On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:51:22 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:14:00 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:13:08 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > My, but you have a short memory. I proved you were wrong a
> > > while back.
> > Gary,
> >
> > Wiki proves that you are turning into a full blown crank. Keep it up, dumbass.
> If I disagree with that then I am the biggest crank

U sure are, Gary. See where it tells you that due to neutrino flavor oscillation, all that the real physicists (not you) can measure is the differences (\delta m_12)^2=m_1^2-m_2^2 and (\delta m_23)^2=m_2^2-m_3^2? These differences can be positive or negative, doesn't mean that any of the m_i^2 is negative, old fart. Still no? Keep it up, dumbfuck!

On 2/21/23 3:47 PM, RichD wrote:
> On January 16, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Neutrinos are observed to oscillate -- they change flavor as they
>> propagate over distance.
>
> What is the instrumental evidence? How is it tested?

In general, the definitive answer to such questions about elementary
particles is found at the Particle Data Group's website:
https://pdg.lbl.gov
They provide a summary description of just about all that is known about
the many elementary particles.

For instance, click on "Particle Listings", then "Leptons (...)" and
then "Neutrino properties". That PDF references HUNDREDS of experimental
measurements of various neutrino properties. The PDF "Neutrino Mixing"
discusses neutrino oscillations in detail.

Or click on "Summary Tables" and then "Leptons (...)" and scroll down to
neutrinos.

Or click on "Reviews, Tables & Plots" to access a wealth of information
about modern particle physics. Note that Special Relativity is discussed
extensively under "Kinematics".

Perhaps the place to start is "Reviews, Tables & Plots" / Introduction.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:18:34 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 6:08:13 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > You can't give them rest mass if they all are moving near light speed.
> > Something had to accelerate them. What was that?
> Not so Mitch. Rest mass is m = sqrt(E^2 - p^c^2)/c^2

It has no energy of motion. Just like light does not....

>
> And nobody GIVES particles mass: they either have it or they don't.

Energy and mass are equivalent. Every particle needs them.

On Wednesday, 22 February 2023 at 18:10:47 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 2/21/23 3:47 PM, RichD wrote:
> > On January 16, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> Neutrinos are observed to oscillate -- they change flavor as they
> >> propagate over distance.
> >
> > What is the instrumental evidence? How is it tested?
> In general, the definitive answer to such questions

Is that we are FORCED!!!

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:11:14 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 February 2023 at 18:10:47 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 2/21/23 3:47 PM, RichD wrote:
> > > On January 16, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >> Neutrinos are observed to oscillate -- they change flavor as they
> > >> propagate over distance.
> > >
> > > What is the instrumental evidence? How is it tested?
> > In general, the definitive answer to such questions
> Is that we are FORCED!!!

The supermassive neutrino detector...?
How would one atom being influenced reveal itself?
How is it watched?
Why is the point of all of the rest of the atoms
if you cannot watch any of them.
How do you magnify an atom in the detector?
Why would all the other astronomical
quantity of atoms you cannot watch?
How can a neutrino sub mass do something
to any atom?

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:40:19 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> See where it tells you that due to neutrino flavor oscillation, all that
> the real physicists (not you) can measure is the differences
> (\delta m_12)^2=m_1^2-m_2^2 and (\delta m_23)^2=m_2^2-m_3^2?
> These differences can be positive or negative, doesn't mean that any
> of the m_i^2 is negative, old fart. Still no? Keep it up, dumbfuck!

It's amazing how oblivious you are! You consistently misunderstand the
written word. It says neutrino OSCILLATIONS cannot determine the
mass scale BECAUSE they're only sensitive to the "difference of the
squares of the masses of mass eigenstates" but in the next paragraph,
if you ever decided to read on, you would find:

"A number of efforts are under way to directly determine the absolute
neutrino mass scale in laboratory experiments, especially using nuclear
beta decay."

Which is what Troisk, Mainz did and what KATRIN is doing, and what I
have been telling you for YEARS! If you'd stop trying to bluff your way
out of the intellectual cesspool you're in, you might actually learn.
Unfortunately, you've been in it so long it looks like home to you.

I guess that's why you do such sophomoric things like changing posts
by others to misrepresent what they said. So sad! So infantile!

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 1:37:51 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:40:19 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > See where it tells you that due to neutrino flavor oscillation, all that
> > the real physicists (not you) can measure is the differences
> > (\delta m_12)^2=m_1^2-m_2^2 and (\delta m_23)^2=m_2^2-m_3^2?
> > These differences can be positive or negative, doesn't mean that any
> > of the m_i^2 is negative, old fart. Still no? Keep it up, dumbfuck!
> It's amazing how oblivious you are! You consistently misunderstand the
> written word. It says neutrino OSCILLATIONS cannot determine the
> mass scale BECAUSE they're only sensitive to the "difference of the
> squares of the masses of mass eigenstates" but in the next paragraph,
> if you ever decided to read on, you would find:
>
> "A number of efforts are under way to directly determine the absolute
> neutrino mass scale in laboratory experiments, especially using nuclear
> beta decay."
>
And the next sentence is:
"The Mainz Neutrino Mass Experiment set an upper limit of m < 2.2 eV/c2 at 95% Confidence Level.[85] Since June 2018 the KATRIN experiment searches for a mass between 0.2 eV/c2 and 2 eV/c2 in tritium decays.[50] The February 2022 upper limit is mν < 0.8 eV/c2 at 90% CL in combination with a previous campaign by KATRIN from 2019.[70][86]"

All positive numbers, crank.

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 1:55:14 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 1:37:51 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:40:19 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > See where it tells you that due to neutrino flavor oscillation, all that
> > > the real physicists (not you) can measure is the differences
> > > (\delta m_12)^2=m_1^2-m_2^2 and (\delta m_23)^2=m_2^2-m_3^2?
> > > These differences can be positive or negative, doesn't mean that any
> > > of the m_i^2 is negative, old fart. Still no? Keep it up, dumbfuck!
> > It's amazing how oblivious you are! You consistently misunderstand the
> > written word. It says neutrino OSCILLATIONS cannot determine the
> > mass scale BECAUSE they're only sensitive to the "difference of the
> > squares of the masses of mass eigenstates" but in the next paragraph,
> > if you ever decided to read on, you would find:
> >
> > "A number of efforts are under way to directly determine the absolute
> > neutrino mass scale in laboratory experiments, especially using nuclear
> > beta decay."
> >
> And the next sentence is:
> "The Mainz Neutrino Mass Experiment set an upper limit of m < 2.2 eV/c2 at 95% Confidence Level.[85] Since June 2018 the KATRIN experiment searches for a mass between 0.2 eV/c2 and 2 eV/c2 in tritium decays.[50] The February 2022 upper limit is mν < 0.8 eV/c2 at 90% CL in combination with a previous campaign by KATRIN from 2019.[70][86]"
>
> All positive numbers, crank.

.....and here is the original paper showing the rresulting square masses as positive numbers (duh) , crank: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-021-01463-1
I know where your confusion is coming from (I explained that to you months ago). Looks like you are continuing with your idiocy.

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 1:37:51 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:40:19 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > See where it tells you that due to neutrino flavor oscillation, all that
> > > the real physicists (not you) can measure is the differences
> > > (\delta m_12)^2=m_1^2-m_2^2 and (\delta m_23)^2=m_2^2-m_3^2?
> > > These differences can be positive or negative, doesn't mean that any
> > > of the m_i^2 is negative, old fart. Still no? Keep it up, dumbfuck!
> >
> > It's amazing how oblivious you are! You consistently misunderstand the
> > written word. It says neutrino OSCILLATIONS cannot determine the
> > mass scale BECAUSE they're only sensitive to the "difference of the
> > squares of the masses of mass eigenstates" but in the next paragraph,
> > if you ever decided to read on, you would find:
> >
> > "A number of efforts are under way to directly determine the absolute
> > neutrino mass scale in laboratory experiments, especially using nuclear
> > beta decay."
>
> And the next sentence is:
>
> "The Mainz Neutrino Mass Experiment set an upper limit of m < 2.2 eV/c2 at
> 95% Confidence Level.[85] Since June 2018 the KATRIN experiment searches
> for a mass between 0.2 eV/c2 and 2 eV/c2 in tritium decays.[50] The February
> 2022 upper limit is mν < 0.8 eV/c2 at 90% CL in combination with a previous
> campaign by KATRIN from 2019.[70][86]"
>
> All positive numbers, crank.

And why wouldn't they be! They are UPPER LIMITS, DUH! Note also that the
value is m, not m^2, so this is NOT difference between m-squareds and shoots
you down again!!

Here's the paper for Mainz: https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5034

They derive an upper limit from m^2 = -0.6 +2.2 +/-2.1 eV^2. That's m^2, not
m2^2 - m1^2, etc. So that shoots you down AGAIN!!!

Here's the paper for Troitsk: https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5034

They derive an upper limit from m^2 = -0.67 +/- 2.53 eV^2. That's m^2, not
m2^2 - m1^2, etc. So that shoots you down AGAIN!!!

Here's the preliminary paper for KATRIN: https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06048

They derive an upper limit from m^2 = -1.0 +0.9 -1.0 eV^2. That's m^2, not
m2^2 - m1^2, etc. So that shoots you down AGAIN!!!!

Give it up, DONn'tknOw, you refuse to admit that you DON'T KNOW.

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 3:08:50 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Here's the preliminary paper for KATRIN: https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06048
>
> They derive an upper limit from m^2 = -1.0 +0.9 -1.0 eV^2.
....because: "m_ν^2=∑|Ue_i|*2m_i^2, where Ue_i are elements of the Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata matrix that describes the mixing of neutrino states." as per the paper. So, contrary to your imbecility, m_v^2 can be negative because some of the Ue_i coefficients are imaginary. We have been over this the first time you posted your cretinoid paper and, at the time, I pointed out that you have no clue what m_v^2 means. I also recommended that you ask the KATRIN paper authors but you decided to continue to bask in your ignorance. Bottom line is that you continue to have no clue what m^2 in the EXPRESSION m^2 = -1.0 +0.9 -1.0 eV^2 means.

keskiviikko 22. helmikuuta 2023 klo 12.17.05 UTC+2 Hannu Poropudas kirjoitti:
> maanantai 20. helmikuuta 2023 klo 12.36.00 UTC+2 Hannu Poropudas kirjoitti:
> > lauantai 21. tammikuuta 2023 klo 10.57.48 UTC+2 Hannu Poropudas kirjoitti:
> > > perjantai 20. tammikuuta 2023 klo 9.25.28 UTC+2 Hannu Poropudas kirjoitti:
> > > > tiistai 17. tammikuuta 2023 klo 11.32.43 UTC+2 Hannu Poropudas kirjoitti:
> > > > > tiistai 17. tammikuuta 2023 klo 10.27.35 UTC+2 Hannu Poropudas kirjoitti:
> > > > > > maanantai 16. tammikuuta 2023 klo 19.42.24 UTC+2 Tom Roberts kirjoitti:
> > > > > > > On 1/16/23 4:09 AM, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > > > > > > If photon rest mass is zero then rest masses of all types of
> > > > > > > > neutrinos is zero?
> > > > > > > No.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Neutrinos are observed to oscillate -- they change flavor as they
> > > > > > > propagate over distance. This is modeled as flavor eigenstates being
> > > > > > > different from mass eigenstates. That directly implies that at least two
> > > > > > > neutrino mass eigenstates (out of three) have nonzero mass; it is likely
> > > > > > > that all three have nonzero mass. Flavor eigenstates do not have a
> > > > > > > definite mass. Note that flavor eigenstates appear in the Lagrangian and
> > > > > > > are how interactions occur, while mass eigenstates describe how they
> > > > > > > propagate over distance.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tom Roberts
> > > > > > 1. Deficit in the flux of solar neutrinos observed - YES.
> > > > > > 2. Deficit in the flux of muon neutrinos in case of atmospheric neutrinos observed - YES.
> > > > > > 3. Deficit in the flux of reactor electron anti-neutrinos observed - YES.
> > > > > > 4. Deficit in the flux of particle accelerator beam muon neutrinos observed - YES.
> > > > > > 5. Deficit in the flux of particle accelerator beam of tau neutrinos observed - YES.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The claim neutrinos change flavor - NO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If I remember right
> > > > > > (correctness of this my memory picture this should be checked from my old postings)
> > > > > > that in old H-M's drawing the space-potato particle those neutrinos are always grouped three
> > > > > > different color neutrinos together ? I don't know what this could mean ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > New explanations are needed to explain 1.- 4. above ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't understand what is mass eigenstate/s of neutrino/s ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could this be something similar that photon has quantum mechanical mass
> > > > > > m = h*v/c^2, but this is not rest mass of photon which is zero
> > > > > > (special relativity says that rest mass of photon is m0 = 0 )?
> > > > > > (h = Plack's constant, v = frequency of light, c = speed of light in vacuum)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hannu
> > > > > I found one old posting of mine from sci.physics Google Group.
> > > > > Here seems to be something about groupings of color wrong neutrinos
> > > > > and color right neutrinos and color small right neutrinos.
> > > > > I don't understand what these color groupings mean?
> > > > >
> > > > > I put COPY of it here below
> > > > >
> > > > > Reference:
> > > > > Hannu Poropudas, 2003.
> > > > >
> > > > > Re: About Solar Neutrino Problem
> > > > > sci.physics, Google Groups, Oct 3, 2003, 11:23:15 AM
> > > > > hannu.p...@osakk.fi's profile photo
> > > > > hannu.p...@osakk.fi
> > > > > unread,
> > > > > Oct 3, 2003, 11:23:15 AM
> > > > > to
> > > > > basti...@gmx.net (Bastian) wrote in message news:<44d6926c.03100....@posting.google.com>...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Seems to me you mix up a couple of things. Here an explanation:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Yes there is an neutrino flux. The fusion processes in the sun
> > > > > > generate this flux. Without the fusion processes the sun would
> > > > > > collaps. BUT this neutrino flux
> > > > > > is emitted isotropically - and of course there is nothing like a
> > > > > > "center of the space".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) There are three species of neutrinos (very well known from the
> > > > > > measurement of the Z^0 -resonance at CERN). There is a small unlikely
> > > > > > possibility for a 4th generation of very heavy neutrinos (nu-mass >
> > > > > > Z^0-mass).
> > > > > > All neutrinos are left-handed. What does it mean? Neutrinos have spin
> > > > > > (spin 1/2). For massless particles the spin could be aligned or
> > > > > > anti-aligned with the direction of the movement (actually one would
> > > > > > rather speak about helicity a which is the spin projection into the
> > > > > > direction of movement). All neutrinos are anti-aligned. The reason is
> > > > > > that the weak interaction only produces left-handed neutrinos (why? we
> > > > > > do not know). There is no possibility to produce them (no interatction
> > > > > > for this particles) and there is also no possibility to detect them
> > > > > > directly (again - no interaction). The only way to detect them would
> > > > > > be to observe a left-handed/right-handed oszillation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I understand what you mean. If neutrino has mass then there
> > > > > exist also corresponding "right-handed neutrino". But I used
> > > > > words "right neutrino" and "wrong neutrino" which are not
> > > > > same matter as "left-handed neutrino" and "right-handed neutrino"..
> > > > > Words I used and uou used are possible close each other but some
> > > > > differences exits that is why different names.
> > > > >
> > > > > In H-M's drawings different kind of color electricity interactions
> > > > > was described (quite mesh because I don't understand this clearly).
> > > > > I put below some descriptions which I found from my summaries:
> > > > >
> > > > > 0. "Mass puts different color electricity colors."
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. "Three existing neutrinos have two colors: green and violet.
> > > > > These colors are the two types of electricity in the contracting
> > > > > Universe. There exist "voltage" in neutrinos that originates
> > > > > from the contracting Universe."
> > > > >
> > > > Does this above 1. fit also to properties of color magnetic monopoles?
> > > >
> > > > If this would be true then also
> > > > color neutrinos are same as color magnetic monopoles
> > > > as I have earlier guessed in my old postings?
> > > >
> > > > (Contracting parts of the Universe would be
> > > > for example inside event horizons of black holes?)
> > > >
> > > > This "voltage" which originates from contracting parts of the Universe
> > > > could mean that these color neutrinos have also electric field
> > > > around them when they move with some velocity v ?
> > > >
> > > > If this would be true then these color neutrinos interacts
> > > > with matter also with coupling of their electric field with
> > > > electric field inside matter through which they penetrate
> > > > with some velocity v ?
> > > >
> > > > By the way I have translated (my poor english)
> > > > finnish word "violetti" to english word "violet"
> > > > Better translation is to translate finnish "violetti"
> > > > to english could be "purple" ?
> > > >
> > > > Please take a look on my Hannu Poropudas Facebook public
> > > > color photographs of those old H-M's old color drawings
> > > > to see correct english word to those colors?
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Hannu Poropudas
> > > I noticed that I have wrote randomly names of one
> > > old H-M's color drawing called "Higgsin hiukkaset" (Higgs Particles in english)
> > > and MY ERROR: I did not ask in due time H-M those correct names and which
> > > color correspond to which particle when I wrote randomly those names
> > > on that H-M's drawing (Z0, W+, W- and H0, H+, H-).
> > >
> > > I know that names Z0, W+ and W- are correct but I don't know which
> > > color each of which corresponds.
> > >
> > > I think that names H0, H+, H- should
> > > be rejected due question is certainly not MSSM (=Minimal Supersymmetrical Model)
> > > Higgs Bosons in this case. Maybe those other three are corresponding particles
> > > in contracting parts of the Universe ?
> > >
> > > Following names remain (Z0, W+, W- and "God Particle").
> > >
> > > I don't know that should additional "Higgs Particle" be called
> > > "God Particle" due H-M said in due time about that "God Particle" same as
> > > "Me" when H-M meant herself (I don't understand this at all, except if God
> > > spoke through H-M similar way as in case of prophets in the Holy Bible) ?
> > >
> > > This old H-M's color drawing "Higgsin hiukkaset" is also
> > > public in Hannu Poropudas Facebook.
> > > Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas
> > >
> > > > > 2. "Wrong neutrinos": Yellow, Orange, Blue, Brown.
> > > > > Groupings (couplings):
> > > > > Blue, Orange, Yellow.
> > > > > Orange, Yellow, Blue.
> > > > > Brown, Blue, Yellow, Orange.
> > > > > Blue, Yellow, Orange.
> > > > > Brown, Yellow, Blue.
> > > > > "Right neutrinos": (four big ones): Yellow, Blue, Orange, Brown.
> > > > > (six small ones):
> > > > > Yellow, Blue, Brown.
> > > > > Orange, Orange, Blue.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Color electricity flash of lightnings:
> > > > > Blue, Yellow, Orange, Brown.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Neutrinos have so called "magic" and so called "wonderfulness"..
> > > > > "Magic" is possibly related to dimensions in 10-dimension Universe
> > > > > (total dimensionality of the Universe which contains our expanding
> > > > > Universe and this present unknown contracting Universe).
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. Exotic "space-potato particle has four different species of
> > > > > neutrinos
> > > > > in its structure and neutrinos are always grouped (coupled) three
> > > > > neutrinos together. "Mirror" structure contains couples of "small
> > > > > right neutrinos"
> > > > > and those "hour glass forms" (pre-geomtric form ?, center of which
> > > > > is that "small neutrino couple" od certain color electricity color
> > > > > couples).
> > > > >
> > > > > 6. 1,2,3,4,5,6 neutrinos groupins (one remark on the H-M's drawing).
> > > > >
> > > > > 7. In photon of contracting Universe (one H-M's drawing):
> > > > > Red and Blue forms a couple.
> > > > > Green and light Blue is a couple.
> > > > > Orange and light red is a couple.
> > > > > Violet and yellow is a couple.
> > > > >
> > > > > Background blue in the drawing is space blue of empty space which
> > > > > is no color electricity.
> > > > >
> > > > > 8. Color circle (in one H-M's drawing):
> > > > > Yellow periphery and white center and
> > > > > sectors: green, red, blue, light green, violet, orange.
> > > > >
> > > > > Green and white are the best "magic colors".
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > >
> > > > > (So I put here allmost all which I found from my article summaries:
> > > > > Readme_all.txt, Readme_mid.txt and Readme_see.txt )
> > I put here also important color electricity colors of leptons
> > (electron, mu-lepton, tau-lepton and 4.th-lepton) from H-M's old drawing
> >
> > Electron:
> > - two colors are used due final color would be bright orange color.
> > - bright yellow and light red.
> > -darker red color shine of color electricity spot which is in center of suction spot.
> >
> > mu-lepton:
> > -two colors are used due final color would be King's cloak (="viitta" in finnish) violet (=purple, correct english term).
> > -light blue and light red.
> > - darker color shine of color electricity spot which is in center of suction spot.
> >
> > tau-lepton:
> > -one color.
> > -green.
> > -darker green color shine of color electricity spot which is in center of suction spot.
> >
> > 4.th-lepton:
> > -light brown and gray-brown (this gray-brown color is not suction),
> > -red-brown (this is not suction and H-M's drawing is looked from above),
> > - dent (= "lommo" in finnish and H-M's drawing is looked from above),
> > -4.th-lepton is different than other three leptons above,
> > but this 4.th-lepton has not much significance for physics.
> >
> > It is my opinion that we should try to correct our present standard model
> > of particle physics with these H-M's drawings as "axioms of astrophysics" ?
> >
> > These and other H-M's old drawings are public in my Hannu Poropudas Facebook.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Hannu Poropudas,
> > Kolamäentie 9E, 90900 Kiiminki / Oulu, Finland.
> I forget to say that in H-M's old drawing about black hole there is also drawn this
> 4.th neutrino, green color electricity color and its shape is
> strange 4-polygon with four cornes. This color eclectrity 4-polygon was drawn near the tau-neutrino.
>
> I forget also mention about above text of mine four leptons that
> those suction spots which are drawn on the surface above described leptons
> are interpreted by me such that colorless electric field (our familiar E-field?) originates from them.
> And from suction spot starts to be formed towards inside of the surface
> and finally to the center of the surface tornado like
> color electricity tornado (really form of cone).
> I have interpreted that suction spot is only one side due the spin (=1/2) of
> corresponding color electricity neutrino which H-M called long time ago
> the soul of corresponding lepton.
>
> This copy below is due that I think that now it could be possible
> to correct our present standard model of physics?
>
> I put here also in addition important color electricity colors of
> H-M's old drawings of four quarks and also color electricity colors of proton/neutron:
>
> First those four quarks (H-M's old drawing they are 8-polygons,
> which are in place of color electricity black hole's singularity):
>
> 1. -green (and no scratches = "naarmuja" in finnish)
> 2. -red (two blue scrathes which intersects each others,
> when one 8/8-single cut diamond has scrathed this quark in its born process).
> 3. -violet (correct english term for my finnish term violet is purple,
> two red scrathes which do not intersect each others,
> two 8/8-single cut diamonds have scrathed this quark in its born process)
> 4. -yellow (no scrathes).
>
> Scrathes are born due stratchings of 8/8-single cut diamods (which I have later
> called creation stones of the Universe. In H-M's drawing these are two different
> types of these 8/8-single cut diamonds.)
>
> Background color electricity color is not drawn although it should also be there.
>
> Background color electricity color is light blue (= empty space's color electricity color
> which is not color ecltricity.)
>
> Proton / Neutron H-M's old drawing:
>
> Color cicle is (this is half proton and half neutron for both):
> 1. -violet (correct english term should be purple), (I have interpreted this weak interaction color),
> 2. -dark green, (I have interpreted this weak interaction color),
> 3. - light red, (I have interpreted this strong interaction color),
> 4. -yellow, (I have interpreted this strong interaction color),
> 5. -light blue, (I have interpreted this strong interaction color).
>
> Proton/Neutron from other side looked:
>
> 1. violet (correct english term should be purple) light periphery (="valokehä" in finnish) circle
> with violet spot in center and center of this spot is small dark violet spot,
> 2. green light periphery circle
> with green spot in center and center of this spot is small dark violet spot,
> 3. light red light periphery circle
> with light red spot in center and center of this spot is small dark violet spot,
> 4. light red light periphery circle (check color from H-M's drawing, if light blue is correct?)
> with light blue spot in center and center of this spot is small dark violet spot,
> 5. yellow light periphery circle
> with yellow spot in center and center of this spot is small dark violet spot.
>
> I have interpreted those color electricity periphery circles as color electricity gluons
> (couples of color electricity neutrinos)?
>
> Background color is space's dark blue (stars are mark of space's color).
>
> Proton is such that one of those five quarks is black (or space's color dark blue?)
> due mass of proton has changed color electricity color to no color electricity.
> Combination of four color electricity colors are stable.
>
> Neutron is such that as H-M's old explanation said " one day neutron has those five color electricity colors
> and an second day it has this color electricity structure of proton.
>
> So proton and neutron are same particle's two different states as I have interpreted it.
>
> Please CHECK those colors from photographs of those original H-M's drawings
> which are public on my Hannu Poropudas Facebook
> due I copied these here from my memory pages.
>
> Best Regards,
> Hannu Poropudas
> Kolamäentie 9E,
> 90900 Kiiminki / Oulu
> Finland.

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:17:58 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 3:08:50 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Here's the preliminary paper for KATRIN: https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06048
> >
> > They derive an upper limit from m^2 = -1.0 +0.9 -1.0 eV^2.
>
> ...because: "m_ν^2=∑|Ue_i|*2m_i^2, where Ue_i are elements of the
> Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata matrix that describes the
> mixing of neutrino states." as per the paper.

Still beating your gums about oscillations when oscillations only occur
during propagation of neutrinos. When a neutrino is created, it is
created as a particular flavor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation

"Neutrino oscillation is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which a
neutrino created with a specific lepton family number ("lepton flavor":
electron, muon, or tau) can later be measured to have a different lepton
family number."

The Mainz, Troitsk and KATRIN experiments measure the properties of
the electron created by beta decay. No measurements are made of the
neutrino. The mass-squared of the neutrino is inferred from the electron
measurements. Since the electron does NOT undergo flavor oscillations,
the measurements are valid at the point when the decay occurred. At
that point, the emitted neutrino was DEFINITELY an electron antineutrino
since it hadn't propagated AT ALL.

So, contrary to your imbecility, the inferred m_v^2 has nothing to do with
the Ue_i coefficients. Your cretinous assertions are laughably wrong. You
hilariously confused m_v^2 with delta m_v^2, which the Ue_i coefficients
refer to :-)))

We have been over and over and over this since the first time you attacked
my prodigious paper. I pointed out that you have no clue what m_v^2 means
because you perpetually confuse it with delta m_v^2. I recommend that YOU
ask the KATRIN paper authors, but you won't, of course, because you prefer to
wallow in your ignorance. Bottom line is that you continue to have no clue
what m^2 in the EXPRESSION m^2 = -1.0 +0.9 -1.0 eV^2 means, nor do you
understand the subtleties of the beta decay experiments.

End of DON'tknOw's enfeebled mind. End of story.

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 4:44:14 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> We have been over and over and over this since the first time you attacked
> my prodigious paper.

Your "prodigious paper" sits in the vixra crank repository. The appropriate place.

> the inferred m_v^2 has nothing to do with
> the Ue_i coefficients. Your cretinous assertions are laughably wrong. You
> hilariously confused m_v^2 with delta m_v^2, which the Ue_i coefficients
> refer to :-)))
>

This KATRIN paper proves that you are full of shit and you still don't know what you are talking about: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-021-01463-1. You must be getting really desperate, crank.

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 6:46:01 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 4:44:14 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > We have been over and over and over this since the first time you attacked
> > my prodigious paper.
>
> Your "prodigious paper" sits in the vixra crank repository. The appropriate place.

I was being a bit cynical. Such nuances are totally lost on you :-)))

The papers posted on viXra represent a journey as I grappled with ftl phenomena.
This started many years ago when I thought about the v/c^2 factor in the time
equation of the LTE: delta_t' = gamma*(delta_t - vdelta_x/c^2). and the fact that
when v and delta_x have opposite signs, delta_t' is always positive. Even when
they have the same signs, delta_t' is positive for u = dx/dt < c^2/v. Perhaps there's
some ... um ... fortuity that limits u in the real world.

Four papers on viXra document the first part of that journey, and criticism from
this group helped me hone my argument (YOUR "criticism, btw, was of no worth
whatever). At that point, I thought it worthwhile to seek peer review criticism,
and I got it:

"While the reviewers expressed interest in your work, they were unconvinced by
your analysis. One reviewer offers specific recommendations for restructuring
your analysis in terms of Minkowski spacetime, to make it easier to understand."

So I did that and asserted therein that tachyon energy could not be negative to
justify the c^2/v limitation. A reviewer took issue with this assertion but said
concluded that the paper could be published if they didn't have anything better
to publish. Apparently, they did, but that as it should be. I have now supported
my assertion and my new paper has been accepted for publication in a peer-
reviewed on-line journal.

Meanwhile, all DON'tknOw can do is spew bullpoop:

> This KATRIN paper proves that you are full of shit and you still don't know what
> you are talking about: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-021-01463-1..

That's not the actual paper, but it does show the actual best fit to the electron
spectrum: m_v^2 = 0.26 +/- 0.34 eV^2, which still has a possibility of the true
value being negative :-)

DON'tknOw must be getting really desperate. At least he's switched his moronic
attacks away from the oscillation baloney, but he's still cranking away in a desperate
attempt to salvage his ego. It's not working, Dumbo.

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:24:22 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 6:46:01 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 4:44:14 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > We have been over and over and over this since the first time you attacked
> > > my prodigious paper.
> >
> > Your "prodigious paper" sits in the vixra crank repository. The appropriate place.
> I was being a bit cynical. Such nuances are totally lost on you :-)))
>
> The papers posted on viXra represent a journey as I grappled with ftl phenomena.

1. This journey took you to your idee-fixe that the neutrino is faster than light.
2. Turns out that neutrino is not faster than light (you need to check the chapter "Neutrino speed" on wiki)
3. In order to be FTL, neutrino (at least one flavor) would have to have imaginary mass, meaning m^2<0
4. This brought you to the imbecilic interpretation that KATRIN and the others have measured m^2<0 when, in reality what KATRIN measures is EFFECTIVE neutrino mass, which is nothing but a blend of neutrino flavors multiplied by the Fermi-Pontecorvo matrix elements Ue_i.
Bottom line, Gary, is you don't know what you are doing and, in your quixotic quest, you are pilling crankery on top of crankery.

> Four papers on viXra document the first part of that journey, and criticism from
> this group helped me hone my argument

You "honed" your utter dishonesty and you ratcheted your crankeries (see above)

> I have now supported
> my assertion and my new paper has been accepted for publication in a peer-
> reviewed on-line journal.
>

Which "journal"?

> That's not the actual paper, but it does show the actual best fit to the electron
> spectrum: m_v^2 = 0.26 +/- 0.34 eV^2, which still has a possibility of the true
> value being negative :-)
>

The paper teaches the meaning of the effective neutrino mass, m_v. Something that you are unwilling to learn because it contradicts what you want to prove.

> attacks away from the oscillation baloney,

Oscillation is not baloney, it is a fact, you are just too stupid to understand. The older you get, the stupider (and more dishonest) you become.

Dono. wrote:

> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:24:22 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> T̶h̶e̶ p̶a̶p̶e̶r̶s̶ p̶o̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ o̶n̶ v̶i̶X̶r̶a̶ r̶e̶p̶r̶e̶s̶e̶n̶t̶ a̶ j̶o̶u̶r̶n̶e̶y̶ a̶s̶ I̶ g̶r̶a̶p̶p̶l̶e̶d̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶ f̶t̶l̶
>> p̶h̶e̶n̶o̶m̶e̶n̶a̶.
>
> 1. This journey took you to your idee-fixe that the neutrino is faster
> than light.
> 2. Turns out that neutrino is not faster than light (you need to check
> the chapter "Neutrino speed" on wiki)
> 3. In order to be FTL, neutrino (at least one flavor) would have to have
> imaginary mass, meaning m^2<0 4. This brought you to the imbecilic
> interpretation that KATRIN and the others have measured m^2<0 when, in
> reality what KATRIN measures is EFFECTIVE neutrino mass, which is
> nothing but a blend of neutrino flavors multiplied by the
> Fermi-Pontecorvo matrix elements Ue_i.
> Bottom line, Gary, is you don't know what you are doing and, in your
> quixotic quest, you are pilling crankery on top of crankery.

absoluteli, harnagel feels not insulted with the *_negative_mass_*, once
nothing in this world can possibly be entering negatively, he finds the
*_mass_* entering *_out_*, destroying matter and alike. His country is a
*_terrorist_state_*. They are right now in Syria they occupy, for
*_stealing_oil_*. Blowing up energy pipelines to other countries,
otherwise.

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:40:36 PM UTC-7, DumboDono. wrote:
>
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:24:22 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 6:46:01 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 4:44:14 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We have been over and over and over this since the first time you attacked
> > > > my prodigious paper.
> > >
> > > Your "prodigious paper" sits in the vixra crank repository. The appropriate place.
> >
> > I was being a bit cynical. Such nuances are totally lost on you :-)))
> >
> > The papers posted on viXra represent a journey as I grappled with ftl phenomena.
>
> 1. This journey took you to your idee-fixe that the neutrino is faster than light.

They MAY be FTL. You should talk about an idee-fixe with your confusion that the
Mainz, Troitsk and KATRIN experiments measure the mass-squared difference
between the eigenvalues. They don't. The mass determined is the mass of the
electron antineutrino, just as I have maintained and just as the Mainz, Tritsk and
KATRIN scientists have stated.

> 2. Turns out that neutrino is not faster than light (you need to check the chapter
> "Neutrino speed" on wiki)

YOU need to do a deeper study than your obsession dictates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurements_of_neutrino_speed

The energies of the neutrinos measured are so high that their speeds would be
indistinguishable from c whether they were bradyons OR tachyons. YOUR fallacious
assertion that they aren't faster than light is baseless.

> 3. In order to be FTL, neutrino (at least one flavor) would have to have imaginary
> mass, meaning m^2<0

You're preaching to the choir here :-)

> 4. This brought you to the imbecilic interpretation that KATRIN and the others have
> measured m^2<0 when, in reality what KATRIN measures is EFFECTIVE neutrino
> mass, which is nothing but a blend of neutrino flavors multiplied by the Fermi-
> Pontecorvo matrix elements Ue_i.

Dead wrong, Dumbo DON'tknOw. The FLAVORS are electron, mu and tau. The
FLAVORS are a superposition of the EIGENVALUES.

> Bottom line, Gary, is you don't know what you are doing and, in your quixotic quest,
> you are pilling crankery on top of crankery.

YOU are the one who is obsessed with your ego.

> > Four papers on viXra document the first part of that journey, and criticism from
> > this group helped me hone my argument
>
> You "honed" your utter dishonesty and you ratcheted your crankeries (see above)

Everyone is entitled to his opinion, up to a point. YOU are the one that has gone far
beyond the point.

> > I have now supported my assertion and my new paper has been accepted for
> > publication in a peer-> > reviewed on-line journal.
>
> Which "journal"?

You'll find out when it's published. It's an international journal with reviewers in
several countries, including the US.

> > That's not the actual paper, but it does show the actual best fit to the electron
> > spectrum: m_v^2 = 0.26 +/- 0.34 eV^2, which still has a possibility of the true
> > value being negative :-)
>
> The paper teaches the meaning of the effective neutrino mass, m_v. Something
> that you are unwilling to learn because it contradicts what you want to prove.

You are the conflicted one, DON'tknOw. You made an incorrect assessment a long
time ago and you try to defend it with slurs and defamation because your ego is at
stake.

> > attacks away from the oscillation baloney,
>
> Oscillation is not baloney, it is a fact,

Of COURSE it is, but it has NOTHING to do with Mainz, Troitsk and KATRIN results.
Unfortunately, you are just too stupid to understand. The older you get, the stupider
(and more dishonest) you become.

And you are, most unfortunately, atrociously dishonest.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 12:22:16 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:40:36 PM UTC-7, DumboDono. wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:24:22 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 6:46:01 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 4:44:14 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We have been over and over and over this since the first time you attacked
> > > > > my prodigious paper.
> > > >
> > > > Your "prodigious paper" sits in the vixra crank repository. The appropriate place.
> > >
> > > I was being a bit cynical. Such nuances are totally lost on you :-)))
> > >
> > > The papers posted on viXra represent a journey as I grappled with ftl phenomena.
> >
> > 1. This journey took you to your idee-fixe that the neutrino is faster than light.
> They MAY be FTL.

Only in your deeply deluded brain. No mainstream scientist has published anything like that , especially after the Opera fiasco.

>You should talk about an idee-fixe with your confusion that the
> Mainz, Troitsk and KATRIN experiments measure the mass-squared difference
> between the eigenvalues. They don't. The mass determined is the mass of the
> electron antineutrino, just as I have maintained

U keep maintaining a crankery because it fits your nutty narrative about the neutrino being a tachyon. You don't see anywhere in the above papers mainstream scientists claiming the mass^2 of neutrino being negative. You are incapable of understanding the notion of "effective mass" leading to your oft repeated crank statements in this forum and in your crank "papers".

> > 2. Turns out that neutrino is not faster than light (you need to check the chapter
> > "Neutrino speed" on wiki)
> YOU need to do a deeper study than your obsession dictates.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurements_of_neutrino_speed
>
> The energies of the neutrinos measured are so high that their speeds would be
> indistinguishable from c whether they were bradyons OR tachyons. YOUR fallacious
> assertion that they aren't faster than light is baseless.

Well, no mainstream scientist claims the speeds to be ftl. It is only the crank Gary Harnagel who makes this claim.

> > 3. In order to be FTL, neutrino (at least one flavor) would have to have imaginary
> > mass, meaning m^2<0
> You're preaching to the choir here :-)

I am simply pointing out that you are a crank.

> > 4. This brought you to the imbecilic interpretation that KATRIN and the others have
> > measured m^2<0 when, in reality what KATRIN measures is EFFECTIVE neutrino
> > mass, which is nothing but a blend of neutrino flavors multiplied by the Fermi-
> > Pontecorvo matrix elements Ue_i.
> Dead wrong,

Actually, it is correct but you are too invested in your fantasy.

> > Bottom line, Gary, is you don't know what you are doing and, in your quixotic quest,
> > you are pilling crankery on top of crankery.

> > > Four papers on viXra document the first part of that journey, and criticism from
> > > this group helped me hone my argument
> >
> > You "honed" your utter dishonesty and you ratcheted your crankeries (see above)
> Everyone is entitled to his opinion, up to a point. YOU are the one that has gone far
> beyond the point.
> > > I have now supported my assertion and my new paper has been accepted for
> > > publication in a peer-> > reviewed on-line journal.
> >
> > Which "journal"?
> You'll find out when it's published. It's an international journal with reviewers in
> several countries, including the US.

I am waiting for your Sunday comics.

> > > That's not the actual paper, but it does show the actual best fit to the electron
> > > spectrum: m_v^2 = 0.26 +/- 0.34 eV^2, which still has a possibility of the true
> > > value being negative :-)
> >
> > The paper teaches the meaning of the effective neutrino mass, m_v. Something
> > that you are unwilling to learn because it contradicts what you want to prove.
> You are the conflicted one,

Not at all, I am simply pointing your crankeries, Gary.

> > Oscillation is not baloney, it is a fact,
> Of COURSE it is, but it has NOTHING to do with Mainz, Troitsk and KATRIN results.

So, oscillations are no longer "baloney". It is just that they disprove your cranky narrative.

> Unfortunately, you are just too stupid to understand. The older you get, the stupider
> (and more dishonest) you become.
> And you are, most unfortunately, atrociously dishonest.

Simply exposing your crankeries, Gary. Simply exposing you as a crank <shrug>

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> 1. This journey took you to your idee-fixe that the neutrino is faster
>> than light.
>
> They MAY be FTL. You should talk about an idee-fixe with your confusion
> that the Mainz, Troitsk and KATRIN experiments measure the mass-squared
> difference between the eigenvalues. They don't. The mass determined is
> the mass of the electron antineutrino, just as I have maintained and
> just as the Mainz, Tritsk and KATRIN scientists have stated.

liar, what imbecile would even look on the crap of someone not coming up
with a PhD making him worth the time and the dialog. You are a money
changer.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 2:22:51 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 12:22:16 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:40:36 PM UTC-7, DumboDono. wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. This journey took you to your idee-fixe that the neutrino is faster than light.
> >
> > They MAY be FTL.
>
> Only in your deeply deluded brain. No mainstream scientist has published anything
> like that , especially after the Opera fiasco.

Dead wrong, Dono: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09904, C. Schwartz, "Tachyon
dynamics -- for neutrinos?" (2017).

arXiv:1111.2804, R. Ehrlich, "Evidence for two neutrino mass eigenstates from
SN 1987A and the possibility of superluminal neutrinos," (2015).

arXiv:1408.0502v6, R. Ehrlich, "Six observations consistent with the electron
neutrino being a tachyon with mass: m^2_νe = −0.11 ± 0.016eV^2," (2015).

R. Ehrlich, Hunting the Faster than Light Tachyon, and Finding Three Unicorns
and a Herd of Elephants, (2022)

https://www.amazon.com/Hunting-Tachyon-Finding-Unicorns-Elephants/dp/0367708108

> > You should talk about an idee-fixe with your confusion that the Mainz, Troitsk
> > and KATRIN experiments measure the mass-squared difference between the
> > eigenvalues. They don't. The mass determined is the mass of the electron
> > antineutrino, just as I have maintained
>
> U keep maintaining a crankery because it fits your nutty narrative about the neutrino
> being a tachyon.

You continually misstate my position, apparently to provide dishonest fodder for attacking
me. My position is that a neutrino MIGHT be a tachyon. From the latest KATRIN data,
m^2 = 0.26 +/- 0.34 eV^2. It turns out that the 0.34 is only one sigma, not very conclusive.
To really nail it down it needs to be five sigma data. So with the present data, the confidence
that a neutrino is NOT a tachyon is pretty low.

Of course, if a neutrino is indeed a tachyon, it still may not be able to exceed c, for a QFT
perspective. My position is that even if tachyons exist and CAN exceed c, they cannot
violate causality. THAT is what my paper addresses and THAT is what the issue is with
"mainstream" physicists. So you see, Dono, all of your attacks are completely misguided.
> You don't see anywhere in the above papers mainstream scientists claiming the mass^2 of
> neutrino being negative.

Sure, as you say, the Gran Sasso fiasco has some physicists cowering, but not all (see above).

> You are incapable of understanding the notion of "effective mass" leading to your oft
> repeated crank statements in this forum and in your crank "papers".

So you home in on one word and misinterpret its meaning. That's your argument?
Get serious!

> > > 2. Turns out that neutrino is not faster than light (you need to check the chapter
> > > "Neutrino speed" on wiki)
> >
> > YOU need to do a deeper study than your obsession dictates.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurements_of_neutrino_speed
> >
> > The energies of the neutrinos measured are so high that their speeds would be
> > indistinguishable from c whether they were bradyons OR tachyons. YOUR fallacious
> > assertion that they aren't faster than light is baseless.
>
> Well, no mainstream scientist claims the speeds to be ftl. It is only the crank Gary
> Harnagel who makes this claim.

Dead wrong again, Dono. Schwartz and Ehrlich consider it. I first got interested in
the possibility of neutrinos being tachyons from an article by John Cramer, but I was
thinking about tachyons long before that.

> > > 3. In order to be FTL, neutrino (at least one flavor) would have to have imaginary
> > > mass, meaning m^2<0
>
> > You're preaching to the choir here :-)
>
> I am simply pointing out that you are a crank.

Well, let's see what the definition of that word you throw around with abandon:

"c2: an annoyingly eccentric person
"also : one who is overly enthusiastic about a particular subject or activity
"d: a bad-tempered person, a grouch."

YOU seem to be the only one who is annoyed by me, so maybe you'd better fix
yourself :-) and YOU seem to be the grouch around here :-))

> > > 4. This brought you to the imbecilic interpretation that KATRIN and the others have
> > > measured m^2<0 when, in reality what KATRIN measures is EFFECTIVE neutrino
> > > mass, which is nothing but a blend of neutrino flavors multiplied by the Fermi-
> > > Pontecorvo matrix elements Ue_i.
> >
> > Dead wrong,
>
> Actually, it is correct but you are too invested in your fantasy.

We'll have to disagree about who is invested in fantasies :-))

> > > Which "journal"?
> >
> > You'll find out when it's published. It's an international journal with reviewers in
> > several countries, including the US.
>
> I am waiting for your Sunday comics.

See? you don't care about which journal because all you want to do is denigrate
them as well as me. Your dishonesty is SO transparent.

> > > > That's not the actual paper, but it does show the actual best fit to the electron
> > > > spectrum: m_v^2 = 0.26 +/- 0.34 eV^2, which still has a possibility of the true
> > > > value being negative :-)
> > >
> > > The paper teaches the meaning of the effective neutrino mass, m_v. Something
> > > that you are unwilling to learn because it contradicts what you want to prove.
> >
> > You are the conflicted one,
>
> Not at all, I am simply pointing your crankeries, Gary.

And I am simply pointing out that you are a grouch, and a dishonest one at that.

> > > Oscillation is not baloney, it is a fact,
> >
> > Of COURSE it is, but it has NOTHING to do with Mainz, Troitsk and KATRIN results.
>
> So, oscillations are no longer "baloney".

I never said they were, Dishonest DONO. That's just more of your misstatements.

> It is just that they disprove your cranky narrative.

Dead wrong again, Dono.

> > Unfortunately, you are just too stupid to understand. The older you get, the stupider
> > (and more dishonest) you become.
> > And you are, most unfortunately, atrociously dishonest.
>
> Simply exposing your crankeries, Gary. Simply exposing you as a crank <shrug>

Nope. What your REALLY doing is exposing your incompetence, as well as your
crank behavior (grouchiness).

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:00:30 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> My position is that a neutrino MIGHT be a tachyon. From the latest KATRIN data,
> m^2 = 0.26 +/- 0.34 eV^2. It turns out that the 0.34 is only one sigma, not very conclusive.
> To really nail it down it needs to be five sigma data. So with the present data, the confidence
> that a neutrino is NOT a tachyon is pretty low.
>

But crank, "m" in the above formula is not the mass of the neutrino, it is the "effective" mass. You keep repeating the same error.
> Of course, if a neutrino is indeed a tachyon, it still may not be able to exceed c, for a QFT
> perspective. My position is that even if tachyons exist and CAN exceed c, they cannot
> violate causality. THAT is what my paper addresses and THAT is what the issue is with
> "mainstream" physicists.

All the versions of your "papers" had gross errors in the Minkowski diagrams. Errors that were pointed out repeatedly to you. Yet, in classical crank fashion you kept denying that the diagrams are in error. For example, all the versions of your papers on vixra contain errors in the Minkowski diagrams. It remains to be seen what errors are in your "published" paper.

> Sure, as you say, the Gran Sasso fiasco has some physicists cowering, but not all (see above).

None of the Erlich papers was published.

> > You are incapable of understanding the notion of "effective mass" leading to your oft
> > repeated crank statements in this forum and in your crank "papers".
> So you home in on one word and misinterpret its meaning. That's your argument?
Crank,
I explained multiple times the meaning of effective mass. Hint: it is not what you would want it to be.

> YOU seem to be the only one who is annoyed by me,

The others gave up. Just as simple as that.

> > So, oscillations are no longer "baloney".
> I never said they were,

Sure you did, in your prior post. When I rubbed your nose into it , you backtracked.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 6:17:44 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:00:30 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > My position is that a neutrino MIGHT be a tachyon. From the latest KATRIN data,
> > m^2 = 0.26 +/- 0.34 eV^2. It turns out that the 0.34 is only one sigma, not very conclusive.
> > To really nail it down it needs to be five sigma data. So with the present data, the confidence
> > that a neutrino is NOT a tachyon is pretty low.
>
> But crank, "m" in the above formula is not the mass of the neutrino,

Yes, i t is. In fact, the mass of the electron antineutrino.

> it is the "effective" mass.

And just WHAT does "effective" mean? You have no clue, do you!

YOU keep repeating the same error.

> > Of course, if a neutrino is indeed a tachyon, it still may not be able to exceed c, for a QFT
> > perspective. My position is that even if tachyons exist and CAN exceed c, they cannot
> > violate causality. THAT is what my paper addresses and THAT is what the issue is with
> > "mainstream" physicists.
>
> All the versions of your "papers" had gross errors in the Minkowski diagrams. Errors that
> were pointed out repeatedly to you.

It's not being scientific to tell lies. You NEVER pointed out any gross errors in my MDs.

> Yet, in classical crank fashion you kept denying that the diagrams are in error. For example,
> all the versions of your papers on vixra contain errors in the Minkowski diagrams.

Assertion is not evidence. Once again you can't back up your lies.

> It remains to be seen what errors are in your "published" paper.

No, it doesn't. The paper has been peer-reviewed. So you fantasize that you're smarter
than a PhD physicist. My, my, what hubris :-))

> > Sure, as you say, the Gran Sasso fiasco has some physicists cowering, but not all
> > (see above).
>
> None of the Erlich papers was published.

So you didn't even LOOK at the papers I gave addresses to? Either you're a lazy bonehead
or you did look and that makes you a liar.

Here is the list I made up just for you, repeated because you're too prejudicial to allow
it to be retained in your replies.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09904, C. Schwartz, "Tachyon dynamics -- for neutrinos?" (2017).

Published in the International Journal of Modern Physics A

arXiv:1111.2804, R. Ehrlich, "Evidence for two neutrino mass eigenstates from
SN 1987A and the possibility of superluminal neutrinos," (2015).

This was published in Astroparticle physics, so you dumb-out, lazy bonehead..

But it's what you always do: make unfounded assertions.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927650512000369

arXiv:1408.0502v6, R. Ehrlich, "Six observations consistent with the electron
neutrino being a tachyon with mass: m^2_νe = −0.11 ± 0.016eV^2," (2015).

This was published in Astroparticle physics, so you dumb-out again. Phew, you
really do STINK!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927650514001972

R. Ehrlich, Hunting the Faster than Light Tachyon, and Finding Three Unicorns
and a Herd of Elephants, (2022)

https://www.amazon.com/Hunting-Tachyon-Finding-Unicorns-Elephants/dp/0367708108

And this is a BOOK, so you are totally full of rotten stinking crap.

> > > You are incapable of understanding the notion of "effective mass" leading to your oft
> > > repeated crank statements in this forum and in your crank "papers".
> > So you home in on one word and misinterpret its meaning. That's your argument?
>
> Crank,
> I explained multiple times the meaning of effective mass.

Another lie. Prove it, stinker. What's the matter? Too lazy or too dishonest?

> Hint: it is not what you would want it to be.

Hint: you have no clue. Post a link to what "effective" means in this context.

In solid state physics, "effective mass" means the actual mass measured by an electron
or hole in the semiconductor lattice. So WHAT does it mean in beta decay experiments?
You have no clue, do you!

You just read it in the paper and ASSUMED what YOU wanted it to mean. They also
used the phrases "effective endpoint" and "effective path length." So what?

BTW, I must apologize for misunderstanding your m^2 = SUM[U_ei^2m_i^2].
That equation refers to the fact that each flavor of neutrino (electron, muon or tau)
is a superposition of the three eigenstates. It does not refer to the differences in
energy between the eigenstates. At the point of creation in beta decay, the flavor
of the neutrino IS an electron neutrino. As it propagates it can change flavors, but the
MT and K measurements are made on the electron created in the decay, which does
NOT change flavors.
> > YOU seem to be the only one who is annoyed by me,
>
> The others gave up. Just as simple as that.

Only in your delusional dreams :-)

> > > So, oscillations are no longer "baloney".
>
> > I never said they were,
>
> Sure you did, in your prior post. When I rubbed your nose into it , you backtracked.

No, you lie again. I have NOT changed my position. Oscillation has NOTHING to do with
the beta decay experiments. I have explained this to you several times but you intentionally
misrepresent what I say. Here's a re-repeat of what I claimed above:

"At the point of creation in beta decay, the flavor of the neutrino IS an electron neutrino.
As it propagates it can change flavors, but the MT and K measurements are made on the
electron created in the decay, which does NOT change flavors."

Hence, oscillation is irrelevant to the measurement of neutrino mass in the Mainz, Troitsk and
KATRIN experiments. Do I need to rub your nose in this simple fact again and again and again?

I've had quite enough of your dishonest yammering, Dono. Your brain is so full of misconceptions
there is no room for rational thought.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 8:55:22 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 6:17:44 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:00:30 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > My position is that a neutrino MIGHT be a tachyon. From the latest KATRIN data,
> > > m^2 = 0.26 +/- 0.34 eV^2. It turns out that the 0.34 is only one sigma, not very conclusive.
> > > To really nail it down it needs to be five sigma data. So with the present data, the confidence
> > > that a neutrino is NOT a tachyon is pretty low.
> >
> > But crank, "m" in the above formula is not the mass of the neutrino,
> Yes, i t is. In fact, the mass of the electron antineutrino.
> > it is the "effective" mass.
> And just WHAT does "effective" mean?

It is the sum of the masses of the three neutrino flavors multiplied by the Fermi-Pontecorvo coefficients. This is the fifth or sixth time you are having your nose rubbed into it. Crank.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 10:39:52 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 8:55:22 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 6:17:44 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:00:30 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My position is that a neutrino MIGHT be a tachyon. From the latest KATRIN data,
> > > > m^2 = 0.26 +/- 0.34 eV^2. It turns out that the 0.34 is only one sigma, not very conclusive.
> > > > To really nail it down it needs to be five sigma data. So with the present data, the confidence
> > > > that a neutrino is NOT a tachyon is pretty low.
> > >
> > > But crank, "m" in the above formula is not the mass of the neutrino,
> >
> > Yes, i t is. In fact, the mass of the electron antineutrino.
> >
> > > it is the "effective" mass.
> >
> > And just WHAT does "effective" mean?
>
> It is the sum of the masses of the three neutrino flavors multiplied by the Fermi-Pontecorvo
> coefficients. This is the fifth or sixth time you are having your nose rubbed into it. Crank.

My nose is still quite clean. You. OTOH, have bloodied your own nose with this outrageous
presumption that you (and only you) know what "effective" means in this context. The authors
used "effective end point" in the same paper. Does that mean they have different "flavors" of
endpoint that they add together? They also use "effective path length." Does that mean they
have different "flavors" of path length that they bash together?

"In this paper we report a measurement of the effective electron anti-neutrino mass defined
as m_nu^2 = SUM[U_ei^2m_i^2]."

Any high school English student would understand that you completely failed to read that
simple sentence correctly. You didn't even understand that "the mixing of the states" does
NOT refer to the flavors, it means the mixing of the eigenstates which make up the flavors.
The FLAVOR is the "electron anti-neutrino mass." There is NO sum over flavors in the
equation, only over eigenstates. They are stating exactly what I've been saying and directly
contradicting your bag of nonsense.

You, of course, will dispute this transparent and obvious explanation because you have
corrupted your brain with egotistical pretense in the woefully mistaken belief that YOU
could NEVER be wrong. Well, DON'tknOw, you're just about ALWAYS wrong. Take a BIG
does of humility. You need it BADLY.

I notice that you didn't give any link to your presumption, you just make stuff up and
pretend it's true. You deleted my clear explanation and failed to address the points that
I made:

"At the point of creation in beta decay, the flavor of the neutrino IS an electron neutrino.
As it propagates it can change flavors, but the MT and K measurements are made on the
electron created in the decay, which does NOT change flavors."

The flavor mixture ONLY happen when time passes. The decay is an EVENT. You DO know
what an event is, DON't yOu?

And it didn't escape my notice that you failed to tell what you "believe" is wrong with my
Minkowski diagrams :-))

You're becoming a very tiresome no-trick pony. You are playing the role of a clueless fool.
Get a brain!