Tachyons versus the Minkowski Diagram

[Gary Harnagel]

Arguments against FTL communication have employed solely kinematics.
which ignore peer-reviewed papers that present the properties of such
particles obeying special relativity. Specifically, their energy approaches
zero as their speed approaches infinity, and infinite speed is represented
by a horizontal line on the Minkowski diagram. Hence, it is not possible
for FTL particle speed to go beyond the horizontal line and produce
backward-in-time phenomena with its potential to violate causality.

Feinberg coined the name tachyons for these FTL particles. The arguments
that claim tachyons potentially violate causality are false. Their "tachyons"
do not obey the energy equation of special relativity:

E² = p²c² + (imc²)²

where m is the absolute value of the tachyon particle mass. In order to
communicate between observers, the tachyons must arrived with at
least SOME energy; thus infinite-speed communication is not possible.
The sensitivity of the tachyon receivers and the power of the transmitters
determine how close to infinite speed is "practical."

But near-infinite speed is only possible if transmitter and receiver have
zero relative velocity. If they are moving relative to each other, the
relativistic velocity composition equation places a limit of c²/v on the
communication speed.

[Sylvia Else]

On 01-Aug-20 2:01 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Arguments against FTL communication have employed solely kinematics.

And the fact that FTL communication creates causality paradoxes, which
are a powerful, if not entirely conclusive, argument against FTL.

Sylvia.

[Mitch Raemsch]

Reaching light speed has infinite kinetic energy
but beyond it first is infinite negative tachyon energy.
Your spaceship would convert to tachyon infinite
negative kinetic energy.

Gamma math defines the universal speed limit order
that rules out FTL math...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Dono.]

On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:01:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> In order to
> communicate between observers, the tachyons must arrived with at
> least SOME energy; thus infinite-speed communication is not possible.

Communication at speeds larger than "c" is also not possible. Despite your claims in your crackpot paper.

> But near-infinite speed is only possible if transmitter and receiver have
> zero relative velocity.

This is a new crackpot idea. Make sure you add it to your vixra "paper"

> If they are moving relative to each other, the
> relativistic velocity composition equation places a limit of c²/v on the
> communication speed.

Actually, the relativistic composition formula does no apply to FTL particles. You have been shown this fact repeatedly but it doesn't get thru your thick crank skull.

[Sylvia Else]

On 01-Aug-20 3:00 pm, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
> On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:41:36 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 01-Aug-20 2:01 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> Arguments against FTL communication have employed solely kinematics.
>>
>> And the fact that FTL communication creates causality paradoxes, which
>> are a powerful, if not entirely conclusive, argument against FTL.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Reaching light speed has infinite kinetic energy
> but beyond it first is infinite negative tachyon energy.

The arguments used to derive the Lorentz transformation do not work for
speeds in excess of the speed of light. Since we have no experimental
results either for such speeds, there is no justification at all for
extrapolating the use of the transform into the FTL domain.

Sylvia

[Dono.]

Harnagel has been told this repeatedly. His answer is that there are several papers (Feinberg, Sudarshan, etc) that force fit the SR equations into the FTL domain. These papers are known to be lacking and have never been taken seriously. For example, Feinberg forces the issue by assuming that the tachyons have imaginary mass.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 12:13:40 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 10:31:51 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> > On 01-Aug-20 3:00 pm, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:41:36 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 01-Aug-20 2:01 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Arguments against FTL communication have employed solely kinematics.
> > > >
> > > > And the fact that FTL communication creates causality paradoxes, which
> > > > are a powerful, if not entirely conclusive, argument against FTL.
> > > >
> > > > Sylvia.

Not very powerful at all since the dynamics of tachyons trump the kinematics
of the Minkowski diagram (and the Lorentz tansform on which it is based).

> > > Reaching light speed has infinite kinetic energy
> > > but beyond it first is infinite negative tachyon energy.

Incorrect. Tachyons have imaginary mass, which allows them to have positive energy.

> > The arguments used to derive the Lorentz transformation do not work for
> > speeds in excess of the speed of light.

This is not necessarily so. The LT can be derived from the postulate that there is a
"special" speed (c), but that doesn't preclude speeds greater than c provided that
observers travel at v < c. After all, observers are also precluded from traveling AT c.

> > Since we have no experimental results either for such speeds, there is no
> > justification at all for extrapolating the use of the transform into the FTL domain.
> >
> > Sylvia

It is true that we have no experimental results of particles traveling FTL, however,
there IS circumstantial evidence for it. Efforts to quantify the mass of the electron
neutrino keeps coming up with the most likely value for the square of the mass as
negative. This implies that the neutrino MAY be a tachyon.

> Harnagel has been told this repeatedly.

Apparently, by those who have no imagination.

> His answer is that there are several papers (Feinberg, Sudarshan, etc) that force
> fit the SR equations into the FTL domain. These papers are known to be lacking

"Known" by whom? This is a typical smear by a disgruntled near-do-well who gets
his kicks by slandering honest people.

> and have never been taken seriously. For example, Feinberg forces the issue by
> assuming that the tachyons have imaginary mass.

Actually, it was O. M. P. Bilaniuk, V. Deshpande, and E. C. G. Sudarhan who considered
particles having imaginary mass in their 1962 paper. Fewinberg coined the name
"tachon" in 1967. Dono seldom gets his facts right.

Hey, it MAY be "forcing" the equations, but the real point always goes right over Dono's
pointed head: the arguments against FTL communication based on kinematics are
invalid because FTL dynamics show that the energy of FTL particles approaches zero
as their speed approaches infinity. The tachyon speed vector in the Minkowski diagram
is ALWAYS in the first or second quadrant: it can NEVER get to the third or fourth,
which would indicate backward-in-time motion. The limit is, therefore, c²/v, which
maintains causality.

Dono dishonestly blames me for bringing up tachyons, but I didn't do it: those who
use kinematics to "prove" that tachyons violate causality are the REAL culprits.
I am merely rebutting their assertions. Why does Dono have the silly notion that
I'm not allowed to do that?

[Bret Alva]

You must be kidding with "if not entirely conclusive". Causality is
exactly the logical fundamental argument to test against, without which
you have nothing left in your well equipped laboratory. All tests are
fundamentally inherently based on it.

[Bret Alva]

Sylvia Else wrote:

> The arguments used to derive the Lorentz transformation do not work for
> speeds in excess of the speed of light. Since we have no experimental
> results either for such speeds, there is no justification at all for
> extrapolating the use of the transform into the FTL domain.

What do you mean by "do not work in excess". Those transformations are
there motivated by the limitation of the speed of light, as a direct
consequence. It wouldn't exists otherwise.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:01:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Arguments against FTL communication have employed solely kinematics.

To the contrary, the first and most fundamental arguments against superluminal propagation of mass-energy were always dynamical, e.g., the energy and momentum of any material entity goes to infinity (and the elapsed proper times goes to zero) as its speed approaches c, and for speeds greater than c the expressions for the energy and momentum and elapsed proper time do not yield real values. As Einstein said, "For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become meaningless; we shall find in what follows that the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically [dynamically], of an infinitely great velocity".

> which ignore peer-reviewed papers that present the properties of such
> particles obeying special relativity.

Not true. For example, Feinberg's 1967 paper proposed that superluminal particles could be quanta of a quantum field with imaginary mass, but it was soon realized and acknowledged by all that excitations of such imaginary mass fields do not under any circumstances propagate faster than light.

> Infinite speed is represented by a horizontal line on the Minkowski
> diagram.

That's inaccurate, because the whole point of a Minkowski diagram is to show how relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates are related to each other, and it shows that every spacelike interval has "infinite speed" in terms of some such system. In other words, for every pair of spacelike-separated events p,q there exists a system of inertial coordinates in terms of which the interval between p and q is "horizontal" (meaning tp = tq). In fact, every directed spacelike interval (p to q) goes in the negative t direction for some system of inertial coordinates (meaning tq < tp).

> The arguments that claim tachyons potentially violate causality are

> false [because] their "tachyons" do not obey the energy equation of
> special relativity.

That is untrue. The principle of relativity is that all the laws of physics take exactly the same form in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, so if it were possible to signal superluminally inside a lab at rest in one frame, it would be possible to do the same inside a lab at rest in any frame. Now, the content of special relativity is Lorentz invariance, according to which such coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and every space-like interval goes in the negative t direction in some frame. Thus if it were possible to signal along any spacelike interval, it would be possible to signal along every spacelike interval, and hence it would be possible to access the past, which is absurd, so we conclude that no superluminal signaling is possible. Einstein explained this quite clearly in multiple papers.

> ...infinite-speed communication is not possible.

Right, and according to special relativity every directed spacelike interval has "infinite speed" in terms of some frame, and all frames are equivalent (principle of relativity), so so signaling is possible along any such interval, i.e., no superluminal signaling is possible.

> Near-infinite speed is only possible if transmitter and receiver have
> zero relative velocity.

Transmitters and receivers can have any relative speed between -c and +c, but they cannot move at any speed greater than c in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, nor can a signal between them, for the well-known reasons explained above.

[Dono.]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 6:57:09 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Not very powerful at all since the dynamics of tachyons trump the kinematics
> of the Minkowski diagram (and the Lorentz tansform on which it is based).
>

Err, the tachyon dynamics are based on ....the Lorentz transforms AS WELL. As well as ANY dynamics.

[Dono.]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 6:57:09 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Efforts to quantify the mass of the electron
> neutrino keeps coming up with the most likely value for the square of the mass as
> negative. This implies that the neutrino MAY be a tachyon.
>

Repeating the same imbecility doesn't make it true.

[Dono.]

Excellent synopsis. The only thing that upsets me is that you exposed the errors in Gary's incorrect Minkowski diagrams, I have been trying ever since he put up his garbage on vixra to get him to discover the errors (there are more) in his Minkowski diagrams.

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/31/20 11:01 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> [a tachyon's] energy approaches

> zero as their speed approaches infinity, and infinite speed is represented
> by a horizontal line on the Minkowski diagram. Hence, it is not possible
> for FTL particle speed to go beyond the horizontal line and produce
> backward-in-time phenomena with its potential to violate causality.

Forget the traditional meaning of "causality" derived from whish-washy
thinking by philosophers. In modern physics, "causality" means:

Processes at event A can affect what happens at event
B only if A is within or on the past lightcone of B.

An equivalent formulation in terms of particle fields:

Fields evaluated at spacelike-separated events commute.
(Note that commuting fields do not interact.)

In a Minkowski diagram using natural units (c=1), any object or signal
following a trajectory at more than 45 degrees from the time axis
violates causality. This includes all tachyons.

> The arguments
> that claim tachyons potentially violate causality are false.

Nope. See above -- ALL tachyons violate causality.

What this means is that if one wants to consider
tachyons, one must redefine what "causality" means.
Here there be dragons....

While no tachyon emitted by an observer can travel directly into their
past lightcone, there are scenarios in which a relay in a
relatively-moving frame can be used to send a signal into their past
lightcone (tachyon anti-telephone). This can generate self-contradictory
statements about what happens, and is generally considered to mean that
either tachyons don't exist, or if they do exist then they cannot
interact with ordinary matter.

Also, there are theorems about the existence of solutions to the field
equation of General Relativity, which can be summarized: to ensure a
solution exists, energy cannot be transferred faster than light
(relative to any locally inertial frame) -- i.e. the presence of
tachyons that transfer energy may prevent there being a self-consistent
solution.

There are known solutions containing closed time-like
loops, which appear to violate this, but they do NOT
transfer any energy. A semi-classical analysis of
such closed timelike loops implies that if they did
transport energy, their energy density would
necessarily be infinite [#].

[#] Speaking loosely: an object or field that goes
around once will go around an infinite number of times
while an adjacent (timelike) observer experiences zero
elapsed proper time.

I point out that if tachyons exist but don't interact with ordinary
matter, or don't transfer energy, then they are unobservable to us, and
thus are not a subject of science.

Tom Roberts

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 8:42:06 AM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:01:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Arguments against FTL communication have employed solely kinematics.
>
> To the contrary, the first and most fundamental arguments against superluminal propagation of mass-energy were always
> dynamical, e.g., the energy and momentum of any material entity goes to infinity (and the elapsed proper times goes to
> zero) as its speed approaches c, and for speeds greater than c the expressions for the energy and momentum and elapsed
> proper time do not yield real values.

That's for particles that have REAL mass, of course. There is, however, a particle which has ZERO mass and whose energy
and momentum does NOT approach infinity at speed c.

> As Einstein said, "For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become meaningless; we shall find in what
> follows that the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically [dynamically], of an infinitely great velocity"

Einstein died in 1955. Sudarshan et al published their paper in 1962.

> > which ignore peer-reviewed papers that present the properties of such
> > particles obeying special relativity.
>
> Not true. For example, Feinberg's 1967 paper proposed that superluminal particles could be quanta of a quantum field
> with imaginary mass, but it was soon realized and acknowledged by all that excitations of such imaginary mass fields
> do not under any circumstances propagate faster than light.

That may be true; however, the discussion here is about the LT and the relativistic energy equation.

> > Infinite speed is represented by a horizontal line on the Minkowski diagram.
>
> That's inaccurate, because the whole point of a Minkowski diagram is to show how relatively moving systems of inertial
> coordinates are related to each other, and it shows that every spacelike interval has "infinite speed" in terms of some such
> system. In other words, for every pair of spacelike-separated events p,q there exists a system of inertial coordinates in
> terms of which the interval between p and q is "horizontal" (meaning tp = tq). In fact, every directed spacelike interval
> (p to q) goes in the negative t direction for some system of inertial coordinates (meaning tq < tp).

You are still conflating the properties of observers (composed of bradyons/tardyons) with tachyons. I'm not
arguing that observers can go FTL, only that tachyons can, and probably only uncharged tachyons at that.

.
> > The arguments that claim tachyons potentially violate causality are false [because] their "tachyons" do not obey
> the energy equation of special relativity.
>
> That is untrue. The principle of relativity is that all the laws of physics take exactly the same form in terms of any system
> of inertial coordinates, so if it were possible to signal superluminally inside a lab at rest in one frame, it would be possible
> to do the same inside a lab at rest in any frame.

Of course.

> Now, the content of special relativity is Lorentz invariance, according to which such coordinate systems are related by
> Lorentz transformations, and every space-like interval goes in the negative t direction in some frame.

Again, you're conflating observers with tachyons. Unless you can somehow turn an observer into tachyons, observers
can't be tachyons.

> Thus if it were possible to signal along any spacelike interval, it would be possible to signal along every spacelike
> interval, and hence it would be possible to access the past, which is absurd, so we conclude that no superluminal
> signaling is possible.

It's obvious that you haven't read the third version of "Causality Between Events with Space-Like Separation":

https://vixra.org/pdf/1908.0306v3.pdf

where your assertion is refuted for tachyons:

"Thus in Figure 1, if A sends an infinitely-fast signal, which has (nearly) zero energy relative to D [where A and D are
moving apart], it will have even less energy relative to D since D’s motion is subtracted from the signal, and D will not
"be able to detect it."

Similarly, when A and D are moving toward each other, a signal sent by A at infinite velocity will be received by D at a
lower velocity because the energy will be higher, and tachyons go slower when they have more energy.

> Einstein explained this quite clearly in multiple papers.

Einstein died in 1955. Sudarshan et al published their paper in 1962.

> > ...infinite-speed communication is not possible.
>
> Right, and according to special relativity every directed spacelike interval has "infinite speed" in terms of some frame,
> and all frames are equivalent (principle of relativity), so so signaling is possible along any such interval, i.e., no
> superluminal signaling is possible.

But a tachyon with infinite speed has NO energy, thus it cannot be detected, and causality is not violated.

> > Near-infinite speed is only possible if transmitter and receiver have zero relative velocity.
>
> Transmitters and receivers can have any relative speed between -c and +c, but they cannot move at any speed greater
> than c in terms of any system of inertial coordinates,

Of course, because they are bradyons/tardyons.

> nor can a signal between them, for the well-known reasons explained above.

Non sequitur. But you're STILL missing the BIG point: The argument against FTL communication based on
kinematics alone is invalid, and THAT is the argument that you and PCH based all of your many posts on.
And, yes, some of them were a bit abusive, which encouraged scum like Dono to get VERY abusive.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 10:25:50 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> On 7/31/20 11:01 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > [a tachyon's] energy approaches
> > zero as their speed approaches infinity, and infinite speed is represented
> > by a horizontal line on the Minkowski diagram. Hence, it is not possible
> > for FTL particle speed to go beyond the horizontal line and produce
> > backward-in-time phenomena with its potential to violate causality.
>
> Forget the traditional meaning of "causality" derived from whish-washy
> thinking by philosophers. In modern physics, "causality" means:
>
> Processes at event A can affect what happens at event
> B only if A is within or on the past lightcone of B.

Hmmm, perhaps that definition is a bit too restrictive? Particularly, if
tachyons are experimentally confirmed. I make two points here and in my
paper,

https://vixra.org/pdf/1908.0306v3.pdf

(1) Kinematic arguments are insufficient to refute FTL based on causality
violation.

(2) The dynamics of tachyons limit the scope of the Minkowski diagram such
that causality violation (the wishy-washy kind, which is addresses the REAL
concerns of sending messages back in time) does not occur.

And that is exactly what infinite-speed tachyons have: zero energy.
Interestingly, tachyons may have zero energy to one observer, but
positive energy to another observer. So to the first observer, they
aren't a subject of science, but to the second observer they are :-)

And even though they ARE the subject of science to that observer,
they cannot send messages back in time. Not ever for ANY observer.

Suppose tachyons are sent from point A to point B, stationary wrt
each other. Sending signals back and forth superluminally doesn't
send information back in time. And the c²/v limitation for relatively-
moving observers doesn't either.

Okay, I had a third point: because the most likely mass-suared value
for the electron neutrino is negative, it MAY be a tachyon. Only time
will tell, after the KATRIN experiment has run for a couple more years.

[Mitch Raemsch]

On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 10:31:51 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 01-Aug-20 3:00 pm, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
> > On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:41:36 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 01-Aug-20 2:01 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >>> Arguments against FTL communication have employed solely kinematics.
> >>
> >> And the fact that FTL communication creates causality paradoxes, which
> >> are a powerful, if not entirely conclusive, argument against FTL.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Reaching light speed has infinite kinetic energy
> > but beyond it first is infinite negative tachyon energy.
>
> The arguments used to derive the Lorentz transformation do not work for

Space does not transform away. Time slows.
Gamma math sets the universal speed limit order.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Arguments against FTL communication have employed solely kinematics.
> which ignore peer-reviewed papers that present the properties of such
> particles obeying special relativity. Specifically, their energy approaches
> zero as their speed approaches infinity, and infinite speed is represented
> by a horizontal line on the Minkowski diagram. Hence, it is not possible
> for FTL particle speed to go beyond the horizontal line and produce
> backward-in-time phenomena with its potential to violate causality.

(sigh)

Let's look at the Minkowski diagrams that I drew for Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Graphical_representation_of_the_Lorentz_transformation

In the unprimed frame in Figure 3-1a, infinite speed is represented
by lines parallel to the x-axis.

In the primed frame in Figure 3-1d, infinite speed is represented
by lines parallel to the x'-axis.

NEITHER FRAME IS PREFERRED OVER THE OTHER. That is one of
the major sources of confusion that you display in your vixra paper.

As I originally wrote in 2018 in this section,
"While the unprimed frame is drawn with space and time axes that meet
at right angles, the primed frame is drawn with axes that meet at
acute or obtuse angles. The frames are actually equivalent. The
asymmetry is due to unavoidable distortions in how spacetime
coordinates can map onto a Cartesian plane. By analogy, planar maps
of the world are unavoidably distorted, but with experience,
one learns to mentally account for these distortions."

(The wording has changed a bit from my original, and I need to
fix it some.)

Please read Tom's response carefully without bringing up your bogus "block
universe" arguments. As he states,

"While no tachyon emitted by an observer can travel directly into
their past lightcone, there are scenarios in which a relay in a
relatively-moving frame can be used to send a signal into their
past lightcone (tachyon anti-telephone)."

I am not qualified to comment on the points that Tom brings up about
general relativity, but what he brings up is in line with other
authors that I have read...

[Bret Alva]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Suppose tachyons are sent from point A to point B, stationary wrt each
> other. Sending signals back and forth superluminally doesn't send
> information back in time. And the c²/v limitation for relatively-
> moving observers doesn't either.

then you don't understand relativity. You have to chose a reference in
sending and receiving signals. If that would be "superluminal" then
somewhere along the line that construction will crash causality
indicating back in time nonsense. Or you don't have a feeling what
*signals* are all about.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 9:39:46 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > Feinberg's 1967... such imaginary mass fields do not under any

> > circumstances propagate faster than light.

> That may be true...

It is true, so your assertion (referring to Feinberg as an ignored paper that supports your claims) was false.

> You are still conflating the properties of observers (composed of
> bradyons/tardyons) with tachyons.

Nope, I have mentioned neither observers nor tardyons. If you re-read (or perhaps read) what I wrote, you will see that I refer only to the relations between events, which is sufficient to conclusively debunk your beliefs.

> I'm not arguing that observers can go FTL...

Great. Now you just need to stop arguing that superluminal signaling is compatible with special relativity.

> > The principle of relativity is that all the laws
> > of physics take exactly the same form in terms of any system
> > of inertial coordinates, so if it were possible to signal
> > superluminally inside a lab at rest in one frame, it would be
> > possible to do the same inside a lab at rest in any frame.
>
> Of course.

Of course? Excellent. Keep this in mind for the discussion below.

> > Now, the content of special relativity is Lorentz invariance,
> > according to which such coordinate systems are related by
> > Lorentz transformations, and every space-like interval goes
> > in the negative t direction in some frame.
>
> Again, you're conflating observers with tachyons.

Again, your statement is utterly insane. I have not referred to observers or tachyons (or tardyons), I have referred only to intervals between events, and this is sufficient to conclusive debunk your claims. To rebut this reasoning, you would need to honestly address it, i.e., you would need to dispute something about the reasoning... but the reasoning is simple and unobjectionable (within the context of special relativity):

In terms of any given inertial coordinates x,t you claim that a signal can be sent from event (x1,t1) to another event (x2,t2) such that (with c=1) the positive distance (x2-x1) exceeds the time (t2-t1). But in terms of another system of inertial coordinates moving at some speed v < c in terms of the first, the value of t'2 - t'1 is negative, and you already agreed (above) that anything we can do in a lab in one inertial frame we can do in a lab in any other. Hence your claim implies that we could signal backwards in time... which we can't, so your claim is false.

[Dono.]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 9:39:46 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> It's obvious that you haven't read the PIECE of UTTER CRANKERY "Causality Between Events with Space-Like Separation":
>
> https://vixra.org/pdf/1908.0306v3.pdf

[Dono.]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 10:08:32 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> I make two points here and in UTTER PIECE of CRANKERY
> https://vixra.org/pdf/1908.0306v3.pdf
>

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 11:20:12 AM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Arguments against FTL communication have employed solely kinematics.
> > which ignore peer-reviewed papers that present the properties of such
> > particles obeying special relativity. Specifically, their energy approaches
> > zero as their speed approaches infinity, and infinite speed is represented
> > by a horizontal line on the Minkowski diagram. Hence, it is not possible
> > for FTL particle speed to go beyond the horizontal line and produce
> > backward-in-time phenomena with its potential to violate causality.
>
> (sigh)
>
> Let's look at the Minkowski diagrams that I drew for Wikipedia:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Graphical_representation_of_the_Lorentz_transformation
>
> In the unprimed frame in Figure 3-1a, infinite speed is represented
> by lines parallel to the x-axis.
>
> In the primed frame in Figure 3-1d, infinite speed is represented
> by lines parallel to the x'-axis.
>
> NEITHER FRAME IS PREFERRED OVER THE OTHER. That is one of
> the major sources of confusion that you display in your vixra paper.

However, an observer in the primed frame sees infinite speed as horizontal
also. And no, I;m not confused, but apparently, YOU are.

Figure 3-1d is saying something, in a subtle way, about tachyon energy.
TACHYONS FOLLOWING A DOWNWARD SLOPE IN THE MINKOWSKI
DIAGRAM DO NOT HAVE DETECTABLE ENERGY.

Certainly, the relativistic velocity composition equation has a velocity,
u', for u > c²/v:

u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c²)

but why would you insist that it means anything at all?

Consider a quadratic equation, say, t² - 3t - 4 = 0. It can describe
throwing a ball up in the air from some height, h, and with some upward
velocity, v, and asking when it will hit the ground. The solution is

t = 1.5 +/- 2.5. Two roots: 4 and -1. Do you also insist that the negative
root is meaningful?

For u approaching c²/v, u' approaches infinity. That means that Tachyons
sent at a speed of c²/v to an observer moving away at velocity, v, will have
ZERO energy and, as Tom said, "they are unobservable ..., and thus are not
a subject of science."

But they WOULD be "a subject of science" of science to an observer moving
away at a slower velocity.

> As I originally wrote in 2018 in this section,
> "While the unprimed frame is drawn with space and time axes that meet
> at right angles, the primed frame is drawn with axes that meet at
> acute or obtuse angles. The frames are actually equivalent. The
> asymmetry is due to unavoidable distortions in how spacetime
> coordinates can map onto a Cartesian plane. By analogy, planar maps
> of the world are unavoidably distorted, but with experience,
> one learns to mentally account for these distortions."
>
> (The wording has changed a bit from my original, and I need to
> fix it some.)
>
> Please read Tom's response carefully without bringing up your bogus "block
> universe" arguments.

Come now, I didn't even mention the block universe in my post,
so why are you bringing it up as a non sequitur?

> As he states,
> "While no tachyon emitted by an observer can travel directly into
> their past lightcone, there are scenarios in which a relay in a
> relatively-moving frame can be used to send a signal into their
> past lightcone (tachyon anti-telephone)."

E. Recami has a paper addressing that issue, "The Tolman 'Antitelephone'
Paradox: Its Solution by Tachyon Mechanics":

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9508164

> I am not qualified to comment on the points that Tom brings up about
> general relativity, but what he brings up is in line with other
> authors that I have read...

Can't say that I am, either, but I have read a paper by Friedman, Thorne,
Novikov, et al

https://authors.library.caltech.edu/3737/

wherein the "Novikov self-consistency principle" is cited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle

It seems to me that if it is applicable to GR, then it is to SR, too. Of course,
it's also called a conjecture :-)

As for the cases where a moving observer is in a really long spaceship
and sends a superluminal signal from the front end to the back end
where a friend receives it and passes it to a stationary observer acausally.
My question is, why is that really any different from sending a signal from
the front of the spaceship directly to the stationary observer, which does
NOT violate causality.

[Dono.]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 3:55:46 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> snip repeated imbecilities<

You are unfixable , Gary. Just like Ken Shito. Enjoy vixra

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 11:37:49 AM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 9:39:46 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > Feinberg's 1967... such imaginary mass fields do not under any
> > > circumstances propagate faster than light.
> >
> > That may be true...
>
> It is true, so your assertion (referring to Feinberg as an ignored paper that supports your claims) was false.

"So certain are you. Always with you it cannot be done. Hear you nothing that I say?" -- Yoda

> > You are still conflating the properties of observers (composed of bradyons/tardyons) with tachyons.
>
> Nope, I have mentioned neither observers nor tardyons. If you re-read (or perhaps read) what I wrote, you
> will see that I refer only to the relations between events,

which are in the tardyon regime.

> which is sufficient to conclusively debunk your beliefs.

You blithely skip over the point that PCH uses tachyons (and used them
improperly) to claim that tachyons violate causality and, therefore, FTL
communication is impossible. YOUR argument that tachyons are
"debunked" is immaterial, as well as not settled.

> > I'm not arguing that observers can go FTL...
>
> Great. Now you just need to stop arguing that superluminal signaling
> is compatible with special relativity.

But it's not, and doesn't violate causality, either.

> > > The principle of relativity is that all the laws
> > > of physics take exactly the same form in terms of any system
> > > of inertial coordinates, so if it were possible to signal
> > > superluminally inside a lab at rest in one frame, it would be
> > > possible to do the same inside a lab at rest in any frame.
> >
> > Of course.

> Of course? Excellent. Keep this in mind for the discussion below.
> > > Now, the content of special relativity is Lorentz invariance,
> > > according to which such coordinate systems are related by
> > > Lorentz transformations, and every space-like interval goes
> > > in the negative t direction in some frame.
> >
> > Again, you're conflating observers with tachyons.
>
> Again, your statement is utterly insane.

Thank you for another slanderous slur. Would you also call
E. C. G. Sudarshan, O. M. P. Bilaniuk, V. Deshpande, E. Recami,
G. Feinberg, C. Schwartz and R. Ehrlich UTTERLY INSANE, TOO?
Will you PLEASE stop shoveling CRAP!

> I have not referred to observers or tachyons (or tardyons),

But you have:

> I have referred only to intervals between events,

and this is sufficient to conclusively prove that you are talking about
the regime of tardyons.

> and this is sufficient to conclusive debunk your claims.

:-))

> To rebut this reasoning, you would need to honestly address it,
> i.e., you would need to dispute something about the reasoning...
> but the reasoning is simple and unobjectionable (within the context
> of special relativity):
>
> In terms of any given inertial coordinates x,t you claim that a signal
> can be sent from event (x1,t1) to another event (x2,t2) such that (with c=1)
> the positive distance (x2-x1) exceeds the time (t2-t1). But in terms of
> another system of inertial coordinates moving at some speed v < c in
> terms of the first, the value of t'2 - t'1 is negative, and you already agreed
> (above) that anything we can do in a lab in one inertial frame we can do
> in a lab in any other. Hence your claim implies that we could signal backwards
> in time

No, it doesn't. You are simply refusing to apply dynamics to the problem.

> ... which we can't, so your claim is false.

Sudarshan realized that tachyon dynamics didn't allow backward-in-time
observations. He proposed a "reinterpretation principle" that speeds
greater than c²/v did produce backward-in-time, but the tachyon had
negative energy and couldn't be detected.

I disagree with that because (1) I don't accept backward-in-time motion
and (2) it would be backward-in-time for some observers but forward-
in-time for others. I prefer to proclaim that they are forward-in-time
for some observers and undetectable for others, and let it go at that.

[Richard Hachel]

Tachyons cannot exist; these are just science fiction particles.

Why?

Because the OBSERVABLE limit of the speed of light is not due to a
mechanical property, but to the structure of space-time itself.

It is logical (but very poorly considered) to think that the neutrino also
travels at the speed of light (that is to say infinitely fast in a well
understood space-time).

We can therefore think that the neutrino behaves a little like a quantum
of light, that is to say that it does not really exist between its source
and its receptor. It is only an instantaneous exchange of energy between
two entities placed in space-time.

It makes sense to me.

But I am a crank.

It seems.

R.H.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 5:55:46 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 11:20:12 AM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Arguments against FTL communication have employed solely kinematics.
> > > which ignore peer-reviewed papers that present the properties of such
> > > particles obeying special relativity. Specifically, their energy approaches
> > > zero as their speed approaches infinity, and infinite speed is represented
> > > by a horizontal line on the Minkowski diagram. Hence, it is not possible
> > > for FTL particle speed to go beyond the horizontal line and produce
> > > backward-in-time phenomena with its potential to violate causality.
> >
> > (sigh)
> >
> > Let's look at the Minkowski diagrams that I drew for Wikipedia:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Graphical_representation_of_the_Lorentz_transformation
> >
> > In the unprimed frame in Figure 3-1a, infinite speed is represented
> > by lines parallel to the x-axis.
> >
> > In the primed frame in Figure 3-1d, infinite speed is represented
> > by lines parallel to the x'-axis.
> >
> > NEITHER FRAME IS PREFERRED OVER THE OTHER. That is one of
> > the major sources of confusion that you display in your vixra paper.
>
> However, an observer in the primed frame sees infinite speed as horizontal
> also. And no, I;m not confused, but apparently, YOU are.

I'm snipping the rest of your post, because you need to get this
ABSOLUTELY MOST BASIC POINT CLEARED UP before you can even HOPE to
discuss more advanced topics.

================================================================

A) An infinite speed signal is one that can travel from one point to another
in the spatial dimension without any advancement in the time dimension.

True or false?

================================================================

B) For the unprimed observer in Figure 3-1a, the spatial dimension is
horizontal, and the time dimension is vertical.

True or false?

C) For the unprimed observer in Figure 3-1a, the lines of simultaneity
are horizontal and parallel with the x axis.

True or false?

D) Therefore, for the unprimed observer in Figure 3-1a, an infinite speed
signal could be represented by a horizontal arrow which is parallel
with the x axis.

True or false?

================================================================

E) For the primed observer in Figure 3-1d, the spatial dimension is
tilted arctan(0.5) from the horizontal (approx 26.6°), and
the time dimension is tilted approx -26.6° from the vertical.

True or false?

F) For the primed observer in Figure 3-1d, the lines of simultaneity
are tilted approx 26.6° from the horizontal and are parallel with
the x' axis.

True or false?

G) Therefore, for the primed observer in Figure 3-1d, an infinite speed
signal could be represented by an arrow tilted 26.6° from the
horizontal which is parallel with the x' axis.

True or false?

================================================================

In which step, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, do you begin to disagree with
my interpretation of the Minkowski diagram?


Bonus question
H) Since you assert, in Figure 3d, that an infinite speed signal must be
represented by a horizontal arrow, please show me how the primed
observer can POSSIBLY know what "horizontal" is for an unprimed observer?

================================================================

The problem is that since simultaneity is observer-dependent, "infinite
speed" also be observer dependent.

If, as you assert, "infinite speed" is always horizontal in a Minkowski
diagram, you are in effect asserting the existence of ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Would you also call E. C. G. Sudarshan, O. M. P. Bilaniuk,
> V. Deshpande, E. Recami, G. Feinberg, C. Schwartz and R. Ehrlich
> UTTERLY INSANE, TOO?

Feinberg's concept, when clarified, did not lead to superluminal propagation, so it is wrong and dishonest to keep putting him on your list. Among the others, one of them is/was indeed insane, and the others either admitted that what they were proposing violates special relativity and/or they were crackpots on this subject.

> > I have referred only to intervals between events,
>
> and this is sufficient to conclusively prove that you are talking about
> the regime of tardyons.

No, you are confusing "intervals" with "timelike intervals".

> > In terms of any given inertial coordinates x,t you claim that a signal
> > can be sent from event (x1,t1) to another event (x2,t2) such that (with c=1)
> > the positive distance (x2-x1) exceeds the time (t2-t1). But in terms of
> > another system of inertial coordinates moving at some speed v < c in
> > terms of the first, the value of t'2 - t'1 is negative, and you already
> > agreed (above) that anything we can do in a lab in one inertial frame we
> > can do in a lab in any other. Hence your claim implies that we could

> > signal backwards in time, which we can't, so your claim is false.

>
> No, it doesn't. You are simply refusing to apply dynamics to the problem.

Again, the logic is simple, self-contained, and irrefutable. Typing the word "dynamics" does not constitute a substantive rebuttal of the iron clad reasoning that refutes all your claims. Which part of the argument do you not understand or think needs clarification? It's only three sentences. Take them one at a time. Which one do you disagree with, and why?

[Mitch Raemsch]

Gamma math demonstrates an energy quantity relationship
that could never manifest as tachyon. Propulsion would create infinite
positive kinetic energy making infinite weight resistance.
IF you could go beyond light speed by Gamma you would have
infinite negative tachyon energy. Negative energy would
cancel gravity... If a tachyon made it into a Black hole
the black hole would explode...

Time does not end or go backward in any mathematical
physical order.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Sylvia Else]

The derivations are motivated by the constancy of the speed of light,
not by the speed of light as a limitation.

Sylvia.

[Bret Alva]

Hmm, it looks like you don't understand what you just said. That sharp
constancy _IS_ the limitation.

[Sylvia Else]

The constancy of the speed of light clearly means that it cannot travel
at any other speed. It does not, in itself, mean that nothing can travel
at a higher speed, though that fact is quickly derived.

Sylvia.

[Bret Alva]

Sylvia Else wrote:

>>>> What do you mean by "do not work in excess". Those transformations
>>>> are there motivated by the limitation of the speed of light, as a
>>>> direct consequence. It wouldn't exists otherwise.
>>>
>>> The derivations are motivated by the constancy of the speed of light,
>>> not by the speed of light as a limitation.
>>
>> Hmm, it looks like you don't understand what you just said. That sharp
>> constancy _IS_ the limitation.
>
> The constancy of the speed of light clearly means that it cannot travel
> at any other speed. It does not, in itself, mean that nothing can travel
> at a higher speed, though that fact is quickly derived.

I beg to differ, this construction embedded inherently into the manifold,
without which the manifold wouldn't even exists. It's a math thing, hence
logic, existence based on logic, if you can invalidate logic, be my
guest. That's _NOT_ just a quantified measurement. It's bigger than that.

[Bret Alva]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> particles obeying special relativity. Specifically, their energy
> approaches zero as their speed approaches infinity, and infinite speed
> is represented by a horizontal line on the Minkowski diagram. Hence, it
> is not possible for FTL particle speed to go beyond the horizontal line

who are all these people getting tested? I dont know anyone, or heard of
anyone, an actual person that has been tested. Im not saying there are no
stupid people getting tested, but half a million a day? I would have met
someone, or heard of someone who has been tested by now.

Where are those people falling on their nose, because the "virus" in
China, here in america. Why are we americans not crashing on the streets,
because of "corona", as they did in the People's Republic of China?? It's
the same shit, isn't it? They never tell is something else.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 6:32:18 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 5:55:46 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 11:20:12 AM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Let's look at the Minkowski diagrams that I drew for Wikipedia:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Graphical_representation_of_the_Lorentz_transformation
> > >
> > > In the unprimed frame in Figure 3-1a, infinite speed is represented
> > > by lines parallel to the x-axis.
> > >
> > > In the primed frame in Figure 3-1d, infinite speed is represented
> > > by lines parallel to the x'-axis.
> > >
> > > NEITHER FRAME IS PREFERRED OVER THE OTHER. That is one of
> > > the major sources of confusion that you display in your vixra paper.
> >
> > However, an observer in the primed frame sees infinite speed as horizontal
> > also. And no, I;m not confused, but apparently, YOU are.
>
> I'm snipping the rest of your post, because you need to get this
> ABSOLUTELY MOST BASIC POINT CLEARED UP before you can even HOPE to
> discuss more advanced topics.
>
> ================================================================
>
> A) An infinite speed signal is one that can travel from one point to another
> in the spatial dimension without any advancement in the time dimension.
>
> True or false?

Of course. deltat = L/u. As u approaches infinity, deltat approaches zero.
For deltat > 0, u is less than infinity.

Since you asked me a question and I answered it,, it's only fair that you answer
a question of mine. My question for you is, since deltat > 0 applies to a speed
less than infinite, to what speed does deltat < 0 apply?

> ================================================================
>
> B) For the unprimed observer in Figure 3-1a, the spatial dimension is
> horizontal, and the time dimension is vertical.
>
> True or false?

Of course.

> C) For the unprimed observer in Figure 3-1a, the lines of simultaneity
> are horizontal and parallel with the x axis.
>
> True or false?

Of course.

> D) Therefore, for the unprimed observer in Figure 3-1a, an infinite speed
> signal could be represented by a horizontal arrow which is parallel
> with the x axis.
>
> True or false?

Of course/

> ================================================================
>
> E) For the primed observer in Figure 3-1d, the spatial dimension is
> tilted arctan(0.5) from the horizontal (approx 26.6°), and
> the time dimension is tilted approx -26.6° from the vertical.
>
> True or false?

Of course.

> F) For the primed observer in Figure 3-1d, the lines of simultaneity
> are tilted approx 26.6° from the horizontal and are parallel with
> the x' axis.
>
> True or false?

Of course.

> G) Therefore, for the primed observer in Figure 3-1d, an infinite speed
> signal could be represented by an arrow tilted 26.6° from the
> horizontal which is parallel with the x' axis.
>
> True or false?

Of course.

> ================================================================
>
> In which step, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, do you begin to disagree with
> my interpretation of the Minkowski diagram?

None at all. You see, I DO understand the Minkowski diagram.

> Bonus question
> H) Since you assert, in Figure 3d, that an infinite speed signal must be
> represented by a horizontal arrow, please show me how the primed
> observer can POSSIBLY know what "horizontal" is for an unprimed observer?

That question doesn't even make sense. I did NOT assert that infinite speed
in 3d was a horizontal line. I said the moving observer sees his time
axis as vertical and his space axis as horizontal. It appears that you
chose to misinterpret what I said.

> ================================================================
>
> The problem is that since simultaneity is observer-dependent, "infinite
> speed" also be observer dependent.

> If, as you assert, "infinite speed" is always horizontal in a Minkowski
> diagram, you are in effect asserting the existence of ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY.

I did not assert that. I only stated that infinite speed was along the
horizontal axis for the moving observer. That would be the x' axis
in 3d, but the moving observer sees that axis as horizontal.

Now, you are laboring under another misconception which I tried to
point out with MY question. There certainly is something wrong with
downward-sloping velocity vectors. One reason is that deltat < 0
mus apply to a speed GREATER than infinity, which is completely
absurd. So we must not draw them. How do we keep from drawing them?
The relativistic energy equation:

E² = p²c² - (mc²)²

points the way out. Tachyon energy is infinite for u = c and monotonically
falls to zero at u = ∞. As you point out, speed is observer dependent.
The relativistic velocity composition equation must be valid for tachyons
since tachyons are supposed to obey special relativity, and the way that
backward-in-time solutions occur is when the denominator goes negative,
but that means two things: greater than infinite speeds and energies in
some strange region beyond where a tachyon has - no energy at all! But
since to other observers, the tachyon still has positive energy, one can only
conclude that tachyon DETECTION is observer dependent.

And it turns out that observers who would experience causality violations
if they could receive signals, can't. Thus, tachyons don't violate causality.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 6:34:59 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Would you also call E. C. G. Sudarshan, O. M. P. Bilaniuk,
> > V. Deshpande, E. Recami, G. Feinberg, C. Schwartz and R. Ehrlich
> > UTTERLY INSANE, TOO?

So, you're not going to answer that. Well, I will only say this: you are harping on
Feinberg's model, but there are more ways to construct field theories than his.
In fact, Arons and Sudarshin did just that after finding that Feinberg's approach
was NOT Lorentz invariant: Physical Review 173:5 1622

Since you toss around nonsense like "utterly insane," and you refuse to believe
that you can possibly be wrong, tossing around absolutes like "ironclad" and
ignoring the dynamics of tachyons while pretending that they violate SR, which
they do not, I see no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you.

> [Bull plop deleted]

[Vern Cato]

Hary Garbagel wrote:

> Since you toss around nonsense like "utterly insane," and you refuse to
> believe that you can possibly be wrong, tossing around absolutes like
> "ironclad" and ignoring the dynamics of tachyons while pretending that
> they violate SR, which they do not, I see no point in trying to have a
> rational discussion with you.
>
>> [Bull plop deleted]

You don't understand your own theory, then. If the vaccines works, then
you can't endanger anybody, yourself not being militarized vaccinated
with a big syringe.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

It is quite remarkable that you can answer basic questions correctly but
STILL be utterly screwed up about interpreting Minkowski diagrams.

So... Let's try an approach that does not use Minkowski diagrams. I have
just added a new section to my Wikipedia article on "Einstein's thought experiments."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments#Impossibility_of_faster-than-light_signalling

Please explain to me how Einstein totally screwed up in his analysis, and
how you are going to overthrow over a century of analysis.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 2:10:30 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> ...I see no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you.

You deleted without comment the three-sentence proof that succinctly and irrefutably debunks your beliefs. Running away from the facts doesn't make them go away:

In terms of any given inertial coordinates x,t you claim that a signal can be sent from event (x1,t1) to another event (x2,t2) such that (with c=1) the positive distance (x2-x1) exceeds the time (t2-t1). But you know that in terms of another system of inertial coordinates moving in the first at some speed v < c, the value of t'2 - t'1 is negative, and you already agreed that anything we can do in a lab in one inertial frame we can do in a lab in any other. Hence your claim implies that we could signal backwards in time, which we can't, so your claim is false.

> You ignore the dynamics of tachyons...

I don't ignore them, I give an iron-clad proof that works regardless of whatever hypothetical dynamics of hypothetical entities you may imagine. You are free to put transmitters and receivers into any relative states of motion you like. Knock yourself out. Regardless of what arrangement of dynamical entities you use to produce your putative superluminal signal in the system x,t, you can set up the same arrangement in terms of any other system x',t', since otherwise you would violate the principle of relativity. So the proof is totally unaffected by whatever dynamics you hypothesize (provided, of course, it is consistent with special relativity, which is a basic stipulation).

> > > Would you also call E. C. G. Sudarshan, O. M. P. Bilaniuk,
> > > V. Deshpande, E. Recami, G. Feinberg, C. Schwartz and R. Ehrlich
> > > UTTERLY INSANE, TOO?
>
> So, you're not going to answer that.

Huh? I answered your (strange) question very directly and explicitly.

> You are harping on Feinberg's model, but there are more ways to

> construct field theories than his.

So cite them and stop dishonestly citing Feinberg. Likewise you need to stop citing Ehrlich, who says

"I study faster-than-light (FTL) particles, which violate a basic principle of Einstein’s relativity. If confirmed the existence of these particles will turn the world of physics upside down, and raise science fiction-sounding possibilities, including communicating with the past!"

Do you see? Not only does he admit (indeed, brag) that his beliefs violate the basic principle of relativity (flatly contradicting your whole premise), he says explicitly they enable communicating with the past, which you vociferously deny, so why do you keep dishonestly citing him in support of your beliefs?

> Since you toss around nonsense like "utterly insane,"...

Hold on. When we see an utterly insane statement - especially if it is repeated multiple times after being gently corrected - it is perfectly appropriate to point out that the statement is utterly insane... *and then to explain why*, which I did. Remember, the statement in question came after I had said

> > The content of special relativity is Lorentz invariance,

> > according to which such coordinate systems are related by
> > Lorentz transformations, and every space-like interval goes
> > in the negative t direction in some frame.

to which you replied:

> Again, you're conflating observers with tachyons.

I still contend that your statement is utterly insane. Look at what I wrote, and what you answered. I really think that any objective person (having even the most minimal familiarity with the subject) would agree that your answer was utterly insane.

Again, this isn't rocket science: In terms of any given inertial coordinates x,t you claim that a signal can be sent from event (x1,t1) to another event (x2,t2) such that (with c=1) the positive distance (x2-x1) exceeds the time (t2-t1). But in terms of another system of inertial coordinates moving at some speed v < c in terms of the first, the value of t'2 - t'1 is negative, and you already agreed that anything we can do in a lab in one inertial frame we can do in a lab in any other. Hence your claim implies that we could signal backwards in time, which we can't, so your claim is false.

[Gary Harnagel]

What's remarkable is that you still believe that the Minkowski diagram is
the be-all end -all of tachyon phenomena. You refuse to process in your mind
that (1) backward-in-time signalling means greater than infinite speed, which
is totally absurd and (2) the relativistic energy equation shows that tachyons
have no energy at u = ∞, so observers moving at v relative to that frame
cannot detect tachyons if v > c²/u.

> So... Let's try an approach that does not use Minkowski diagrams. I have
> just added a new section to my Wikipedia article on "Einstein's thought experiments."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments#Impossibility_of_faster-than-light_signalling
>
> Please explain to me how Einstein totally screwed up in his analysis, and
> how you are going to overthrow over a century of analysis.

Einstein died before tachyons were invented. He surely would have understood
that tachyons cannot be detected under the conditions I specified above; namely,
at speed of ∞ "and above."

Consequently, your addition does not address these points. If you insist on staying
solely in kinematics, you're not considering the whole picture. Tachyons DO NOT
violate causality when you look at ALL of SR.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 4:43:23 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 2:10:30 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > ...I see no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you.
>
> You deleted without comment the three-sentence proof that succinctly and
> irrefutably debunks your beliefs.

Should I answer this abysmally incorrect assertion, or not. Hmmm ....

I DID answer it by pointing out that relying solely on kinematics is WRONG.

> Running away from the facts doesn't make them go away:

YOU deleted my ANSWER, so YOU are the one running away.

You claim you didn't ignore the dynamics and then you did exactly that.

> > > > Would you also call E. C. G. Sudarshan, O. M. P. Bilaniuk,
> > > > V. Deshpande, E. Recami, G. Feinberg, C. Schwartz and R. Ehrlich
> > > > UTTERLY INSANE, TOO?
> >
> > So, you're not going to answer that.
>
> Huh? I answered your (strange) question very directly and explicitly.

It;s not at all "strange." I say little more than what they have said.
If you claim I'm "utterly insane" then you are defaming them, too.

> > You are harping on Feinberg's model, but there are more ways to
> > construct field theories than his.
>
> So cite them and stop dishonestly citing Feinberg. Likewise you need to stop citing Ehrlich, who says

I gave you the link, hypocrite.

> "I study faster-than-light (FTL) particles, which violate a basic principle of Einstein’s relativity.
> If confirmed the existence of these particles will turn the world of physics upside down,
> and raise science fiction-sounding possibilities, including communicating with the past!"

This is a total absurdity. Maybe you need to study harder.
Perhaps you should investigate E² = p² - m² instead of ignoring it.

> Do you see?

I see that your mind is calcified. I gave you the link to Sudarshan's
paper and you deleted it. YOU are the dishonest one.

So you are doubling down on "utterly insane."

Have a nice life, hypocrite.

[Dono.]

On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> What's remarkable is that you still believe that the Minkowski diagram is
> the be-all end -all of tachyon phenomena.

You see, Gary, the crux of your problems is that you do not know what is a Minkowski diagram. It is quite evident from your "paper", none of your diagrams that purport to be a Minkowski diagram is a Minkowski diagram. You have your head so far up your ass that you don't see that and you don't want to admit it.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 4:12:52 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> I DID answer it by pointing out that relying solely on kinematics is WRONG.

Simply saying the proof is wrong (or WRONG) is not an answer. To refute the proof you would need to point out some part that is false, but you obviously can't, because each statement is completely irrefutable:

In terms of any given inertial coordinates x,t you claim that a signal can be sent from event (x1,t1) to another event (x2,t2) such that (with c=1) the positive distance (x2-x1) exceeds the time (t2-t1). But you know that in terms of another system of inertial coordinates moving in the first at some speed v < c, the value of t'2 - t'1 is negative, and you already agreed that anything we can do in a lab in one inertial frame we can do in a lab in any other. Hence your claim implies that we could signal backwards in time, which we can't, so your claim is false.

> > "I study faster-than-light (FTL) particles, which violate a basic
> > principle of Einstein’s relativity. If confirmed the existence of
> > these particles will turn the world of physics upside down, and
> > raise science fiction-sounding possibilities, including communicating
> > with the past!"
>
> This is a total absurdity. Maybe you need to study harder.

Wait... what? That's a direct quote from *your* source Ehrlich. Are you saying your source is totally absurd? Is that anything like utterly insane?

Your train of thought is getting very obscure. You seem to be going berserk. Wouldn't it be more productive for you to just point out which of the statements in the disproof of your beliefs is wrong? It's just three sentences.

[Dono.]

On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 4:34:24 PM UTC-7, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
> You seem to be going berserk.

That started years ago....

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:34:24 PM UTC-6, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 4:12:52 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > I DID answer it by pointing out that relying solely on kinematics is WRONG.
>
> Simply saying the proof is wrong (or WRONG) is not an answer. To refute the
> proof you would need to point out some part that is false,

I have done that SO MANY times, but your mind seems to blank out whenever
tachyon dynamics is invoked.

> but you obviously can't,

Liar!

> because each statement is completely irrefutable:

Only when you ignore tachyon dynamics.

> [Repeating bull plop doesn't make it smell any better]

> > > "I study faster-than-light (FTL) particles, which violate a basic
> > > principle of Einstein’s relativity. If confirmed the existence of
> > > these particles will turn the world of physics upside down, and
> > > raise science fiction-sounding possibilities, including communicating
> > > with the past!"
> >
> > This is a total absurdity. Maybe you need to study harder.

> Wait... what? That's a direct quote from *your* source Ehrlich.

So now your a plagiarist since your not noting the source?

> Are you saying your source is totally absurd? Is that anything like utterly insane?

SO now your TRIPLING down on the "utterly insane" slander!

So you pick ONE reference and ignore others. Perhaps you really DO need to study harder.
Try

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/PhysicsPapers/59:IJMPA31_1650041.pdf

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/PhysicsPapers/60:MPLA_32_1750126.pdf

> Your train of thought is getting very obscure. You seem to be going berserk. Wouldn't it
> be more productive for you to just point out which of the statements in the disproof of
> your beliefs is wrong? It's just three sentences.

YOUR "PROOF" DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT TACHYON ENERGY APPROACHES ZERO
AS ITS SPEED APPROACHES INFINITY. RECEIVERS MOVING WITH RESPECT TO THE
TACHYON SOURCE MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DETECT TACHYONS DEPENDING
ON THEIR SPEED RELATIVE TO THE SOURCE. IN FACT, TACHYONS CANNOT BE
DETECTED IN THE VERY CASES WHERE THE MINKOWSKI DIAGRAM DISPLAYS
BACKWARD-IN-TIME MOTION.

I hope the capital letter will impress upon your obscured mind that I have answered
your berserk assertions, and this is FAR from the first time.

[Mitch Raemsch]

Black holes creates tachyons falling past the speed of light.
We know there is more acceleration inside a BH as that is the
definition of gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 6:00:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > because each statement is completely irrefutable:
>
> Only when you ignore tachyon dynamics.

No, each statement is irrefutable, independent of any hypothetical dynamics of hypothetical entities. Nothing in the proof relies on any dynamical attributes of hypothetical faster-than-light entities. In fact, it doesn't rely on how the putative superluminal signal is sent at all. It applies to arbitrary means of sending a superluminal (space-like) signal. The only attribute it assumes for the putative superluminal signal is that it is superluminal.

Again, in terms of any given inertial coordinates x,t you claim that a signal can be sent from event (x1,t1) to another event (x2,t2) such that (with c=1) the positive distance (x2-x1) exceeds the time (t2-t1). But in terms of another system of inertial coordinates moving in the first at some speed v < c, the value of t'2 - t'1 is negative, and anything we can do in a lab in one inertial frame we can do in a lab in any other. Hence your claim implies that we could signal backwards in time, which we can't, so your claim is false.

> > Wait... what? That's a direct quote from *your* source Ehrlich.
>
> So now your a plagiarist since your not noting the source?

Wait... what? I presented it as a direct quote of Ehrlick, by name. Now you're accusing me of plagiarism? (Plagiarism means claiming someone else's work for your own.) Your behavior is getting more and more bizarre.

> YOUR "PROOF" DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT TACHYON ENERGY APPROACHES ZERO
> AS ITS SPEED APPROACHES INFINITY.

No, the proof does not rely on any attributes of hypothetical entities (unless those attributes violate special relativity), it proceeds purely from the principles of special relativity to the conclusion that the ability to send any superluminal signals - however it is accomplished - would imply the ability to signal into our causal past, and therefore it is not possible. Your statements about tachyon energy are completely irrelevant.

[Sylvia Else]

On 02-Aug-20 12:09 am, Bret Alva wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>

>> On 01-Aug-20 2:01 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> Arguments against FTL communication have employed solely kinematics.
>>

>> And the fact that FTL communication creates causality paradoxes, which
>> are a powerful, if not entirely conclusive, argument against FTL.
>
> You must be kidding with "if not entirely conclusive". Causality is
> exactly the logical fundamental argument to test against, without which
> you have nothing left in your well equipped laboratory. All tests are
> fundamentally inherently based on it.
>

That obeying causality is a property of the universe is only a law of
nature - that is, something we've observed a lot, and never seen a
violation of.

It may be difficult to imagine a universe in which this is not a
property, but that may just be a reflection on our abilities to imagine
things.

Most of the time we can just assume that the laws of the universe are
true. But at the back of our minds we still need a recognition that
things may not be quite as we suppose, just in case.

Sylvia.

[Dono.]

You are trying to reason with a nutter

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Einstein's gedanken is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the means used to
provide faster-than-light signaling. If tachyons exist in any form of the
word "exist", they cannot be detectable, because any means of detecting
tachyons would allow the possibility of causal violation. The mathematics
is trivial. Dynamical considerations do not invalidate the fact that given
the starting assumption W > c, one can always find a v < c such that if the
strip were set moving at a speed v, then T < 0, i.e. the recipient of the
signal will receive the signal before the transmitter has transmitted it.

Hypothetical undetectable tachyons are void of consequence. They are as
relevant to physics as hypothetical undetectable aether.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 3 August 2020 00:43:23 UTC+2, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 2:10:30 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > ...I see no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you.
>
> You deleted without comment the three-sentence proof that succinctly and irrefutably debunks your beliefs. Running away from the facts doesn't make them go away:

So, stop running them. Your fellows believe
that they must follow The Shit because it's an obvious
consequence of the experiments, you believe you must
follow it because it's optimally simple and full of
other advantages, both your reason are similiarly
idiotic. There is NO real reason to follow it and
there never was.

[Vern Cato]

Dono. wrote:

>> > You must be kidding with "if not entirely conclusive". Causality is
>> > exactly the logical fundamental argument to test against, without
>> > which you have nothing left in your well equipped laboratory. All
>> > tests are fundamentally inherently based on it.
>> >
>> >
>> That obeying causality is a property of the universe is only a law of
>> nature - that is, something we've observed a lot, and never seen a
>> violation of.
>>
>> It may be difficult to imagine a universe in which this is not a
>> property, but that may just be a reflection on our abilities to imagine
>> things.
>>
>> Most of the time we can just assume that the laws of the universe are
>> true. But at the back of our minds we still need a recognition that
>> things may not be quite as we suppose, just in case. Sylvia.
>
> You are trying to reason with a nutter

You ugly momma is not here. Anybody? There is nothing to "imagine" or
argue against a logical outcome, you fucking moron. That's the ground
fundament this world is built upon, without which you have no world. You
just proved you are an imbecile like the most around here, with no ground
experience in anything. What and idiot.

[Vern Cato]

Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 02-Aug-20 12:09 am, Bret Alva wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> On 01-Aug-20 2:01 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>> Arguments against FTL communication have employed solely kinematics.
>>>
>>> And the fact that FTL communication creates causality paradoxes, which
>>> are a powerful, if not entirely conclusive, argument against FTL.
>>
>> You must be kidding with "if not entirely conclusive". Causality is
>> exactly the logical fundamental argument to test against, without which
>> you have nothing left in your well equipped laboratory. All tests are
>> fundamentally inherently based on it.
>
> That obeying causality is a property of the universe is only a law of
> nature - that is, something we've observed a lot, and never seen a
> violation of.

No, it's NOT a "property". A gas, or a piece of metal, has properties
associated with. Causality is a structure. Not abstract. Without which
you have no properties in anything. You guys are completely encalcified.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 3 August 2020 05:47:54 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:

> That obeying causality is a property of the universe is only a law of
> nature - that is, something we've observed a lot, and never seen a
> violation of.

For some reasons You're programmed* to look for
and find reasons for everything You see. That's
why the impression.

* purists are saying that neural networks are
"taught" instead "programmed".

[Vern Cato]

This must be a part of a completely other discussion.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 11:06:54 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:58:31 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 4:22:02 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > So... Let's try an approach that does not use Minkowski diagrams. I have
> > > just added a new section to my Wikipedia article on "Einstein's thought experiments."
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments#Impossibility_of_faster-than-light_signalling
> > >
> > > Please explain to me how Einstein totally screwed up in his analysis, and
> > > how you are going to overthrow over a century of analysis.
> >
> > Einstein died before tachyons were invented. He surely would have understood
> > that tachyons cannot be detected under the conditions I specified above; namely,
> > at speed of ∞ "and above."
> >
> > Consequently, your addition does not address these points. If you insist on staying
> > solely in kinematics, you're not considering the whole picture. Tachyons DO NOT
> > violate causality when you look at ALL of SR.
>
> Einstein's gedanken is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the means used to
> provide faster-than-light signaling.

I don't think so. He and you and coeal are assuming that particles moving at FTL
speeds can ALWAYS be detected, but tachyon dynamics contradicts this assertion.

> If tachyons exist in any form of the word "exist", they cannot be detectable,
> because any means of detecting tachyons would allow the possibility of causal
> violation.

That's false reasoning. Receivers can only detect tachyons moving at less than infinite
speed because only such have positive energy. That is, when the denominator of the
velocity composition equation is greater than zero. When that denominator becomes
negative, THAT results in the possibility of causality violation, but THAT is the condition
where tachyons don't have real energy.

> The mathematics is trivial. Dynamical considerations do not invalidate the fact that
> given the starting assumption W > c, one can always find a v < c such that if the
> strip were set moving at a speed v, then T < 0, i.e. the recipient of the
> signal will receive the signal before the transmitter has transmitted it.

But he WON'T receive it because it has no energy. Only observers who are
moving such that 1 - Wv/c² > 0 can detect them.

> Hypothetical undetectable tachyons are void of consequence. They are as
> relevant to physics as hypothetical undetectable aether.

Suppose a source sends a tachyon signal traveling at 10c. A receiver moving away at
any velocity v < 0.1c will find a positive energy signal:

W' = (W - v)/(1 - Wv/c²)

E² = p²c² + (imc²)² = (mc²)²(W'²/c² - 1)

When v = c²/W, W' = ∞ and E = 0. When v > c²/W, the energy equation gives anomalous
results, but Arons and Sudarshan used a quantum field theory argument to conclude
that the energy was actually negative. Perhaps a better field theory could be constructed
that would make the energy imaginary?

A receiver moving toward the source will ALWAYS see a positive energy source:

W' = (W + v)/(1 + Wv/c²)

The tachyon speed will be lower in the receiver frame and the energy will be higher.
When analyzing tachyons, one MUST consider both kinematics and dynamics.
See Figure 6 of https://vixra.org/pdf/1908.0306v3.pdf.

[Sylvia Else]

You seem to be conflating a mathematical model of the universe with
reality. The universe will do whatever it does. It's not constrained by
theory.

Sylvia.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 7:50:43 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> That's false reasoning. Receivers can only detect tachyons moving at less than infinite
> speed because only such have positive energy.

I'm sure that you did not mean what you wrote, which is nonsensical.

Please rephrase.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Like everyone.

> The universe will do whatever it does. It's not constrained by
> theory.

Yes, it is. "Will" refers to the future, future
depends on time coordinate constrainted by theory.
Things are complicated sometimes, lady.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 5:50:43 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> [Einstein] and you and coeal are assuming that particles moving at FTL
> speeds can ALWAYS be detected...

No, the basis of the reductio ad absurdum proof is only that *some* (i.e., at least one) superluminal signal can be sent. This means that, inside some particular lab in some particular state of motion it is possible to have a transmitter and a receiver in some states of motion such that a superluminal signal can be sent and detected. If you deny this, then there is no superluminal signaling at all, and we are done. But if you assert that this is possible, then we proceed with the disproof as follows:

By the principle of relativity, anything we can do inside a lab that is at rest in one frame, we can also do inside another lab at rest in any other frame that is moving relative to the first at any speed between -c and +c. Also, by the principle of Lorentz invariance (the other pillar of special relativity), the inertial coordinate systems in which those labs are respectively at rest are related by Lorentz transformations, meaning that the spacelike interval over which the putative superluminal signal propagated goes in the negative time direction of some of these systems, and therefore by a combination of such signals we would be able to signal into our causal past, which is absurd, so the conclusion is that the original premise - the possibility of sending ANY superluminal signal - was false.

Remember, your whole claim was based on your belief that there is a unique sense of "horizontal" intervals, but that is precisely what is false in special relativity, due to the relativity of simultaneity. Every spacelike interval is "horizontal" in terms of some systems of inertial coordinates, and indeed every directed spacelike interval goes in the negative coordinate time direction in terms of some systems of inertial coordinates. This is a fundamental attribute of Lorentz invariance, independent of any dynamical actions taking place.

> That's false reasoning. Receivers can only detect tachyons moving
> at less than infinite speed because only such have positive energy.

You should be able to see, now, the mistake in your reasoning. What you call "infinite speed" is a "horizontal" interval, but every spacelike interval is "horizontal" in terms of some system of inertial coordinates. And every intervals goes in the negative time direction of some system of inertial coordinates. And by the principle of relativity all these systems are equally valid for the expression of physical laws and the descriptions of events. This is completely independent of whatever hypothetical dyanamics you posit for your putative superluminal signaling apparatus.

> ...but Arons and Sudarshan used a quantum field theory argument to

> conclude that the energy was actually negative.

The quantum field theory meaning of "tachyon" does not entail superluminal signaling or propagation of anything. The paper of Feinberg in 67 essentially described the same approach as Sudarshan, et al, (in fact, there were accusations of plagiarism) and this was shown to not lead to any superluminal signaling - which of course it couldn't, because quantum field theory is explicitly Lorentz invariant.

[Gary Harnagel]

What's the big problem? Don't you understand E = mc²/sqrt(W²/c² -1)?

When W = ∞, E = 0. Do you believe a signal with zero energy is detectable?
Tachyons have finite positive energy for c < W < ∞.

[Dono.]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 5:50:43 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>

> I don't think so. He and you and coeal are assuming that particles moving at FTL
> speeds can ALWAYS be detected, but tachyon dynamics contradicts this assertion.
>

You are lying, coeal has told you exactly the OPPOSITE. You are a real piece of shit, Gary.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Because of relativity of simultaneity, "infinite speed" tachyons are only
of infinite speed in certain frames of reference. In all other frames,
tachyons have finite speed and would therefore be detectable, and would
therefore enable the creation of causality violation scenarios.

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/1/20 5:55 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> TACHYONS FOLLOWING A DOWNWARD SLOPE IN THE MINKOWSKI
> DIAGRAM DO NOT HAVE DETECTABLE ENERGY.

This would be a disaster for physics: the Principle of Relativity would
be violated in that descriptions of a given experiment using different
frames would yield different results.

This is simple and basic: in inertial frame A send a tachyon signal
between two spatially-separated events. In the Minkowski diagram of
frame A it will have an upward slope (i.e. arriving after it is
emitted). But there exists a frame B, moving relative to A with speed <
c, such that in the Minkowski diagram of frame B the tachyon has
downward slope (arriving before it is emitted).

So with the above claim you have a situation violating the Principle of
Relativity: in frame A the tachyon signal is detectable, while in frame
B it is not. But what physically happens cannot possibly depend on which
frame is used to describe it, so the initial assumption that a tachyon
signal can be sent must be wrong.

This is the same argument used by coeal5136, just phrased
differently.

Tom Roberts

[Dono.]

Err, if you look at the Harnagel "paper", you will see that Harnagel does not understand Minkowski diagrams.

[Dono.]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 8:24:51 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:

> On 8/1/20 5:55 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > TACHYONS FOLLOWING A DOWNWARD SLOPE IN THE MINKOWSKI
> > DIAGRAM DO NOT HAVE DETECTABLE ENERGY.
>

Harnagel cite Schwartz who cites a paper by Recami , published in Nuovo Cimento in 1986 that claims to have solved all the controversies. https://scholar.google.com.br/citations?user=OtrUxlQAAAAJ&hl=en#d=gs_md_cita-d&u=%2Fcitations%3Fview_op%3Dview_citation%26hl%3Den%26user%3DOtrUxlQAAAAJ%26citation_for_view%3DOtrUxlQAAAAJ%3Ad1gkVwhDpl0C%26tzom%3D420

[Vern Cato]

Sylvia Else wrote:

>>>> Hmm, it looks like you don't understand what you just said. That
>>>> sharp constancy _IS_ the limitation.
>>>
>>> The constancy of the speed of light clearly means that it cannot
>>> travel at any other speed. It does not, in itself, mean that nothing
>>> can travel at a higher speed, though that fact is quickly derived.
>>
>> I beg to differ, this construction embedded inherently into the
>> manifold,
>> without which the manifold wouldn't even exists. It's a math thing,
>> hence logic, existence based on logic, if you can invalidate logic, be
>> my guest. That's _NOT_ just a quantified measurement. It's bigger than
>> that.
>
> You seem to be conflating a mathematical model of the universe with
> reality. The universe will do whatever it does. It's not constrained by
> theory.

If you find a region of this world not conflated with the rules of math,
there is job waiting for you at the very Large Hadron Collider. And a
Nobel prize. The physics has to be rewritten, I guess.

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/1/20 12:37 PM, coea...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]

I agree with all you have said.

But there is an aspect of this that has not been discussed in this
thread -- the thread has implicitly assumed what I call "naive causality":

Something happens at event A that causes something
else to happen at event B.

(For instance, A sending a signal and B receiving it;
the signal could be tachyon or bradyon.)

As you and many others have shown, tachyon signaling is inconsistent
with Special Relativity and naive causality.

[I strongly suspect that you know and understand
what follows; I am writing for others who don't.]

But in modern physics we don't use naive causality, recognizing its
limitations; it is completely inapplicable to quantum field theory
(QFT). Indeed, neither are the terms "tachyon" and "bradyon" as
identifying distinct particles.

In a perturbation approximation to QFT, we draw Feynman diagrams that
depict "legs" (lines) connecting "vertices" (points where lines connect
to each other) -- the legs are particles propagating in spacetime, and
the vertices are interactions between particles. The diagram represents
an amplitude for the process it depicts -- it is a graphical
representation of a complicated mathematical expression [#]. The purpose
is to evaluate the expression, and thus calculate the amplitude for a
given physical process (I am omitting myriad inessential details).

[#] The advantage of using Feynman diagrams is that
there are horrendous combinatorics involved, and they
are MUCH easier to deal with using graphs.

Invariably the calculation is performed in 4-momentum space, and physics
grad students learn how to do that in exquisite detail.

But one could also calculate in configuration space -- the vertices are
the locations where the particles interact, and the particles
necessarily travel between the locations of the vertices. To evaluate
the expression, one integrates the location of each vertex over ALL
SPACETIME [@]. So for each particle, which necessarily travels between a
given pair of vertices, there are vertex locations for which it travels
forward in time with speed < c. But there are also vertex locations for
which it travels backwards in time, and vertex locations for which it
travels with any speed between -infinity and +infinity -- no speed limit
applies to these virtual particles [@]. So every particle in a Feynman
diagram is NEITHER tachyon nor bradyon, it is BOTH.

[@] Configuration space and momentum space are
Fourier conjugates, and this integral is merely
the usual 4-D Fourier transform.

One can write down the Feynman diagrams corresponding to signaling from
event A to event B. It is straightforward to show that whenever A and B
are separated by a spacelike interval the amplitude for each diagram is
identically zero. So tachyon signaling cannot happen in QFT, even though
the virtual particles can behave like tachyons.

The modern physics version of causality is quite different from the
naive version above:

Conditions at event A can affect what happens at event
B only if A is within or on the past lightcone of B.

Note the above discussion used Feynman diagrams, which are the
perturbation APPROXIMATION to QFT. How about the theory itself?
Causality becomes:

All field operators commute whenever they are
evaluated at spacelike-separated events.
(Commuting fields to not interact.)

Tom Roberts

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 11:58:35 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:

> As you and many others have shown, tachyon signaling is inconsistent
> with Special Relativity and naive causality.
>
> [I strongly suspect that you know and understand
> what follows; I am writing for others who don't.]

Your efforts are not wasted. I always appreciate it when you write about
such things.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 9:52:58 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> Harnagel cite Schwartz who cites a paper by Recami... that claims

> to have solved all the controversies.

Recami's 2007 pre-print seems to be the source of Gary's confusions. Recami's alleged "solution" of the causal loops is astonishingly fallacious. It is all based on his fixed idea that the state of motion of a receiver at a given event can determine whether a signal can be received at that event, and so if we assume objects nebver change their state of motion and can never communicate with objects (even subluminally) in other states of motion, then causal loops can be avoided... which is utterly ridiculous because (a) objects can change their states of motion, and (b) there can be other objects at the same event in different states of motion, and they can communicate by subluminal means.

Example: If a particular receiver at a particular time and place is in a state of motion that (for whatever reason) does not enable it to receive a putative tachyonic signal, we can place another receiver at that same time and place but a different state of motion such that it can receive the signal, and then by ordinary subluminal means it can transfer the signal to the other co-located receiver. Equivalently, a single receiver can simply change its state of motion.

Either way, the states of motion of the transmitter and receiver have nothing whatsoever to do with the proof that superluminal signaling would imply causal loops. It relies solely on the events, which do not have velocities, and the character of the spacetime intervals between them. That's why no serious person pays any attention to someone like Recami. His writings on this subject are complete nonsense.

This kind of misconception tends to be encouraged by things like Figure 4-4 in the Wikipedia article on special relativity, which includes world lines of putative receivers and transmitters. As has been mentioned here before, those worldliness are irrelevant, and can easily mislead people into thinking they could be exploited to insulate against the causal loops, i.e., they tend to lead people directly to the Recami Fallacy (to which Gary has fallen prey). Only the intervals between the events are relevant.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 2:12:53 PM UTC-5, coea...@gmail.com wrote:

> This kind of misconception tends to be encouraged by things like Figure 4-4 in the Wikipedia article on special relativity, which includes world lines of putative receivers and transmitters. As has been mentioned here before, those worldliness are irrelevant, and can easily mislead people into thinking they could be exploited to insulate against the causal loops, i.e., they tend to lead people directly to the Recami Fallacy (to which Gary has fallen prey). Only the intervals between the events are relevant.

We have spoken before about the pedagogical issues in trying to explain
how FTL signaling results in causality violation. There is a long history
of such explanations. Einstein's 1907 thought experiment very closely
matches an approach that you yourself used in discussions with Gary several
months ago. Apparently unaware of Einstein's discussion, Tolman presented
nearly the identical argument in 1917, while various other authors including
Ehrenfest, Bohm etc. have presented both one-way and two-way arguments
(which entail sending the signal back to the sender)

I evaluated more than half a dozen different approaches to explaining why
FTL signaling results in causality violation. The approach that I chose
closely follows David Morin's presentation. My diagram has, as you noted,
a number of superfluous elements, but as John D. Norton and others have
noted, the irrelevant particulars that convert a straightforward argument
into a thought experiment can act as "intuition pumps" that stimulate
readers' ability to apply their intuitions to their understanding of a
scenario.

A thought experiment can always be reconstructed as a straightforward
argument, without the irrelevant particulars. You are evidently strongly
against the use of irrelevant particulars as an aid to intuition.

Different people learn differently. I happen to be a highly visual thinker,
so I naturally gravitate towards explanations that include an abundance
of visual stimulation.

You are not wrong in criticizing the use of excess visual elements in my
Figure 4-4, but I am not wrong either in believing that many people benefit
from their inclusion.

One size does not fit all.

[Dono.]

Interesting, Recami's fallacy triggered Schwartz's errors.

[Gary Harnagel]

I'm no expert on QFT, but it appears that various theories of tachyons
have been constructed: by Feinberg, by Arons and Sudarshan, by
Schwartz with significantly different conclusions. So it seems that IF
(perhaps WHEN) tachyons are discovered, a theory to accommodate
them will be developed. And when that happens, definition of causality
will change (perhaps back to the wishy-washy version :-). No big deal,
this has happened before in sciencee.

So there may be a threat to the status quo looming in our own back
yard, if Germany is included in our backyard. What if the KATRIN
experimental results maintain the most likely value for m² at -1.0 eV²
and get the confidence level range down to 0.2 eV²? We'll find out
in about five years.

That will probably cause scrutiny of the model by many and construction
of tachyon field theories by others. But the confirmation will have to
come from creating neutrinos with very low kinetic energy (on the order
of 1 eV), detecting them and measuring their speed.

That the neutrino is actually a tachyon makes some sense because of
its very small interaction cross-section. I remember a problem in my old
physics textbook where weo were asked to calculate the path length of a
neutrino in iron. IIRC, it was something like 55 light years! The reason that
neutrino detectors work at all is because there are so blasted many of them.

It seems that it will be very difficult to modulate a neutrino beam and actually
use it for communication, but who knows? Beta decay experiments have
shown decay variations with a yearly cycle, and has been suggested to
be caused by variations in neutrino flux from the sun due to the earth's
elliptical orbit. Decay variations between new moon and full moon times
have also been reported. Is the moon modulating neutrinos?

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt
of in your philosophy.” -- Shakespeare

[Dono.]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 4:20:42 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> What if the KATRIN
> experimental results maintain the most likely value for m² at -1.0 eV²
> and get the confidence level range down to 0.2 eV²? We'll find out
> in about five years.
>

Crank,

It has been explained to you that m^2 doesn't mean "mass squared". Yet you persist. Besides, this has absolutely nothing to do with your inability to understand causality and basic Minkowski diagrams, as illustrated by your "garbage" paper parked forever in the vixra cesspool.

> That the neutrino is actually a tachyon makes some sense

We already know that it ISN'T. Only cranks like you persist in this fallacy.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 4:20:42 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> I'm no expert on QFT, but it appears that various theories of tachyons

> have been constructed: by Feinberg, by Arons and Sudarshan...

The 1962 paper by Bilaniuk and Sudarshan and the 1967 one by Feinberg were both from the QFT perspective, in which tachyons (if they existed) would be waves that satisfy the Klein-Gordon equation. When m^2 is negative there are two cases to consider: Either |p| > |E|, in which case E is real and we get wave solutions whose crests move at or above the speed of light, or |p| < |E|, in which case E is imaginary and we get wavelike solutions that increase exponentially with time.

If you're willing to allow the (physically implausible) exponential solutions, then the solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation show that *localized* disturbances do *not* propagate faster than light. On the other hand, if you reject those exponential solutions, the wave equation has no solution at all for initial data that vanish outside any fixed interval, which means we can't "localize" our "tachyon" in any bounded region. As a result, tachyons (even if they existed) could not - even in principle - be used to send information faster than the speed of light from one localized place to another, because localized tachyon disturbances are unavoidably subluminal, and conversely superluminal disturbances are unavoidably non-local.

Of course, we already knew this, even before we analyzed it in detail, because any superluminal communication entails causal loops, as follows from very simple reasoning from the principles of special relativity, as you've been shown in the three-sentence proof. Likewise there are theorems proving the quantum entanglement cannot be used to send superluminal signals. It always works out this way, because of the very simple and stringent principles of special relativity. The point is that nothing - absolutely nothing - in these QFT papers refutes or evades or negates the simple proof that superluminal signaling is impossible in the context of special relativity (unless you believe in causal loops).

> What if the KATRIN experimental results maintain the most likely

> value for m² at -1.0 eV² ?

See above for the quantum field theory account with negative m^2. This does not lead to superluminal signaling capability, nor to any other violation of local Lorentz invariance.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 1:06:12 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> You are evidently strongly against the use of irrelevant particulars
> as an aid to intuition.

I don't think irrelevant particulars are helpful when they are misleading, as when a figure conflates the worldliness of emitter and receiver with the axes of two inertial coordinate systems. It's a crucial conceptual distinction, for a correct understanding of the argument, but it is concealed by equating those loci. When two lines are drawn on top of each other, the reader can easily think it's drawn that way intentionally. The Wikipedia Figure 4-4 is a good illustration of the Recami Fallacy. I know of three people who have become hopelessly confused by it.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Gary didn't become a crackpot by studying my diagram. He apparently has
spent years studying papers for which he is dismally unprepared.

I might be interested in seeing the Recami preprint, except that I know
my limitations, and I don't see much point in pretending to be able to
critically read papers that are "above my pay grade". Likewise, I generally
refuse to read popularizations, which lull readers into a false sense of
understanding. Instead, I read textbooks.

Gary needs to learn that he has limitations as well. I suspect that he
has slid into crackpottery by doing precisely the two things that are
anathema to me: reading too many popularizations, and reading too many
advanced papers for which he does not have the requisite background.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 7:31:35 PM UTC-5, coea...@gmail.com wrote:

> I don't think irrelevant particulars are helpful when they are misleading,
> as when a figure conflates the worldliness of emitter and receiver with the
> axes of two inertial coordinate systems.

What would you recommend as an appropriate presentation for a "typical"
Wikipedia reader of the Special Relativity article?

[Dono.]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 1:06:12 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

Actually you diagram 4-4 is as bad as Gary's diagrams. It is a very bad attempt at illustrating FTL.

[coea...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 6:32:03 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > I don't think irrelevant particulars are helpful when they are misleading,
> > as when a figure conflates the worldliness of emitter and receiver with the
> > axes of two inertial coordinate systems.
>
> What would you recommend as an appropriate presentation for a "typical"
> Wikipedia reader of the Special Relativity article?

The existing figure does have the merit of showing more than one world line through each event, and discussing the hand-offs between co-located entities, so the alleged superluminal signaling always takes places between mutually stationary objects. This *ought* to be enough ward off the Recami fallacy.

I personally think a single figure would be preferable, but you're going to have two, you might consider transforming one of them to make x',t' perpendicular, so that each signal is "horizontal", to pre-empt Gary's misunderstanding about that. Also, instantaneous signals aren't ideal, but I realize they are visually simpler.

[Dono.]

There is already a much better illustration in the "relativistic anti-telephone". There is no need for the dumbed down version.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Please write to David Morin, Co-Director of Undergraduate Studies and
Senior Lecturer on Physics at Harvard University, and author of Introduction
to Classical Mechanics: With Problems and Solutions, that you think that
his presentation of FTL causality issues is as bad as Gary's diagrams.
https://www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/morin
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q5Si96pC6FAREcubcWNZF1eUWgjbTE4G/view?usp=sharing

As I said before, I evaluated over half a dozen (closer to a dozen, actually)
different demonstrations that FTL violates causality before settling on
the one that I did. It is not even my favorite demonstration (which is
probably the one by David Bohm), but rather the one that, in my opinion (not
shared by coeal, and I appreciate his critique) that seemed to offer the best
*compromise* combination of succinctness, fewest starting assumptions
concerning the reader's background in physics, and vividness of visualization.

Incidentally, coeal might find your analysis of transverse Doppler effect
in the Sagnac experiment to be quite amusing:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XIf0XcrpOcUW5EdDl3a0lteDQ/view?usp=sharing

[Dono.]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 10:23:20 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> snip imbecilities<

Incidentally, you are the same poser you have always been. You can find a perfectly good illustration in the wiki entry on the Tachyonic anti-telephone, gassbag.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

That's a method of presentation that I've thought about also. :-)

But there is this policy in Wikipedia called "No Original Research" which,
although very frequently violated, is one that I respect. Here is a link to
the NOR policy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Basically, I need to be able to provide a reference to a "reliable source"...

[Dono.]

Dumfuck,

The correct diagram belongs to Ehrenfest, you just need to do a copy and paste from the wiki entry I pointed you to. Do you think you could take a break from stalking and do the copy and paste all by yourself?

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Ehrenfest's illustration demonstrates relativity of simultaneity, but it
is rather difficult to use it to demonstrate violation of causality to a
typical Wikipedia reader. Besides which, it seems to have been thrown in
randomly. It does not illustrate the text at all...

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:

Why did you snip my link to your PDF? It's one of my favorites:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XIf0XcrpOcUW5EdDl3a0lteDQ/view?usp=sharing

It is a work that you are very proud of, I believe.

Certainly you have never retracted it...

[Dono.]

You need to be able to follow the diagram. Which you are not.

[Dono.]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 10:44:51 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 10:23:20 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > snip imbecilities<
> >
> > Incidentally, you are the same poser you have always been. You can find a perfectly good illustration in the wiki entry on the Tachyonic anti-telephone, gassbag.
>
> Why did you snip my link to your PDF?

Because it demonstrates something already known: that you are a sour grapes stalker. I simply pointed out to you that there was a better diagram, you went straight into stalking mode, old deluded fart.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

As I pointed out to you, it is ***NOT*** a better diagram. It does not even
relate to the accompanying text.

Now, I can translate coeal's description into a nice, easily visualizable
illustration. I just would not have a reliable, published source for it.
Please read Wikipedia's policy on NOR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

[Dono.]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 10:58:47 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 12:50:33 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 10:44:51 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 10:23:20 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > > > snip imbecilities<
> > > >
> > > > Incidentally, you are the same poser you have always been. You can find a perfectly good illustration in the wiki entry on the Tachyonic anti-telephone, gassbag.
> > >
> > > Why did you snip my link to your PDF?
> >
> > Because it demonstrates something already known: that you are a sour grapes stalker. I simply pointed out to you that there was a better diagram, you went straight into stalking mode, old deluded fart.
>
> As I pointed out to you, it is ***NOT*** a better diagram. It does not even
> relate to the accompanying text.
>

You are too stupid to understand what the diagram shows. Do try to read the caption.

> Please read Wikipedia's policy on NOR
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

The policy doesn't justify the imbecilities you "publish", gassbag.

[Vern Cato]

Dono. wrote:

> On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 10:37:44 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase
> Homolog wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
>> > On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 10:23:20 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase
>> > Homolog wrote:
>> > > snip imbecilities<
>> >
>> > Incidentally, you are the same poser you have always been. You can
>> > find a perfectly good illustration in the wiki entry on the Tachyonic
>> > anti-telephone, gassbag.
>>
>> Ehrenfest's illustration demonstrates relativity of simultaneity, but
>> it is rather difficult to use it to demonstrate violation of causality
>> to a typical Wikipedia reader. Besides which, it seems to have been
>> thrown in randomly. It does not illustrate the text at all...
>
> You need to be able to follow the diagram. Which you are not.

You just been fucked up proven by the proves of David Morin co-director.
Not even a procrariotic homolog like everybody else.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 1:04:33 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 10:58:47 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> > As I pointed out to you, it is ***NOT*** a better diagram. It does not even
> > relate to the accompanying text.
>
> You are too stupid to understand what the diagram shows. Do try to read the caption.

I've read far more than the caption. I had read Ehrenfest's original
note (in a decidedly poor translation). O and N are in a causal loop,
but the illustration has many superfluous elements due to the fact that
the original context of the illustration was in a discussion of
Ignatowsky's misguided analysis of Born rigidity.


Looking over my archive of Dono PDFs, do you remember your answer
to my challenge question?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XIf0XcrpOcajVjYU14NUE5TEU/view?usp=sharing

You answer was very amusing.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 5:50:12 PM UTC-6, Ignoramus Dono. lied:

>
> On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 4:20:42 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > What if the KATRIN
> > experimental results maintain the most likely value for m² at -1.0 eV²
> > and get the confidence level range down to 0.2 eV²? We'll find out
> > in about five years.
>
> Crank,

Projecting again, I see.

> It has been explained to you that m^2 doesn't mean "mass squared". Yet you persist.

YOU are the only fool that asserts this unbelievable canard. Tom set you straight, but you persist.

> Besides, this has absolutely nothing to do with your inability to understand causality and basic
> Minkowski diagrams,

Oh, I understand them, contrary to degenerates like you who enjoy derogatory attacks, unless they're
aimed at them.

> as illustrated by your "garbage" paper parked forever in the vixra cesspool.

Four more downloads in the last week :-)

> > That the neutrino is actually a tachyon makes some sense

> We already know that it ISN'T.

So you are receiving revelation from God? And you claimed to be an atheist :-))
"We"? You must have a mouse in your pocket since God doesn't know that.

> Only cranks like you persist in this fallacy.

Only cranks like you persist in believing m^2 doesn't mean mass squared :-))
You seem to have very low self-esteem.

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 5:44:21 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > > That the neutrino is actually a tachyon makes some sense
>
> > We already know that it ISN'T.
>
> So you are receiving revelation from God? And you claimed to be an atheist :-))

Imbecile,

You can find this information readily available.

> Only cranks like you persist in believing m^2 doesn't mean mass squared :-))
> You seem to have very low self-esteem.

It doesn't. But you are incapable of reading and understanding the KATRIN papers. What would one expect from a crank that is incapable of understanding basic Minkowski diagrams: all the diagrams in your shit "paper" demonstrate that you can't do a basic Minkowski diagram.

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 5:23:12 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 1:04:33 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 10:58:47 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> > > As I pointed out to you, it is ***NOT*** a better diagram. It does not even
> > > relate to the accompanying text.
> >
> > You are too stupid to understand what the diagram shows. Do try to read the caption.
>
> I've read far more than the caption. I had read Ehrenfest's original
> note (in a decidedly poor translation). O and N are in a causal loop,
> but the illustration has many superfluous elements due to the fact that
> the original context of the illustration was in a discussion of
> Ignatowsky's misguided analysis of Born rigidity.
>
>

But, imbecile

The diagram and the caption show something very basic: two signals sent in opposite directions reach the receivers in a positive value interval in one frame and in a negative value interval in a frame in motion wrt. the first one.

> Looking over my archive of Dono PDFs, do you remember your answer
> to my challenge question?
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XIf0XcrpOcajVjYU14NUE5TEU/view?usp=sharing
>
> You answer was very amusing.

Have you ever considered that at the root of all misunderstandings is your cretinism?

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 9:08:12 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 5:23:12 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> > I've read far more than the caption. I had read Ehrenfest's original
> > note (in a decidedly poor translation). O and N are in a causal loop,
> > but the illustration has many superfluous elements due to the fact that
> > the original context of the illustration was in a discussion of
> > Ignatowsky's misguided analysis of Born rigidity.
>
> But, imbecile
>
> The diagram and the caption show something very basic: two signals sent in opposite directions reach the receivers in a positive value interval in one frame and in a negative value interval in a frame in motion wrt. the first one.

I had evaluated the figure, not in terms of Ehrenfest's analysis, but in
terms of whether the illustration and analysis were suitable for adaptation
for a Wikipedia section on the issues with FTL signaling.

> > Looking over my archive of Dono PDFs, do you remember your answer
> > to my challenge question?
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XIf0XcrpOcajVjYU14NUE5TEU/view?usp=sharing
> >
> > You answer was very amusing.
>
> Have you ever considered that at the root of all misunderstandings is your cretinism?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XIf0XcrpOcajVjYU14NUE5TEU/view?usp=sharing
The transverse Doppler shift for the above case should obviously be zero.

-You-, however, wrote that "there is a very small (virtually undetectable)
Doppler shift".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XIf0XcrpOcYnZhWGF5d3ZmQVU/view?usp=sharing

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 7:20:43 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> I had evaluated the figure, not in terms of Ehrenfest's analysis, but in
> terms of whether the illustration and analysis were suitable for adaptation
> for a Wikipedia section on the issues with FTL signaling.
>

You are not competent to "evaluate". Do try to stay on point. It is "editors" like you that make wikipedia the mess it is. Here is a challenge for you: you claimed that you read the Bohm explanation (the two way anti-telephone). Try to put together the Minkowski diagram that illustrates that section. It will not count as NOR, so you should have no problem having it published.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Because of the covid crisis, the university library is closed, and I
rather doubt that I would have a copy of the Bohm article lying around
after two years. Besides which, being my -personal- favorite DOES NOT MEAN
that I think that his demonstration is best for a Wikipedia article.

---------------------------------------

Why do you persist in snipping references to your wonderful analysis?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XIf0XcrpOcajVjYU14NUE5TEU/view?usp=sharing
The transverse Doppler shift for the above case should be exactly zero.

_You_, however, wrote that "there is a very small (virtually undetectable)