FTL and Tachyon Dynamics

[Gary Harnagel]

The Lorentz transform deals with kinematics, but the real world also
includes dynamics. Faster-than-light communication in the real world
must obey energy constraints as well as the formalism of the LT.

Contrary to tardyons, tachyons have the curious property that energy
decreases as their speed increases, and as their energy approaches zero
as their speed approaches infinity. This provides one mechanism that
prevents the purported causality violation in certain scenarios that
seek to refute the possibility of FTL signals.

Perhaps the third time is a charm:

https://vixra.org/abs/1908.0306?ref=11257171

I think version 3 is pretty solid.

Gary

[Dono,]

Still just as wrong as before. Massive particles cannot achieve "c" , let alone get past it due to the DYNAMICS, not the Lorentz transform (kinematics) as you claim. The energy necessary achieving "c" is infinite. You should stop revising your "paper", it is just garbage. Each revision, no exception.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 2:21:22 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>
> On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 1:07:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > The Lorentz transform deals with kinematics, but the real world also
> > includes dynamics. Faster-than-light communication in the real world
> > must obey energy constraints as well as the formalism of the LT.
> >
> > Contrary to tardyons, tachyons have the curious property that energy
> > decreases as their speed increases, and as their energy approaches zero
> > as their speed approaches infinity. This provides one mechanism that
> > prevents the purported causality violation in certain scenarios that
> > seek to refute the possibility of FTL signals.
> >
> > Perhaps the third time is a charm:
> >
> > https://vixra.org/abs/1908.0306?ref=11257171
> >
> > I think version 3 is pretty solid.
> >
> > Gary
>
> Still just as wrong as before. Massive particles cannot achieve "c" ,
> let alone get past it due to the DYNAMICS, not the Lorentz transform
> (kinematics) as you claim.

You misunderstand. Your reference to "massive" particles is a canard.
Tachyons aren't "massive" particles. They have IMAGINARY mass. As
such, they can't go slower than c, so they don't have to "achieve c."

> The energy necessary achieving "c" is infinite. You should stop
> revising your "paper", it is just garbage. Each revision, no exception.

Obviously, you either haven't read it or don't understand tachyons.
In addition, you have exhibited hypocrisy since PCH, coea and others
have presented FTL scenarios (using tachyons), but you haven't taken
them to task for hypothesizing FTL signals. Why is that?

READ the paper, understand the references and my observations. THEN
and only then will a meticulous and authentic criticism by you or
anyone else have any significance.

[Dono,]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 3:28:05 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 2:21:22 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 1:07:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > The Lorentz transform deals with kinematics, but the real world also
> > > includes dynamics. Faster-than-light communication in the real world
> > > must obey energy constraints as well as the formalism of the LT.
> > >
> > > Contrary to tardyons, tachyons have the curious property that energy
> > > decreases as their speed increases, and as their energy approaches zero
> > > as their speed approaches infinity. This provides one mechanism that
> > > prevents the purported causality violation in certain scenarios that
> > > seek to refute the possibility of FTL signals.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the third time is a charm:
> > >
> > > https://vixra.org/abs/1908.0306?ref=11257171
> > >
> > > I think version 3 is pretty solid.
> > >
> > > Gary
> >
> > Still just as wrong as before. Massive particles cannot achieve "c" ,
> > let alone get past it due to the DYNAMICS, not the Lorentz transform
> > (kinematics) as you claim.
>
> You misunderstand. Your reference to "massive" particles is a canard.
> Tachyons aren't "massive" particles. They have IMAGINARY mass.

But their mass is NOT zero. So, my objection still holds. Look, Gary, your previous paper was a disaster , since you clearly showed that you do not understand relativistic kinematics. Your adding the "dynamics" section made it even worse because you added your misconceptions about relativistic dynamics.

> Obviously, you either haven't read it or don't understand tachyons.
> In addition, you have exhibited hypocrisy since PCH, coea and others
> have presented FTL scenarios (using tachyons), but you haven't taken
> them to task for hypothesizing FTL signals. Why is that?
>

Because coea had no mistakes in his scenarios, you DO.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:26:33 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>
> On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 3:28:05 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 2:21:22 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 1:07:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Lorentz transform deals with kinematics, but the real world also
> > > > includes dynamics. Faster-than-light communication in the real
> > > > world must obey energy constraints as well as the formalism of the
> > > > LT.
> > > >
> > > > Contrary to tardyons, tachyons have the curious property that
> > > > energy decreases as their speed increases, and as their energy
> > > > approaches zero as their speed approaches infinity. This
> > > > provides one mechanism that prevents the purported causality
> > > > violation in certain scenarios that seek to refute the
> > > > possibility of FTL signals.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the third time is a charm:
> > > >
> > > > https://vixra.org/abs/1908.0306?ref=11257171
> > > >
> > > > I think version 3 is pretty solid.
> > > >
> > > > Gary
> > >
> > > Still just as wrong as before. Massive particles cannot achieve "c" ,
> > > let alone get past it due to the DYNAMICS, not the Lorentz transform
> > > (kinematics) as you claim.
> >
> > You misunderstand. Your reference to "massive" particles is a canard.
> > Tachyons aren't "massive" particles. They have IMAGINARY mass.
>
> But their mass is NOT zero.

Of course not, it's IMAGINARY. Did you sleep through your math class
that discussed imaginary numbers? "Imaginary" doesn't necessarily
mean zero any more that the real numbers necessarily mean zero.

> So, my objection still holds.

No, it does not. Better review a math book on imaginary numbers.

> Look, Gary, your previous paper was a disaster ,

I wouldn't put it that way. It was a record of a journey.

> since you clearly showed that you do not understand relativistic
> kinematics.

Let's say that I jumped to conclusions in version one, and didn't have
everything nailed down in v2.

> Your adding the "dynamics" section made it even worse because you
> added your misconceptions about relativistic dynamics.

Which you don't understand at all.

> > Obviously, you either haven't read it or don't understand tachyons.
> > In addition, you have exhibited hypocrisy since PCH, coea and others
> > have presented FTL scenarios (using tachyons), but you haven't taken
> > them to task for hypothesizing FTL signals. Why is that?
>
> Because coea had no mistakes in his scenarios, you DO.

coea's scenario is directly refuted by appeal to tachyon energy
considerations. If D, who is moving away from A, tries to send an
infinitely-fast tachyon signal to A, it will not reach A. If it
doesn't reach A, then A cannot receive the signal before he sends it.
Q.E.D.

OTOH, if D sends the signal at c^2/v (where v is the relative velocity
between D and A), then A will receive it at infinite speed (relative
to himself). This corroborates the assertions I made in the earlier
versions of the paper, which you claimed were "disastrous." It turns
out that they were correct, but I didn't have the strong support for
them that I do now.

And you are STILL making vacuous claims void of any evidence for them
whatever. So far, I'm cutting you slack here and explaining what you
could have found had you read the paper and tried to understand it.

[Dono,]

The point was , old deluded fart, that its mass is NOT zero, hence it takes infinite energy to accelerate it, exactly my point that you are trying (and failing) to evade.

>
> > So, my objection still holds.
>
> No, it does not. Better review a math book on imaginary numbers.
>

I did, imaginary numbers are not zero, old delusional fart.

> > Look, Gary, your previous paper was a disaster ,
>
> I wouldn't put it that way. It was a record of a journey.
>

Still worthless. Will die in vixra, the repository of crackpottery.

> > since you clearly showed that you do not understand relativistic
> > kinematics.
>
> Let's say that I jumped to conclusions in version one, and didn't have
> everything nailed down in v2.
>

Rubbish then, rubbish now.

[Elfové Kubanská]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> But their mass is NOT zero.
>
> Of course not, it's IMAGINARY. Did you sleep through your math class
> that discussed imaginary numbers? "Imaginary" doesn't necessarily mean
> zero any more that the real numbers necessarily mean zero.
>
>> So, my objection still holds.
>
> No, it does not. Better review a math book on imaginary numbers.

"necessarily" is useless in physics. You mix vaguous concomitant
terminology together. (concomitant: taking place same time). Lets hear
your version of imaginary "numbers", not in math, but physics.

[Elfové Kubanská]

You can't be serious. The above dismisses that paper already from
reading. Dynamics in mechanics involves large amount of PDEs, loops and
tensors. I bet there are none in your paper. (PDEs: going back and
forward in doing so the dynamics, a minimum of two points of simultaneous
measurement)

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 10:50:51 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>
> On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:30:09 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:26:33 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
> > >
> > > But their mass is NOT zero.
> >
> > Of course not, it's IMAGINARY.
>
> The point was , old deluded fart, that its mass is NOT zero, hence it
> takes infinite energy to accelerate it, exactly my point that you are
> trying (and failing) to evade.

Well, old ignorant road apple, a tachyon started at a speed greater
than c so it didn't have to be accelerated through the light barrier.
You continue to misunderstand physics in general. Do you believe
that a photon was going the same speed as its source before it was
emitted? Of course not. It was created at the instant of emission
traveling at c. The same applies to a tachyon.

> > > So, my objection still holds.
> >
> > No, it does not. Better review a math book on imaginary numbers.
> >
>
> I did, imaginary numbers are not zero, old delusional fart.

Irrelevant, old dog-log. Tachyons have imaginary mass and must ALWAYS
go faster than light.

> > > Look, Gary, your previous paper was a disaster ,
> >
> > I wouldn't put it that way. It was a record of a journey.
>
> Still worthless. Will die in vixra, the repository of crackpottery.

So now you're a prophet. From God's mouth to your ear :-)

> > > since you clearly showed that you do not understand relativistic
> > > kinematics.
> >
> > Let's say that I jumped to conclusions in version one, and didn't have
> > everything nailed down in v2.
>
> Rubbish then, rubbish now.

You still haven't mounted a viable rebuttal. Maybe you should actually
read v3, and while your at it, read Feinberg's paper as well as the
referenced papers on neutrinos.

But you are skirting the point of the paper yourself. Tachyons may or
may not exist, but they are just an artifice to investigate whether
causality is violated by FTL communication. I maintain that it is not.

And you, sir, are being hypocritical. You allow PCH to presume the
existence of tachyons to "prove" that causality would be violated by
them, but you don't allow me to presume their existence to prove
that causality would NOT be violated.

Do you understand what pettifogging nonsense you're perpetrating?

[Elfové Kubanská]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Tachyons have imaginary mass and must ALWAYS go faster than light.

which law of nature? Which country would be that?

[Dono,]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 8:09:34 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 10:50:51 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
> a tachyon started at a speed greater
> than c so it didn't have to be accelerated through the light barrier.

But that is not what you are writing in your shit paper

> > > > Look, Gary, your previous paper was a disaster ,
> > >
> > > I wouldn't put it that way. It was a record of a journey.
> >
> > Still worthless. Will die in vixra, the repository of crackpottery.
>
> So now you're a prophet.

Well, look at the previous two versions of your garbage

>
> But you are skirting the point of the paper yourself. Tachyons may or
> may not exist, but they are just an artifice to investigate whether
> causality is violated by FTL communication. I maintain that it is not.
>

No one gives a shit what a deluded old fart claims

> And you, sir, are being hypocritical. You allow PCH to presume the
> existence of tachyons to "prove" that causality would be violated by
> them, but you don't allow me to presume their existence to prove
> that causality would NOT be violated.
>

I was never referring to PCH, I only referred to coea in exposing your many mistakes. BTW, you still have mistakes in your Minkowski diagrams, in your third version.

[Dono,]

"it is not physically possible to send a tachyon signal"

Who writes this shit? An imbecile who doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Dono,]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 1:07:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Eq (2) comes from QED which was derived for subluminal particles (and photons). No reason to apply it to tachyons, you pulled this paragraph out of your ass.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 9:33:56 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>
> On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 8:09:34 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 10:50:51 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:

> > > ....

> >
> > a tachyon started at a speed greater than c so it didn't have to be
> > accelerated through the light barrier.
>
> But that is not what you are writing in your shit paper

I NEVER said the tachyon accelerated through c, as you dishonestly claim.

And I'll thank you to use civil language instead of your usual guttersnipe
talk.

And you still being hypocritical rather than focusing on the overall
point of the paper

> > > Still worthless. Will die in vixra, the repository of crackpottery.
> >
> > So now you're a prophet.
>
> Well, look at the previous two versions of your garbage

I've explained reality but you continue to wallow in narrow-mindedness.

> > But you are skirting the point of the paper yourself. Tachyons may or
> > may not exist, but they are just an artifice to investigate whether
> > causality is violated by FTL communication. I maintain that it is not.
>
> No one gives a shit what a deluded old fart claims

My, but you are such a prejudiced, self-righteous bigot!

> > And you, sir, are being hypocritical. You allow PCH to presume the
> > existence of tachyons to "prove" that causality would be violated by
> > them, but you don't allow me to presume their existence to prove
> > that causality would NOT be violated.
>
> I was never referring to PCH, I only referred to coea in exposing
> your many mistakes.

Coea used the same FTL communication methods, so you're splitting hairs
in a misbegotten attempt to justify your bigotry.

> BTW, you still have mistakes in your Minkowski diagrams, in your
> third version.

Assertion without evidence, your SOP.

> "it is not physically possible to send a tachyon signal"
>
> Who writes this shit? An imbecile who doesn't know what he's talking
> about.

More SOP: Take a sentence out of context and smear the writer.

> Eq (2) comes from QED

I'm afraid you're displaying your ignarance ... again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%e2%80%93momentum_relation#Origins_and_derivation_of_the_equation

"The Energy–momentum relation was first established by Paul Dirac in 1928"

which was LONG before QED.

> which was derived for subluminal particles (and photons). No reason
> to apply it to tachyons, you pulled this paragraph out of your ass.

And you display your ignorance ... Again!!

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html

"Now the fundamental fact of relativity is that

"E² − p² = m²"

"what if we take the rest mass m, and take it to be imaginary?"

So you dishonestly attributed imaginary mass to me and then vented your
spleen at me, which is another example of your hypocrisy. Feinberg was
the first one to do it back in 1967 and other physicists have followed
the pattern. You'd have known this if you followed the references in
my paper.

Your research abilities really suck. So does your ability to look at
the big picture instead of rooting around at the bottom of a hog wallow.

[Dono,]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 9:29:13 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 9:33:56 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 8:09:34 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 10:50:51 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
> > > > ....
> > >
> > > a tachyon started at a speed greater than c so it didn't have to be
> > > accelerated through the light barrier.
> >
> > But that is not what you are writing in your shit paper
>
> I NEVER said the tachyon accelerated through c, as you dishonestly claim.
>

But the point was that tachyons, by virtue of having NON-ZERO mass cannot move at "c", let alone at "u>c", dishonest imbecile. You argued that tachyons have imaginary mass, as if that would allow them to move at c or u>c.

> And you still being hypocritical rather than focusing on the overall
> point of the paper
>

I am just pointing your imbecilities gathered into what you call your "paper"

> I've explained reality but you continue to wallow in narrow-mindedness.

Then why did you have to take down the previous two versions? I'll tell you why: because they were rife with mistakes, like the current one.

> My, but you are such a prejudiced, self-righteous bigot!

I am simply pointing out that you produced a heap of shi <shrug>

> Coea used the same FTL communication methods, so you're splitting hairs
> in a misbegotten attempt to justify your bigotry.
>

But, unlike you, his Minkowski diagrams are correct. Yours were wrong and are STILL wrong in the current version. ALL of them, you are unable to do the elementary exercise of producing a correct Minkowski diagram.

> > BTW, you still have mistakes in your Minkowski diagrams, in your
> > third version.
>
> Assertion without evidence, your SOP.
>

ALL your diagrams are dead wrong. If you submitted your "paper" to a peer reviewed journal (which you are NOT going to do), the first thing the reviewers will latch on is your gross mistakes in the Minkowski diagrams. BTW, your fig. 6 is also wrong.

> > "it is not physically possible to send a tachyon signal"
> >
> > Who writes this shit? An imbecile who doesn't know what he's talking
> > about.
>
> More SOP: Take a sentence out of context and smear the writer.
>

Well, the writer is already full of shit.

> > Eq (2) comes from QED
>
> I'm afraid you're displaying your ignarance ... again:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%e2%80%93momentum_relation#Origins_and_derivation_of_the_equation
>
> "The Energy–momentum relation was first established by Paul Dirac in 1928"
>
> which was LONG before QED.
>

Dumbfuck, it is the foundation of QED. The main point escapes you:

> > which was derived for subluminal particles (and photons). No reason
> > to apply it to tachyons, you pulled this paragraph out of your ass.
>

There is no reason to apply QED in general and SR in particular to tachyons. This is the first thing I told you when I saw your first version.

> And you display your ignorance ... Again!!
>
> http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html
>
> "Now the fundamental fact of relativity is that
>
> "E² − p² = m²"
>
> "what if we take the rest mass m, and take it to be imaginary?"
>

Algebraic manipulation isn't physics.

> Your research abilities really suck.

They are good enough to point out that you are producing piles of dung <shrug>

[Dono,]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 9:29:13 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > Eq (2) comes from QED
>
> I'm afraid you're displaying your ignarance ... again:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%e2%80%93momentum_relation#Origins_and_derivation_of_the_equation
>
> "The Energy–momentum relation was first established by Paul Dirac in 1928"
>
> which was LONG before QED.
>

BS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics#History

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 1:30:55 PM UTC-6, Dono, fooled himself:

>
> But the point was that tachyons, by virtue of having NON-ZERO mass
> cannot move at "c",

Of course, they can't.

> let alone at "u>c", dishonest imbecile.

You have yet to explain why you haven't called coea and PCH "dishonest
imbeciles" for employing faster-than-light particles, hypocrite.

> You argued that tachyons have imaginary mass, as if that would allow
> them to move at c or u>c.

I'm not the one that invented the concept of tachyons with imaginary
mass. Obviously, you still need to read up and UNDERSTAND about them.

> > And you still being hypocritical rather than focusing on the overall
> > point of the paper
> >
>
> I am just pointing your imbecilities gathered into what you call your
> "paper"

Now you're lying. The point of the paper is that FTL does NOT result in
going back in time and creating causality violations. You have done
NOTHING to rebut the main point, preferring to dwell on your own
misconceptions about tachyons.

> > I've explained reality but you continue to wallow in narrow-mindedness.
>
> Then why did you have to take down the previous two versions? I'll tell
> you why: because they were rife with mistakes, like the current one.

And now you're lying again. The other two versions are still up. Your
ability to perceive reality is very, very poor.

> > My, but you are such a prejudiced, self-righteous bigot!
>
> I am simply pointing out that you produced a heap of shi <shrug>

And that's another lie. All you've done so far is attempt to prove
that Feinberg and everyone else who discussed tachyons were imbeciles.

> > Coea used the same FTL communication methods, so you're splitting hairs
> > in a misbegotten attempt to justify your bigotry.
>
> But, unlike you, his Minkowski diagrams are correct. Yours were wrong
> and are STILL wrong in the current version. ALL of them, you are unable
> to do the elementary exercise of producing a correct Minkowski diagram.

You haven't explained HOW they're wrong. Until you do, you're just a
gnat. In fact, NONE of your arm-waving has amounted to anything.

> > > BTW, you still have mistakes in your Minkowski diagrams, in your
> > > third version.
> >
> > Assertion without evidence, your SOP.
>
> ALL your diagrams are dead wrong. If you submitted your "paper" to a
> peer reviewed journal (which you are NOT going to do), the first thing
> the reviewers will latch on is your gross mistakes in the Minkowski
> diagrams.

So be a helper instead of a gnat. Tell me what's wrong with them.

> BTW, your fig. 6 is also wrong.

Oh? How so?

> > > "it is not physically possible to send a tachyon signal"
> > >
> > > Who writes this shit? An imbecile who doesn't know what he's talking
> > > about.
> >
> > More SOP: Take a sentence out of context and smear the writer.
>
> Well, the writer is already full of shit.

Pot, kettle, black :-))

> > > Eq (2) comes from QED
> >
> > I'm afraid you're displaying your ignarance ... again:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%e2%80%93momentum_relation#Origins_and_derivation_of_the_equation
> >
> > "The Energy–momentum relation was first established by Paul Dirac in
> > 1928"
> >
> > which was LONG before QED.
>
> Dumbfuck, it is the foundation of QED.

Oh, so you made a mistake and got it backwards, but it's MY fault?
You'd better calm down. Your ranting isn't good for your blood
pressure.

> > And you display your ignorance ... Again!!
> >
> > http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html
> >
> > "Now the fundamental fact of relativity is that
> >
> > "E² − p² = m²"
> >
> > "what if we take the rest mass m, and take it to be imaginary?"
>
> Algebraic manipulation isn't physics.

But castigating all the physicists who has invoked tachyons IS?

>
> > Your research abilities really suck.
>
> They are good enough to point out that you are producing piles of dung
> <shrug>

"<Shrug>? SO you are actually a delusional Australian operating under
a new name? :-))

> > "The Energy–momentum relation was first established by Paul Dirac
> > in 1928"
> >
> > which was LONG before QED.
>

> BS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics#History

Which agrees with me:

"A first indication of a possible way out was given by Hans Bethe in
1947"

That was a step toward QED. It wasn't there yet. As I said, you seem
to be incapable of doing effective research. Perhaps because of an
excessive ego problem.

Once again, you have failed to score a single point against my thesis,
let alone backed up your scurrilous accusations. You've spent all your
time in a hog wallow trying to dirty Gerald Feinberg, coea, PCH, David
Mermin, and others, including Raymond Chiao:

""We are beginning an experiment at Berkeley to detect tachyon-like
quasiparticles. There are strong scientific reasons to believe that
such quasiparticles really exist, because Maxwell's equations, when
coupled to inverted atomic media, lead inexorably to tachyon-like
solutions."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-known-about-tachy/

But this is beside the point because even if tachyons don't exist, other
FTL mechanisms exist in general relativity. Suppose a wormhole or a
warp field carries a signal from moving D back to stationary A faster
than light, then the wormhole or warp field turns off (or moves away).
You're left with flat spacetime and apparent causality violation, just
as if a tachyon really did exist.

I mentioned this in my paper, which you obviously have neither read nor
understood. You rely on more knowledgeable folk like PCH and coea to
mount a penetrating rebuttal and then you pile on and defecate, which
is your SOP.

So you have done your worst, but it was worthless, as usual. Better
call for help.

[Dono,]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 3:12:32 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 1:30:55 PM UTC-6, Dono, fooled himself:
> >
> > But the point was that tachyons, by virtue of having NON-ZERO mass
> > cannot move at "c",
>
> Of course, they can't.
>
> > let alone at "u>c", dishonest imbecile.
>
> You have yet to explain why you haven't called coea and PCH "dishonest
> imbeciles" for employing faster-than-light particles, hypocrite.
>

We are talking about YOUR shit paper. Get it, wacko?

> > You argued that tachyons have imaginary mass, as if that would allow
> > them to move at c or u>c.
>
> I'm not the one that invented the concept of tachyons with imaginary
> mass. Obviously, you still need to read up and UNDERSTAND about them.
>

The fact that you didn't invent that doesn't mean that you aren't spouting imbecilities. Stop deflecting, it is about your shit paper.

> > > And you still being hypocritical rather than focusing on the overall
> > > point of the paper
> > >
> >
> > I am just pointing your imbecilities gathered into what you call your
> > "paper"
>
> Now you're lying. The point of the paper is that FTL does NOT result in
> going back in time and creating causality violations.

But all your Minkowski diagrams are filled with mistakes, so you aren't proving what you claim you are.

> > > I've explained reality but you continue to wallow in narrow-mindedness.
> >
> > Then why did you have to take down the previous two versions? I'll tell
> > you why: because they were rife with mistakes, like the current one.
>
> And now you're lying again. The other two versions are still up. Your
> ability to perceive reality is very, very poor.
>

OK, so your prior imbecilities are still there. Congratulations!

> > > My, but you are such a prejudiced, self-righteous bigot!
> >
> > I am simply pointing out that you produced a heap of shi <shrug>
>
> And that's another lie. All you've done so far is attempt to prove
> that Feinberg and everyone else who discussed tachyons were imbeciles.
>

No, this label is reserved for you.

> > > Coea used the same FTL communication methods, so you're splitting hairs
> > > in a misbegotten attempt to justify your bigotry.
> >
> > But, unlike you, his Minkowski diagrams are correct. Yours were wrong
> > and are STILL wrong in the current version. ALL of them, you are unable
> > to do the elementary exercise of producing a correct Minkowski diagram.
>
> You haven't explained HOW they're wrong.

If you weren't such an annoying POS, I would have. Given that you are an annoying POS, I will let you bask in your ignorance.

> > > > BTW, you still have mistakes in your Minkowski diagrams, in your
> > > > third version.
> > >
> > > Assertion without evidence, your SOP.
> >
> > ALL your diagrams are dead wrong. If you submitted your "paper" to a
> > peer reviewed journal (which you are NOT going to do), the first thing
> > the reviewers will latch on is your gross mistakes in the Minkowski
> > diagrams.
>
> So be a helper instead of a gnat. Tell me what's wrong with them.
>

Find them yourself, they are quite obvious.

> > BTW, your fig. 6 is also wrong.
>
> Oh? How so?
>

:-)

>
> Pot, kettle, black :-))
>
> > > > Eq (2) comes from QED
> > >
> > > I'm afraid you're displaying your ignarance ... again:
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%e2%80%93momentum_relation#Origins_and_derivation_of_the_equation
> > >
> > > "The Energy–momentum relation was first established by Paul Dirac in
> > > 1928"
> > >
> > > which was LONG before QED.
> >
> > Dumbfuck, it is the foundation of QED.
>
> Oh, so you made a mistake and got it backwards, but it's MY fault?

Cretinoid, I sent you the link, QED dates from 1920, utter imbecile.

> >
> > Algebraic manipulation isn't physics.
>
> But castigating all the physicists who has invoked tachyons IS?

Only the old fart Gary Harnagel is being discussed here.

>
> > > "The Energy–momentum relation was first established by Paul Dirac
> > > in 1928"
> > >
> > > which was LONG before QED.
> >
> > BS:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics#History
>
> Which agrees with me:
>
> "A first indication of a possible way out was given by Hans Bethe in
> 1947"
>

Dumbestfuck

Once again, QED dates back to 1920.

> Once again, you have failed to score a single point against my thesis,

The classical crackpot ansswer, you will never learn.

> You rely on more knowledgeable folk like PCH and coea to
> mount a penetrating rebuttal

Nah, I pointed out from the very beginning that you cannot have the LT for the case v>c. Because of that, you cannot make use of the velocity composition rule. That was the first rebuttal, way before coea and PCH. You conveniently "forgot"

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 4:42:55 PM UTC-6, Dono, dissembled:

>
> On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 3:12:32 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 1:30:55 PM UTC-6, Dono, fooled himself:
> > >
> > > But the point was that tachyons, by virtue of having NON-ZERO mass
> > > cannot move at "c",
> >
> > Of course, they can't.
> >
> > > let alone at "u>c", dishonest imbecile.
> >
> > You have yet to explain why you haven't called coea and PCH "dishonest
> > imbeciles" for employing faster-than-light particles, hypocrite.
>
> We are talking about YOUR shit paper. Get it, wacko?

All I did was reference Feinberg, so you are calling him a wacko.
You DO know what those little superscript numbers mean, don't you?

And since PCH and coea employed tachyons then you are calling them
wackos, too.

> > > You argued that tachyons have imaginary mass, as if that would allow
> > > them to move at c or u>c.
> >
> > I'm not the one that invented the concept of tachyons with imaginary
> > mass. Obviously, you still need to read up and UNDERSTAND about them.
>
> The fact that you didn't invent that doesn't mean that you aren't
> spouting imbecilities. Stop deflecting, it is about your shit paper.

It certainly is not about my paper that you are denigrating. It is
about you defecating on respected physicists.

> > > > And you still being hypocritical rather than focusing on the overall
> > > > point of the paper
> > >
> > > I am just pointing your imbecilities gathered into what you call your
> > > "paper"
> >
> > Now you're lying. The point of the paper is that FTL does NOT result in
> > going back in time and creating causality violations.
>
> But all your Minkowski diagrams are filled with mistakes, so you aren't
> proving what you claim you are.

Repetition with no backup ... again. You most likely are just
repeating lies.

> > > Then why did you have to take down the previous two versions?
> > > I'll tell you why: because they were rife with mistakes, like the
> > > current one.
> >
> > And now you're lying again. The other two versions are still up. Your
> > ability to perceive reality is very, very poor.

> OK, so your prior imbecilities are still there. Congratulations!

And your imbecilities will be HERE forever.

> > > > My, but you are such a prejudiced, self-righteous bigot!
> > >
> > > I am simply pointing out that you produced a heap of shi <shrug>
> >
> > And that's another lie. All you've done so far is attempt to prove
> > that Feinberg and everyone else who discussed tachyons were imbeciles.
>
> No, this label is reserved for you.

Stop lying to yourself. Your blunderbuss hits a wide target.

> > > > Coea used the same FTL communication methods, so you're
> > > > splitting hairs in a misbegotten attempt to justify your bigotry.
> > >
> > > But, unlike you, his Minkowski diagrams are correct. Yours were
> > > wrong and are STILL wrong in the current version. ALL of them,
> > > you are unable to do the elementary exercise of producing a
> > > correct Minkowski diagram.
> >
> > You haven't explained HOW they're wrong.
>
> If you weren't such an annoying POS, I would have.

:-))) You're projecting your own behavior, hypocrite.

> Given that you are an annoying POS, I will let you bask in your
> ignorance.

I'm not the one defecating all over respected physicists.

> > > ALL your diagrams are dead wrong. If you submitted your "paper" to a
> > > peer reviewed journal (which you are NOT going to do), the first thing
> > > the reviewers will latch on is your gross mistakes in the Minkowski
> > > diagrams.
> >
> > So be a helper instead of a gnat. Tell me what's wrong with them.
>
> Find them yourself, they are quite obvious.

IOW, you haven't a clue, gnat.

> > > BTW, your fig. 6 is also wrong.
> >
> > Oh? How so?

No answer from the congenital liar with a damaged ego.

> > Oh, so you made a mistake and got it backwards, but it's MY fault?
>
> Cretinoid, I sent you the link, QED dates from 1920, utter imbecile.

So you can't even read the links you post. See below.

> > > Algebraic manipulation isn't physics.
> >
> > But castigating all the physicists who has invoked tachyons IS?
>
> Only the old fart Gary Harnagel is being discussed here.

You are denigrating respectable physicists but are too spiteful to
realize it.

> > > > "The Energy–momentum relation was first established by Paul Dirac
> > > > in 1928"
> > > >
> > > > which was LONG before QED.
> > >
> > > BS:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics#History
> >
> > Which agrees with me:
> >
> > "A first indication of a possible way out was given by Hans Bethe in
> > 1947"
> >
>
> Dumbestfuck
>
> Once again, QED dates back to 1920.

You shouldn't keep repeating falsehoods. They become outright lies.

> > Once again, you have failed to score a single point against my thesis,
>
> The classical crackpot ansswer, you will never learn.

The classical hateful, delusional sycophant.

> > You rely on more knowledgeable folk like PCH and coea to
> > mount a penetrating rebuttal
>
> Nah, I pointed out from the very beginning that you cannot have
> the LT for the case v>c.

Which is just another example of your cluelessness. Observers A, B,
C and D were all moving slower than c. Score another stupid point
for you.

> Because of that, you cannot make use of the velocity composition
> rule. That was the first rebuttal, way before coea and PCH. You
> conveniently "forgot"

I haven't forgotten that you haven't a clue about what you're talking
about. And your stupidity will be enshrined here forever.

I've had enough of your worthless, feeble-minded "rebuttals" and
vaunting arrogance. It's hard to believe you could lose points when
you had none to begin with. Send in the first-string, you have
humiliated your team.

[Dono,]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 7:19:12 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 4:42:55 PM UTC-6, Dono, dissembled:
> >
> > On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 3:12:32 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 1:30:55 PM UTC-6, Dono, fooled himself:
> > > >
> > > > But the point was that tachyons, by virtue of having NON-ZERO mass
> > > > cannot move at "c",
> > >
> > > Of course, they can't.
> > >
> > > > let alone at "u>c", dishonest imbecile.
> > >
> > > You have yet to explain why you haven't called coea and PCH "dishonest
> > > imbeciles" for employing faster-than-light particles, hypocrite.
> >
> > We are talking about YOUR shit paper. Get it, wacko?
>
> All I did was reference Feinberg, so you are calling him a wacko.

No, I am calling YOU a wacko.

> > > > You argued that tachyons have imaginary mass, as if that would allow
> > > > them to move at c or u>c.
> > >
> > > I'm not the one that invented the concept of tachyons with imaginary
> > > mass. Obviously, you still need to read up and UNDERSTAND about them.
> >
> > The fact that you didn't invent that doesn't mean that you aren't
> > spouting imbecilities. Stop deflecting, it is about your shit paper.
>
> It certainly is not about my paper that you are denigrating.

I am not denigrating, your previous two versions were shit, so is this one.

> > > > > And you still being hypocritical rather than focusing on the overall
> > > > > point of the paper
> > > >
> > > > I am just pointing your imbecilities gathered into what you call your
> > > > "paper"
> > >
> > > Now you're lying. The point of the paper is that FTL does NOT result in
> > > going back in time and creating causality violations.
> >
> > But all your Minkowski diagrams are filled with mistakes, so you aren't
> > proving what you claim you are.
>
> Repetition with no backup ... again. You most likely are just
> repeating lies.

You are very similar with the other two cranks, Pat Dolan and Ned Latham: you want to make the other correct your errors.

> > Given that you are an annoying POS, I will let you bask in your
> > ignorance.
>
> I'm not the one defecating all over respected physicists.
>

I am not defecating, I am simply pointing out that YOU wrote shit, not once but three times now.

> > Cretinoid, I sent you the link, QED dates from 1920, utter imbecile.
>

>

> > > > Algebraic manipulation isn't physics.
> > >
> > > But castigating all the physicists who has invoked tachyons IS?
> >
> > Only the old fart Gary Harnagel is being discussed here.
>
> You are denigrating respectable physicists but are too spiteful to
> realize it.
>

No, I am pointing out that you wrote garbage. This is the third revision of your garbage.

> > Dumbestfuck
> >
> > Once again, QED dates back to 1920.
>
> You shouldn't keep repeating falsehoods. They become outright lies.
>

Wiki says that you are in denial.

>
> > > You rely on more knowledgeable folk like PCH and coea to
> > > mount a penetrating rebuttal
> >
> > Nah, I pointed out from the very beginning that you cannot have
> > the LT for the case v>c.
>
> Which is just another example of your cluelessness. Observers A, B,
> C and D were all moving slower than c. Score another stupid point
> for you.
>

But your particles were moving FASTER than "c", so the formula DOES NOT APPLY, utter imbecile.

[Mitch Raemsch]

Faster than light matter would momentum exchange
when encountering real matter...
Do we observe that?
How could we not if they are real?
No. There is a speed limit order instead...

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 8:57:16 PM UTC-6, Dono, defecated:

>
> You are very similar with the other two cranks, Pat Dolan and Ned
> Latham: you want to make the other correct your errors.

YOU are the crude lying delusional fool acting like Noxious Ned.

Repeating lies is your SOP. Boring! When are you going to start
acting like a decent person?

"There is a big difference between a human being and being human."
-- Anonymous

[Ned Latham]

Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote:
> Dono, defecated:
> >
> > You are very similar with the other two cranks, Pat Dolan and Ned
> > Latham: you want to make the other correct your errors.
>
> YOU are the crude lying delusional fool acting like Noxious Ned.

You're a lying maggot, Fuckknuckle.

----snip----

[Garçon Richelieu]

Gary Harnagel redundantly reentered the loop:

>> You argued that tachyons have imaginary mass, as if that would allow
>> them to move at c or u>c.
>
> I'm not the one that invented the concept of tachyons with imaginary
> mass. Obviously, you still need to read up and UNDERSTAND about them

Iow, you stealing lemmas, axioms and theories, like everybody else.

[Garçon Richelieu]

no, he isn't

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database#q/
page=3

Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs 2020
Family Planning Global Development $300,000

these are those guys with those "death numbers" etc interactive covid19
_global map_, put together before contamination. Why, because the "knew"
it has to go global.

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html

nice catch. Thank you. This settles the debate.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

FTL and Tachyon Dynamics? Move the light.

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/24/20 3:07 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> [...]

There is a rather large literature on the subject of tachyons in SPECIAL
relativity.

[They are, of course, completely different from ordinary
massive particles, and there is no implication of a
normal object ever traveling faster than light, or of a
tachyon object traveling slower than light.]

The problem comes in General Relativity: if tachyons are able to
transfer energy faster than light, they imply that the manifold cannot
be globally hyperbolic, which means there is no assurance that the field
equations of GR have solutions.

While "no assurance of a solution" may sound like a
rather weak objection, in practice it is straightforward
to construct counterexamples in which the field equations
either have no solution or give wildly unphysical results.

So to consider tachyons, one is left with two unappealing alternatives:
1. tachyons cannot transfer energy faster than light.
IOW: they are completely unobservable.
2. General Relativity is wrong [#].

[#] Or at least does not apply when tachyons are present.
(Which amounts to either GR is wrong, or tachyons don't
exist.)

Until and unless there is experimental evidence for their existence,
I see no good reason to investigate tachyons. I consider them to be a
curiosity of SR that does not carry over into GR.

Tom Roberts

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Tachyons, _in the theory_, are the particles, as the photons
are particles, in particle physics' space-frame.

Here when there is frame contraction and the light would
attenuate or intensify, it is always intensifying _away_, in
the sense, that unlike a pressure model, of photons as
a gas, that they actively move instead of exert mutual pressure,
the photons, making wave-front and wave-train.

Then, when there is focus adjustment, the "light" itself is
actually reflectable, in the image, over the moment or
behind as information, what must be information.

Here the spectacle then in outcomes, is under reflection,
that the apparent image, is as well under expectations
locally, that the light arrived.

The Allais effect seems the most terrestrial, for setting up
an Allais experiment at the LaGrange, and for generally the
Allais effect of relevant solar moments, is for seeing that
light is a property of configuration, as is image, under
the tachyon dynamics, that photons are massless and
don't but naturally reflect over gravity's "infinite" speed,
that it is actually an equilibrium for them to do so the photons,
as to why their content that could later excite matter and
give it more effective mass, is that light is cast away except
for the single direction of the image (as a "giant massy photon").

It's not that tachyons can't transfer "energy" so much as, "information".

Though, that's conserved or the "content", the conserved quantity, "energy".

Here this is for that matter is eventually sparse and
(the space of) photons is eventually dense.

These are tachyons the photons, not tachyons the contents
of the space-frame, which are bradyons.

(Those tachyons instead are the super-symmetric partners
in supergravity momentum invariance breaking.)

[Gary Harnagel]

Hi Tom,

There is also a lot of literature based on the hypothetical existence
of particles that travel faster than light which "prove" that they
would violate causality, thus "proving" that they can't exist.

My thesis is that any particle which travels FTL (in the context of
special relativity) must obey the kinematics and dynamics of a tachyon.
I believe I have shown in v3 of my paper that tachyons cannot communi-
cate infinitely-fast between receiver and transmitter that are moving
wrt each other, such as is the case for typical "disproofs" (e.g.,
Mermin, etc.). The limitations are just what is required to prevent
backward-in-time behavior, thus saving us from causality violations.

As for GR, wouldn't there be some similarity between a tachyon and
warp metrics or wormholes?

Gary

[Dono,]

Why don't you sent your "masterpiece" to prof. Mermin?

[Ned Latham]

Dono, wrote:
> Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > tjrob137 wrote:
> > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > There is a rather large literature on the subject of tachyons in SPECIAL
> > > relativity.
> > >
> > > [They are, of course, completely different from ordinary
> > > massive particles, and there is no implication of a
> > > normal object ever traveling faster than light, or of a
> > > tachyon object traveling slower than light.]
> > >
> > > The problem comes in General Relativity: if tachyons are able to
> > > transfer energy faster than light, they imply that the manifold cannot
> > > be globally hyperbolic, which means there is no assurance that the field
> > > equations of GR have solutions.
> > >
> > > While "no assurance of a solution" may sound like a
> > > rather weak objection, in practice it is straightforward
> > > to construct counterexamples in which the field equations
> > > either have no solution or give wildly unphysical results.
> > >
> > > So to consider tachyons, one is left with two unappealing alternatives:
> > > 1. tachyons cannot transfer energy faster than light.
> > > IOW: they are completely unobservable.
> > > 2. General Relativity is wrong [#].
> > >
> > > [#] Or at least does not apply when tachyons are present.
> > > (Which amounts to either GR is wrong, or tachyons don't
> > > exist.)

Well, there *is* that little matter of its inconsistency with QM.

> > > Until and unless there is experimental evidence for their existence,
> > > I see no good reason to investigate tachyons. I consider them to be a
> > > curiosity of SR that does not carry over into GR.
> >

> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > There is also a lot of literature based on the hypothetical existence
> > of particles that travel faster than light which "prove" that they
> > would violate causality, thus "proving" that they can't exist.
> >
> > My thesis is that any particle which travels FTL (in the context of
> > special relativity) must obey the kinematics and dynamics of a tachyon.
> > I believe I have shown in v3 of my paper that tachyons cannot communi-
> > cate infinitely-fast between receiver and transmitter that are moving
> > wrt each other, such as is the case for typical "disproofs" (e.g.,
> > Mermin, etc.). The limitations are just what is required to prevent
> > backward-in-time behavior, thus saving us from causality violations.
> >
> > As for GR, wouldn't there be some similarity between a tachyon and
> > warp metrics or wormholes?
>

> Why don't you sent your "masterpiece" to prof. Mermin?

Or take a look at the field energy equation and how it affects the
motion of particles at speeds above and below c.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 9:26:19 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
>
> Dono, wrote:
> >
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > tjrob137 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So to consider tachyons, one is left with two unappealing
> > > > alternatives:
> > > > 1. tachyons cannot transfer energy faster than light.
> > > > IOW: they are completely unobservable.
> > > > 2. General Relativity is wrong [#].
> > > >
> > > > [#] Or at least does not apply when tachyons are present.
> > > > (Which amounts to either GR is wrong, or tachyons don't
> > > > exist.)
>
> Well, there *is* that little matter of its inconsistency with QM.

You make a point.

> > Why don't you sent your "masterpiece" to prof. Mermin?
>
> Or take a look at the field energy equation and how it affects the
> motion of particles at speeds above and below c.

If you mean E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4, that's what I did in my paper.

[Ned Latham]

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Dono, wrote:
> > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > So to consider tachyons, one is left with two unappealing
> > > > > alternatives:
> > > > > 1. tachyons cannot transfer energy faster than light.
> > > > > IOW: they are completely unobservable.
> > > > > 2. General Relativity is wrong [#].
> > > > >
> > > > > [#] Or at least does not apply when tachyons are present.
> > > > > (Which amounts to either GR is wrong, or tachyons don't
> > > > > exist.)
> >
> > Well, there *is* that little matter of its inconsistency with QM.
>
> You make a point.

It happens from time to time. Mostly doesn't get acknowledged.

Thank you.

> > > Why don't you sent your "masterpiece" to prof. Mermin?
> >
> > Or take a look at the field energy equation and how it affects the
> > motion of particles at speeds above and below c.
>
> If you mean E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4, that's what I did in my paper.

No, it's in my theory. It has nothing to do with position; instead,
it describes a speed effect[1] on field strength.

Phi(v) = sgn(c - v) sqrt(1 / abs(1 - v² / c²)). Have a look at a plot.

Note too that in the domain [0..c), it degenerates to gamma(v).
----
[1] Speed of particles moving in the field.

[Dono,]

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 8:53:53 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 9:26:19 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > Dono, wrote:
> > >
> > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > So to consider tachyons, one is left with two unappealing
> > > > > alternatives:
> > > > > 1. tachyons cannot transfer energy faster than light.
> > > > > IOW: they are completely unobservable.
> > > > > 2. General Relativity is wrong [#].
> > > > >
> > > > > [#] Or at least does not apply when tachyons are present.
> > > > > (Which amounts to either GR is wrong, or tachyons don't
> > > > > exist.)
> >
> > Well, there *is* that little matter of its inconsistency with QM.
>
> You make a point.
>

The Harnagel and Latham kooks in a lovely agreement :-)

[Dono,]

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 9:41:58 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote:
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > Dono, wrote:
> > > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > > tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So to consider tachyons, one is left with two unappealing
> > > > > > alternatives:
> > > > > > 1. tachyons cannot transfer energy faster than light.
> > > > > > IOW: they are completely unobservable.
> > > > > > 2. General Relativity is wrong [#].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [#] Or at least does not apply when tachyons are present.
> > > > > > (Which amounts to either GR is wrong, or tachyons don't
> > > > > > exist.)
> > >
> > > Well, there *is* that little matter of its inconsistency with QM.
> >
> > You make a point.
>
> It happens from time to time. Mostly doesn't get acknowledged.
>
> Thank you.
>

Lovely, the Harnagel and Latham kooks are in love with each other :-)

[Ned Latham]

Given the reality of your life, a vicarious delusion would be about your
speed, Bonehead. Do enjoy it.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 10:43:40 PM UTC-6, Dono, misunderstood:

So you believe there is no inconsistency between GR and QM? How bizarre!
Don't YOU realize that they have fundamental disagreement?

So far, in their domains, both have been confirmed, yet QM (QFT, actually)
has been confirmed to more decimal places than GR. Your haste to twist
facts in attempts to smear people doesn't make you look good.

[Dono,]

Keep up the lovefests and the mutual admiration, kooks

[Dono,]

In your rush to salvage your shit paper you misread Tom's point (and you rushed to agree with your fellow crank, Ned Latham). Tom's contention to your paper has nothing to do with a potential inconsistency between GR and QM.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 8:00:30 AM UTC-6, Dono, misunderstood again:

>
> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 5:56:41 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 10:43:40 PM UTC-6, Dono, misunderstood:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 8:53:53 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 9:26:19 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, there *is* that little matter of its inconsistency with QM.
> > > >
> > > > You make a point.
> > >
> > > The Harnagel and Latham kooks in a lovely agreement :-)
> >
> > So you believe there is no inconsistency between GR and QM? How
> > bizarre!
> > Don't YOU realize that they have fundamental disagreement?
> >
> > So far, in their domains, both have been confirmed, yet QM (QFT,
> > actually) has been confirmed to more decimal places than GR. Your
> > haste to twist facts in attempts to smear people doesn't make you
> > look good.
>
> In your rush to salvage your shit paper you misread Tom's point

Actually, Tom misread MY point, which I explained in my response to
him, and which YOU still misunderstand:

PCH, coea, Mermin, Llewellyn, Tipler and many, many others use FTL
communication to show that FTL results in backward-in-time effects
which results in causality violations. Since such is absurd, FTL
cannot exist. What my paper shows is that FTL does NOT result in
causality violation based upon the physics behind tachyons as well
as other considerations.

Unfortunately for you, your skull is too thick for this to seep
through to your brain, so you tried to attack the existence of
tachyons, which isn't the point at all.

> (and you rushed to agree with your fellow crank, Ned Latham).

It was a "rush" only in your delusional mind, and you continue to
deflect from my question to you: do you believe that GR and QM are
in complete agreement?

> Tom's contention to your paper

I don't think Tom has read the latest version of the paper. He was
addressing the existence of tachyons.

> has nothing to do with a potential inconsistency between GR and QM.

It may, since Tom was considering tachyons in GR context. If GR is
more correct than QM, then Tom is right. But if QM is more correct
than GR, then Ned has a point. Note that SR is a subset of both GR
and QM (QED/QFT, actually). Isn't that interesting?

And the inconsistency between GR and QM is MORE than "potential."

[Bud Lemma]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> What my paper shows is that FTL does NOT result in causality violation
> based upon the physics behind tachyons as well as other considerations.

you see to many movies. Just think how absurd you sound. Think logic. An
event driven automata. You know nothing about.

[Dono,]

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 7:43:23 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> PCH, coea, Mermin, Llewellyn, Tipler and many, many others use FTL
> communication to show that FTL results in backward-in-time effects
> which results in causality violations. Since such is absurd, FTL
> cannot exist.

Theay are all correct

>What my paper shows is that FTL does NOT result in
> causality violation based upon the physics behind tachyons as well
> as other considerations.
>

But your paper is INCORRECT. It is riddled with mistakes.

> Unfortunately for you, your skull is too thick for this to seep
> through to your brain, so you tried to attack the existence of
> tachyons, which isn't the point at all.
>

Actually, I was feeling charitable and I was going to point out your mistakes. But, you being the asshole that you are, I will let you bask in the illusion that you have a correct paper.

> > Tom's contention to your paper
>
> I don't think Tom has read the latest version of the paper. He was
> addressing the existence of tachyons.

You chapter on tachyons is riddled with basic algebraic mistakes, stubborn imbecile. Took me a minute to spot them.

> It may, since Tom was considering tachyons in GR context. If GR is
> more correct than QM, then Tom is right. But if QM is more correct
> than GR, then Ned has a point.

Both you and Ned are incompetent. Live with it.

[Ned Latham]

Dono, wrote:
> Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > Dono, misunderstood:

> > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, there *is* that little matter of its inconsistency
> > > > > with QM.
> > > >
> > > > You make a point.
> > >
> > > The Harnagel and Latham kooks in a lovely agreement :-)
> >
> > So you believe there is no inconsistency between GR and QM? How
> > bizarre! Don't YOU realize that they have fundamental disagreement?
> >
> > So far, in their domains, both have been confirmed, yet QM (QFT,
> > actually) has been confirmed to more decimal places than GR. Your
> > haste to twist facts in attempts to smear people doesn't make you
> > look good.
>
> In your rush to salvage your shit paper you misread Tom's point
> (and you rushed to agree with your fellow crank, Ned Latham).
> Tom's contention to your paper has nothing to do with a potential
> inconsistency between GR and QM.

Pigshit. His message <s7qdnS4xmO7wJTjD...@giganews.com>:

| So to consider tachyons, one is left with two unappealing
| alternatives:
| 1. tachyons cannot transfer energy faster than light.
| IOW: they are completely unobservable.
| 2. General Relativity is wrong [#].

And GR's inconsistency with QM is relevant to that.

[Ned Latham]

Dono, wrote:

----snip----

> Actually, I was feeling charitable and I was going to point out
> your mistakes. But, you being the asshole that you are, I will
> let you bask in the illusion that you have a correct paper.

Wow. Bonehead made a joke.

----snip----

[Dono,]

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 8:31:37 AM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote:

> And GR's inconsistency with QM is relevant to that.

Nope, it isn't. Besides, your newly-found co-worker crackpot Gary Harnagel's paper fails on much more elementary reasons (despite its overly pompous tone like "block universe"). I think you two kooks should collaborate, you both have kooky "theories", you are both old and demented, give it a shot.

[Dono,]

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 8:35:11 AM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote:
> snip<-

[Ned Latham]

Dono, wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > And GR's inconsistency with QM is relevant to that.
>
> Nope, it isn't.

Wrong.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 8:53:11 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>
> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 7:43:23 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > PCH, coea, Mermin, Llewellyn, Tipler and many, many others use FTL
> > communication to show that FTL results in backward-in-time effects
> > which results in causality violations. Since such is absurd, FTL
> > cannot exist.
>
> Theay are all correct

Says the guy that doesn't understand the first thing about tachyons :-)

> > What my paper shows is that FTL does NOT result in causality
> > violation based upon the physics behind tachyons as well
> > as other considerations.
>
> But your paper is INCORRECT. It is riddled with mistakes.

Says the guy that can't point out even ONE mistake :-))

> > Unfortunately for you, your skull is too thick for this to seep
> > through to your brain, so you tried to attack the existence of
> > tachyons, which isn't the point at all.
>
> Actually, I was feeling charitable and I was going to point out your
> mistakes.

Says the congenital liar :-))

> But, you being the asshole that you are,

Pot, kettle, black!

> I will let you bask in the illusion that you have a correct paper.
> >
> > > Tom's contention to your paper
> >
> > I don't think Tom has read the latest version of the paper. He was
> > addressing the existence of tachyons.
>
> You chapter on tachyons is riddled with basic algebraic mistakes,
> stubborn imbecile. Took me a minute to spot them.

Says the guy who loves improper fraction because he thinks they are
lewd. :-)))

> > It may, since Tom was considering tachyons in GR context. If GR is
> > more correct than QM, then Tom is right. But if QM is more correct
> > than GR, then Ned has a point.
>
> Both you and Ned are incompetent. Live with it.

Pot, kettle, black. Actually, you're delusional, too, since you believe
you're competent.

“I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb.” -- Richard P. Feynman

and you're not that smart.

[Dono,]

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 11:08:03 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Says the guy that can't point out even ONE mistake :-))
>

The intro contains a gross mistake
Section 1 contains a hilarious mistake
Section 2, is all wrong.
These are all the hints you are getting, crank.

Now, here is what you can do: submit your so-called "paper" to American Journal of Physics. They publish such stuff. See what the editor has to say.

[Bud Lemma]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> But your paper is INCORRECT. It is riddled with mistakes.
>

> Says the guy that can't point out even ONE mistake )

my azerbaijani friend, if you can't work out an event driven automaton
with your faster than light tachyon, your theory is crap.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 12:25:02 PM UTC-6, Dono, dissembled:

>
> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 11:08:03 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Says the guy that can't point out even ONE mistake :-))
> >
>
> The intro contains a gross mistake

Assertion without evidence. No point for Dunno.

> Section 1 contains a hilarious mistake

Assertion without evidence. No point for Dunno.

> Section 2, is all wrong.

Assertion without evidence. No point for Dunno.

> These are all the hints you are getting, crank.

You're afraid to get specific because you will be proven specifically
wrong, wrong, wrong.

> Now, here is what you can do: submit your so-called "paper" to American
> Journal of Physics. They publish such stuff. See what the editor has to
> say.

I MAY have one error in the paper, but it's not one that YOU will ever
find ... or maybe I have NO errors: Those are the only two possibilities.

And since you haven't dulled out sections 3 and 4, that must mean you
agree with them. :-))

[Dono,]

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 2:20:00 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > Now, here is what you can do: submit your so-called "paper" to American
> > Journal of Physics. They publish such stuff. See what the editor has to
> > say.
>
> I MAY have one error in the paper, but it's not one that YOU will ever
> find ... or maybe I have NO errors: Those are the only two possibilities.
>

Look, Gary

I'll put your errors in a file and I will upload that file on the internet, time stamped. Since you believe that you have no errors, send your so - called "paper to a reputable journal. When it comes back REJECTED , please share the rejection letter here and I will give you a pointer to my list of errors in your paper.

> And since you haven't dulled out sections 3 and 4, that must mean you
> agree with them. :-))

No point in wasting my time, you have a fatal error in section 1 that makes your shit-paper DOE.
Do we have a deal?

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:48:45 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>
> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 2:20:00 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > I MAY have one error in the paper, but it's not one that YOU will
> > ever find ... or maybe I have NO errors: Those are the only two
> > possibilities.
>
> Look, Gary
>
> I'll put your errors in a file and I will upload that file on the
> internet, time stamped. Since you believe that you have no errors,
> send your so - called "paper to a reputable journal. When it comes
> back REJECTED , please share the rejection letter here and I will
> give you a pointer to my list of errors in your paper.

Ah, a PRIVATE file so no one can see how badly you screwed up.

> > And since you haven't dulled out sections 3 and 4, that must mean you
> > agree with them. :-))
>
> No point in wasting my time, you have a fatal error in section 1 that
> makes your shit-paper DOE.

Make up your list and put it right here on this site.

> Do we have a deal?

Put it up here right now so everyone can see your ignorance. I'm quite
confident that you got nuthin' since the "errors" you HAVE shared were
pure baloney. You DO remember your assertion that u can't be greater
than c because of the gamma factor, don't you? Pure hogwash for a tachyon.
You would have known that was garbage if you'd bothered to read up on
tachyons.

You DO remember how dishonest you were when PCH and coea and respectable
physicists hypothesized FTL communication (read that, tachyons) but you
denigrated me for doing the same, don't you. What a vicious a-hole you
are!

[Dono,]

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:48:45 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 2:20:00 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > I MAY have one error in the paper, but it's not one that YOU will
> > > ever find ... or maybe I have NO errors: Those are the only two
> > > possibilities.
> >
> > Look, Gary
> >
> > I'll put your errors in a file and I will upload that file on the
> > internet, time stamped. Since you believe that you have no errors,
> > send your so - called "paper to a reputable journal. When it comes
> > back REJECTED , please share the rejection letter here and I will
> > give you a pointer to my list of errors in your paper.
>
> Ah, a PRIVATE file so no one can see how badly you screwed up.
>
> > > And since you haven't dulled out sections 3 and 4, that must mean you
> > > agree with them. :-))
> >
> > No point in wasting my time, you have a fatal error in section 1 that
> > makes your shit-paper DOE.
>
> Make up your list and put it right here on this site.
>
> > Do we have a deal?
>
> Put it up here right now so everyone can see your ignorance.

No, Gary

It doesn't work this way, you send your "masterpiece" for peer review, I post the file on the internet, time-stamped. When you receive your answer (rejection) from the peer reviewed journal , you share it right here and I give you a link to the list of errors. What are you afraid of? We all know that your pretentious crankery will get rejected. Having it hosted on the crank website vixra only reinforces this fact. Put up or shut up.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 4:38:44 PM UTC-6, Dono, is scared:

>
> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Make up your list and put it right here on this site.
> >

> > Put it up here right now so everyone can see your ignorance.
>
> No, Gary
>
> It doesn't work this way,

Then you prove that you're afraid to let the world see how wrong you
are. It works that way or not at all.

Put up or shut up.

Of course, you won't shut up. You'll continue to babble innuendo and
falsehoods sprinkled with outright slander. It's what you DO.

[Dono,]

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:57:11 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 4:38:44 PM UTC-6, Dono, is scared:
> >
> > On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Make up your list and put it right here on this site.
> > >
> > > Put it up here right now so everyone can see your ignorance.
> >
> > No, Gary
> >
> > It doesn't work this way,
>
> Then you prove that you're afraid to let the world see how wrong you
> are. It works that way or not at all.
>

You don't get to set the rules. You wrote that shit, you try to get it thru peer review. If you don't, you are admitting that it is shit. The fact that you continue to upload it on the crank site vixra is a clear admission that it is shit.

[Bud Lemma]

so you can steal the tensors in it. No thanks. How favorable.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 5:01:57 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>
> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:57:11 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Then you prove that you're afraid to let the world see how wrong you
> > are. It works that way or not at all.
>
> You don't get to set the rules.

I just did.

> You wrote that shit, you try to get it thru peer review.

There's no good reason to behave that way, Dunno. I'll do what want
when I want.

> If you don't, you are admitting that it is shit.

Not at all. You dishonest viciousness is not a reason for precipitant
action.

> The fact that you continue to upload it on the crank site vixra is
> a clear admission that it is shit.

There's a lot of crackpots that publish on viXra, but there are quite
a few authors that publish on viXra AND in peer-reviewed journals, so
your vacuous assertion is just another example of your lying.

[Ned Latham]

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Dono, wrote:

----snip----

> > You chapter on tachyons is riddled with basic algebraic mistakes,
> > stubborn imbecile. Took me a minute to spot them.
>
> Says the guy who loves improper fraction because he thinks they are
> lewd. :-)))

LOL

[Ned Latham]

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Dono, wrote:

----snip----

> > I'll put your errors in a file and I will upload that file on the
> > internet, time stamped. Since you believe that you have no errors,
> > send your so - called "paper to a reputable journal. When it comes
> > back REJECTED , please share the rejection letter here and I will
> > give you a pointer to my list of errors in your paper.
>
> Ah, a PRIVATE file so no one can see how badly you screwed up.

Or how much alteration went into it after the editorial review.

----snip----

[Dono,]

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 6:14:57 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 5:01:57 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:57:11 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Then you prove that you're afraid to let the world see how wrong you
> > > are. It works that way or not at all.
> >
> > You don't get to set the rules.
>
> I just did.
>
> > You wrote that shit, you try to get it thru peer review.
>

The only reason you didn't put it thru review is that it was full of errors, you corrected some of them but you still have some fundamental ones. So, you will never put it thru review meaning that it will languish in the vixra cesspool, together with your fellow cranks "masterpieces".

>
> > If you don't, you are admitting that it is shit.
>
> Not at all. You dishonest viciousness is not a reason for precipitant
> action.
>

You KNOW that it is wrong, this is why you aren't submitting to peer review. Keep basking in your dishonesty.

> > The fact that you continue to upload it on the crank site vixra is
> > a clear admission that it is shit.
>
> There's a lot of crackpots that publish on viXra, but there are quite
> a few authors that publish on viXra AND in peer-reviewed journals,

Only cranks on vixra, face the truth.

[Dono,]

Dumbestfuck,

The timestamp is going to be many months ahead of the review result. You really don't know the meaning of timestamp.

[Ned Latham]

Dono, wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > Dono, wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > > I'll put your errors in a file and I will upload that file on the
> > > > internet, time stamped. Since you believe that you have no errors,
> > > > send your so - called "paper to a reputable journal. When it comes
> > > > back REJECTED , please share the rejection letter here and I will
> > > > give you a pointer to my list of errors in your paper.
> > >
> > > Ah, a PRIVATE file so no one can see how badly you screwed up.
> >
> > Or how much alteration went into it after the editorial review.
> >
> > ----snip----
>
> Dumbestfuck,

Who, you? Nah. Shouse English. And "Bonehead" suits you just fine.

> The timestamp is going to be many months ahead of the review result.

You expect people to believe that you can't change timestamps?

> You really don't know the meaning of timestamp.

If you think that, you don't know computers.

[Dono,]

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 10:29:37 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote:

>snip<

[Ross A. Finlayson]

"In addition to two Killing vector fields
(corresponding to time translation and axisymmetry),
the Kerr geometry admits a remarkable Killing tensor."

The "Killing" fields after Dr. Killing are projection spaces.

Yano-Killing or Killing-Yano tensors in variable separation
over Kerr metric space-time?

https://www.intlpress.com/site/pub/files/_fulltext/journals/sdg/2015/0020/0001/SDG-2015-0020-0001-a008.pdf

Then for triple tensors it seems is projection to six tensors,
rotating charge.

Tensor-free notation....


"A symmetric tensor field on a Riemannian manifold
is called Killing field
if the symmetric part of its covariant derivative is equal to zero."

The tensors in the field then have the property that
they basically point the same as the identity field.

Then, Kerr's remarkable tensor in Killing and for Killing-Yano,
is about that it has a character in the space-time.

(The Riemannian manifold that is a symmetric tensor field
under which the Kerr geometry has the spinning top as under
the rotating symmetries, the establishment of the basis of
all the motion, or motion's moments.)

The Grassmannian and Clifford then are all the rage these days,
Geometric Algebras leaving that all tensor-free.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

It seems then for Fritz London and superpotential that
the gauge is everywhere and the same, that resonances
and waves have values that are point values.

I.e., "the metric" is continuous in space terms. (And it's
a gauge theory, unified field theory, ....)

Real potential theory falls all into the classical.

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/26/20 2:27 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> As for GR, wouldn't there be some similarity between a tachyon and
> warp metrics or wormholes?

Not really.

Tachyons are objects that follow spacelike trajectories. That is
surprising, as all our usual notions about particles and objects do not
really apply (e.g. does a tachyon's 4-momentum make sense? Is its norm a
"mass"? ...).

For instance, for a timelike object's path the tangent
4-vector is its 4-velocity. At any given point of the
path there always exists a locally inertial frame in
which the object is at rest, and its 4-velocity is
parallel to that frame's time coordinate. There is
never any such frame for a tachyon.

For instance, a timelike object's 4-velocity is always
orthogonal to its 4-acceleration. That is not possible
for a tachyon, and I suspect it means that none of the
usual relativistic mechanics applies, but I do not
know the details or ramifications.

Warp metrics use Unobtanium with mass density < 0 to create a region of
spacetime in which certain timelike trajectories move faster than light
relative to an asymptotic Minkowski metric at spatial infinity. But
LOCALLY nothing moves faster than light, and nothing follows a spacelike
trajectory. There are less exotic ways of doing that (e.t. Schwarzschild
spacetime inside the horizon).

Worm holes are topological features of the spacetime manifold that
cannot be ruled out by the field equations or the energy condition.
Nothing moves faster than light, and nothing follows a spacelike
trajectory. It's just that for suitable points A and B, a wormhole
provides a TIMELIKE path from A to B with much less elapsed proper time
than a path not traversing the wormhole. There are, of course, much less
exotic ways of doing that (e.g. the twin paradox).

Tom Roberts

[Mitch Raemsch]

Tachyons would be momentum exchanging with real matter.
Do we observe that happening?
No. Gamma math sets the universal speed limit. FTL
is what is proven not to exist mathematically.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Ned Latham]

Nope. Gamma's domain is artificially restricted. Open it,
and the result is limits at c and -c, but nowhere else;
ie, FTL is mathematically valid.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 8:16:30 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> Tachyons are objects that follow spacelike trajectories. That is
> surprising, as all our usual notions about particles and objects do not
> really apply (e.g. does a tachyon's 4-momentum make sense? Is its norm a
> "mass"? ...).

Well, it does have real energy and real momentum.

> For instance, for a timelike object's path the tangent
> 4-vector is its 4-velocity. At any given point of the
> path there always exists a locally inertial frame in
> which the object is at rest, and its 4-velocity is
> parallel to that frame's time coordinate. There is
> never any such frame for a tachyon.

True, unless there can be tachyonic observer. I might not like
being converted to tachyons :-)

> For instance, a timelike object's 4-velocity is always
> orthogonal to its 4-acceleration. That is not possible
> for a tachyon, and I suspect it means that none of the
> usual relativistic mechanics applies, but I do not
> know the details or ramifications.

There are quite a few physics textbooks that address faster-than-light
communication, showing that if such is possible, it can send a
message back in time, thus resulting in violation of causality.
Their conclusion is that causality can't be violated, hence FTL is
impossible.

I argue that any FTL communication must obey relativity, specifically,
Feinberg's tachyon dynamics. In that context, tachyon energy
approaches zero as its speed approaches infinity. Tachyons have the
curious property that their speed decreases as their energy increases,
so if a receiver is moving away from a transmitter that sends out a
(nearly) infinitely-fast tachyon, it cannot be received because its
received energy would be less than zero. The transmitter would have
to send the signal out at a speed less than c^2/v so it could be
received at (nearly) infinite speed.

Have you read version 3 of my paper on viXra? It concludes that FTL
communication cannot violate causality.

> Warp metrics use Unobtanium with mass density < 0

Or negative energy. Doesn't cosmic inflation demand negative energy?
Of couse, its density is much too low, but maybe it can be engineered?

> to create a region of
> spacetime in which certain timelike trajectories move faster than light
> relative to an asymptotic Minkowski metric at spatial infinity. But
> LOCALLY nothing moves faster than light, and nothing follows a spacelike
> trajectory. There are less exotic ways of doing that (e.t. Schwarzschild
> spacetime inside the horizon).
>
> Worm holes are topological features of the spacetime manifold that
> cannot be ruled out by the field equations or the energy condition.
> Nothing moves faster than light, and nothing follows a spacelike
> trajectory. It's just that for suitable points A and B, a wormhole
> provides a TIMELIKE path from A to B with much less elapsed proper time
> than a path not traversing the wormhole. There are, of course, much less
> exotic ways of doing that (e.g. the twin paradox).
>
> Tom Roberts

What happens if a worm hole has a transverse velocity relative to an
approaching ship? The ship travels from A, enters the wormhole and
exits at B faster than light could travel without the wormhole. The
wormhole continues its transverse motion and spacetime between A and
B is now flat again, yet the ship has traveled from A to B faster than
light could have done it before or after the wormhole passage.

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:28:25 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Have you read version 3 of my paper on viXra? It concludes that FTL
> communication cannot violate causality.
>

Conclusion is based on incorrect basic math.

[Odd Bodkin]

And your proposal to “fix” it with and absolute value operator doesn’t seem
to help.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Ned Latham]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Mitch Raemsch wrote:
> > >
> > > Tachyons would be momentum exchanging with real matter.
> > > Do we observe that happening?
> > > No. Gamma math sets the universal speed limit.
> > > FTL is what is proven not to exist mathematically.
> >
> > Nope. Gamma's domain is artificially restricted. Open it,
> > and the result is limits at c and -c, but nowhere else;
>

> And your proposal to "fix" it with and absolute value operator doesn"t
> seem to help.

Your inabilty to see its implications is your problem, Slow Boy.

[Odd Bodkin]

You mean the obviously problematic implications? Which implications did you
have in mind?

>
>>> ie, FTL is mathematically valid.
>

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 7:56:21 AM UTC-6, Dono, dissembled:

Dead wrong, deceiver. All you do is make claims without any proof to
back them up. You NEVER justify your assertions. The content of your
statement is exactly ZERO. Can you explain what "basic math" is wrong?
No. I didn't think you could.

[Dono,]

I have no intention of correcting your botched homework. You are still unable to do basic Minkowski diagrams, even after all the explanations and corrections you have received.

[Mitch Raemsch]

On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 11:21:50 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote:
> Mitch Raemsch wrote:
> >
> > Tachyons would be momentum exchanging with real matter.
> > Do we observe that happening?
> > No. Gamma math sets the universal speed limit.
> > FTL is what is proven not to exist mathematically.
>
> Nope. Gamma's domain is artificially restricted. Open it,

If both are real they would be observed to momentum eddxchange

> and the result is limits at c and -c, but nowhere else;

The negative math of C is what doesn't belong.
NO. Gamma math defines the speed limit math order in the universe.

> ie, FTL is mathematically valid.

Then why does it not exist?

No.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 8:29:34 PM UTC-6, Dono, lied outright:

>
> On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 7:20:46 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 7:56:21 AM UTC-6, Dono, dissembled:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:28:25 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Have you read version 3 of my paper on viXra? It concludes that FTL
> > > > communication cannot violate causality.
> > >
> > > Conclusion is based on incorrect basic math.
> >
> > Dead wrong, deceiver. All you do is make claims without any proof to
> > back them up. You NEVER justify your assertions. The content of your
> > statement is exactly ZERO. Can you explain what "basic math" is wrong?
> > No. I didn't think you could.
>
> I have no intention of correcting your botched homework.

Because you're mathematically incompetent.

> You are still unable to do basic Minkowski diagrams,

Stinking liar, but that's beside the point. Minkowski diagrams are
misleading when dealing with FTL.

> even after all the explanations and corrections you have received.

I certainly didn't get any from the likes of you because you aren't
capable of dealing with them. You're just an ignorant bully, and
you'll never amount to anything when you grow up.

With the speed you answered my post, you must just sit there hour
after hour waiting for someone you can safely disrespect and dump
on. It makes you feel like a big, important scientist, which you're
not ... at all.

[Dono,]

On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 8:33:37 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Minkowski diagrams are misleading when dealing with FTL.

This is an interesting one , utter crank. You see, either Minkowski diagrams (and SR) are correct and FTL is false or Minkowski diagrams (and SR) is incorrect and FTL is true. So, you are full of shit.

[Ned Latham]

Mitch Raemsch wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Mitch Raemsch wrote:
> > >
> > > Tachyons would be momentum exchanging with real matter.
> > > Do we observe that happening?
> > > No. Gamma math sets the universal speed limit.
> > > FTL is what is proven not to exist mathematically.
> >
> > Nope. Gamma's domain is artificially restricted. Open it,
>
> If both are real they would be observed to momentum eddxchange

English, please?

> > and the result is limits at c and -c, but nowhere else;
>
> The negative math of C is what doesn't belong.

It's a velocity. +ve and -ve relative to some object.

> NO. Gamma math defines the speed limit math order in the universe.

That's theory. My theory says otherwise.

> > ie, FTL is mathematically valid.
>
> Then why does it not exist?

The ideal gas is mathematically valid.

Why does *it* not exist?

[Mitch Raemsch]

Just show the observation.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 9:54:21 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>
> On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 8:33:37 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Minkowski diagrams are misleading when dealing with FTL.
>
> This is an interesting one , utter crank.

Well, it's obvious to the most casual observer that I'm not an
"utter crank" since I'm aligned with relativity physics in most
cases, so you are a liar.

> You see, either Minkowski diagrams (and SR) are correct and FTL
> is false or Minkowski diagrams (and SR) is incorrect and FTL is
> true.

So YOU completely believe the Minkowski diagram and all it implies,
do you? What about the block universe? Do you believe that all
that has happened and all that will happen is set in stone, that
free will doesn't exist?

There is plenty of physical evidence that the Minkowski diagram
correctly describes normal particles, including light, at speeds
c and below, but there is NO evidence that it correctly describes
particles that travel faster than light. The fact is that it doesn't.
This is proven by the energy relationship of tachyons, which obey
special relativity (so much for your "utter crank" smear).

A tachyon must have SOME energy to be detected. The problem is
that an infinitely-fast tachyon has zero energy, so tachyons that
are detected cannot be traveling infinitely-fast. If the tachyon
target is moving away from the source, then the tachyon will have
less energy when it arrives than when it was sent due to a Doppler
effect. If it was sent at near-infinite speed, it will have no
energy when it arrives and can't be detected. To be detected it
must be sent at less than c^2/v (relativistic velocity addition).
This is all according to dynamics and kinematics of tachyons.

So, you are an ignoramus.

Furthermore, the KATRIN experiment, ongoing now, has preliminary
measurements on the electron neutrino mass: m^2 = -1.0 +0.9 -1.1
eV^2. It might be a tachyon.

[Dono,]

On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 6:42:13 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 9:54:21 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 8:33:37 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Minkowski diagrams are misleading when dealing with FTL.
> >
> > This is an interesting one , utter crank.
>
> Well, it's obvious to the most casual observer that I'm not an
> "utter crank" since I'm aligned with relativity physics in most
> cases, so you are a liar.
>

No, Gary, you are a pretender, a sad sack one.

> > You see, either Minkowski diagrams (and SR) are correct and FTL
> > is false or Minkowski diagrams (and SR) is incorrect and FTL is
> > true.
>
> So YOU completely believe the Minkowski diagram and all it implies,
> do you?

You claimed to be aligned with relativity. Turns out that you are not.

> What about the block universe? Do you believe that all
> that has happened and all that will happen is set in stone, that
> free will doesn't exist?

Nothing to do with SR.

>
> There is plenty of physical evidence that the Minkowski diagram
> correctly describes normal particles, including light, at speeds
> c and below, but there is NO evidence that it correctly describes
> particles that travel faster than light.

The Feynberg paper contradicts your above crankery.

> The fact is that it doesn't.
> This is proven by the energy relationship of tachyons, which obey
> special relativity (so much for your "utter crank" smear).
>

What does this have to do with your crank claim about Minkowski diagrams?
You claimed to be aligned with relativity. Turns out that you are not.

> A tachyon must have SOME energy to be detected. The problem is
> that an infinitely-fast tachyon has zero energy,

There is no such thing as "infinitely fast". You claimed to be aligned with relativity. Turns out that you are not.

> so tachyons that
> are detected cannot be traveling infinitely-fast.

None were ever detected. What does this have to do with your crank claim about Minkowski?

If the tachyon
> target is moving away from the source, then the tachyon will have
> less energy when it arrives than when it was sent due to a Doppler
> effect. If it was sent at near-infinite speed, it will have no
> energy when it arrives and can't be detected. To be detected it
> must be sent at less than c^2/v (relativistic velocity addition).

So, you believe in relativistic velocity addition but not in Minkowski diagrams? typical crank cherry picking of SR.

> Furthermore, the KATRIN experiment, ongoing now, has preliminary
> measurements on the electron neutrino mass: m^2 = -1.0 +0.9 -1.1
> eV^2. It might be a tachyon.

Nope, you added this crankery after your vixra garbage was posted. The KATRIN experiment simply showed neutrino to have an energy E=1.1 eV, no mention of imaginary mass. The authors aren't cranks, YOU are.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 8:27:42 AM UTC-6, Dono, projected:

>
> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 6:42:13 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 9:54:21 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 8:33:37 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Minkowski diagrams are misleading when dealing with FTL.
> > >
> > > This is an interesting one , utter crank.
> >
> > Well, it's obvious to the most casual observer that I'm not an
> > "utter crank" since I'm aligned with relativity physics in most
> > cases, so you are a liar.
>
> No, Gary, you are a pretender, a sad sack one.

You're projecting your own deplorable condition on me. You're so
incompetent that you feel you have to smear others so you don't
look so bad. YOU can't do physics, so you have to tear others
down. That's the saddest sack of all.

> > > You see, either Minkowski diagrams (and SR) are correct and FTL
> > > is false or Minkowski diagrams (and SR) is incorrect and FTL is
> > > true.
> >
> > So YOU completely believe the Minkowski diagram and all it implies,
> > do you?
>
> You claimed to be aligned with relativity. Turns out that you are not.

What about tachyon dynamics doesn't align with relativity?

> > What about the block universe? Do you believe that all
> > that has happened and all that will happen is set in stone, that
> > free will doesn't exist?
>
> Nothing to do with SR.

Can't you ever tell the truth? You're nothing but a big fat liar.
It has a lot to do with the Minkowski diagram that you're so anxious
to uphold.

> > There is plenty of physical evidence that the Minkowski diagram
> > correctly describes normal particles, including light, at speeds
> > c and below, but there is NO evidence that it correctly describes
> > particles that travel faster than light.
>
> The Feynberg paper contradicts your above crankery.

And you can't even spell Feinberg correctly! You are a joke.
You don't have a clue about that paper if you say that.

> > The fact is that it doesn't.
> > This is proven by the energy relationship of tachyons, which obey
> > special relativity (so much for your "utter crank" smear).

> What does this have to do with your crank claim about Minkowski diagrams?
> You claimed to be aligned with relativity. Turns out that you are not.

Turns out you're an ignoramus and a liar.

> > A tachyon must have SOME energy to be detected. The problem is
> > that an infinitely-fast tachyon has zero energy,
>
> There is no such thing as "infinitely fast".

Of course there is, reality denier. Measuring something that moves
infinitely fast is quite straightforward. It's simply u = Delta_x/Delta_t.
An experimental physicist you are not, but which I am.

> You claimed to be aligned with relativity. Turns out that you are not.

That's just your demented mind playing tricks on you.

> > so tachyons that are detected cannot be traveling infinitely-fast.
>
> None were ever detected.

So you're ignoring the KATRIN experiment. I see, whatever disagrees
with your comfy little world doesn't exist.

> What does this have to do with your crank claim about Minkowski?

What about your crank claim that the Minkowski diagram has nothing
to do with the block universe. If the block universe is nonexistent
then the Minkowski diagram (and SR) can't deal with backwards time.

> > If the tachyon
> > target is moving away from the source, then the tachyon will have
> > less energy when it arrives than when it was sent due to a Doppler
> > effect. If it was sent at near-infinite speed, it will have no
> > energy when it arrives and can't be detected. To be detected it
> > must be sent at less than c^2/v (relativistic velocity addition).
>
>
> So, you believe in relativistic velocity addition but not in Minkowski
> diagrams? typical crank cherry picking of SR.

See? You lie by omission. You're as honest as a slimy lawyer.
Why would I believe in a domain of the MD that hasn't been tested
by experiment? Why do YOU believe in it? Is it some kind of
mental disease with you? I have good reason not to believe it
because tachyon dynamics disagrees with it. Why do you praise
kinematics and ignore dynamics?

> > Furthermore, the KATRIN experiment, ongoing now, has preliminary
> > measurements on the electron neutrino mass: m^2 = -1.0 +0.9 -1.1
> > eV^2. It might be a tachyon.
>
> Nope, you added this crankery after your vixra garbage was posted.

The first paragraph in v1 mentions tachyons with m^2 - -0.6 eV^2, so
you are a liar once more. You'll say ANY lie to promote your smear
job!

> The KATRIN experiment simply showed neutrino to have an energy E=1.1 eV,
> no mention of imaginary mass. The authors aren't cranks, YOU are.

And you lie again! The KATRIN neutrino mass is m^2 = -1.0 eV^2. That
means the central value for the neutrino mass is IMAGININARY.

You are such a dishonest pile of crap there is no way to remain
clean after reading one of your dirty hit jobs.

“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do.”
-- Benjamin Franklin

[Dono,]

On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 8:16:01 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > > so tachyons that are detected cannot be traveling infinitely-fast.
> >
> > None were ever detected.
>
> So you're ignoring the KATRIN experiment. I see, whatever disagrees
> with your comfy little world doesn't exist.
>

Crackpot,

The KATRIN group did not make any claims of detecting tachyons. Of course they didn't, they are scientists, unlike you who is a sad sack crank.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 9:38:18 AM UTC-6, Dono, babbled nonsense:

>
> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 8:16:01 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > So you're ignoring the KATRIN experiment. I see, whatever disagrees
> > with your comfy little world doesn't exist.
>
> Crackpot,

Dunno's answer to everything that doesn't fit inside his puny head.

> The KATRIN group did not make any claims of detecting tachyons. Of
> course they didn't, they are scientists,

Yes, and the uncertainty ranges from -0.1 eV^2 to -2.1 eV^2 for one
sigma. Add a few sigma and the true includes positive values.

> unlike you who is a sad sack crank.

Unlike you, I understand the basics of mathematics and physics. And
unlike you, I'm willing to entertain ideas outside your little sandbox.
So what? You're just a stale old has-been. Your dishonest behavior
bothers me a lot, as opposed to your vacuous assertions, which bother
me not at all. That's because you are an empty-headed fool. You have
no list of errors in my paper. You are a liar.

[Dono,]

On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 8:56:27 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 9:38:18 AM UTC-6, Dono, babbled nonsense:
> >
> > On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 8:16:01 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > So you're ignoring the KATRIN experiment. I see, whatever disagrees
> > > with your comfy little world doesn't exist.
> >
> > Crackpot,
>
> Dunno's answer to everything that doesn't fit inside his puny head.
>
> > The KATRIN group did not make any claims of detecting tachyons. Of
> > course they didn't, they are scientists,
>
> Yes, and the uncertainty ranges from -0.1 eV^2 to -2.1 eV^2 for one
> sigma. Add a few sigma and the true includes positive values.
>

The KATRIN group says NOTHING about neutrino being a "tachyon", says nothing about m^2=-1.1 ev^2. All this is your crackpot addition to justify the garbage that you call paper. Of course they don't, they are not crackpots like you are.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 10:08:37 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 8:56:27 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 9:38:18 AM UTC-6, Dono, babbled nonsense:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 8:16:01 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So you're ignoring the KATRIN experiment. I see, whatever disagrees
> > > > with your comfy little world doesn't exist.
> > >
> > > Crackpot,
> >
> > Dunno's answer to everything that doesn't fit inside his puny head.
> >
> > > The KATRIN group did not make any claims of detecting tachyons. Of
> > > course they didn't, they are scientists,
> >
> > Yes, and the uncertainty ranges from -0.1 eV^2 to -2.1 eV^2 for one
> > sigma. Add a few sigma and the true includes positive values.
>
> The KATRIN group says NOTHING about neutrino being a "tachyon",

We have both admitted that, so what's the matter with you? Got dementia?

> says nothing about m^2=-1.1 ev^2.

Of course not, the abstract says m^2 = -1.0 +.9 -1.1 eV^2. Why do you
have to be so dishonest?

> All this is your crackpot addition to justify the garbage that you
> call paper. Of course they don't, they are not crackpots like you are.

You're a really silly person. The neutrino as tachyon is yet to be
decided. It may or may not be. YOU certainly don't know. Robert
Ehrlich is still holding out hope:

https://ehrlich.physics.gmu.edu/index.php/sample-page/

And E. C. G. Sudarshan did until he died two years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._C._George_Sudarshan

As I said, you're a fool.

[Dono,]

On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 9:33:39 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Of course not, the abstract says m^2 = -1.0 +.9 -1.1 eV^2.

YOUR abstract, from your shit paper, NOT KATRIN's. So, you introduce the crankery pretending it belongs to KATRIN. Typical crackpot.

[Pete G Bannister]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> The fact that you continue to upload it on the crank site vixra is a
>> clear admission that it is shit.
>
> There's a lot of crackpots that publish on viXra, but there are quite a
> few authors that publish on viXra AND in peer-reviewed journals, so your
> vacuous assertion is just another example of your lying.

the quin admits wanting forcefully to take you kids from your domicile,
as they did in 1940 as close allies to hitler.

HR6666 The Bill Of The Beast..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhGZQvxyNO0

[Pete G Bannister]

"to forcefully *_remove your children_* from your domicile"

[Pete G Bannister]

and "queen". Io no hablal inglesia.

[Pete G Bannister]

Pete G Bannister wrote:

>>>> There's a lot of crackpots that publish on viXra, but there are quite
>>>> a few authors that publish on viXra AND in peer-reviewed journals, so
>>>> your vacuous assertion is just another example of your lying.
>>>
>>> the quin admits wanting forcefully to take you kids from your
>>> domicile,
>>> as they did in 1940 as close allies to hitler.
>>>
>>> HR6666 The Bill Of The Beast..
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhGZQvxyNO0
>>
>> "to forcefully *_remove your children_* from your domicile"
>
> and "queen". Io no hablal inglesia.

or also, just in case.

HR6666 -The Bill That Leads To The Beast System
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhZPlz0LBAI

[Gary Harnagel]

Okay, so you're a bigger liar than the anti-relativity boys. Is it
that you CAN'T read or are you just selective about truth? Here's
the KATRIN paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.06048.pdf

And here's the abstract:

We report on the neutrino mass measurement result from the first four-week
science run of the Karlsruhe Tritium Neutrino experiment KATRIN in spring
2019. Beta-decay electrons from a highpurity gaseous molecular tritium
source are energy analyzed by a high-resolution MAC-E filter. A fit of the
integrated electron spectrum over a narrow interval around the kinematic
endpoint at 18.57 keV gives an effective neutrino mass square value of
(−1.0 + 0.9 − 1.1) eV2. From this we derive an upper limit of 1.1 eV (90%
confidence level) on the absolute mass scale of neutrinos. This value
coincides with the KATRIN sensitivity.

The 1.1 eV upper limit is on the ABSOLUTE scale, the actual value is in
eV^2 and is negative. People who can't read shouldn't argue about what
they are incapable of understanding.

[Dono,]

Dumbestfuck,

You need to read the paper, to understand what "effective neutrino mass". It is not what you think, utter imbecile. That's one.

Secondly, even if the tachyons existed, you couldn't use them for any sort of signalling: bouncing a tachyon off a moving mirror will make it arrive back to the source BEFORE it was emitted. Even your botched Minkowski diagram shows that. That is the second strike.

And the chain of imbecilities in your paper keeps marching on. Why don't you submit to peer review? What are you afraid of?

[Gary Harnagel]

You certainly are.

> You need to read the paper, to understand what "effective neutrino mass".
> It is not what you think, utter imbecile. That's one.

YOU are the imbecile here. Look at Figure 4.

> Secondly, even if the tachyons existed, you couldn't use them for any
> sort of signalling: bouncing a tachyon off a moving mirror will make
> it arrive back to the source BEFORE it was emitted.

Now you're just repeating the mantra. Go ahead, enter nirvana.

> Even your botched Minkowski diagram shows that.

It must not be botched if it "shows that" -- what a clown you are.

> That is the second strike.

As in bowling.

> And the chain of imbecilities in your paper keeps marching on.

Another moronic claim. The paper was written and hasn't been modified,
so it can't keep "marching on" -- except in your frenzied imagination.

> Why don't you submit to peer review? What are you afraid of?

I might, but you're taking up all my time with your idiocies.

[Dono,]

On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 6:01:55 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> It must not be botched if it "shows that"

Well, it contradicts your thesis (even if it is done badly). So, you see, crank, you admitted that you are contradicting yourself.

[Dono,]

> Look at Figure 4.
>

Dumbestfuck, the bottom of page 7 should have given you a clue. But it flew just over your bald spot:

"Both procedures avoid empty confidence intervals for NON-PHYSICAL negative best-fit estimates of m2ν. "

Only a crank like you would misinterpret the papers on constraining the neutrino mass as pushing a negative value for the mass squared, which you further misinterpreted as accepting an imaginary mass for the neutrino, which you further misinterpreted as proof that the neutrino is a tachyon.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 7:22:48 PM UTC-6, Idiot Dunno, wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 6:01:55 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 2:31:18 PM UTC-6, Dunno Nuthin' wrote:
> > >
> > > Dumbestfuck,
> >
> > You certainly are.
> >
> > > You need to read the paper, to understand what "effective neutrino
> > > mass". It is not what you think, utter imbecile. That's one.
> >
> > Look at Figure 4.
>
> Dumbestfuck, the bottom of page 7 should have given you a clue. But it
> flew just over your bald spot:
>
> "Both procedures avoid empty confidence intervals for NON-PHYSICAL
> negative best-fit estimates of m2ν. "

Looks like they're intentionally limiting the data field to remove
evidence of tachyonic behavior. Do you have a problem understanding
what "absolute" means?

> Only a crank like you would misinterpret the papers on constraining
> the neutrino mass as pushing a negative value for the mass squared,
> which you further misinterpreted as accepting an imaginary mass for
> the neutrino, which you further misinterpreted as proof that the
> neutrino is a tachyon.

No, brain-dead liar, I leave the question OPEN, unlike an idiot like
you who "knows" that some things are impossible with no evidence
whatever.

And several physicists are following the story that neutrinos may be
tachyons:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.09904.pdf

Tachyon Dynamics - for Neutrinos?
Charles Schwartz (UC Berkeley)

https://ehrlich.physics.gmu.edu/index.php/sample-page/

Hunting the tachyon
Robert Ehrlich
https://ehrlich.physics.gmu.edu/index.php/tachyon-papers/

Several papers on tachyons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._C._George_Sudarshan

So, Dunno-Nuthin', you're just trashing some well-respected physicists
when you attempt to trash me, and you're so stupid you don't even
realize it. Even worse, they go much farther than I do: they accept
the back-in-time causality problems, that I show tachyons cannot do.
You've painted yourself into a corner, demented one.

[Dono,]

On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 7:28:31 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 7:22:48 PM UTC-6, Idiot Dunno, wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 6:01:55 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 2:31:18 PM UTC-6, Dunno Nuthin' wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dumbestfuck,
> > >
> > > You certainly are.
> > >
> > > > You need to read the paper, to understand what "effective neutrino
> > > > mass". It is not what you think, utter imbecile. That's one.
> > >
> > > Look at Figure 4.
> >
> > Dumbestfuck, the bottom of page 7 should have given you a clue. But it
> > flew just over your bald spot:
> >
> > "Both procedures avoid empty confidence intervals for NON-PHYSICAL
> > negative best-fit estimates of m2ν. "
>
> Looks like they're intentionally limiting the data field to remove
> evidence of tachyonic behavior. Do you have a problem understanding
> what "absolute" means?
>

You are insane, crank.