On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 7:03:08 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 11:37:50 PM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 5:39:56 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
> > >
> > > Right, so (near-)infinite tachyons leads there is a serious contradiction (without needing to complete a
> > > message loop) : from the perspective of C and D, that big sheet of paper will read "Tachyons arrived at t'C= 2PM",
> > > but from the perspective of A and B that big sheet of paper will read "Tachyons arrived at t'C= 3PM".
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > I've been whiling my time poking Dono, waiting for your response :-)
>
> Yep, could see you two enjoying eachother's company >8-O I went with a friend to see Fast&Furious 9 .... now
> there's a planet where the laws of physics really do not apply !

Movies are getting more and more that way :-)

> > > Again, I totally reject your "enhancements" to Morin et al, especially since every quote of theirs
> > > in this thread is fully consistent with standard SR practices (nothing requiring nor supporting
> > > enhancements)

> > Come now, Rob, it's OBVIOUS that MS MUST be applied in both frames. Rejection of that is rejection
> > of the PoR!
> >
> > > That means your claiming the authority of their names for your "enhancements" carries ZERO
> > > weight as far as I'm concerned. ;-)
> >
> > So you have NO concern that you're rejecting the PoR? :-))
>
> Yep - I have no concern at all, because I'm not rejecting PoR - only your "enhancements" ;-P
>
> Morin et al statements all fully support standard SR, and as such are perfectly consistent with PoR.
>
> Nothing that they say disallows, for example, bi-directional communication between two individuals
> as they are co-located while passing, nor is it a violation of PoR that such bi-directional communication
> is possible.

I'm afraid we've come to an absolute impasse then. I cannot understand you're rejection of PoR in the
sense that Morin's strategy and Recami's moral MUST apply in EVERY inertial frame or you shred PoR
to pieces.

As for your "communication" argument, Taylor and Wheeler shred that one:

""To allow the train observer to make only measurements
with respect to the train, forcing her to ignore Earth,
let the train be a cylinder without windows"

E. F. Taylor and J. A. Wheeler, Spacetime Physics, 1991, p. 62.

So we have an impassable blockage to our further discussion.

> > > > a message loop cannot be constructed because of the way the conditions were arranged at the
> > > > start of the experiment. Either way, there is a serious contradiction, and there are only two possibilities
> > > > as I see it:
> > > >
> > > > (1) Tachyons cannot exist because (a) their properties make time reverse in another frame involved in
> > > > a message loop, and (b) make causal events occur in reverse order, even for observers not involved in
> > > > the transmission or reception.
> > > >
> > > > (2) The logistics of the experiment don't allow a proper test of the existence or nonexistence of tachyons.
> > > >
> > > > I claim that (1b) is irrelevant because an uninvolved frame doesn't know the "proper order" of events without
> > > > querying those involved. I claim that (1a) is refuted because there is no causality violation in S', and there's none
> > > > in S if the analysis strictly adheres to the strategy, moral and admonition of Morin, Recami, Taylor and Wheeler.
> > >
> > > Well, for option (1) there's also "tachyons cannot exist because" of the flat out contradiction of "from the
> > > perspective of C and D, that big sheet of paper will read "Tachyons arrived at t'C= 2PM", but from the
> > > perspective of A and B that big sheet of paper will read "Tachyons arrived at t'C= 3PM"."
> > >
> > > That is simply a direct contradiction between (near-)infinite tachyons, and RoS.
> >
> > Nope. You're mixing frames again, violating Morin's strategy.
>
> Hold on - I asked you earlier a direct, clear and explicit question of what value would be printed on that big sheet
> of paper from the perspective of each frame.
>
> Looking back, I see you said for the AB frame perspective "they will find that tC' = ... 3 PM.", which I naturally
> interpreted as that being your answer - but it wasn't, hence your comment above. You never did give a direct answer
> to that direct question for the AB frame perspective, but did say :
>
> > This, of course, depends upon what you ASSUME tachyons can do. If you ASSUME that tachyons sent
> > between D and C can make time go backward in S (the frame where A and B are at rest), then the paper
> > will say that tC' = 2 PM. This, however, is nonsense
>
> So I still want to get a clear and precise picture of exactly what you are saying (based on YOUR assumptions)
> when D has his speed dial set to (near-)infinite.
>
> So again, the scenario is : the proper distance between C and D is 600 light minutes, and they have previously
> synchronised their clocks. They are being passed by A and B, at velocity v = 0.1c. therefore as you said :
>
> > So I assume you're referring to Figure 1 above. L is the proper length between A and B, so 600
> > light minutes = L/γ. Therefore, L = 1.005x600 = 603 LM, so vL/c² = 60.3 minutes, or 1.005 hour.
>
> D has his tachyon speed dial set to (near-)infinite, and at t'D=2pm (so just as D is co-located with B) emits those
> tachyons to C. C's receiver is programmed so that when those tachyons arrive, it will print on a big sheet of paper
> "Tachyons arrived at t'C =" and the current value of t'C (OK down to the second ;-) ) So this scenario is represented
> by these diagrams :
>
> - From the perspective of C&D frame S' :
>
> t' = 2pm:
> v <-- A ____________ v <-- B
> ____ C __________ u' <---- D
> Figure 1. u' = -∞
>
>
> From the perspective of A&B frame S :
> t = 3:00:18pm
> ____C --> v _________ u' <---- D --> v
> A ________________________ B
> Figure 3. tC' = vL/γc² = 3pm, tD' = 2pm.
>
> So we agree that from the perspective of C&D frame S' , that big sheet of paper will have printed on it "Tachyons
> arrived at t'C = 2PM" as per Figure 1.
>
> So I want to know EXACTLY what you are stating from the perspective of the A&B frame - especially what text
> will be printed on that big sheet of paper. The two obvious answers to that question are either 2PM or 3PM, but
> you seem to rule out both of these - so what value do you say WILL be printed (in this AB frame perspective) ?

Since we agree that a tachyon sent from D to C CANNOT turn back the clocks of A and B, and Morin's strategy
holds in at least the S frame, then the time printed out will be tC' = 3PM, according to a third observer at rest wrt
A and B and located at x = v²L/c² = 6. And yet the velocity of the signal is (6 - 600)/60 = 9.9c as observed by A/B.

And notice how that disagrees with what C and D claim! I.e., 3 PM.

You claim that means tachyons can't exist, I claim PoR was violated so the "proof" is invalid.

> > > So do you agree that this rules out (near-)infinite speed tachyons from D to C ?
> >
> > You're trying to conflate communication between frames with NO communication.
> > You certainly agree that space-like separation of events can appear in reverse order, right?
> > Say, E1 is D launches a signal and E2 is C receives it. Obviously, if u' = -∞, C receives it
> > at t = 0.
> >
> > t = 0:
> > C --> v ____________ D --> v
> > A ________________________ B
> > tC' = 0, tD' = -vL/γc²
> >
> > So E1 = (L,vL/c²); [L/γ,0] and E2 = (0,0); [-γv²/c²,0]. So what?
>
> EVERY diagram must be based on an agreed coordinate system - ie, there MUST be a time
> when both origins are co-located - when x=0,t=0 is the same point as x'=0,t'=0.
>
> Your diagram here doesn't do that. You have E2 being (0,0) (ie, the unprimed frame's A is at
> x=0,t=0) with the primed frame's C at x'=-γv²/c², t'=0 .
>
> Sorry, but unaligned diagrams are busted straight off ;-P

You are wrong, alignment-breath. SR allows any number of observers in any frame:

"In relativity we often speak about the observer. Where is this observer? At one place,
or all over the place? Answer: The word “observer” is a shorthand way of speaking
about the whole collection of recording clocks associated with one free-float frame."
Taylor and Wheeler, p. 39.

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 6:03:08 AM UTC-7, Rob Acraman wrote:

> Yep, could see you two enjoying eachother's company

1. I don't enjoy scumbag's company, he's disgusting
2, I pointed out the errors in his shit "paper" way before you came on scene. Actually, I was the first one to do so. After me and before you, there was a long list of people that pointed out the many errors in his crank "masterpiece". Gary will go to his grave never admitting to the errors. His strategy is to wear down all the people that point out the errors, in his deep delusional state, he has "won".

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 9:59:59 AM UTC-6, Dono. lied:
>
> On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 6:03:08 AM UTC-7, Rob Acraman wrote:
> >
> > Yep, could see you two enjoying eachother's company
>
> 1. I don't enjoy scumbag's company, he's disgusting

You must not like yourself much at all. Everyone has known this for a lo-o-o-ong time.

> 2, I pointed out the errors in his shit "paper" way before you came on scene.

And that's the lie he keeps telling himself :-))

> Actually, I was the first one to do so. After me and before you, there was a long list of people
> that pointed out the many errors in his crank "masterpiece".

He was completely wrong time after time after time. He's the one that made error after error
after error. Like the stupid claim that KATRIN measures the difference between the square of
the masses of the neutrino flavors.

> Gary will go to his grave never admitting to the errors.

DON'tknOw is a liar of the stupendoust kind. The proof is that I've made errors and I've admitted
them. His problem is that he NEVER admits HIS mistakes. NEVER! And he's made a LOT of them.
In fact, one can be assured that if he posts something, he's made another mistake. But his greatest
mistake is consistently lying.

> His strategy is to wear down all the people that point out the errors, in his deep delusional state,
> he has "won".

DON'tknOw's strategy is to be the one who makes the last post. In his demented delusional state,
that "proves" that HE has won :-)))

DON'tknOw doesn't know, and he refuses to admit he doesn't know. If I were Persian I would shun
him :-)

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 2:32:16 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>snip imbecilities<

It is your paper that got rejected.
It is you whose ideas are batted out of the stadium by everyone.
It is you who are deeply delusional, just like your fellow crank, Ken Shito.
Live with it, crank.

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 5:19:57 PM UTC-6, Dono. lied again:
>
> On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 2:32:16 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > snip imbecilities<

Just because DON'tknOw doesn't believe the truth is no proof that what I
wrote is wrong, so here it is. HE must live with the true imbecilities:

DON'tknOw is a liar of the stupendoust kind. The proof is that I've made errors and I've admitted
them. His problem is that he NEVER admits HIS mistakes. NEVER! And he's made a LOT of them.
In fact, one can be assured that if he posts something, he's made another mistake. But his greatest
mistake is consistently lying.

He was completely wrong time after time after time. He's the one that made error after error
after error. Like the stupid claim that KATRIN measures the difference between the square of
the masses of the neutrino flavors.

> It is your paper that got rejected.

So DON'tknOw believes I DON't knOw this? :-))

> It is you whose ideas are batted out of the stadium by everyone.

So which "ideas are those, I wonder? Would that be Morin's?

"Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made
mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better
way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there
are experts." -- Carl Sagan

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Richard P. Feynman

> It is you who are deeply delusional, just like your fellow crank, Ken Shito.

Straw man argument.

> Live with it, crank.

I'm living just fine. The REAL question is, How is DON'tknOw's life? All I
can say is, I'm glad I'm not living THAT one.

“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may
deride it, but in the end, there it is.” -- Winston Churchill

And DON'tknOw is malice and ignorance personified :-))
He NEVER mounts a valid argument. It's all vapidity and smoke. Everyone
notices he went for the ad hominem instead of dealing with his mistakes.

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 6:44:42 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> >

It is your paper that got rejected.

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 7:49:16 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 6:44:42 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > >
>
> It is your paper that got rejected.

Yeah, I even posted the rejection info, and I agreed with the referees' comments.
So why would any rational human being keep repeating this ad nauseam?
It seems to me it could only be intended as mental abuse. Only a small-minded
petty person would do that.

“Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 8:48:21 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 7:49:16 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 6:44:42 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > It is your paper that got rejected.
> Yeah, I even posted the rejection info, and I agreed with the referees' comments.

So , the referees got your paper for what it is: crap. Why do you persist in pushing your imbecility in this forum?

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> It is your paper that got rejected.
>
> Yeah, I even posted the rejection info, and I agreed with the referees'
> comments. So why would any rational human being keep repeating this ad
> nauseam? It seems to me it could only be intended as mental abuse.
> Only a small-minded petty person would do that.

But you won't admit your mistakes, pushing you to promote that exotic
theory. What are those mistakes, specifically?? Before you "agreed with
the referees". You are not sincere, that's the whole thing. The
governments are using conversion and blackmails to make your body attract
spoons, batteries and magnets.

Abram Husband wrote:

> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
>>> It is your paper that got rejected.
>>
>> Yeah, I even posted the rejection info, and I agreed with the referees'
>> comments. So why would any rational human being keep repeating this ad
>> nauseam? It seems to me it could only be intended as mental abuse. Only
>> a small-minded petty person would do that.
>
> But you won't admit your mistakes, pushing you to promote that exotic
> theory. What are those mistakes, specifically?? Before you "agreed with
> the referees". You are not sincere, that's the whole thing. The
> governments are using conversion and blackmails to make your body
> attract spoons, batteries and magnets.

conversion -> coercion.

The “experimental” vaccine is in violation of all 10 of the Nuremberg
Codes which carry the death penalty for those who seek to violate these
International Laws.

The “vaccine” fails to meet the following five requirements to be
considered a vaccine and is by definition a medical “experiment” and
trial:

Provides immunity to the virus
This is a “leaky” gene therapy that does not provide immunity to Covid
and claims to reduce symptoms yet double-vaccinated are now 60% of the
patients requiring ER or ICU with covid infections.

Protects recipients from getting the virus
This gene-therapy does not provide immunity and double-vaccinated can
still catch and spread the virus.

Reduces deaths from the virus infection
This gene-therapy does not reduce deaths from the infection. Double-
Vaccinated infected with Covid have also died.

Reduces circulation of the virus
This gene-therapy still permits the spread of the virus as it offers zero
immunity to the virus.

Reduces transmission of the virus
This gene-therapy still permits the transmission of the virus as it
offers zero immunity to the virus.

Hi Gary,

Let's address our "great impasse" first - in reverse order ;-)

> (2) Do you believe PoR?
Yes. Totally. 100%.

Let's split the other into two questions:

First question :
> (1a) Do you believe Morin's strategy/Recomi's moral should be followed, as quoted in this thread ?

Yes, and we can also add Taylor & Wheeler :
> ""To allow the train observer to make only measurements
> with respect to the train, forcing her to ignore Earth,
> let the train be a cylinder without windows"
>
> E. F. Taylor and J. A. Wheeler, Spacetime Physics, 1991, p. 62.

EVERY such quote in this thread is fully consistent with standard SR, and as such fully compliant with PoR, and also with standard SR protocols (such as bi-directional communication between co-located individuals)

Second question :
> (1b) Do you believe Gary's "enhancements" to Morin's strategy/Recomi's (and Taylor & Wheeler), for example that co-located individuals can be disallowed from any form of communication ?

No, I totally reject that idea as totally bonkers ;-P On the contrary, hand-off is ALWAYS possible while co-located, and it is self-evident that trying to use quotes in this thread (such as Taylor & Wheeler's above) to claim they disallow this is taking them WAY out of context - that is NOT what the authors are saying at all.

On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 12:18:02 AM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 7:03:08 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:

> >
> > So I want to know EXACTLY what you are stating from the perspective of the A&B frame - especially what text
> > will be printed on that big sheet of paper. The two obvious answers to that question are either 2PM or 3PM, but
> > you seem to rule out both of these - so what value do you say WILL be printed (in this AB frame perspective) ?
> Since we agree that a tachyon sent from D to C CANNOT turn back the clocks of A and B, and Morin's strategy
> holds in at least the S frame, then the time printed out will be tC' = 3PM, according to a third observer at rest wrt
> A and B and located at x = v²L/c² = 6. And yet the velocity of the signal is (6 - 600)/60 = 9.9c as observed by A/B.
>
> And notice how that disagrees with what C and D claim! I.e., 3 PM.
>
> You claim that means tachyons can't exist, I claim PoR was violated so the "proof" is invalid.

You don't have my claim quite right :-)

If you want to allow D to send (near-)infinite tachyons, then you MUST have a clear statement of what happens when he does so - including what would be printed on C's big sheet of paper at reception.

When D emits (near-)infinite tachyons at t'D = 2PM, there are only three possible results :

1) C receives them at 2PM from the perspective of both frames, so receives them while co-located with A, so A is fully aware of the reception. You obviously rule out this option, since it leads to the message loop :-D

2) C receives them at 2PM from the perspective of both frames, so receives them while co-located with A - but A is not allowed to know (communication between the frames is dis-allowed).

3) From the perspective of the CD frame, C receives them at 2PM, but from the perspective of the AB frame C receives them at 3PM.

My claim is that if all 3 possible results are ruled-out / impossible, then by definition the original action (D emitting (near-)infinite speed tachyons) must also be ruled-out / impossible.

So as I say, you obviously rule out option (1).

You have previously stated that C receiving them at t'C = 2PM is "nonsense" - so ruling out option (2) (and doubling down on ruling out (1) as well ! ).

By saying "PoR was violated so the "proof" is invalid", you are ruling out option (3).

All possible results of D emitting (near-)infinite speed tachyons have been ruled out - those (near-)infinite speed tachyons can only be impossible.

> > >
> > > t = 0:
> > > C --> v ____________ D --> v
> > > A ________________________ B
> > > tC' = 0, tD' = -vL/γc²
> > >
> > > So E1 = (L,vL/c²); [L/γ,0] and E2 = (0,0); [-γv²/c²,0]. So what?
> >
> > EVERY diagram must be based on an agreed coordinate system - ie, there MUST be a time
> > when both origins are co-located - when x=0,t=0 is the same point as x'=0,t'=0.
> >
> > Your diagram here doesn't do that. You have E2 being (0,0) (ie, the unprimed frame's A is at
> > x=0,t=0) with the primed frame's C at x'=-γv²/c², t'=0 .
> >
> > Sorry, but unaligned diagrams are busted straight off ;-P
> You are wrong, alignment-breath. SR allows any number of observers in any frame:
>
> "In relativity we often speak about the observer. Where is this observer? At one place,
> or all over the place? Answer: The word “observer” is a shorthand way of speaking
> about the whole collection of recording clocks associated with one free-float frame."
> Taylor and Wheeler, p. 39.
>
> So there IS an observer at rest in S at t = 0, x = 0. He's not mentioned because he's not important.

You are disputing the need for a common origin ????
These diagrams are supposed to adhere to the Lorentz transforms. You take the Unprimed (x,t) coordinates, then apply the Lorentz transforms to obtain the Primed (x',t') coordinate.

What happens if you apply the Lorentz transforms to E2 (x=0, t=0) ?

> > > So E2 = (0,0); [-γv²/c²,0]. So what?

Really ??? ;-P

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 3:56:39 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> Let's address our "great impasse" first - in reverse order ;-)
>
> > (2) Do you believe PoR?
>
> Yes. Totally. 100%.
>
> Let's split the other into two questions:
>
> First question :
>
> > (1a) Do you believe Morin's strategy/Recomi's moral should be followed, as quoted in this thread ?
>
> Yes, and we can also add Taylor & Wheeler :
>
> > ""To allow the train observer to make only measurements
> > with respect to the train, forcing her to ignore Earth,
> > let the train be a cylinder without windows"
> >
> > E. F. Taylor and J. A. Wheeler, Spacetime Physics, 1991, p. 62.
>
> EVERY such quote in this thread is fully consistent with standard SR, and as such fully compliant with
> PoR, and also with standard SR protocols (such as bi-directional communication between co-located
> individuals)

"Standard" SR does NOT include tachyons, so your statement is moot, or perhaps even non sequitur.

> Second question :
>
> > (1b) Do you believe Gary's "enhancements" to Morin's strategy/Recomi's (and Taylor & Wheeler),
> for example that co-located individuals can be disallowed from any form of communication ?
>
> No, I totally reject that idea as totally bonkers ;-P

Then you reject PoR, plain and simple. Your claim that you believe "PoR. Totally. 100%" is false.
My "enhancement" is simply following PoR's requirement that ALL inertial frames are valid, that
NO frame is preferred above another. Thus if Morin's strategy/Recomi's (and Taylor & Wheeler) is
valid in S, it's valid in S'.

> On the contrary, hand-off is ALWAYS possible while co-located, and it is self-evident that trying to
> use quotes in this thread (such as Taylor & Wheeler's above) to claim they disallow this is taking
> them WAY out of context - that is NOT what the authors are saying at all.

So in order to insist on the ability to "hand-off" you trash PoR.

The problem is that relativity of simultaneity is also a basic principle of SR, and you can't have your
kayak and heat it, too.
> On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 12:18:02 AM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 7:03:08 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
> > >
> > > So I want to know EXACTLY what you are stating from the perspective of the A&B frame - especially what text
> > > will be printed on that big sheet of paper. The two obvious answers to that question are either 2PM or 3PM, but
> > > you seem to rule out both of these - so what value do you say WILL be printed (in this AB frame perspective) ?
> >
> > Since we agree that a tachyon sent from D to C CANNOT turn back the clocks of A and B, and Morin's strategy
> > holds in at least the S frame, then the time printed out will be tC' = 3PM, according to a third observer at rest wrt
> > A and B and located at x = v²L/c² = 6. And yet the velocity of the signal is (6 - 600)/60 = 9.9c as observed by A/B.
> >
> > And notice how that disagrees with what C and D claim! I.e., 3 PM.
> >
> > You claim that means tachyons can't exist, I claim PoR was violated so the "proof" is invalid.
>
> You don't have my claim quite right :-)
>
> If you want to allow D to send (near-)infinite tachyons, then you MUST have a clear statement of what happens
> when he does so - including what would be printed on C's big sheet of paper at reception.
>
> When D emits (near-)infinite tachyons at t'D = 2PM, there are only three possible results :
>
> 1) C receives them at 2PM from the perspective of both frames, so receives them while co-located with A, so
> A is fully aware of the reception. You obviously rule out this option, since it leads to the message loop :-D
>
> 2) C receives them at 2PM from the perspective of both frames, so receives them while co-located with A -
> but A is not allowed to know (communication between the frames is dis-allowed).
>
> 3) From the perspective of the CD frame, C receives them at 2PM, but from the perspective of the AB frame C
> receives them at 3PM.
>
> My claim is that if all 3 possible results are ruled-out / impossible, then by definition the original action (D
> emitting (near-)infinite speed tachyons) must also be ruled-out / impossible.

You can "claim" whatever you want, but the goal is to determine what the universe demands.

> So as I say, you obviously rule out option (1).
>
> You have previously stated that C receiving them at t'C = 2PM is "nonsense" - so ruling out option (2) (and
> doubling down on ruling out (1) as well ! ).
>
> By saying "PoR was violated so the "proof" is invalid", you are ruling out option (3).
>
> All possible results of D emitting (near-)infinite speed tachyons have been ruled out - those (near-)infinite
> speed tachyons can only be impossible.

However, Method I, where FTL transmitters and receivers are in motion relative to each other, doesn't have
this problem. It is quite straight-forward and shows that a message can ALWAYS be sent around a loop
faster than the speed of light and without violating causality. Specifically, ∆t > vL/c² and ∆t' > γvL/c².

The other thing that's perfectly clear about this, is that the reason for this is RoS, because RoS is basically
that term in the LTE: ∆t' = γ(∆t - v∆x/c²).

For Method II, which we've been discussing, the reason why (1) is a "possible result" is because Morin, etc.
rule is violated. That is, RoS is ignored, violated.

(2) doesn't make any sense. A can certainly query C and query D. In fact, follow the timeline in the track
frame: The very first action is that at t = 0, C passes the message to A and A sends it at w = ∞ to B, where
it arrives at t = 0. B already has the message when the time comes to pass it to D, so it's preposterous for
anyone to claim that B originated the message at t = vL/c²!

It's significant that if A, C or D originated the message: no causality violation. Even if we posit that B
originated the message at t = 0 there's no CV. The whole setup is a canard, a farcical legerdemain.

And it's clear that the reason why (3) is a "possible result" is because RoS is ignored, violated.

> > > > t = 0:
> > > > C --> v ____________ D --> v
> > > > A ________________________ B
> > > > tC' = 0, tD' = -vL/γc²
> > > >
> > > > So E1 = (L,vL/c²); [L/γ,0] and E2 = (0,0); [-γv²/c²,0]. So what?
> > >
> > > EVERY diagram must be based on an agreed coordinate system - ie, there MUST be a time
> > > when both origins are co-located - when x=0,t=0 is the same point as x'=0,t'=0.
> > >
> > > Your diagram here doesn't do that. You have E2 being (0,0) (ie, the unprimed frame's A is at
> > > x=0,t=0) with the primed frame's C at x'=-γv²/c², t'=0 .
> > >
> > > Sorry, but unaligned diagrams are busted straight off ;-P
>
> > You are wrong, alignment-breath. SR allows any number of observers in any frame:
> >
> > "In relativity we often speak about the observer. Where is this observer? At one place,
> > or all over the place? Answer: The word “observer” is a shorthand way of speaking
> > about the whole collection of recording clocks associated with one free-float frame."
> > Taylor and Wheeler, p. 39.
> >
> > So there IS an observer at rest in S at t = 0, x = 0. He's not mentioned because he's not
> > important.
>
> You are disputing the need for a common origin ????

Now you're making up a straw man. There IS a common origin, and it's CLEARLY at
x = x' = t = t' = 0.

> These diagrams are supposed to adhere to the Lorentz transforms. You take the Unprimed
> (x,t) coordinates, then apply the Lorentz transforms to obtain the Primed (x',t') coordinate.
>
> What happens if you apply the Lorentz transforms to E2 (x=0, t=0) ?
>
> > > > So E2 = (0,0); [-γv²/c²,0]. So what?
>
> Really ??? ;-P

I guess you're referring to this:

> > > > So E1 = (L,vL/c²); [L/γ,0] and E2 = (0,0); [-γv²/c²,0]. So what?

E1 is D receives the message from B and sends it to C at u' = -∞.

Okay, I messed up. I was conflating two different configurations.
So, yes, IF D could send the signal at u' = -∞ then E2 would be (0,0); [0,0]

However, RoS says that when D launches the signal:

t = vL/c²:
____ C --> v _____________ D --> v
A ______________________ B