. +1 does not equal -1.

> > > So you are ABSOLUTELY convinced that NO future experiment will EVER
> > > confirm the existence of FTL signalling. How can you be so certain?
> > Again, you've lapsed into insanity.
> Your behavior is shameful.

Not at all. Your statements are totally crazy, bearing no relation to anything that has been said. When you make a crazy statement, I will call it crazy, and when you keep making such statements, even after it's been pointed out, I'll call you crazy.

> By limiting the LT time equation to positive values for t and t' removes
> that ability.

No, you misunderstand. One of the features of special relativity is the symmetry between inertial coordinate systems. Anything that can be done in one can be done in another, since otherwise you could distinguish between them. That's the very first principle of relativity. Now, inertial coordinate systems are, according to special relativity, related by Lorentz transformations, so you can't just "limit time to positive values of t", because positive values in one system are negative in another.

> Surely that is reasonable...

Nope, it's ruled out in the context of special relativity.

> So you believe that FTL is impossible in ANY context?

Again you've lapsed into insanity. Do I need to type the statement again for you? "In the context of special relativity....

> > Huh? You're saying that if only 1 = -1, then you could communicate
> > faster than light (and your grandmother would be a trolley car)?
>
> Bogus conclusion.

No, the value of u in the case you described is -c^2/v, and you are saying that faster than light signaling would be possible if only u = +c^2/v. To which the only appropriate response is, in that case your grandmother would be a trolley car.

> FTL communication works just fine provided no moving entity intercepts
> the signal.

Intercepts? That makes no sense. Again, in the context of special relativity the ability to send superluminal signals implies the ability to send signals to our causal past. You've seen the simple proof of this. And it's just the ability that matters - unless you want to make the absurd argument equivalent to "Maybe the known laws of physics can be violated, but nature just chooses never to violate them, or, by chance, they never happen to be violated". Wow.

> ...doesn't that pique your curiosity just a tiny, tiny bit?

Not the tiniest bit. Everything you say is self-evidently wrong.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 5:56:49 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 2:27:30 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Algebra is not a 4th grade subject. NOW who's being dishonest?
>
> It's really just arithmetic that you're struggling with. +1 does not
> equal -1.
>
> > > > So you are ABSOLUTELY convinced that NO future experiment will EVER
> > > > confirm the existence of FTL signalling. How can you be so certain?
> > >
> > > Again, you've lapsed into insanity.
> >
> > Your behavior is shameful.
>
> Not at all. Your statements are totally crazy, bearing no relation to
> anything that has been said. When you make a crazy statement, I will call
> it crazy, and when you keep making such statements, even after it's been
> pointed out, I'll call you crazy.

I'll attribute your disgraceful behavior to your ignorance.

> > By limiting the LT time equation to positive values for t and t' removes
> > that ability.
>
> No, you misunderstand. One of the features of special relativity is the
> symmetry between inertial coordinate systems. Anything that can be done
> in one can be done in another, since otherwise you could distinguish
> between them. That's the very first principle of relativity.

Why must you insist on that? All one needs from the Principle of
Relativity is that v in one frame is -v in the other. The other
postulates are symmetry of space (i.e., isotropy) and linearity of
space and time. These postulates are common both to Galilean and
Lorentz transforms. The only difference between them is an additional
postulate, absolute time for the former and invariant c for the latter.
NOTHING in the derivation requires that the LT be completely symmetrical.
In fact, one MUST limit its symmetry by a FACT we both agree on: the
past does not actually, physically exist. You can't insist on that
and claim that the LT is symmetrical and still be thought of as thinking
rationally. Well, you can if you absolutely deny the possibility of
FTL in ANY context. Do you?

> Now, inertial coordinate systems are, according to special relativity,
> related by Lorentz transformations, so you can't just "limit time to
> positive values of t", because positive values in one system are negative
> in another.

But I don't: neither t nor t' can be negative. The LT MUST be limited
to agree with reality. Otherwise, you deny FTL in ANY context.

> > Surely that is reasonable...
>
> Nope, it's ruled out in the context of special relativity.

You just have a contorted view of the context.

> > So you believe that FTL is impossible in ANY context?
>
> Again you've lapsed into insanity. Do I need to type the statement
> again for you? "In the context of special relativity....

Your context is warped. Your depiction of the LT denies FTL in ANY
context.

> > > Huh? You're saying that if only 1 = -1, then you could communicate
> > > faster than light (and your grandmother would be a trolley car)?
> >
> > Bogus conclusion.
>
> No, the value of u in the case you described is -c^2/v, and you are saying that faster than light signaling would be possible if only u = +c^2/v.

You're misquoting again. I did NOT say "only." I said that was ONE
way. YOU are setting up a straw man.

> To which the only appropriate response is, in that case your grandmother
> would be a trolley car.

"Thirty days has Septober,
April, June and no wonder.
All the rest have peanut butter,
Except my grandmother, she has a little red tricycle."

> > FTL communication works just fine provided no moving entity intercepts
> > the signal.
>
> Intercepts? That makes no sense.

Sure it does. Quantum entanglement can prevent interception.

> Again, in the context of special relativity the ability to send
> superluminal signals implies the ability to send signals to our
> causal past.

Only if one is so stupid as to deny real world limitations.

> You've seen the simple proof of this.

I've seen a "proof" based upon contradictory premises, and I've seen
it repeated over and over again as if repetition will remove the discord.
It appears that you absolutely want to deny FTL communication at all
cost, while I think "the symmetry of the LT" is hogwash.

But thanks for presenting this argument.

> And it's just the ability that matters

Not if that "ability" conflicts with the laws of nature.

[Restored deleted point:]

> > So there are TWO ways to get around the problem without denying "4th
> > grade algebra" :-))

> > ...doesn't that pique your curiosity just a tiny, tiny bit?
>
> Not the tiniest bit. Everything you say is self-evidently wrong.

And there's a third way. You, of course, won't like it because you're
enamored with "the symmetry of the LT" which in actuality is pure
balderdash. Just because "the symmetry of the LT" works for u <= c
is no excuse to make it an ironclad law. You're a smart guy so you
know deep down that it's not universally true.

You seem to be in the first two stages of acceptance: denial/anger and
you're attempting to bargain but solely on your terms ... so far.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 7:34:31 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> NOTHING in the derivation requires that the LT be completely symmetrical.

You're mistaken. The derivation of the Lorentz transformation is based on the principle of relativity, and of course the transformation itself manifestly possesses the relevant symmetries.

> In fact, one MUST limit its symmetry [because] the past does not
> actually, physically exist.

Nope, the relevant physical symmetry is the principle of relativity, which is not "limited".

> You can't insist on that and claim that the LT is symmetrical...

Special relativity manifestly satisfies the symmetry entailed by the principle of relativity, and this symmetry is exhibited by all physical phenomena when expressed in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, and such systems are related by Lorentz transformations.

> > Now, inertial coordinate systems are, according to special relativity,
> > related by Lorentz transformations, so you can't just "limit time to
> > positive values of t", because positive values in one system are negative
> > in another.
>
> But I don't: neither t nor t' can be negative. The LT MUST be limited
> to agree with reality.

You are clearly operating under a severe misunderstanding. It's as if you are confusing proper time with coordinate time, or some such thing. Again, events with positive time coordinate in terms of one system of inertial coordinates have negative time coordinates in terms of other systems of inertial coordinates. This is trivial and obvious.

> > No, the value of u in the case you described is -c^2/v, and you are saying that faster than light signaling would be possible if only u = +c^2/v.
>
> You're misquoting again. I did NOT say "only." I said that was ONE
> way. YOU are setting up a straw man.

I didn't say you said "only". Look, if you agree that what you described there is nonsense, and you will never mention it again as "one way", then that's fine. But as long as you keep claiming it is one way, people are going to keep telling you (until they get bored) that it is not, because +1 does not equal -1.

> Quantum entanglement can prevent interception.

No it can't. Quantum theory, including entanglement, is fully consistent with the no-superluminal signaling requirement of special relativity.

> I've seen a "proof" based upon contradictory premises...

Nope, you were unable to point out any contradictory premises in the proof, because the only premise is special relativity, which is not contradictory.

> I think "the symmetry of the LT" is hogwash.

The relevant symmetry is the principle of relativity, which is actually independent of the Lorentz transformation. Galilean relativity also satisfies the principle of relativity. It states that the laws of physics are the same in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. The applicable transformation just tells us how those coordinate systems are related to each other.

> And there's a third way...

Wait... you're still counting +1=-1 as a way? Hmmm. Your other two "ways" are just as senseless.

Look, consider two events, A and later event B, of a given material particle P1, and a third event C of a distant particle P2 that occurred in between the events when light pulses from P1 at A and B struck P2, and when light pulses were emitted from P2 that struck P1 at A and B. According to special relativity, A has the same time coordinate as C in terms of one system S1 of inertial coordinates, and B has the same time coordinates as C in terms of another system S2 of inertial coordinates. Hence if we could send an instantaneous signal from B to C in terms of S2, and an instantaneous signal from C to A in terms of S1, we could send a signal from B to A.

Note that the principle of relativity assures us that anything we can do in terms of one system of inertial coordinates we can do in terms of any other. So there is no ambiguity here, if you accept special relativity.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 9:34:31 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 5:56:49 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Again you've lapsed into insanity. Do I need to type the statement
> > again for you? "In the context of special relativity....
>
> Your context is warped. Your depiction of the LT denies FTL in ANY
> context.

No, it does not deny FTL. It merely states that if FTL signaling exists, via
tachyons or whatever, and if SR provides an adequate model of spacetime on
local scales, then the universe is a far, far STRANGER place than most
people would imagine.

How comfortable are you with irreconcilable paradox being a feature of the
universe? If experiment ever demonstrates that FTL signaling is possible, then
I am prepared to accept that the universe is bizarre at a deep and fundamental
level. But not before.

We need to argue about the MATHEMATICS of the LTs. All this stuff that you
bring up about "presentism" versus the "block universe" is hand-waving
PHILOSOPHY, which to my mind represents nothing but a waste of time.

> Sure it does. Quantum entanglement can prevent interception.

The messed-up arguments that you presented in your vixra paper have NOTHING
to do with quantum mechanics.

You have to learn to walk before you learn to run, and you lack any sort of
mastery of how to walk. Pick up a copy of Morin, or a copy of French, or a
copy of Taylor and Wheeler, and go through it cover-to-cover, doing every
problem. Only *AFTER* you have completed this exercise will you be competent
to discuss basic SR.

> Only if one is so stupid as to deny real world limitations.
>
> > You've seen the simple proof of this.
>
> I've seen a "proof" based upon contradictory premises, and I've seen
> it repeated over and over again as if repetition will remove the discord.
> It appears that you absolutely want to deny FTL communication at all
> cost, while I think "the symmetry of the LT" is hogwash.

The proof is based on simple mathematics. There are no contradictions. There
is only disagreement with what you WANT to be true.

> You seem to be in the first two stages of acceptance: denial/anger and
> you're attempting to bargain but solely on your terms ... so far.

What you display is known as "projection".

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 3:00:16 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 9:34:31 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 5:56:49 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Again you've lapsed into insanity. Do I need to type the statement
> > > again for you? "In the context of special relativity....
> >
> > Your context is warped. Your depiction of the LT denies FTL in ANY
> > context.
>
> No, it does not deny FTL. It merely states that if FTL signaling exists, via
> tachyons or whatever, and if SR provides an adequate model of spacetime on
> local scales, then the universe is a far, far STRANGER place than most

> people would imagine. If experiment ever demonstrates that FTL signaling

> is possible, then I am prepared to accept that the universe is bizarre at
> a deep and fundamental level. But not before.

“Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we
suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” -- J.B.S. Haldane

> How comfortable are you with irreconcilable paradox being a feature of the
> universe?

The presentism approach doesn't appear to have any "irreconcilable paradox."

> We need to argue about the MATHEMATICS of the LTs. All this stuff that you
> bring up about "presentism" versus the "block universe" is hand-waving
> PHILOSOPHY, which to my mind represents nothing but a waste of time.

But the "block universe" idea IS philosophy and you can't escape "handwaving."
Your idea of mathematics is to shove stuff into a black box, turn the crank
and accept ANYTHING that comes out. IOW, "shut up and calculate."

“No, no, you’re not thinking: you’re just being logical” – Niels Bohr

> > Sure it does. Quantum entanglement can prevent interception.
>
> The messed-up arguments that you presented in your vixra paper have NOTHING
> to do with quantum mechanics.

And coel invokes quantum mechanics to argue against FTL. How droll.

> You have to learn to walk before you learn to run, and you lack any sort of
> mastery of how to walk.

I can walk just fine. Your ad hominem assertion to the contrary is
wishful thinking. YOU need to expand your horizons a bit more.

> Pick up a copy of Morin, or a copy of French, or a copy of Taylor and
> Wheeler, and go through it cover-to-cover, doing every problem. Only
> *AFTER* you have completed this exercise will you be competent to discuss
> basic SR.

I understand the LT and Minkowski diagrams very well. Your references
present logical arguments. I just agree with Bohr that logical arguments
don't always agree with reality. This doesn't happen because logic is
faulty, it happens because of incorrect premises ... like the premise of
a block universe. Certainly, the LT implies the block universe philosophy,
but one doesn't HAVE to go all-in for it. I can plot the course of an
airplane on a Minkowski diagram, but that doesn't mean the airplane exists
at every point along its path. No, we can say it EXISTED at every point,
but it only EXISTS at ONE point in the here and now.

> > Only if one is so stupid as to deny real world limitations.
> >
> > > You've seen the simple proof of this.
> >
> > I've seen a "proof" based upon contradictory premises, and I've seen
> > it repeated over and over again as if repetition will remove the discord.
> > It appears that you absolutely want to deny FTL communication at all
> > cost, while I think "the symmetry of the LT" is hogwash.
>
> The proof is based on simple mathematics. There are no contradictions.

Only contradictions between what slavish adherence to the LT predicts and
what is actually observed in reality.

> There is only disagreement with what you WANT to be true.

There is disagreement on what YOU want to be true and what I want to
be true :-)

> > You seem to be in the first two stages of acceptance: denial/anger and
> > you're attempting to bargain but solely on your terms ... so far.
>
> What you display is known as "projection".

I'm not the angry one here engaging in insulting behavior :-)

[Lee Farmer]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> The messed-up arguments that you presented in your vixra paper have
>> NOTHING to do with quantum mechanics.
>
> And coel invokes quantum mechanics to argue against FTL. How droll.
>
>> You have to learn to walk before you learn to run, and you lack any sort
>> of mastery of how to walk.
>
> I can walk just fine. Your ad hominem assertion to the contrary is
> wishful thinking. YOU need to expand your horizons a bit more.

evil spirits, get out of this man, and go into the water.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 7:36:12 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> The presentism approach doesn't appear to have any "irreconcilable paradox."

Presentism doesn't, but superluminal communication does. (The former doesn't imply the possibility of the latter.)

> And coel invokes quantum mechanics to argue against FTL.

I do no such thing.

> ...it happens because of incorrect premises ... like the premise of
> a block universe.

The proof that superluminal communication (in the context of special relativity) implies the ability to send signals into our causal past does not invoke the concept of a block universe, which is metaphysical in any case.

> Only contradictions between what slavish adherence to the LT predicts and
> what is actually observed in reality.

Wait, if you are saying that inertial coordinate systems are not actually related by Lorentz transformations, i.e., that Lorentz invariance fails, then of course you are denying special relativity. Obviously if special relativity is wrong then special relativity is wrong. But previously you were saying your claims apply within the context of special relativity. Now you reveal yourself to be an anti-relativity enthusiast.

[Dono,]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 9:21:55 AM UTC-7, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
> Now you reveal yourself to be an anti-relativity enthusiast.

D-uh, that was obvious all along.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 10:21:55 AM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 7:36:12 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > The presentism approach doesn't appear to have any "irreconcilable
> > paradox."
>
> Presentism doesn't, but superluminal communication does.

Not true. c^2/v is superluminal but avoids causlity paradox.

> (The former doesn't imply the possibility of the latter.)

Non sequitur. Presentism allows superluminal communication up to c^2/v.

> > And coel invokes quantum mechanics to argue against FTL.
>
> I do no such thing.

Sure you did: "Quantum theory, including entanglement, is fully consistent

with the no-superluminal signaling requirement of special relativity."

> > ...it happens because of incorrect premises ... like the premise of
> > a block universe.
>
> The proof that superluminal communication (in the context of special relativity) implies the ability to send signals into our causal past does
> not invoke the concept of a block universe,

Sure it does. It's a widely-held view:

"the block universe view, regarding the universe as a timelessly existing
four-dimensional world, is the only one that is consistent with special
relativity."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/1/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf

> which is metaphysical in any case.

It's philosophical, which often amounts to the same thing.

> > Only contradictions between what slavish adherence to the LT predicts and
> > what is actually observed in reality.
>
> Wait, if you are saying that inertial coordinate systems are not actually
> related by Lorentz transformations, i.e., that Lorentz invariance fails,
> then of course you are denying special relativity.

Nope. You are trying to construct a straw man.

> Obviously if special relativity is wrong then special relativity is wrong.
> But previously you were saying your claims apply within the context of
> special relativity. Now you reveal yourself to be an anti-relativity
> enthusiast.

See? You argue a corrupt variation of what I say and then come to a
false conclusion. The LT allows superluminal speeds and works just fine
until c^2/v is exceeded in an observing frame. Isn't it strange that most
who discuss FTL try to throw out the baby with the bathwater by claiming
ALL superluminal speeds are impossible?

[Gary Harnagel]

And the cowardly me-too shark piles on again :-))

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 11:59:58 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> c^2/v is superluminal but avoids causlity paradox.

No, you agreed previously that your erroneous claim about c^2/v was based on your premise that +1 equals -1. Remember? After further consideration, you admitted that +1 does not equal -1, and therefore all your delusional fantasies collapsed. Have you really forgotten this?

> > > And coel invokes quantum mechanics to argue against FTL.
> > I do no such thing.
> Sure you did: "Quantum theory, including entanglement, is fully consistent
> with the no-superluminal signaling requirement of special relativity."

That quote is not "invoking quantum mechanics to argue against FTL", it is pointing out that *your* attempt to use quantum mechanics to argue *for* FTL was fallacious. Remember, you tried to argue that quantum entanglement exhibits superluminal signaling, and I pointed out the well known fact that it does not.

> > The proof that superluminal communication (in the context of special
> > relativity) implies the ability to send signals into our causal past does
> > not invoke the concept of a block universe,
>

> Sure it does. It's a widely-held view: "the block universe view... is

> the only one that is consistent with special relativity."

That statement is both false and irrelevant (not to mention that you completely misunderstand the implications of that metaphysical notion). Lorentz invariance is not a metaphysical concept, and does not rely on any metaphysical notions.

> > > Only contradictions between what slavish adherence to the LT predicts and
> > > what is actually observed in reality.
> >
> > Wait, if you are saying that inertial coordinate systems are not actually
> > related by Lorentz transformations, i.e., that Lorentz invariance fails,
> > then of course you are denying special relativity.
>
> Nope. You are trying to construct a straw man.

No, you claimed a difference between what the "LT predicts and what is actually observed in reality". This signifies a violation of Lorentz invariance, i.e., a violation of special relativity.

> The LT allows superluminal speeds and works just fine until c^2/v is
> exceeded in an observing frame.

No, your belief was based on the premise that +1 equals -1, but then it was pointed out to you that +1 does not equal -1. Have you really expunged that entire discussion from your brain?

[Dono,]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 11:59:58 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> Not true. c^2/v is superluminal but avoids causlity paradox.
>

You are repeating the same imbecilities you were batted out the park last time. You are hoping that we forgot if you went away long enough.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 1:36:38 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 11:59:58 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > c^2/v is superluminal but avoids causlity paradox.
>
> No, you agreed previously that your erroneous claim about c^2/v was based
> on your premise that +1 equals -1. Remember? After further consideration,
> you admitted that +1 does not equal -1, and therefore all your delusional
> fantasies collapsed. Have you really forgotten this?

I admit I was in error about n speed of -infinity in the moving frame being
-c^2/v in the stationary frame, but LOOK at my Figure 5. It shows that a
speed of -infinity in the stationary frame is -c^2/v in the moving frame
when negative time is disallowed, no -1 = 1 in that case. Have YOU forgotten
THIS?

> > > > And coel invokes quantum mechanics to argue against FTL.
> > >
> > > I do no such thing.
> >
> > Sure you did: "Quantum theory, including entanglement, is fully consistent
> > with the no-superluminal signaling requirement of special relativity."
>
> That quote is not "invoking quantum mechanics to argue against FTL", it is
> pointing out that *your* attempt to use quantum mechanics to argue *for*
> FTL was fallacious.

I don't see much difference.

> Remember, you tried to argue that quantum entanglement exhibits
> superluminal signaling, and I pointed out the well known fact that
> it does not.

You seem to misunderstand things A LOT. I did NOT invoke QM to argue
for SL signaling. I used it to say that entanglement could prevent
an unauthorized observer from receiving the signal.

> > > The proof that superluminal communication (in the context of special
> > > relativity) implies the ability to send signals into our causal past
> > > does not invoke the concept of a block universe,
> >
> > Sure it does. It's a widely-held view: "the block universe view... is
> > the only one that is consistent with special relativity."
>
> That statement is both false and irrelevant

I agree that it's false, but it is NOT irrelevant.

> (not to mention that you completely misunderstand the implications of
> that metaphysical notion).

Here we go with the attempt at belittlement ... again!

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results." -- Albert Einstein

> Lorentz invariance is not a metaphysical concept, and does not rely
> on any metaphysical notions.

It certainly IS a metaphysical concept to believe that the past still
exists, which is EXACTLY what Figure 4-4 in wikipedia's special relativity
page does.

> > > > Only contradictions between what slavish adherence to the LT predicts
> > > > and what is actually observed in reality.
> > >
> > > Wait, if you are saying that inertial coordinate systems are not
> > > actually related by Lorentz transformations, i.e., that Lorentz
> > > invariance fails, then of course you are denying special relativity.
> >
> > Nope. You are trying to construct a straw man.
>
> No, you claimed a difference between what the "LT predicts and what is
> actually observed in reality". This signifies a violation of Lorentz
> invariance, i.e., a violation of special relativity.

Now you've gone into the boonies. No one knows what happens to the LT
if superluminal signaling occurs. YOU are pretending that IF SLS occurs
the LT is dead meat, while I'M trying to save it. Do we have this clear
now?

> > The LT allows superluminal speeds and works just fine until c^2/v is
> > exceeded in an observing frame.
>
> No, your belief was based on the premise that +1 equals -1, but then it
> was pointed out to you that +1 does not equal -1. Have you really
> expunged that entire discussion from your brain?

You're beginning to sound like a broken record. YOU are the one that
needs to REMEMBER that my equation (4) and Figure 5 doesn't in ANY way
invoke your assertion. You seem to be completely ignorant of that fact.
Rather than getting knowledgeable you just keep regurgitating an old,
stale concession.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-6, Dono, drooled:

>
> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 11:59:58 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >

> > Not true. c^2/v is superluminal but avoids caus[a]lity paradox.

>
> You are repeating the same imbecilities you were batted out the park
> last time. You are hoping that we forgot if you went away long enough.

"We"? YOU have done NOTHING except pile on with me-too silliness.

[Dono,]

Gary

You are lying. I put this on the account of your Alzheimer. I showed you that you are attempting to use the Lorentz transforms outside their domain of applicability. You are a pathetic liar (beside being a crank)

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 2:19:51 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> ...a speed of -infinity in the stationary frame is -c^2/v in the moving

> frame when negative time is disallowed, no -1 = 1 in that case.

That's utterly insane. Again, you've been given the simple proof that, in the context of special relativity, the ability to send a signal superluminally implies the ability to send a signal to our causal past. You have not identified any problem with this simple proof. All your ravings were disposed of on Sep 2. Just scroll up and refresh your memory.

> > That quote is not "invoking quantum mechanics to argue against FTL", it is
> > pointing out that *your* attempt to use quantum mechanics to argue *for*
> > FTL was fallacious.
>
> I don't see much difference.

You don't? Sorry, but if your mind can't make such clear and simple distinctions as that, then you're facing major difficulties.

> I did NOT invoke QM to argue for SL signaling. I used it to say that
> entanglement could prevent an unauthorized observer from receiving
> the signal.

Your statement was already debunked. Quantum entanglement does not violate Lorentz invariance. This is well known. The statement about "preventing unauthorized observers" is a direct violation of Lorentz invariance, which is counter-factual and, frankly, insane.

> > > It's a widely-held view: "the block universe view... is
> > > the only one that is consistent with special relativity."
> >
> > That statement is both false and irrelevant
>
> I agree that it's false, but it is NOT irrelevant.

Well, you're half right. If you agree it's false, what's the relevance?

> It certainly IS a metaphysical concept to believe that the past still
> exists, which is EXACTLY what Figure 4-4 in wikipedia's special relativity
> page does.

Nope. You're fantasizing.

> No one knows what happens to the LT if superluminal signaling occurs.

Sure we do. Any superluminal conveyance of energy or information implies a violation of Lorentz invariance. We've been over this before.

> > Your belief was based on the premise that +1 equals -1, but then it

> > was pointed out to you that +1 does not equal -1. Have you really
> > expunged that entire discussion from your brain?
>
> You're beginning to sound like a broken record.

As long as you keep insisting that -1 equals +1, people will keep telling you you're wrong... until they get bored. Please review the posts od Sep 2.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 6:56:33 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 2:19:51 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > ...a speed of -infinity in the stationary frame is -c^2/v in the moving
> > frame when negative time is disallowed, no -1 = 1 in that case.
>
> That's utterly insane.

Okay, you've proven yourself to be a vilifier, an ignoramus and not capable
of having an honest discussion.

> Again, you've been given the simple proof that, in the context of special
> relativity, the ability to send a signal superluminally implies the ability
> to send a signal to our causal past.

"IMPLIES" is the operative word. That means "strongly suggest." It does
NOT mean "requires." Also, Figure 4-4 in wikiSR has A sitting at t = 0
and B sitting at t > 0. So what happened to the REQUIREMENT that the
clocks at A and B MUST be synchronized? YOU, PCH and the mainstream are
the ones denying special relativity!

> You have not identified any problem with this simple proof.

See? YOU are the one racing toward insanity. I have indeed identified
a problem with your assertions. It's that the block universe is PHILOSOPHY.
So is presentism, but at least presentism agrees with what we experience
in reality and refutes that the past actually exists. Presentism and my
Figure 4 at least maintains the REQUIREMENT that clocks at A and B be
synchronized while YOUR assertion denies this.

? All your ravings were disposed of on Sep 2.

All you have is personal attack and dishonesty. So sad :-(

> Just scroll up and refresh your memory.

You need to READ my paper. Obviously, you haven't done so.

> > > That quote is not "invoking quantum mechanics to argue against FTL",
> > > it is pointing out that *your* attempt to use quantum mechanics to argue
> > > *for* FTL was fallacious.
> >
> > I don't see much difference.
>
> You don't? Sorry, but if your mind can't make such clear and simple
> distinctions as that, then you're facing major difficulties.

More personal attack and lies. Ho hum, but what else can one expect
from in ignoramus and a frenzied liar.

> > I did NOT invoke QM to argue for SL signaling. I used it to say that
> > entanglement could prevent an unauthorized observer from receiving
> > the signal.
>
> Your statement was already debunked. Quantum entanglement does not violate
> Lorentz invariance.

Regurgitation of a straw man assertion is dishonest.

> This is well known. The statement about "preventing unauthorized
> observers" is a direct violation of Lorentz invariance, which is
> counter-factual and, frankly, insane.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.05438.pdf

See? All you had to do was say, "I disagree. Could you prove your claim?"
But you raise it to the level of a personal attack. You are an a-hole.

> > > > It's a widely-held view: "the block universe view... is
> > > > the only one that is consistent with special relativity."
> > >
> > > That statement is both false and irrelevant
> >
> > I agree that it's false, but it is NOT irrelevant.
>
> Well, you're half right. If you agree it's false, what's the relevance?

It's very gentlemanly of you to actually ask without personal attack,
but I'm afraid you've used up all the courtesy I'm willing to extend to
an overt a-hole.

> > It certainly IS a metaphysical concept to believe that the past still
> > exists, which is EXACTLY what Figure 4-4 in wikipedia's special relativity
> > page does.
>
> Nope. You're fantasizing.

You're lying ... again. So tell me why Figure 4-4 has clocks at A and B
desynchronized?

> > No one knows what happens to the LT if superluminal signaling occurs.
>
> Sure we do. Any superluminal conveyance of energy or information implies
> a violation of Lorentz invariance. We've been over this before.

Assertions are easy to make. Proof is something more difficult. Beyond
your capabilities, apparently.

> > > Your belief was based on the premise that +1 equals -1, but then it
> > > was pointed out to you that +1 does not equal -1. Have you really
> > > expunged that entire discussion from your brain?
> >
> > You're beginning to sound like a broken record.
>
> As long as you keep insisting that -1 equals +1,

I'm no longer insisting that, liar. I've told you this several
times and here you are regurgitating this dishonesty again.

> people will keep telling you you're wrong... until they get bored. Please
> review the posts od Sep 2.

Please view (obviously you can't REview it) my paper. Eq. 4 and its proof
plus associated text plus Fig 5. If you're honest (about which I have
grave doubts), you will see that your assertions are dead wrong.

I have admitted long ago in this thread that I was wrong about an infinite
speed in a moving frame being always c^2/v in the stationary frame. You
corrected me on that and I accepted it. The problem with people like you
and PCH is that you are incapable of admitting that you could possibly be
wrong, so your modus operandi is slander and denigration. This is what
arrogant ignoramuses do.

“Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your
mouth” – 1 Samuel 2:3

"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool ... Shun him"
-- Persian proverb

[Dono,]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 8:33:32 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> the mainstream are the ones denying special relativity!

Full blown insane.

> It's that the block universe is PHILOSOPHY.

The only problem is your raving insanity.

> Figure 4 at least maintains the REQUIREMENT that clocks at A and B be
> synchronized while YOUR assertion denies this.
>

Nothing to do with synchronization, everything to do with you being a crank.

> You need to READ my paper.

Your paper is a piece of crap.

> More personal attack and lies. Ho hum, but what else can one expect
> from in ignoramus and a frenzied liar.
>

Talking to your mirror again, Gary.

> But you raise it to the level of a personal attack. You are an a-hole.
>

Talking to your mirror again, Gary.

> Assertions are easy to make. Proof is something more difficult. Beyond
> your capabilities, apparently.
>

Noe you are channeling Ken Shito, Gary.

> Please view (obviously you can't REview it) my paper.

Your so-called "paper" is a piece of shit.Sitting in the vixra cesspool, where it belongs.

> Eq. 4 and its proof

.....are both wrong , Gary. No one is buying your crap.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 10:33:32 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 6:56:33 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Again, you've been given the simple proof that, in the context of special
> > relativity, the ability to send a signal superluminally implies the ability
> > to send a signal to our causal past.
>
> "IMPLIES" is the operative word. That means "strongly suggest." It does
> NOT mean "requires."

In mathematics, the statement "p implies q" means that if p is true, then q
must also be true.

In other words, "requires".

> Also, Figure 4-4 in wikiSR has A sitting at t = 0
> and B sitting at t > 0.

You obviously don't know how to interpret this diagram. A and B are the
"world lines" of two observers (in the old, "traditional" sense of the word
"observer". See https://tinyurl.com/yyjbt9ww for clarification of my meaning).
So your phraseology "A sitting at t = 0 and B sitting at t > 0" is nonsense.

> So what happened to the REQUIREMENT that the
> clocks at A and B MUST be synchronized? YOU, PCH and the mainstream are
> the ones denying special relativity!

In one of my very first posts to you, I pointed out that you were confusing
world lines with events in your vixra paper. You still don't seem to know the
difference. You are completely lacking in the basics.

AISB. Pick up a copy of Morin, or of Taylor and Wheeler, or of French. Working
your way through the text, do every solved problem. Only then will you be

[Warren Schaaf]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 10:21:55 AM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 7:36:12 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> >
>> > The presentism approach doesn't appear to have any "irreconcilable
>> > paradox."
>>
>> Presentism doesn't, but superluminal communication does.
>
> Not true. c^2/v is superluminal but avoids causlity paradox.

That's a paradox. You can't.

[Warren Schaaf]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> Just scroll up and refresh your memory.
>
> You need to READ my paper. Obviously, you haven't done so.

The author field field in your pfd says "Lisa Hayes". Btw, 2291 words,
408 line shifts.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 8:33:32 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > Again, you've been given the simple proof that, in the context of special
> > relativity, the ability to send a signal superluminally implies the ability
> > to send a signal to our causal past.
>
> "IMPLIES" is the operative word. That means "strongly suggest." It does
> NOT mean "requires."

No, in the field of formal logic and mathematical proof, 'implies' means 'requires'.

> Figure 4-4 in wikiSR has A sitting at t = 0 and B sitting at t > 0.
> So what happened to the REQUIREMENT that the clocks at A and B MUST
> be synchronized?

Synchronization is frame dependent. Two events that are both at t=0 are simultaneous in terms of the inertial coordinates x,t, and two events that are both at t'=0 are simultaneous in terms of inertial coordinates x',t'.

> I have indeed identified a problem with your assertions. It's that the
> block universe is PHILOSOPHY.

That isn't a problem at all. No philosophical gloss that someone may choose to place on physics has anything to do with the physics. Lorentz invariance is not a philosophical fact, it is a physical fact, and it precludes superluminal communication, because superluminal intervals have imaginary duration, etc.

> All your ravings were disposed of on Sep 2.

Not at all. As anyone can check for themselves, each of your attempted evasions and obfuscations were thoroughly debunked. +1 does not equal -1.

> See? All you had to do was say, "I disagree. Could you prove your claim?"

But you can't prove any of your claims. They've all been conclusively debunked.

> > If you agree [the statement about block universe] is false, what's
> > the relevance?
>
> [no answer]

This would have been the place to explain the relevance of the assertion that you yourself agree is false. This is the whole basis of your "objection" to the proof. And your inability to articulate a response shows (again) that you have no rational basis for your beliefs.

> Assertions are easy to make. Proof is something more difficult.

Not at all. The simple proofs have been provided to you - multiple times. You just ignore them.

[Warren Schaaf]

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

>> So what happened to the REQUIREMENT that the clocks at A and B MUST be
>> synchronized? YOU, PCH and the mainstream are the ones denying special
>> relativity!
>
> In one of my very first posts to you, I pointed out that you were
> confusing world lines with events in your vixra paper. You still don't
> seem to know the difference. You are completely lacking in the basics.
> AISB. Pick up a copy of Morin, or of Taylor and Wheeler, or of French.
> Working your way through the text, do every solved problem. Only then
> will you be competent to discuss basic SR.

A waste of time. He already feels competent large enough.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 5:59:47 AM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 8:33:32 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > "IMPLIES" is the operative word. That means "strongly suggest." It does
> > NOT mean "requires."
>
> No, in the field of formal logic and mathematical proof, 'implies' means
> 'requires'.

Do I have to quote this again?

“No, no, you’re not thinking: you’re just being logical” – Niels Bohr

> > Figure 4-4 in wikiSR has A sitting at t = 0 and B sitting at t > 0.
> > So what happened to the REQUIREMENT that the clocks at A and B MUST
> > be synchronized?
>
> Synchronization is frame dependent.

A and B are in the SAME frame. Their clocks MUST be synchronized.

> Two events that are both at t=0 are simultaneous in terms of the inertial
> coordinates x,t, and two events that are both at t'=0 are simultaneous in
> terms of inertial coordinates x',t'.

So now you're not even being logical.

> > I have indeed identified a problem with your assertions. It's that the
> > block universe is PHILOSOPHY.
>
> That isn't a problem at all. No philosophical gloss that someone may
> choose to place on physics has anything to do with the physics. Lorentz
> invariance is not a philosophical fact, it is a physical fact, and it
> precludes superluminal communication, because superluminal intervals
> have imaginary duration, etc.

Gobbledegook.

> > All your ravings were disposed of on Sep 2.
>
> Not at all.

:-))) That was YOUR posting, not mine, looneybin.

> As anyone can check for themselves, each of your attempted
> evasions and obfuscations were thoroughly debunked. +1 does not equal -1.

Regurgitation of a straw man assertion.

> > See? All you had to do was say, "I disagree. Could you prove your
> > claim?"
>
> But you can't prove any of your claims. They've all been conclusively
> debunked.

Dishonesty ill becomes a rational discussion.

> > > If you agree [the statement about block universe] is false, what's
> > > the relevance?
> >
> > [no answer]
>
> This would have been the place to explain the relevance of the assertion
> that you yourself agree is false.

And I explained why I didn't explain. It's because YOU have been an
offensive a-hole. Besides, it's a side issue and not worth getting into
it.

> This is the whole basis of your "objection" to the proof. And your
> inability to articulate a response shows (again) that you have no
> rational basis for your beliefs.

See?

“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine

> > Assertions are easy to make. Proof is something more difficult.
>
> Not at all. The simple proofs have been provided to you - multiple times.
> You just ignore them.

So explain why it is proper to have A's clock at t = 0 and B's clock at
t = vL/c^2. You can't, of course, because the LT presumes that they
are synchronized. PCH's Figure 4-4 destroys any argument based on the
LT. His babbling about "worldlines" is a pure canard. His only rebut
is that I "just don't know how to interpret the diagram." Pure bull plop.
My Figure 4 is correct and his Figure 4-4 is wrong. It's wrong because
A and B have been desynchronized and mine is correct because I maintained
synchronization. This has NOTHING to do with superluminal motion. It's
basic relativity: if B advances along the time axis, A must also, in unison.

You guys have deafened yourselves to reality and have debased yourselves
with dishonesty and deprecations.

“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those
who could not hear the music.” --- Friedrich Nietzsche

Not totally your fault. You thought you were standing on the shoulders
of giants, who thought THEY were standing on the shoulders of giants, etc.
The problem started over a century ago and no one corrected it. It SHOULD
have happened, it WOULD have happened, I guess, except that all the giants
jumped onto general relativity and considered SR a baked cake.

[Dono,]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 9:47:41 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> I guess, except that all the giants
> jumped onto general relativity and considered SR a baked cake.

...and the crankery comes full out.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 9:47:41 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> A and B are in the SAME frame. Their clocks MUST be synchronized.

If ideal clocks A and B are at rest in the same frame they run at the same rate (in terms of that frame), but they need not be synchronized in terms of their absolute values.

> > Two events that are both at t=0 are simultaneous in terms of the inertial
> > coordinates x,t, and two events that are both at t'=0 are simultaneous in
> > terms of inertial coordinates x',t'.
>
> So now you're not even being logical.

Huh? That's a simple statement of elementary Relativity 101. What part of it do you believe is illogical?

> > That isn't a problem at all. No philosophical gloss that someone may
> > choose to place on physics has anything to do with the physics. Lorentz
> > invariance is not a philosophical fact, it is a physical fact, and it
> > precludes superluminal communication, because superluminal intervals
> > have imaginary duration, etc.
>

> [no substantive response, proving your beliefs are without foundation]

> So explain why it is proper to have A's clock at t = 0 and B's clock at
> t = vL/c^2.

That's a nonsense statement. We already explained your confusions over the tenses of English words. If your inertial coordinate system x,t had t=0 yesterday at noon, then both A and B existed at t=0, and they also both existed a little later at t = vL/c^2. It makes no sense to say "A is at t=0 and B is at t=vL/c^2", because both clocks existed at both of those times.

> ...his Figure 4-4 is wrong because A and B have been desynchronized...

That is a senseless statement. The figure simply depicts the spatial locations of the clocks as functions of time in terms of two different (relatively moving) systems of inertial coordinates. This is just Relativity 101. Events that are simultaneous in terms of x,t are not simultaneous in terms of x',t', and vice versa. That's an essential feature of Lorentz invariance.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 7:00:28 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 9:47:41 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > A and B are in the SAME frame. Their clocks MUST be synchronized.
>
> If ideal clocks A and B are at rest in the same frame they run at the same
> rate (in terms of that frame), but they need not be synchronized in terms
> of their absolute values.

The LT assumes that they have been Einstein-synchronized. You are
guilty of wishful thinking.

> > > Two events that are both at t=0 are simultaneous in terms of the
> > > inertial coordinates x,t, and two events that are both at t'=0 are
> > > simultaneous in terms of inertial coordinates x',t'.
> >
> > So now you're not even being logical.
>
> Huh? That's a simple statement of elementary Relativity 101. What
> part of it do you believe is illogical?

We were discussing A and B synchronization. That has NOTHING to do with
the moving frame.

> > > That isn't a problem at all. No philosophical gloss that someone may
> > > choose to place on physics has anything to do with the physics. Lorentz
> > > invariance is not a philosophical fact, it is a physical fact, and it
> > > precludes superluminal communication, because superluminal intervals
> > > have imaginary duration, etc.
> >
> > [no substantive response, proving your beliefs are without foundation]
>
> > So explain why it is proper to have A's clock at t = 0 and B's clock at
> > t = vL/c^2.
>
> That's a nonsense statement.

No, it's not. It's at the crux of your mistaken belief system.

> We already explained your confusions over the tenses of English words.

You are proving that you are in the tank for the block universe with
this bull plop.

> If your inertial coordinate system x,t had t=0 yesterday at noon, then both
> A and B existed at t=0,

Past tense, block universe purveyor.

> and they also both existed a little later at t = vL/c^2. It makes no
> sense to say "A is at t=0 and B is at t=vL/c^2", because both clocks
> existed at both of those times.

I agree. SO how can A and B be synchronized yet tA = 0 and tB = vL/c^2?
They can't, of course, unless you're in the tank for the block universe.

> > ...his Figure 4-4 is wrong because A and B have been desynchronized...
>
> That is a senseless statement.

Which statement is that, senseless one?

> The figure simply depicts the spatial locations of the clocks as
> functions of time in terms of two different (relatively moving)
> systems of inertial coordinates. This is just Relativity 101.
> Events that are simultaneous in terms of x,t are not simultaneous
> in terms of x',t', and vice versa. That's an essential feature of
> Lorentz invariance.

"The figure"? Which figure is that? Are you too agitated to write
cogently? Like when you blathered that "Any superluminal conveyance

of energy or information implies a violation of Lorentz invariance."

Do you have any idea how insane that comment is? Have you even read
Feinberg's tachyon paper?

"A quantum field theory of noninteracting, spinless, faster-than-light
particles is described. The field theory is Lorentz-invariant"

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967PhRv..159.1089F/abstract

You also keep lying about the "+1 = -1" straw man when my Eq. (4) doesn't
use it. It's really very simple, the equation

u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)

must be cut off at u' = c^2/v to prevent the stationary observer from
measuring a speed in his frame faster than infinity. Rearranging the
equation shows that this is a valid argument:

u - u'uv/c^2 = u' - v

(1 + uv/c^2)u' = u + v

u' = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2)

u' = c^2/v

for u approaches infinity. No stinking "+1 = -1" straw man baloney involved.

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/2/19 5:58 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 7:00:28 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 9:47:41 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> A and B are in the SAME frame. Their clocks MUST be synchronized.
>>
>> If ideal clocks A and B are at rest in the same frame they run at the same
>> rate (in terms of that frame), but they need not be synchronized in terms
>> of their absolute values.
>
> The LT assumes that they have been Einstein-synchronized.

Yes it does. Of course you can handle any additional time offsets manually.

Just placing clocks in a given inertial frame does NOT ensure they are
mutually synchronized, that requires specific actions to make it so.

> You are
> guilty of wishful thinking.

Not here. Here he is just stating the obvious -- it takes deliberate
action to synchronize clocks.

> [... further arguments about the meanings of words and other trivial stuff]

Tom Roberts

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 2:58:13 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > If ideal clocks A and B are at rest in the same frame they run at the same
> > rate (in terms of that frame), but they need not be synchronized in terms
> > of their absolute values.
>
> The LT assumes that they have been Einstein-synchronized.

No, the Lorentz transformation gives the relationship between relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates, it does not assume that any particular time-keeping device has been set in any particular way, or even that it is working. Of course, if we stipulate that a certain set of clocks have been set to conform to a particular system of inertial coordinates, then those clocks conform to those coordinates.

> We were discussing A and B synchronization. That has NOTHING to do with
> the moving frame.

Clocks can be set in any way we choose to set them, regardless of their states of motion.

> > We already explained your confusions over the tenses of English words.

> > If your inertial coordinate system x,t had t=0 yesterday at noon, then both
> > A and B existed at t=0,
>
> Past tense, block universe purveyor.

So, just to be clear, are you claiming that the clocks did not exist at noon yesterday? (You seem to be confused, because the use of past and future tenses is the opposite of how a block universe purveyor would talk. Actually, your attempts to avoid tenses makes *you* a purveyor of a block universe metaphysics... but thats irrelevant.)

> > and they also both existed a little later at t = vL/c^2. It makes no
> > sense to say "A is at t=0 and B is at t=vL/c^2", because both clocks
> > existed at both of those times.
>
> I agree.

Wait... in your immediately preceding sentence you disdainfully (and erroneously) accused me of being a purveyor of block universe for saying that both clocks existed at t=0, and here when I finish the sentence and say they *also* both existed at a later time, you suddenly say "I agree". Just to be clearly, your agreement here contradicts your previous vehement denial and undermines your disdainful accusation of 10 seconds ago. [rolling eyes and emitting low whistle]

> SO how can A and B be synchronized yet tA = 0 and tB = vL/c^2?

That is a senseless statement/question. You have just finished agreeing (after just denying) that both clocks existed at both times. Now you're back to claiming that each clock existed yesterday at only one of those times. So you need to stop flip-flopping and decide: Are you claiming that each clock existed yesterday at both of those times, or at only one of those times?

> > > ...his Figure 4-4 is wrong because A and B have been desynchronized...
> >
> > That is a senseless statement.
>

> Which statement is that?

The quoted statement, just above, where you said "...his Figure 4-4 is wrong because A and B have been desynchronized...". Was that really unclear?

> > The figure simply depicts the spatial locations of the clocks as
> > functions of time in terms of two different (relatively moving)
> > systems of inertial coordinates. This is just Relativity 101.
> > Events that are simultaneous in terms of x,t are not simultaneous
> > in terms of x',t', and vice versa. That's an essential feature of
> > Lorentz invariance.
>
> "The figure"? Which figure is that?

The figure you made the senseless statement about in the above quote.

> Like when you blathered that "Any superluminal conveyance
> of energy or information implies a violation of Lorentz invariance."
>
> Do you have any idea how insane that comment is? Have you even read
> Feinberg's tachyon paper?

Feinberg was talking about quanta with imaginary mass, mistakenly thinking they would propagate superluminally, but his mistake was promptly corrected, noting that such excitations of an imaginary mass field do not propagate faster than light. Any superluminal conveyance of energy or information implies a violation of Lorentz invariance... this is basic Relativity 101.

> You also keep lying about the "+1 = -1" straw man...

It isn't a straw man. The only way in which the proof you are trying to evade can be evaded is if +1 = -1. The stuff you have been writing since you realized that +1 does not equal -1 is all completely pointless.

> It's really very simple, the equation
> u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)
> must be cut off at u' = c^2/v to prevent the stationary observer from
> measuring a speed in his frame faster than infinity.

That is senseless. Look, for any spacelike separated events p and q, there exists a system of inertial coordinates x,t in terms of which t_p > t_q, and another system of inertial coordinates x',t' in terms of which t'_p = t'_q, and still another, x",t", in terms of which t"_p < t"_q. This is basic Relativity 101. Do you understand this?

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 2:58:13 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> It's really very simple, the equation....

>
> u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)

...does not hold for speeds higher than "c". Imbecile. Stubborn. Stubborn imbecile.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 11:47:41 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Not totally your fault. You thought you were standing on the shoulders
> of giants, who thought THEY were standing on the shoulders of giants, etc.
> The problem started over a century ago and no one corrected it. It SHOULD
> have happened, it WOULD have happened, I guess, except that all the giants
> jumped onto general relativity and considered SR a baked cake.

Uh huh...

Over a century of discussion on whether FTL is consistent with SR, beginning
with Einstein's famous paper introducing SR and over the years including a
well-known 1907 correspondence between Einstein and Wien, plus various other
demonstrations that Einstein provided in the years following, and you conclude
that "all the giants" have been wrong.
https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol5-doc/106

It may have been OK for *Wien* to walk away unconvinced, but over the years the
various arguments against FTL have become streamlined from the rather abstruse
arguments that Einstein employed (in an unsuccessful attempt to convince Wien
that FTL phase velocities and even FTL group velocities possible in dispersive
media, and well as FTL velocities predicted by *pure* Maxwell theory as it
was understood, did not imply the ability to send signals faster than light).
There is simply no excuse for *you* to go down this false path.

[Gary Harnagel]

Not synchronizing the clocks invalidates the conclusions drawn from the LT.
The wikiSR figure 4-4 obviously depicts A and B at different TIMES on the
TIME axis, not that their clocks have been misadjusted. Merely manually
turning the hands on a clock CANNOT send messages into the past as the
figure and text purports. coea's "argument" is an attempt at obfuscation.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 8:27:38 AM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 2:58:13 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > coea wrote:
> > >
> > > If ideal clocks A and B are at rest in the same frame they run at the
> > > same rate (in terms of that frame), but they need not be synchronized
> > > in terms of their absolute values.
> >
> > The LT assumes that they have been Einstein-synchronized.
>
> No, the Lorentz transformation gives the relationship between relatively
> moving systems of inertial coordinates,

You seem to be hard at work trying to obfuscate again. Synchronization
refers to clocks in ONE inertial frame. It's done BEFORE the LT is applied
to predict phenomena in a different frame.

> it does not assume that any particular time-keeping device has been set
> in any particular way, or even that it is working.

Tom appears to disagree with you. In his paper, Einstein launches into
a detailed discussion of clock synchronization and YOU make a crazy
claim like THAT?!!

> Of course, if we stipulate that a certain set of clocks have been set
> to conform to a particular system of inertial coordinates, then those
> clocks conform to those coordinates.

And the LT so stipulates.

> > We were discussing A and B synchronization. That has NOTHING to do with
> > the moving frame.
>
> Clocks can be set in any way we choose to set them, regardless of their
> states of motion.

YOU can choose to set YOUR clocks by some method other than Einstein
synchronization, but no one will think you have an ounce of brains.

> > > We already explained your confusions over the tenses of English words.
> > > If your inertial coordinate system x,t had t=0 yesterday at noon, then
> > > both A and B existed at t=0,
> >
> > Past tense, block universe purveyor.
>
> So, just to be clear, are you claiming that the clocks did not exist at
> noon yesterday?

No, and if YOU claim they do, you're in the tank for the block universe
philosophy in spite of your protestations.

> (You seem to be confused, because the use of past and future tenses is
> the opposite of how a block universe purveyor would talk. Actually,
> your attempts to avoid tenses makes *you* a purveyor of a block universe
> metaphysics... but thats irrelevant.)

This is pure word-twisting and prevarication. It's obvious to the most
casual observer what my position is, and it's obvious that you are
arguing from weakness.

> > > and they also both existed a little later at t = vL/c^2. It makes no
> > > sense to say "A is at t=0 and B is at t=vL/c^2", because both clocks
> > > existed at both of those times.
> >
> > I agree.
>
> Wait... in your immediately preceding sentence you disdainfully (and
> erroneously) accused me of being a purveyor of block universe for saying
> that both clocks existed at t=0, and here when I finish the sentence
> and say they *also* both existed at a later time, you suddenly say "I
> agree". Just to be clearly, your agreement here contradicts your
> previous vehement denial and undermines your disdainful accusation of
> 10 seconds ago. [rolling eyes and emitting low whistle]

You are VERY confused, dime store lawyer. You said PAST tense and I agree
that it makes no sense to say that A IS at t = 0, particularly when B IS
at t = vL/c^2.

> > SO how can A and B be synchronized yet tA = 0 and tB = vL/c^2?
>
> That is a senseless statement/question.

No, it's not. THAT is EXACTLY what the figure 4-4 is saying.

> You have just finished agreeing (after just denying) that both clocks
> existed at both times.

PAST tense, of course. And I NEVER denied past tense existence. Your
attempts to cloud the issue are reprehensible.

> [Remainder of senseless yammering wordplay deleted]

Deleted because you have been either exceedingly dishonest or abysmally
stupid, and I don't believe the latter.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:43:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> It's really very simple, the equation
> u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)
> must be cut off at u' = c^2/v to prevent the stationary observer from
> measuring a speed in his frame faster than infinity.

Look, for any spacelike separated events p and q, there exists a system of inertial coordinates x,t in terms of which t_p > t_q, and another system of inertial coordinates x',t' in terms of which t'_p = t'_q, and still another, x",t", in terms of which t"_p < t"_q. This is basic Relativity 101. Do you understand this, and why it proves that your beliefs are erroneous?

> Synchronization refers to clocks in ONE inertial frame.

We can synchronize clocks in terms of any given system of inertial coordinates, but of course, if they are synchronized in terms of one system, in general they are not synchronized in terms of another.

> In his paper, Einstein launches into a detailed discussion of clock

> synchronization...

Yes, he describes synchronizing clocks so that they conform to any given system of inertial coordinates, and of course he notes that clocks synchronized in terms of one system are not synchronized in terms of other systems. And he makes it clear that clocks don't automatically synchronize themselves this way.

> YOU can choose to set YOUR clocks by some method other than Einstein

> synchronization...

Sure, and so can you. In fact, our usual time coordinates, such as the ECI and UTC, involve synchronizing clocks differently than the local inertial coordinates. Were you unaware of this?

> > > > We already explained your confusions over the tenses of English words.
> > > > If your inertial coordinate system x,t had t=0 yesterday at noon, then
> > > > both A and B existed at t=0,
> > >
> > > Past tense, block universe purveyor.
> >
> > So, just to be clear, are you claiming that the clocks did not exist at
> > noon yesterday?
>

> No, and if YOU claim they do, you're in the tank...

Huh? When you say "do", do you mean "did"? You're getting tangled up in your own maniacal sophistries over verbal tenses. I asked if you are claiming the clocks did not exist, and you answered "No" (i.e., you acknowledge they existed), but then you follow with "and if YOU claim they do [sic], you're in the tank..." So, even though you acknowledge they existed, you are saying that if I believe they existed (as you do) I'm "in the tank". Your statements are totally insane.

> You said PAST tense and I agree that it makes no sense to say that A IS
> at t = 0, particularly when B IS at t = vL/c^2.

Huh? Your statements make no sense. I specifically posed all the events yesterday, so they could all be discussed in the past tense, to thwart your maniacal sophistries over verbal tenses. And surely you realize that you can't use the word "when" for spatially separate events without stipulating what system of coordinates you are referring to. That's just Relativity 101.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 9:43:18 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 8:27:38 AM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 2:58:13 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > coea wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If ideal clocks A and B are at rest in the same frame they run at the
> > > > same rate (in terms of that frame), but they need not be synchronized
> > > > in terms of their absolute values.
> > >
> > > The LT assumes that they have been Einstein-synchronized.
> >
> > No, the Lorentz transformation gives the relationship between relatively
> > moving systems of inertial coordinates,
>
> You seem to be hard at work trying to obfuscate again. Synchronization
> refers to clocks in ONE inertial frame. It's done BEFORE the LT is applied
> to predict phenomena in a different frame.

*READ* what coel wrote. The LT does *not* require synchronized clocks.

Given the x,y,z,t coordinates of an event measured in one inertial frame, the
LT computes the x',y',z',t' of the same event measured in a different inertial
frame.

The usual (simplified) form of the LT requires that the two reference frames
be in "standard configuration", but this does not involve any sort of clock
synchronization.

> This is pure word-twisting and prevarication. It's obvious to the most
> casual observer what my position is, and it's obvious that you are
> arguing from weakness.

It is perfectly evident to the most casual observer that you have no mastery
of the basics of SR.

AISB. ***STUDY*** before assuming that you know anything about the subject.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 2:33:07 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 11:47:41 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Not totally your fault. You thought you were standing on the shoulders
> > of giants, who thought THEY were standing on the shoulders of giants, etc.
> > The problem started over a century ago and no one corrected it. It SHOULD
> > have happened, it WOULD have happened, I guess, except that all the giants
> > jumped onto general relativity and considered SR a baked cake.
>
> Uh huh...
>
> Over a century of discussion on whether FTL is consistent with SR,
> beginning with Einstein's famous paper introducing SR and over the
> years including a well-known 1907 correspondence between Einstein
> and Wien, plus various other demonstrations that Einstein provided
> in the years following, and you conclude that "all the giants" have
> been wrong.
> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol5-doc/106

You DO seem to have trouble parsing sentences. The giants moved on to
GR. Didn't you even get that? Tsk, tsk.

Well, not all the giants moved on, actually. Feinberg actually added
to the SR notebook.

> It may have been OK for *Wien* to walk away unconvinced, but over the
> years the various arguments against FTL have become streamlined from
> the rather abstruse arguments that Einstein employed (in an unsuccessful
> attempt to convince Wien that FTL phase velocities and even FTL group
> velocities possible in dispersive media, and well as FTL velocities
> predicted by *pure* Maxwell theory as it was understood, did not imply
> the ability to send signals faster than light).

Of course not. Tachyons are needed, not photons. Perhaps they didn't
have the insight provided by Feinberg.

> There is simply no excuse for *you* to go down this false path.

Really? If your attitude prevailed, no one would EVER challenge authority.

"Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made
mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future." -- Carl Sagan

As I tried to explain to coea (which fell on EXCEEDINGLY deaf ears),
take the equation

u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)

must be cut off at u' = c^2/v to prevent the stationary observer from
measuring a speed in his frame faster than infinity.

He dishonestly deleted the proof that the cut off procedure was correct:

u - u'uv/c^2 = u' - v

(1 + uv/c^2)u' = u + v

u' = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2)

Thus u can be increased without bound yielding

u' = c^2/v

It's instructive to note that Einstein considered the time equation

delta_t' = gamma*(delta_t - v*delta_x/c^2)

to be a proof that FTL was impossible because of that pesky minus sign.
Letting delta_x/delta_t increase without bound causes delta_t' to be
negative. But the relativistic velocity composition equation has that
term in the denominator:

delta_x'/delta_t' = (delta_x - v*delta_t)/(delta_t - v*delta_x/c^2)

or

u' = (u - v)/(1 - vu/c^2)

and, as shown above, the equation can be rearranged and the pesky minus sign
is gone:

u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2)

This is the RVC equation presented in Leighton. Letting u' increase without
bound yields u = c^2/v, showing that cutting u off at c^2/v is the correct
solution. That was easy. The situation presented by wikiSR's figure 4-4 is
more difficult conceptually because it assumes one can launch a signal at
u' = -infinity, but the math says it can't be done. That speed is relegated
to the stationary frame, requiring that u' = -c^2/v.

A curious result, but in complete agreement with the FACT that the clock at
A is synchronized with the clock at B, agreeing with the philosophy of
presentism.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 9:23:59 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [Irrelevent gobbledegook deleted]

Note; You have shown yourself to obfuscate and be dishonest so there's no
possibility of having a rational discussion with you.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 10:34:08 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> You DO seem to have trouble parsing sentences. The giants moved on to
> GR. Didn't you even get that? Tsk, tsk.

You left out, "...and considered SR a baked cake."

In other words, you accuse the "giants" of falsely ignoring what you deem to be
a fatal flaw in their interpretation of SR, given their change in focus to GR
as the "latest and greatest" new thing.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

There can be no rational discussion of SR with somebody who doesn't understand
even the BASICS.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 8:38:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> You have shown yourself to obfuscate and be dishonest so there's no
> possibility of having a rational discussion with you.

What I've said, repeatedly, is that for any spacelike separated events p and q, there exists a system of inertial coordinates x,t in terms of which t_p > t_q, and another system of inertial coordinates x',t' in terms of which t'_p = t'_q, and still another, x",t", in terms of which t"_p < t"_q. This disproves your beliefs, and proves that, in the context of special relativity, the ability to send superluminal signals would entail the ability to send signals to our causal past.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 9:29:24 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 9:43:18 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 8:27:38 AM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 2:58:13 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > coea wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If ideal clocks A and B are at rest in the same frame they run at the
> > > > > same rate (in terms of that frame), but they need not be synchronized
> > > > > in terms of their absolute values.
> > > >
> > > > The LT assumes that they have been Einstein-synchronized.
> > >
> > > No, the Lorentz transformation gives the relationship between relatively
> > > moving systems of inertial coordinates,
> >
> > You seem to be hard at work trying to obfuscate again. Synchronization
> > refers to clocks in ONE inertial frame. It's done BEFORE the LT is applied
> > to predict phenomena in a different frame.
>
> *READ* what coel wrote. The LT does *not* require synchronized clocks.

*READ* what Tom wrote. Your assertion is totally false. The LT sets the
initial conditions as t = t' = 0 at x = x' = 0. ALL problems I've ever
seen sets the clock at X > 0 at t = 0 as an initial condition also.
What kind of crap are you trying to pull?

> Given the x,y,z,t coordinates of an event measured in one inertial frame,
> the LT computes the x',y',z',t' of the same event measured in a different
> inertial frame.

Obvious but trite.

> The usual (simplified) form of the LT requires that the two reference frames
> be in "standard configuration", but this does not involve any sort of clock
> synchronization.

You've been dishonest before. Looks like you're doing it again.

> > This is pure word-twisting and prevarication. It's obvious to the most
> > casual observer what my position is, and it's obvious that you are
> > arguing from weakness.
>
> It is perfectly evident to the most casual observer that you have no mastery
> of the basics of SR.

What you can't argue cogently, you debase yourself with personal attack.

> AISB. ***STUDY*** before assuming that you know anything about the subject.

I KNOW it, dishonest one. You tried an attack by quoting authority and
now you're trying it by belittlement. You and coea are acting despicably.
You should be ashamed of yourselves. But you're not, of course. Rational
thought has left you.

I cannot fathom why you're still trying to entangle me with your worldview.
It should be obvious by now that you have totally failed, even though you
have tried dishonesty and subterfuge (or maybe that's WHY you haven't
convinced me). Lying doesn't sit well with me. It shouldn't with you,
either, but it does. Neither do put-downs, particularly when they're lies,
too.

And BTW, YOU are the one that confused MY observers with events. That was
a lie, too, since you referenced a link where A, B, C, and D were indeed
observers. FYI, I'm rewriting my paper so that even YOU can't excuse your-
self from telling further lies.

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 8:34:08 PM UTC-7, crackPOS Gary Harnagel wrote:

> As I tried to explain to coea (which fell on EXCEEDINGLY deaf ears),
> take the equation
>
> u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)
>
> must be cut off at u' = c^2/v to prevent the stationary observer from
> measuring a speed in his frame faster than infinity.
>

Nope, the relation "cuts of a lot "earlier", at u'=c.
Imbecile. Stubborn. Stubborn imbecile.

> He dishonestly deleted the proof that the cut off procedure was correct:
>
> u - u'uv/c^2 = u' - v
>
> (1 + uv/c^2)u' = u + v
>
> u' = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2)
>
> Thus u can be increased without bound yielding
>
> u' = c^2/v
>

Nope, the domain of applicability, for which the formula has been derived is u'<c.
Imbecile. Stubborn. Stubborn imbecile.

> It's instructive to note that Einstein considered the time equation
>
> delta_t' = gamma*(delta_t - v*delta_x/c^2)
>
> to be a proof that FTL was impossible because of that pesky minus sign.
> Letting delta_x/delta_t increase without bound causes delta_t' to be
> negative. But the relativistic velocity composition equation has that
> term in the denominator:
>
> delta_x'/delta_t' = (delta_x - v*delta_t)/(delta_t - v*delta_x/c^2)
>
> or
>
> u' = (u - v)/(1 - vu/c^2)
>
> and, as shown above, the equation can be rearranged and the pesky minus sign
> is gone:
>
> u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c^2)
>

Imbecile, the formula is valid only for subluminal speeds.

> This is the RVC equation presented in Leighton. Letting u' increase without
> bound yields u = c^2/v, showing that cutting u off at c^2/v is the correct
> solution.

Nope, the domain of applicability, for which the formula has been derived is u'<c.
Imbecile. Stubborn. Stubborn imbecile.


> That was easy.

To show that you are a cretin. Yep.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 9:58:07 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 8:38:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > You have shown yourself to obfuscate and be dishonest so there's no
> > possibility of having a rational discussion with you.
>
> What I've said, repeatedly, is that for any spacelike separated events p
> and q, there exists a system of inertial coordinates x,t in terms of which
> t_p > t_q, and another system of inertial coordinates x',t' in terms of
> which t'_p = t'_q, and still another, x",t", in terms of which t"_p < t"_q.

Irrelevant.

> This disproves your beliefs, and proves that, in the context of special
> relativity, the ability to send superluminal signals would entail the
> ability to send signals to our causal past.

Sigh! u' = c^2/v does NOT violate causality. What violates causality is when
u' > c^2/v. THINK before you WRITE!

Look! If u' = c^2/v, there is a frame where u = infinity. Once you have
that frame (it's not hard to find it), you can calculate what u'' is in every
other frame. HINT: it will ALWAYS be less than infinity.

Well, I've spent way too much of my valuable time trying to make you guys
see the light. You have been fatally corrupted by the block universe
philosophy and don't even realize it. You argue bull plop about clocks
when it is OBVIOUS that clocks in A and B are indeed synchronized, which
means that if B's clock advances, A's must also by the same amount. It
WAS at t = 0 but it's not at t = 0 anymore when B is at t > 0. That IS
reality.

You and PCH have YOUR interpretation of the Minkowski diagram which overtly
adopts the block universe concept. I have a different interpretation which
rejects that interpretation, and make no mistake, it IS an interpretation.
You two have vilified and belittled me because you firmly believe that
YOUR interpretation is not only correct, it's the ONLY POSSIBLE one.

PCH said he would consider what the LT says about FTL only if it has been
verified, but why wait? Arguing that FTL is impossible is just an excuse
to be lazy. When you argue that FTL is impossible because of this and that,
you miss the entire point of the exercise. I've found a way to justify
causality given FTL, but it just goes right past you boneheads. You don't
even think rationally before you fire off another irrelevant post.

There are many derivative issues surrounding FTL that can be dealt with
later, like your concern about simultaneity. I don't think that will be
a problem, but it's too early to address that now. Another issue is if
I fire off an infinitely fast signal to Alpha Centauri and a moving observer
passes me at t = 0, will he see the signal (traveling at c^2/v) getting
there after I do? (The answer is no, I've already worked it out). Another
issue is this: since a signal requires energy, and energy is equivalent
to mass, then it should be possible to send an observer (a tachyonic one,
of course). What will he observe? That one's WAY too early to address now.

You guys could have been part of this exciting investigation but you
preferred to wallow in dishonesty and denigration. But I DO thank you for
straightening me out about c^2/v ALWAYS being true (the +1 = -1 business).
*I* was being a bit lazy. I tried to get u = -c^2/v when u' = infinity,
but the math didn't come out that way. It came out u = infinity and
u' = -c^2/v. That bothered me but I drew Figure 5 the way the math
dictated. That turns out to be correct!

You probably will completely ignore all of this because of your prejudices,
but I'm okay with that. I gave you several chances so I have a clear
conscience. Adios.

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 10:07:05 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Sigh! u' = c^2/v does NOT violate causality. What violates causality is when
> u' > c^2/v. THINK before you WRITE!
>

Cretin, u'>c violates causality.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 11:05:39 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 9:29:24 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> > The usual (simplified) form of the LT requires that the two reference frames
> > be in "standard configuration", but this does not involve any sort of clock
> > synchronization.
>
> You've been dishonest before. Looks like you're doing it again.

Are you claiming that the primed clock is synchronized with the unprimed clock?

> > It is perfectly evident to the most casual observer that you have no mastery
> > of the basics of SR.
>
> What you can't argue cogently, you debase yourself with personal attack.

It is not personal attack. It is a statement of obvious truth.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 1:21:43 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 11:05:39 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 9:29:24 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> > > The usual (simplified) form of the LT requires that the two reference frames
> > > be in "standard configuration", but this does not involve any sort of clock
> > > synchronization.
> >
> > You've been dishonest before. Looks like you're doing it again.
>
> Are you claiming that the primed clock is synchronized with the unprimed clock?

"The problem is whether [Einstein synchronization] does really succeed in
assigning a time label to any event in a consistent way. To that end one
should find conditions under which:
(a) clocks once synchronised remain synchronised,
(b1) the synchronisation is reflexive, that is any clock is synchronised
with itself (automatically satisfied),
(b2) the synchronisation is symmetric, that is if clock A is synchronised
with clock B then clock B is synchronised with clock A,
(b3) the synchronisation is transitive, that is if clock A is synchronised
with clock B and clock B is synchronised with clock C then clock A is
synchronised with clock C.

If point (a) holds then it makes sense to say that clocks are
synchronised."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation

Note point (a). The unprimed and primed clocks are synchronized if an observer
in the same frame as the unprimed clock, using some comparison procedure to set
the primed clock to the same reading as his local clock, can REPEAT the
comparison, finding with each repeat of the comparison that the clocks "once
synchronised remain synchronised."

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 10:07:05 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > For any spacelike separated events p and q, there exists a system of

> > inertial coordinates x,t in terms of which t_p > t_q, and another system
> > of inertial coordinates x',t' in terms of which t'_p = t'_q, and still
> > another, x",t", in terms of which t"_p < t"_q.
>
> Irrelevant.

To the contrary, it's actually the only relevant fact in this thread, as you will see if you read on.

> If u' = c^2/v, there is a frame where u = infinity.

That sentence is essentially a subset of what I stated above. Let me translate for you: In terms of a system S of inertial coordinates, when you talk about a speed u' = c^2/v for some v in the range [0, c], you are talking about a superluminal speed u' in the range [inf, c]. For a speed in the positive x direction (same reasoning applies in the negative x direction), this signifies an interval between two events p and q such that, in terms of S, you have u' = (xq-xp)/(tq-tp) where xq > xp and tq > tp. In other words, the interval from p to q goes forward in time. Then you correctly say there is a frame in which the speed u' transforms to u = infinity, which means there is a system of inertial coordinates S', related to S by a Lorentz transformation (since we are in the context of special relativity), such that t'q = t'p. (Please note that x'q is still greater than x'p.)

Now you should be able to look back at my previous quote, which you called "irrelevant", and see that what you have stated here is contained in what I stated. Of course, you left out the crucial part of what I stated, which is that there is still another system of inertial coordinates, S", in terms of which t"q < t"p. (As always, x"q is still greater than x"p.) That's the part that demolishes your beliefs.

> Once you have that frame (it's not hard to find it), you can calculate
> what u'' is in every other frame. HINT: it will ALWAYS be less than
> infinity.

There's your confusion! You're mixing up magnitude with value, ignoring the sign. In the inertial coordinate system S" we have t"q < t"p, which means that the transformed speed in terms of S" is finite but negative, and yet x"q > x"p, so the reason this speed is negative is that it is going in the negative t" direction. That's why the line in Figure 4-4 is tilting backwards in time. Remember, you originally thought that line should tilt forward, but then you realized that you were confusing +1 with -1. You're still doing it. Stop.

> You have YOUR interpretation of the Minkowski diagram which overtly

> adopts the block universe concept.

No. Your fixation on metaphysical notions like block universes vs presentism is completely pointless and irrelevant. You need to read the above, carefully, and understand your mistake. This all follows unambiguously by simple arithmetic from the premise that inertial coordinates systems are related by Lorentz transformations, which is the entire content of special relativity, independent of metaphysical interpretations.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:21:43 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 11:05:39 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 9:29:24 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > >
> > > The usual (simplified) form of the LT requires that the two reference
> > > frames be in "standard configuration", but this does not involve any
> > > sort of clock synchronization.
> >
> > You've been dishonest before. Looks like you're doing it again.
>
> Are you claiming that the primed clock is synchronized with the unprimed
> clock?

OF COURSE NOT! Looks like your trying to develop another straw man.

> > > It is perfectly evident to the most casual observer that you have
> > > no mastery of the basics of SR.
> >
> > What you can't argue cogently, you debase yourself with personal attack.
>
> It is not personal attack. It is a statement of obvious truth.

Nope. You seem to be oblivious to what a personal attack is, just as
you are to truth. To help you become educated:

http://softschools.com/examples/fallacies/personal_attack_examples/500/

You see? You attacked my qualifications instead of the concepts. Let me
refresh your failing memory of the concept in question:

> > *READ* what coel wrote. The LT does *not* require synchronized clocks.
>
> *READ* what Tom wrote. Your assertion is totally false. The LT sets
> the initial conditions as t = t' = 0 at x = x' = 0. ALL problems I've
> ever seen sets the clock at X > 0 at t = 0 as an initial condition also.
> What kind of crap are you trying to pull?

And your depraved response is indeed a personal attack. It is SO obvious
that the clock at B MUST be synchronized with the clock at A in order to
derive such simple things as time dilation and simultaneity. The Minkowski
diagram has an x-axis that shows stationary objects along its axis to be
synchronized with each other and stationary objects in the moving frame
along the x' axis to be synchronized with each other.

It's OBVIOUS in your Figure 4-4 that D's clock is synchronized with C's
clock since they are both on the x' axis and it's OBVIOUS that B's clock
at vL/c^2 was indeed synchronized with A's in the past when both were
back on the x-axis, else it would not be possible for A to send the signal
back to B as Figure 4-4 shows.

Your argument that the clocks need not be synchronized is tantamount to
claiming that you can go back in time by merely changing the digits or
hands on a clock, like you can set the clock at A to 12:00 and the clock
at B to 10:00, travel to B in one hour and arrive there an hour in the
past! That, of course, is irrational. Unless, of course, you do what
Tom suggested: subtract out the clock offsets, which amounts to the same
thing as having synchronized clocks.

It's OBVIOUS that since B's clock has advanced to vL/c^2 then A's clock must
have advanced by the same amount, hence B at t = vL/c^2 can only send a
signal to A when his clock is at t = 0 IF the block universe PHILOSOPHY is,
in fact, real. In the REAL world, B can only send a signal to A when A's
clock reads vL/c^2 (or later if the signal is not instantaneous).

We were discussing actual travel into the past, not some straw man baloney
that you invented to obfuscate the issue. THIS is only ONE example of why
you have been dishonest. I expected MUCH more of you than what you have
shown here.

And your addendum to your post is irrelevant since we already know from
analyzing Figure 4-4 that the clocks ARE synchronized. It may not rise
to the level of obfuscation, but it certainly is a platitudinous digression
that preaches to the choir.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:52:25 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> And your addendum to your post is irrelevant since we already know from
> analyzing Figure 4-4 that the clocks ARE synchronized. It may not rise
> to the level of obfuscation, but it certainly is a platitudinous digression
> that preaches to the choir.

Since the frames are in standard configuration, t = 0 when t' = 0 by
definition of the term "standard configuration".

However, let us examine any t other than t = 0. If you apply the LT for
an arbitrary event (x, y, z, t) to compute (x', y', z', t'), do you find
that t' = t?

If you set a first watch running on a Terran 24 hour day and a second watch
running on a Martian 24 hr 37 m day so that they both read midnight at the
moment your eyes see the word "buzz", are the two watches synchronized?

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:59:26 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:52:25 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > And your addendum to your post is irrelevant since we already know from
> > analyzing Figure 4-4 that the clocks ARE synchronized. It may not rise
> > to the level of obfuscation, but it certainly is a platitudinous digression
> > that preaches to the choir.
>
> Since the frames are in standard configuration, t = 0 when t' = 0 by
> definition of the term "standard configuration".
>
> However, let us examine any t other than t = 0. If you apply the LT for
> an arbitrary event (x, y, z, t) to compute (x', y', z', t'), do you find
> that t' = t?

Of course not, but tA will ALWAYS equal tB once they have been synchronized.

> If you set a first watch running on a Terran 24 hour day and a second watch
> running on a Martian 24 hr 37 m day so that they both read midnight at the
> moment your eyes see the word "buzz", are the two watches synchronized?

Another obfuscation. Since in Figure 4-4, A and B are in the same frame
and have identical watches running at the same rate, they will remain in
sync once they have been synchronized. You're engaging in tedious banalities.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 12:29:12 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > For any spacelike separated events p and q, there exists a system of

> > inertial coordinates x,t in terms of which t_p > t_q, and another system
> > of inertial coordinates x',t' in terms of which t'_p = t'_q, and still
> > another, x",t", in terms of which t"_p < t"_q.
>

> Irrelevant.

To the contrary, it's actually the only relevant fact in this thread, as you will see if you read on.

> If u' = c^2/v, there is a frame where u = infinity.

That sentence is essentially a subset of what I stated above. Let me translate for you: In terms of a system S of inertial coordinates, when you talk about a speed u' = c^2/v for some v in the range [0, c], you are talking about a superluminal speed u' in the range [inf, c]. For a speed in the positive x direction (same reasoning applies in the negative x direction), this signifies a space-like interval between two events p and q such that, in terms of S, you have u' = (xq-xp)/(tq-tp) where xq > xp and tq > tp. In other words, the interval from p to q goes forward in time. Then you correctly say there is a frame in which the speed u' transforms to u = infinity, which means there is a system of inertial coordinates S', related to S by a Lorentz transformation (since we are in the context of special relativity), such that t'q = t'p. (Please note that x'q is still greater than x'p.)

Now you should be able to look back at my previous quote, which you called "irrelevant", and see that what you have stated here is contained in what I stated. Of course, you left out the crucial part of what I stated, which is that there is still another system of inertial coordinates, S", in terms of which t"q < t"p. (As always, x"q is still greater than x"p.) That's the part that demolishes your beliefs.

> Once you have that frame (it's not hard to find it), you can calculate
> what u'' is in every other frame. HINT: it will ALWAYS be less than
> infinity.

There's your mistake! You're mixing up magnitude with value, ignoring the sign. In the inertial coordinate system S" we have t"q < t"p, which means that the transformed speed in terms of S" is finite but negative, and yet x"q > x"p, so the reason this speed is negative is that it is going in the negative t" direction. That's why the line in Figure 4-4 is tilting backwards in time. Remember, you originally thought that line should tilt forward, but then you realized that you were confusing +1 with -1. You're still doing it.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 1:42:41 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 12:29:12 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > coea wrote:
> > >
> > > For any spacelike separated events p and q, there exists a system of
> > > inertial coordinates x,t in terms of which t_p > t_q, and another system
> > > of inertial coordinates x',t' in terms of which t'_p = t'_q, and still
> > > another, x",t", in terms of which t"_p < t"_q.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> To the contrary, it's actually the only relevant fact in this thread, as
> you will see if you read on.
>
> > If u' = c^2/v, there is a frame where u = infinity.
>
> That sentence is essentially a subset of what I stated above.

No, it's not. It prevents the following:

> Let me translate for you: In terms of a system S of inertial coordinates,
> when you talk about a speed u' = c^2/v for some v in the range [0, c],
> you are talking about a superluminal speed u' in the range [inf, c]. For
> a speed in the positive x direction (same reasoning applies in the
> negative x direction), this signifies a space-like interval between two
> events p and q such that, in terms of S, you have u' = (xq-xp)/(tq-tp)
> where xq > xp and tq > tp.

Which you failed to specify in your previous post, making it gobbledegook.

> In other words, the interval from p to q goes forward in time. Then
> you correctly say there is a frame in which the speed u' transforms to
> u = infinity, which means there is a system of inertial coordinates S',
> related to S by a Lorentz transformation (since we are in the context of
> special relativity), such that t'q = t'p. (Please note that x'q is still
> greater than x'p.)

Of course.

> Now you should be able to look back at my previous quote, which you called
> "irrelevant", and see that what you have stated here is contained in what
> I stated. Of course, you left out the crucial part of what I stated, which
> is that there is still another system of inertial coordinates, S", in terms
> of which t"q < t"p. (As always, x"q is still greater than x"p.) That's
> the part that demolishes your beliefs.

Nope. You're falling into the trap of requiring that u'' is greater than
infinity, which is totally illogical and irrational.

.
> > Once you have that frame (it's not hard to find it), you can calculate
> > what u'' is in every other frame. HINT: it will ALWAYS be less than
> > infinity.
>
> There's your mistake! You're mixing up magnitude with value, ignoring the
> sign.

So you're still blathering about the "=1 = -1" straw man baloney? Even
after I laid it all out for you? Do I have to show it to you many times
before it finally sinks through your skull?

u = (u' - v)/(1 - u'v/c^2)

This has the siren song enticing you to let u'v/c^2 be greater than unity.
BUT

u - u'uv/c^2 = u' - v

u' = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2)

GET IT? There is NO WAY that u' can be greater than c^2/v, proving that
you may NOT allow the denominator in the original equation to become negative.

> In the inertial coordinate system S" we have t"q < t"p, which means that
> the transformed speed in terms of S" is finite but negative, and yet
> x"q > x"p, so the reason this speed is negative is that it is going in
> the negative t" direction.

Which is impossible, which is why your assertions are balderdash.

> That's why the line in Figure 4-4 is tilting backwards in time.

Which means u is greater than infinity, an impossibility.

> Remember, you originally thought that line should tilt forward,

Rather, tilt UP.

> but then you realized that you were confusing +1 with -1.

Yes, I was. However, I haven't done so since. And, in fact, my Figure 5
doesn't do that.

> You're still doing it.

No, I'm not, as the rearrangement of the equation u = etc. above shows.
Are you so poor at algebra that you don't even realize that you're telling
a falsehood?

> > You have YOUR interpretation of the Minkowski diagram which overtly
> > adopts the block universe concept.
>
> No. Your fixation on metaphysical notions like block universes vs
> presentism is completely pointless and irrelevant.

Complete horse manure. It's at the base of the whole sham of Figure 4-4.
It purports that clocks at A and B are synchronized to send the signal
back to B, but they aren't synchronized when C transfers the signal to A.
The ONLY way this can happen is if the block universe is REAL. YOU aren't
THINKING, you're just turning the crank on a black box equation and accepting
whatever nonsense pops out of the hopper.

> You need to read the above, carefully, and understand your mistake.

YOU need to read my rebuttal, carefully, and understand, because right now,
you know not, and know not that you know not.

> This all follows unambiguously by simple arithmetic from the premise
> that inertial coordinates systems are related by Lorentz transformations,
> which is the entire content of special relativity, independent of
> metaphysical interpretations.

Perhaps you will one day realize YOUR mistake, but I don't have much hope
for that to happen because you refuse to THINK about what you're doing
when you mindlessly apply ONE form of the RVC equation and completely
blank out your mind and ignore its rearranged form. And you completely
ignore a speed greater than infinity. And you completely ignore that
your assertion about that minus sign puts you solidly in agreement with
the block universe metaphysical interpretation. IOW, you're spouting
a ridiculous philosophy. You're also ignoring the fact that clocks at
A and B in 4-4 are synchronized when A sends the signal back to B, but they
are NOT synchronized when C transfers the signal to A. So how did they
manage to get desynchronized? They can't, of course, not in the REAL world.

And THAT is what demolishes YOUR beliefs.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 4:52:05 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Perhaps you will one day realize YOUR mistake, but I don't have much hope
> for that to happen

I have no hope that you will realize your mistake, because you refuse to study.
You are completely, hopelessly confused about special relativity, to the
extent that you completely deny a century of explication and interpretation.

Coel is not confused about special relativity. YOU are.

I had started to reply to your latest post to me, but I see that it would do
no good. I'll just leave you to your confused ramblings.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 4:29:36 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote more personal attacks:
>
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 4:52:05 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps you will one day realize YOUR mistake, but I don't have much hope
> > for that to happen
>
> I have no hope that you will realize your mistake, because you refuse to
> study.

A lie and a personal attack.

> You are completely, hopelessly confused about special relativity, to the
> extent that you completely deny a century of explication and interpretation.

Another lie and a personal attack.

> Coel is not confused about special relativity. YOU are.

Lie #3 and personal attack #3.

> I had started to reply to your latest post to me, but I see that it would do
> no good. I'll just leave you to your confused ramblings.

So explain how A and B can be synchronized at t = 0 so A can send the signal
back to B, but A be desynchronized from B when it gets the signal from C.
You can't of course, so you resort to dishonesty and personal attacks.

> > because you refuse to THINK about what you're doing
> > when you mindlessly apply ONE form of the RVC equation and completely
> > blank out your mind and ignore its rearranged form. And you completely
> > ignore a speed greater than infinity. And you completely ignore that
> > your assertion about that minus sign puts you solidly in agreement with
> > the block universe metaphysical interpretation. IOW, you're spouting
> > a ridiculous philosophy. You're also ignoring the fact that clocks at
> > A and B in 4-4 are synchronized when A sends the signal back to B, but they
> > are NOT synchronized when C transfers the signal to A. So how did they
> > manage to get desynchronized? They can't, of course, not in the REAL world.
> >
> > And THAT is what demolishes YOUR beliefs.

You consider this "confused ramblings" because you refuse to think cogently
and rationally.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 2:52:05 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> You're falling into the trap of requiring that u'' is greater than
> infinity, which is totally illogical and irrational.

No, there is nothing "greater than infinity" involved in this discussion. Any putative superluminal signal goes between space-like separated events p to q, which have the S coordinates (xp,tp) and (xq,tq) respectively. Space-like means that |xp-xq| > |tp-tq|c. Given that tp > tq, it is trivial to apply a Lorentz transformation from S to a system S" that makes t"p < t"q.

> GET IT? There is NO WAY that u' can be greater than c^2/v...

Let's take this slowly. In terms of S you have a putative superluminal signal going from (xp,tp) to (xq,tq), so the velocity is u = (xq-xp)/(tq-tp). Assume tq > tp. Now let's transform this to a different system S' using the Lorentz transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx/c^2)g where g=1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and v is some speed (we're free to choose) between -c and +c. This means that

t'p = (tp - v*xp/c^2)g x'p = (xp - vtp)g
t'q = (tq - v*xq/c^2)g x'q = (xq - vtq)g

If we choose v = c^2/u (which has magnitude less than c, because u is greater than c) we get t'p = t'q, and for any v greater than c^2/u we have t'p < t'q.

Since you are fixated on using the kiddie speed composition formula (instead of using the grown-up Lorentz transformations), the speed u' in the S' coordinates is u' = (x'q - x'p)/(t'q - t'p), so we can substitute for the primed coordinates to give u' = (u - v)/(1 - vu/c^2). Notice that for any v greater than c^2/u the denominator is negative (but numerator is positive) so u' is negative, even though the putative signal is still going in the positive x' direction. That's because u' is going in the negative t' direction (as we already showed), thereby demolishing your beliefs.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 5:05:05 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 2:52:05 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > You're falling into the trap of requiring that u'' is greater than
> > infinity, which is totally illogical and irrational.
>
> No, there is nothing "greater than infinity" involved in this discussion.

That's an assertion that is either ignorant or false.

> Any putative superluminal signal goes between space-like separated events
> p to q, which have the S coordinates (xp,tp) and (xq,tq) respectively.
> Space-like means that |xp-xq| > |tp-tq|c. Given that tp > tq, it is
> trivial to apply a Lorentz transformation from S to a system S" that
> makes t"p < t"q.

Not if you THINK before you play games with algebra. If a signal takes
positive time to propagate, its speed is less than infinity; if it takes zero time, its speed is infinity; and if it takes less than zero time, its speed
is GREATER than infinity.

> > GET IT? There is NO WAY that u' can be greater than c^2/v...
>
> Let's take this slowly. In terms of S you have a putative superluminal
> signal going from (xp,tp) to (xq,tq), so the velocity is u = (xq-xp)/(tq-tp). Assume tq > tp. Now let's transform this to a different system S' using the Lorentz transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx/c^2)g where g=1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and v is some speed (we're free to choose) between -c and +c. This means that
>
> t'p = (tp - v*xp/c^2)g x'p = (xp - vtp)g
> t'q = (tq - v*xq/c^2)g x'q = (xq - vtq)g
>
> If we choose v = c^2/u (which has magnitude less than c, because u is
> greater than c) we get t'p = t'q, and for any v greater than c^2/u we
> have t'p < t'q.

Which is a speed GREATER than infinity which is looneybin crazy.

> Since you are fixated on using the kiddie speed composition formula
> (instead of using the grown-up Lorentz transformations),

Liar, the RSC is just the LT for distance divided by the LT for time.
Are you completely corrupt in your postings?

> the speed u' in the S' coordinates is u' = (x'q - x'p)/(t'q - t'p),
> so we can substitute for the primed coordinates to give
> u' = (u - v)/(1 - vu/c^2). Notice that for any v greater than c^2/u
> the denominator is negative (but numerator is positive) so u' is negative,
> even though the putative signal is still going in the positive x'
> direction. That's because u' is going in the negative t' direction
> (as we already showed), thereby demolishing your beliefs.

Your kiddie algebra bull plop is in the tank for the block universe
PHILOSOPHY and completely ignores reality which requires that A and B
clocks be SYNCHRONIZED, which they are when A sends the signal back to
B at t = 0, yet your imbecility about negative time refutes that
synchronization. My Figure 5 is the RATIONAL solution that refutes the
idiocy of the block universe PHILOSOPHY and demonstrates that the properly-
derived velocity of -c^2/v in the moving frame EXACTLY maintains
synchronization between clocks at A and B.

Do you even READ AND UNDERSTAND the derivation of Equation (4) and do you
even LOOK at Figure 5, or do you just blast off another regurgitation of
your prejudices without rational thought?

[shuba]

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> You are completely, hopelessly confused about special
> relativity, to the extent that you completely deny a
> century of explication and interpretation.

The only mildly surprising thing to me is that you
didn't seem to notice that Gary has always been
exactly as he's so clearly shown himself now.

I hadn't bothered looking at the infamous 'figure 4-4'
until just a couple days ago. It's obvious and correct,
which answers the question in the subject line.


---Tim Shuba---

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 4:38:23 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> If a signal takes positive time to propagate, its speed is less than

> infinity; if it takes zero time, its speed is infinity, and if it

> takes less than zero time, its speed is GREATER than infinity.

Speed is just the absolute value of velocity; the velocity of the interval from (xp,tp) to (xq,tq) is (xq-xp)/(tq-tp). There are no combinations of real values of the coordinates that yield a speed "greater than infinity".

> Which is a speed GREATER than infinity which is looneybin crazy.

Well, of course it doesn't happen, because superluminal speeds are impossible. That's the whole point. You are the one who is claiming that they are possible. Everyone else is explaining to you that your belief entails t'q < t'p, and hence your belief is looney bin crazy.

> Liar, the RSC is just the LT for distance divided by the LT for time.
> Are you completely corrupt in your postings?

No, the point is that when you divide the distance interval by the time interval to give the speed composition formula you lose the visibility into what the signs of the individual space and time components are doing, because you're just looking at the ratio. That's what leads you into confusion, and talking about crazy things like "greater than infinity" just because the time interval goes negative.

There's really no way to rationally dispute the facts. In terms of S you have a putative superluminal signal going from (xp,tp) to (xq,tq), so the velocity is u = (xq-xp)/(tq-tp). Assume tq > tp. Now let's transform this to a different system S' using the Lorentz transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx/c^2)g where g=1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and v is some speed (we're free to choose) between -c and +c. This means that

t'p = (tp - v*xp/c^2)g x'p = (xp - vtp)g
t'q = (tq - v*xq/c^2)g x'q = (xq - vtq)g

If we choose v = c^2/u (which has magnitude less than c, because u is greater than c) we get t'p = t'q, and for any v greater than c^2/u we have t'q < t'p.

So, if you reject the idea that signals can be sent from p to q where t'q < t'p in some inertial coordinate system, then you reject superluminal communication. There's really nothing more to be said about it.

[Gary Harnagel]

Sure, if you accept the philosophy of the block universe. Contrary to
what PCH regurgitates, the "correctness" depends upon philosophy after
all. The philosophy of presentism more accurately describes the world
we live in while there is no evidence whatsoever for the block universe,
which claims that speeds greater than infinity can exist.

So it's okay with you to have speeds greater than infinity :-))

If you haven't read my paper and you haven't followed this thread,
then you're coming in at the end of the movie.