Tachyons, the four-momentum formalism and simultaneity

Journal issue appeared 2/28/23. The reviewer's report before revisions
was

Originality: 1
Contribution to the field: 2
Technical quality: 2
Clarity of presentation: 2
Depth of research: 2

(1 = Excellent) (2 = Good) (3 = Fair) (4 = Poor)

"Requires minor revision"

Well, I revised it quite a bit because there wasn't much guidance on
what needed to be revised. Here's the final abstract:

"Since the dawn of relativity in the first two decades of the twentieth
century, it has been maintained that faster-than-light (superluminal)
motion could produce time travel into the past with its accompanying
causality-violating paradoxes; hence, it was concluded that it is
impossible to exceed the speed of light. Tachyons, hypothetical
particles that always move faster than the speed of light, seem to
present serious challenges to our understanding of reality and the
mathematics used by physicists to explain it, if they exist. This paper
addresses these problems from a classical perspective and presents
solutions to the perplexities posed by superluminal motion. Specifically,
classical analyses ruling out superluminal motion are shown to be
flawed. Thus there are no classically-valid objections to such
phenomena. To the contrary, correct analysis leads to the conclusion
that tachyons could send signals faster that the speed of light yet not
violate causality. There are, however, some limitations to how fast such
signals can propagate with respect to the receiver; that is, for one point,
they cannot be infinitely fast. For another, they cannot violate the relati-
vity of simultaneity. These are important points since neglecting them
has led to the claim that tachyons cannot exist because they produce
phenomena that are irreconcilable with reality."

In the Conclusions section, I broke out five conclusions. italicized them
and listed them 1 through 5. I feel go-o-od :-)

On 2023-03-02 15:07:52 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:

> Tachyons, the four-momentum formalism and simultaneity
>
> Journal issue appeared 2/28/23.

Which journal? Some vanity journal for cranks? You don't seem to have
published anything in a serious physics journal since 1988, and even
then it was applied electronics, not theoretical physics. Somehow
"Performance and reliability of high power multi-mode lasers between
0.8 mu m and 1 mu m" doesn't suggest qualifications for writing about
tachyons. (Before you say so, I don't either, but I don't pretend to
have such qualifications.) If Web of Science can be believed your
Hirsch index is 10.

> The reviewer's report before revisions
> was
>
> Originality: 1

Not a good sign! Any of the crackpots here could get a 1 on
Originality, especially if all the other assessments are lower.

> Contribution to the field: 2
> Technical quality: 2
> Clarity of presentation: 2
> Depth of research: 2
>
> (1 = Excellent) (2 = Good) (3 = Fair) (4 = Poor)
>
> "Requires minor revision"

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:34:45 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> On 2023-03-02 15:07:52 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
>
> > Tachyons, the four-momentum formalism and simultaneity
> >
> > Journal issue appeared 2/28/23.
>
> Which journal?

A peer-reviewed online journal. I found it with an easy search.

> Some vanity journal for cranks?

Not quite that bad. I'm really not sure how good it is in the theoretical
physics area, they only have a half-dozen reviewers listed. But it's
certainly better than viXra :-)

They have a whole panoply of journals in a wide variety of fields. You
might evaluate their Journal on Cancer and Oncology Research.

> You don't seem to have published anything in a serious physics journal
> since 1988,

That depends on what you call a "serious physics journal. The last
publication was actually in 1996 in the proceedings of the SPIE.

> and even then it was applied electronics, not theoretical physics.

Applied physics, actually.

> Somehow "Performance and reliability of high power multi-mode
> lasers between 0.8 mu m and 1 mu m" doesn't suggest qualifications
> for writing about tachyons. (Before you say so, I don't either, but I
> don't pretend to have such qualifications.)

After '96 I was working on a classified program, still on laser diodes.
My interest in relativity goes all the way back to high school. Physics
and English classes both required term papers, so both of them were
on relativity (as you might expect, fairly naive). I have undergraduate
degrees in engineering and mathematics and a graduate degree in solid
state and mathematical physics.

My "qualifications" in relativity come from many years studying it on
the side. About 10 to 15 years ago I learned a lot by arguing with
relativity-deniers on the yahoo relativity board. They would make
false claims about relativity and I would have to study to come up with
a rebuttal. The LTE for time always captivated me, particularly the -vx/c^2
term in the context of FTL phenomena.

When the yahoo board fizzled out I came here to a tougher group and
learned a lot more, particularly from people like Tom Roberts. I mostly
lurked for a while and then someone posted that tachyons were impossible
and that got me to thinking about the c^2/v again. So I went from neophyte
to publishing on viXra to trying twice on AJP (where I learned much more)
to finally growing to where I am now. The c^2/v limitation on FTL velocity
is central to causality conservation, and it has taken the last four years to
reach a satisfactory justification of why that limit should theoretically exist.

> If Web of Science can be believed your Hirsch index is 10.

Interesting, never heard of them. Is 10 good or bad? :-)

I received an email from Academia that informed me that someone
just searched for me on google. May have been you since you have
a lot of information about my sordid past.

> > The reviewer's report before revisions was
> >
> > Originality: 1
>
> Not a good sign! Any of the crackpots here could get a 1 on
> Originality, especially if all the other assessments are lower.

Yeah, that one's sort of a two-edged sword, isn't it :-) But 2's in the
other areas isn't bad. In a cover letter to the revised paper I argued
that contribution to the field should be a 1 if the paper was correct
and should be rejected if it wasn't. A TWO?

> > Contribution to the field: 2
> > Technical quality: 2
> > Clarity of presentation: 2
> > Depth of research: 2
> >
> > (1 = Excellent) (2 = Good) (3 = Fair) (4 = Poor)
> >
> > "Requires minor revision"
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Hmmm, your detector may need recalibrating :-)

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 11:39:08 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:34:45 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-03-02 15:07:52 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
> >
> > > Tachyons, the four-momentum formalism and simultaneity
> > >
> > > Journal issue appeared 2/28/23.
> >
> > Which journal?
> A peer-reviewed online journal. I found it with an easy search.
> > Some vanity journal for cranks?
> Not quite that bad. I'm really not sure how good it is in the theoretical
> physics area, they only have a half-dozen reviewers listed. But it's
> certainly better than viXra :-)
>
> They have a whole panoply of journals in a wide variety of fields. You
> might evaluate their Journal on Cancer and Oncology Research.
> > You don't seem to have published anything in a serious physics journal
> > since 1988,
> That depends on what you call a "serious physics journal. The last
> publication was actually in 1996 in the proceedings of the SPIE.
> > and even then it was applied electronics, not theoretical physics.
> Applied physics, actually.
> > Somehow "Performance and reliability of high power multi-mode
> > lasers between 0.8 mu m and 1 mu m" doesn't suggest qualifications
> > for writing about tachyons. (Before you say so, I don't either, but I
> > don't pretend to have such qualifications.)
> After '96 I was working on a classified program, still on laser diodes.
> My interest in relativity goes all the way back to high school. Physics
> and English classes both required term papers, so both of them were
> on relativity (as you might expect, fairly naive). I have undergraduate
> degrees in engineering and mathematics and a graduate degree in solid
> state and mathematical physics.
>
> My "qualifications" in relativity come from many years studying it on
> the side. About 10 to 15 years ago I learned a lot by arguing with
> relativity-deniers on the yahoo relativity board. They would make
> false claims about relativity and I would have to study to come up with
> a rebuttal. The LTE for time always captivated me, particularly the -vx/c^2
> term in the context of FTL phenomena.
>
> When the yahoo board fizzled out I came here to a tougher group and
> learned a lot more, particularly from people like Tom Roberts. I mostly
> lurked for a while and then someone posted that tachyons were impossible
> and that got me to thinking about the c^2/v again. So I went from neophyte
> to publishing on viXra to trying twice on AJP (where I learned much more)
> to finally growing to where I am now. The c^2/v limitation on FTL velocity
> is central to causality conservation, and it has taken the last four years to
> reach a satisfactory justification of why that limit should theoretically exist.
> > If Web of Science can be believed your Hirsch index is 10.
> Interesting, never heard of them. Is 10 good or bad? :-)
>
> I received an email from Academia that informed me that someone
> just searched for me on google. May have been you since you have
> a lot of information about my sordid past.
> > > The reviewer's report before revisions was
> > >
> > > Originality: 1
> >
> > Not a good sign! Any of the crackpots here could get a 1 on
> > Originality, especially if all the other assessments are lower.
> Yeah, that one's sort of a two-edged sword, isn't it :-) But 2's in the
> other areas isn't bad. In a cover letter to the revised paper I argued
> that contribution to the field should be a 1 if the paper was correct
> and should be rejected if it wasn't. A TWO?
> > > Contribution to the field: 2
> > > Technical quality: 2
> > > Clarity of presentation: 2
> > > Depth of research: 2
> > >
> > > (1 = Excellent) (2 = Good) (3 = Fair) (4 = Poor)
> > >
> > > "Requires minor revision"
> > --
> > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
> Hmmm, your detector may need recalibrating :-)

Tachyons don't exist. The proof is they would travel backward in time
and annihilate with positive matter. We have never observed something
new from the future in our now. Annihilation would reveal them.
Because we don't observe new matter tachyons are ruled out.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 9:00:05 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 11:39:08 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:34:45 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2023-03-02 15:07:52 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
> > >
> > > > Tachyons, the four-momentum formalism and simultaneity
> > > >
> > > > Journal issue appeared 2/28/23.
> > >
> > > Which journal?
> > A peer-reviewed online journal. I found it with an easy search.
> > > Some vanity journal for cranks?
> > Not quite that bad. I'm really not sure how good it is in the theoretical
> > physics area, they only have a half-dozen reviewers listed. But it's
> > certainly better than viXra :-)
> >
> > They have a whole panoply of journals in a wide variety of fields. You
> > might evaluate their Journal on Cancer and Oncology Research.
> > > You don't seem to have published anything in a serious physics journal
> > > since 1988,
> > That depends on what you call a "serious physics journal. The last
> > publication was actually in 1996 in the proceedings of the SPIE.
> > > and even then it was applied electronics, not theoretical physics.
> > Applied physics, actually.
> > > Somehow "Performance and reliability of high power multi-mode
> > > lasers between 0.8 mu m and 1 mu m" doesn't suggest qualifications
> > > for writing about tachyons. (Before you say so, I don't either, but I
> > > don't pretend to have such qualifications.)
> > After '96 I was working on a classified program, still on laser diodes.
> > My interest in relativity goes all the way back to high school. Physics
> > and English classes both required term papers, so both of them were
> > on relativity (as you might expect, fairly naive). I have undergraduate
> > degrees in engineering and mathematics and a graduate degree in solid
> > state and mathematical physics.
> >
> > My "qualifications" in relativity come from many years studying it on
> > the side. About 10 to 15 years ago I learned a lot by arguing with
> > relativity-deniers on the yahoo relativity board. They would make
> > false claims about relativity and I would have to study to come up with
> > a rebuttal. The LTE for time always captivated me, particularly the -vx/c^2
> > term in the context of FTL phenomena.
> >
> > When the yahoo board fizzled out I came here to a tougher group and
> > learned a lot more, particularly from people like Tom Roberts. I mostly
> > lurked for a while and then someone posted that tachyons were impossible
> > and that got me to thinking about the c^2/v again. So I went from neophyte
> > to publishing on viXra to trying twice on AJP (where I learned much more)
> > to finally growing to where I am now. The c^2/v limitation on FTL velocity
> > is central to causality conservation, and it has taken the last four years to
> > reach a satisfactory justification of why that limit should theoretically exist.
> > > If Web of Science can be believed your Hirsch index is 10.
> > Interesting, never heard of them. Is 10 good or bad? :-)
> >
> > I received an email from Academia that informed me that someone
> > just searched for me on google. May have been you since you have
> > a lot of information about my sordid past.
> >
> > > > The reviewer's report before revisions was
> > > >
> > > > Originality: 1
> > >
> > > Not a good sign! Any of the crackpots here could get a 1 on
> > > Originality, especially if all the other assessments are lower.
> >
> > Yeah, that one's sort of a two-edged sword, isn't it :-) But 2's in the
> > other areas isn't bad. In a cover letter to the revised paper I argued
> > that contribution to the field should be a 1 if the paper was correct
> > and should be rejected if it wasn't. A TWO?
> >
> > > > Contribution to the field: 2
> > > > Technical quality: 2
> > > > Clarity of presentation: 2
> > > > Depth of research: 2
> > > >
> > > > (1 = Excellent) (2 = Good) (3 = Fair) (4 = Poor)
> > > >
> > > > "Requires minor revision"
> > > --
> > > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
> >
> > Hmmm, your detector may need recalibrating :-)
> >
> Tachyons don't exist. The proof is they would travel backward in time

Actually, my paper shows that they don't.
> and annihilate with positive matter.

You just made that up and are pretending that it's true.

> We have never observed something new from the future in our now.

That's because tachyons don't violate causality. Didn't you bother to read
even the abstract.

> Annihilation would reveal them.
> Because we don't observe new matter tachyons are ruled out.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Ri-i-ight. Because many don't believe we've seen them, they don't exist.
What if they are particles we HAVE seen, but we don't recognize them as
tachyons?

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 7:07:53 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Tachyons, the four-momentum formalism and simultaneity
>
> Journal issue appeared 2/28/23. The reviewer's report before revisions
> was

So, vixra has peer reviewers now? Good to know.

On 2023-03-02 19:39:06 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:

> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:34:45 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-03-02 15:07:52 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:>> > Tachyons, the
>> four-momentum formalism and simultaneity> >> > Journal issue appeared
>> 2/28/23.
>>
>> Which journal?
>
> A peer-reviewed online journal. I found it with an easy search.

You're still being coy about which journal it is.
>
>> Some vanity journal for cranks?
>
> Not quite that bad. I'm really not sure how good it is in the theoretical
> physics area, they only have a half-dozen reviewers listed. But it's
> certainly better than viXra :-)
>
> They have a whole panoply of journals in a wide variety of fields. You
> might evaluate their Journal on Cancer and Oncology Research.
>
>> You don't seem to have published anything in a serious physics journal
>> since 1988,
>
> That depends on what you call a "serious physics journal. The last
> publication was actually in 1996 in the proceedings of the SPIE.
>
>> and even then it was applied electronics, not theoretical physics.
>
> Applied physics, actually.
>
>> Somehow "Performance and reliability of high power multi-mode
>> lasers between 0.8 mu m and 1 mu m" doesn't suggest qualifications
>> for writing about tachyons. (Before you say so, I don't either, but I
>> don't pretend to have such qualifications.)
>
> After '96 I was working on a classified program, still on laser diodes.
> My interest in relativity goes all the way back to high school. Physics
> and English classes both required term papers, so both of them were
> on relativity (as you might expect, fairly naive). I have undergraduate
> degrees in engineering and mathematics and a graduate degree in solid
> state and mathematical physics.
>
> My "qualifications" in relativity come from many years studying it on
> the side. About 10 to 15 years ago I learned a lot by arguing with
> relativity-deniers on the yahoo relativity board. They would make
> false claims about relativity and I would have to study to come up with
> a rebuttal. The LTE for time always captivated me, particularly the -vx/c^2
> term in the context of FTL phenomena.
>
> When the yahoo board fizzled out I came here to a tougher group and
> learned a lot more, particularly from people like Tom Roberts. I mostly
> lurked for a while and then someone posted that tachyons were impossible
> and that got me to thinking about the c^2/v again. So I went from neophyte
> to publishing on viXra to trying twice on AJP (where I learned much more)
> to finally growing to where I am now. The c^2/v limitation on FTL velocity
> is central to causality conservation, and it has taken the last four years to
> reach a satisfactory justification of why that limit should
> theoretically exist.
>> If Web of Science can be believed your Hirsch index is 10.
>
> Interesting, never heard of them. Is 10 good or bad? :-)

It means that you have ten publications that have been cited ten or
more times. It's not particularly impressive for someone of your
experience. My h is 51, but there are others in my field who have done
a lot better. Alan Fersht, for example, is almost exactly my age and
has been working as a scientist for exactly the same number of years
with some overlap in interest, and has h = 135. That's _very_
impressive. It's dangerous to compare across fields, but I'd expect a
lot more than 10 in electronics.
>
> I received an email from Academia that informed me that someone
> just searched for me on google. May have been you since you have
> a lot of information about my sordid past.

Not on Google, I didn't, but at Web of Science.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 2:16:11 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> On 2023-03-02 19:39:06 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
> ?
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:34:45 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2023-03-02 15:07:52 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:>> > Tachyons, the
> > > four-momentum formalism and simultaneity> >> > Journal issue appeared
> > > 2/28/23.
> > >
> > > Which journal?
> >
> > A peer-reviewed online journal. I found it with an easy search.
>
> You're still being coy about which journal it is.

I'm sorry, it was meant to deter the trollish ones. I searched on yahoo using my
last name and the title of the paper and it popped right up. Let me try google ...
interesting, it doesn't show up there no matter what I do. I guess the barrier was
a bit too high :-(

This will work on google: search hrpub and select it, select Universal Journal of
Physics and Application, select Archive. select Vol 17 No. 1. You'll have to scroll
down to see the papers therein.

> >> Some vanity journal for cranks?
> >
> > Not quite that bad. I'm really not sure how good it is in the theoretical
> > physics area, they only have a half-dozen reviewers listed. But it's
> > certainly better than viXra :-)
> >
> > They have a whole panoply of journals in a wide variety of fields. You
> > might evaluate their Journal on Cancer and Oncology Research.
> >
> >> You don't seem to have published anything in a serious physics journal
> > > since 1988,
> >
> > That depends on what you call a "serious physics journal. The last
> > publication was actually in 1996 in the proceedings of the SPIE.
> >
> >> and even then it was applied electronics, not theoretical physics.
> >
> > Applied physics, actually.
> >
> > > Somehow "Performance and reliability of high power multi-mode
> > > lasers between 0.8 mu m and 1 mu m" doesn't suggest qualifications
> > > for writing about tachyons. (Before you say so, I don't either, but I
> > > don't pretend to have such qualifications.)
> >
> > After '96 I was working on a classified program, still on laser diodes.
> > My interest in relativity goes all the way back to high school. Physics
> > and English classes both required term papers, so both of them were
> > on relativity (as you might expect, fairly naive). I have undergraduate
> > degrees in engineering and mathematics and a graduate degree in solid
> > state and mathematical physics.
> >
> > My "qualifications" in relativity come from many years studying it on
> > the side. About 10 to 15 years ago I learned a lot by arguing with
> > relativity-deniers on the yahoo relativity board. They would make
> > false claims about relativity and I would have to study to come up with
> > a rebuttal. The LTE for time always captivated me, particularly the -vx/c^2
> > term in the context of FTL phenomena.
> >
> > When the yahoo board fizzled out I came here to a tougher group and
> > learned a lot more, particularly from people like Tom Roberts. I mostly
> > lurked for a while and then someone posted that tachyons were impossible
> > and that got me to thinking about the c^2/v again. So I went from neophyte
> > to publishing on viXra to trying twice on AJP (where I learned much more)
> > to finally growing to where I am now. The c^2/v limitation on FTL velocity
> > is central to causality conservation, and it has taken the last four years to
> > reach a satisfactory justification of why that limit should theoretically exist.
> >
> > > If Web of Science can be believed your Hirsch index is 10.
> >
> > Interesting, never heard of them. Is 10 good or bad? :-)
>
> It means that you have ten publications that have been cited ten or
> more times. It's not particularly impressive for someone of your
> experience.

I only wrote two or three of them myself. I spent the first 25 years of my career in
the Physics group of General Dynamics. I wrote IRAD reports which definitely weren't
published in the journals :-)

> My h is 51, but there are others in my field who have done a lot better. Alan Fersht,
> for example, is almost exactly my age and has been working as a scientist for
> exactly the same number of years with some overlap in interest, and has h = 135.
> That's _very_impressive. It's dangerous to compare across fields, but I'd expect a
> lot more than 10 in electronics.

Physics, and a bit covert at that. 1986 was my first published paper in the light of day
(unless you count patents -- had several of them at GD and a few more at Xerox and SDL).

> > I received an email from Academia that informed me that someone just searched
> > for me on google. May have been you since you have a lot of information about my
> > sordid past.
>
> Not on Google, I didn't, but at Web of Science.
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:54:44 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> 1986 was my first published paper in the light of day

Correction, 1985

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 9:03:44 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 7:07:53 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > Tachyons, the four-momentum formalism and simultaneity
> >
> > Journal issue appeared 2/28/23. The reviewer's report before revisions
> > was
> So, vixra has peer reviewers now? Good to know.

your published "paper" contains all the errors from the vixra ones plus some fresh ones. thanks for the entertainment

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 8:32:23 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 9:00:05 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 11:39:08 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:34:45 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2023-03-02 15:07:52 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
> > > >
> > > > > Tachyons, the four-momentum formalism and simultaneity
> > > > >
> > > > > Journal issue appeared 2/28/23.
> > > >
> > > > Which journal?
> > > A peer-reviewed online journal. I found it with an easy search.
> > > > Some vanity journal for cranks?
> > > Not quite that bad. I'm really not sure how good it is in the theoretical
> > > physics area, they only have a half-dozen reviewers listed. But it's
> > > certainly better than viXra :-)
> > >
> > > They have a whole panoply of journals in a wide variety of fields. You
> > > might evaluate their Journal on Cancer and Oncology Research.
> > > > You don't seem to have published anything in a serious physics journal
> > > > since 1988,
> > > That depends on what you call a "serious physics journal. The last
> > > publication was actually in 1996 in the proceedings of the SPIE.
> > > > and even then it was applied electronics, not theoretical physics.
> > > Applied physics, actually.
> > > > Somehow "Performance and reliability of high power multi-mode
> > > > lasers between 0.8 mu m and 1 mu m" doesn't suggest qualifications
> > > > for writing about tachyons. (Before you say so, I don't either, but I
> > > > don't pretend to have such qualifications.)
> > > After '96 I was working on a classified program, still on laser diodes.
> > > My interest in relativity goes all the way back to high school. Physics
> > > and English classes both required term papers, so both of them were
> > > on relativity (as you might expect, fairly naive). I have undergraduate
> > > degrees in engineering and mathematics and a graduate degree in solid
> > > state and mathematical physics.
> > >
> > > My "qualifications" in relativity come from many years studying it on
> > > the side. About 10 to 15 years ago I learned a lot by arguing with
> > > relativity-deniers on the yahoo relativity board. They would make
> > > false claims about relativity and I would have to study to come up with
> > > a rebuttal. The LTE for time always captivated me, particularly the -vx/c^2
> > > term in the context of FTL phenomena.
> > >
> > > When the yahoo board fizzled out I came here to a tougher group and
> > > learned a lot more, particularly from people like Tom Roberts. I mostly
> > > lurked for a while and then someone posted that tachyons were impossible
> > > and that got me to thinking about the c^2/v again. So I went from neophyte
> > > to publishing on viXra to trying twice on AJP (where I learned much more)
> > > to finally growing to where I am now. The c^2/v limitation on FTL velocity
> > > is central to causality conservation, and it has taken the last four years to
> > > reach a satisfactory justification of why that limit should theoretically exist.
> > > > If Web of Science can be believed your Hirsch index is 10.
> > > Interesting, never heard of them. Is 10 good or bad? :-)
> > >
> > > I received an email from Academia that informed me that someone
> > > just searched for me on google. May have been you since you have
> > > a lot of information about my sordid past.
> > >
> > > > > The reviewer's report before revisions was
> > > > >
> > > > > Originality: 1
> > > >
> > > > Not a good sign! Any of the crackpots here could get a 1 on
> > > > Originality, especially if all the other assessments are lower.
> > >
> > > Yeah, that one's sort of a two-edged sword, isn't it :-) But 2's in the
> > > other areas isn't bad. In a cover letter to the revised paper I argued
> > > that contribution to the field should be a 1 if the paper was correct
> > > and should be rejected if it wasn't. A TWO?
> > >
> > > > > Contribution to the field: 2
> > > > > Technical quality: 2
> > > > > Clarity of presentation: 2
> > > > > Depth of research: 2
> > > > >
> > > > > (1 = Excellent) (2 = Good) (3 = Fair) (4 = Poor)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Requires minor revision"
> > > > --
> > > > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
> > >
> > > Hmmm, your detector may need recalibrating :-)
> > >
> > Tachyons don't exist. The proof is they would travel backward in time
> Actually, my paper shows that they don't.
> > and annihilate with positive matter.
> You just made that up and are pretending that it's true.
> > We have never observed something new from the future in our now.
> That's because tachyons don't violate causality. Didn't you bother to read
> even the abstract.
> > Annihilation would reveal them.
> > Because we don't observe new matter tachyons are ruled out.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> Ri-i-ight. Because many don't believe we've seen them, they don't exist.
> What if they are particles we HAVE seen, but we don't recognize them as
> tachyons?

If they are not being measured what is your evidence?

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:42:42 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 8:32:23 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 9:00:05 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail..com wrote:
> > >
> > > Tachyons don't exist. The proof is they would travel backward in time
> >
> > Actually, my paper shows that they don't.
> > >
> > > and annihilate with positive matter.
> >
> > You just made that up and are pretending that it's true.
> >
> > > We have never observed something new from the future in our now.
> >
> > That's because tachyons don't violate causality. Didn't you bother to read
> > even the abstract.
> >
> > > Annihilation would reveal them.
> > > Because we don't observe new matter tachyons are ruled out.
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > Ri-i-ight. Because many don't believe we've seen them, they don't exist..
> > What if they are particles we HAVE seen, but we don't recognize them as
> > tachyons?
>
> If they are not being measured what is your evidence?

The particles I'm thinking of are neutrinos.. We do have evidence for them..
We just don't have a high probability that they're tachyons, but the probability
that they ARE tachyons is greater than zero.

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:01:05 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:42:42 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 8:32:23 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 9:00:05 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tachyons don't exist. The proof is they would travel backward in time
> > >
> > > Actually, my paper shows that they don't.
> > > >
> > > > and annihilate with positive matter.
> > >
> > > You just made that up and are pretending that it's true.
> > >
> > > > We have never observed something new from the future in our now.
> > >
> > > That's because tachyons don't violate causality. Didn't you bother to read
> > > even the abstract.
> > >
> > > > Annihilation would reveal them.
> > > > Because we don't observe new matter tachyons are ruled out.
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > >
> > > Ri-i-ight. Because many don't believe we've seen them, they don't exist.
> > > What if they are particles we HAVE seen, but we don't recognize them as
> > > tachyons?
> >
> > If they are not being measured what is your evidence?
> The particles I'm thinking of are neutrinos.. We do have evidence for them.

How is there measurement of neutrinos influencing the atom?
No. What is that evidence of yours?

> We just don't have a high probability that they're tachyons, but the probability
> that they ARE tachyons is greater than zero.

Le 03/03/2023 à 05:00, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :

> Tachyons don't exist.

Absolutly.

> The proof is they would travel backward in time
> and annihilate with positive matter.

No, it's not for that.

Simply, it is theoretical nonsense.

One should not simply read the adventures of Harry Potter, if one wants to
do real science, real theology, real philosophy, real sociology.

You have to know how to read "something else".

I said it was impossible to go faster than infinite speed.

It is a tautology.

I also said that our universe was built on the equation
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

And therefore that one could only observe (o) an aberration of the real
(r).

This equation, properly understood and accepted, should pose no problem to
any doctor or student on earth.

And no one, ever should be able to talk about tachions without being
howled with laughter.

There is an essential human problem here: people still go on.

R.H.

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:36:07 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 03/03/2023 à 05:00, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>
> > Tachyons don't exist.
>
> Absolutly.
> > The proof is they would travel backward in time
> > and annihilate with positive matter.
> No, it's not for that.

The anti world does not exist.
Particles cannot reach the speed of light.
What accelerates neutrinos to near light
speed? What accelerated tachyons to FTL
in the future? No. There is no evidence
for tachyon existence.

Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Simply, it is theoretical nonsense.
>
> One should not simply read the adventures of Harry Potter, if one wants to
> do real science, real theology, real philosophy, real sociology.
>
> You have to know how to read "something else".
>
> I said it was impossible to go faster than infinite speed.
>
> It is a tautology.
>
> I also said that our universe was built on the equation
> Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
>
> And therefore that one could only observe (o) an aberration of the real
> (r).
>
> This equation, properly understood and accepted, should pose no problem to
> any doctor or student on earth.
>
> And no one, ever should be able to talk about tachions without being
> howled with laughter.
>
> There is an essential human problem here: people still go on.
>
> R.H.

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 11:42:35 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Particles cannot reach the speed of light.

What about photons?

> What accelerates neutrinos to near light speed?

What accelerates photons TO the speed of light?
Nothing. photons are created moving at the speed of light.

> What accelerated tachyons to FTL

Just as photons were created traveling at the speed of light,
tachyons would be created traveling faster than the speed of light.

> in the future? No. There is no evidence
> for tachyon existence.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

“If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.” -- Albert Einstein

“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible,
he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he
is very probably wrong.” -- Arthur C. Clarke

“The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t
know anything about” – Wayne Dyer

“I’m right and you’re wrong.” – Everyone on the internet

Le 03/03/2023 à 23:30, Gary Harnagel a écrit :

> What accelerates photons TO the speed of light?
> Nothing.

Yes.

>photons are created moving at the speed of light.

Yes and no.

R.H.

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:01:05 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:42:42 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 8:32:23 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 9:00:05 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tachyons don't exist. The proof is they would travel backward in time
> > >
> > > Actually, my paper shows that they don't.
> > > >
> > > > and annihilate with positive matter.
> > >
> > > You just made that up and are pretending that it's true.
> > >
> > > > We have never observed something new from the future in our now.
> > >
> > > That's because tachyons don't violate causality. Didn't you bother to read
> > > even the abstract.
> > >
> > > > Annihilation would reveal them.
> > > > Because we don't observe new matter tachyons are ruled out.
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > >
> > > Ri-i-ight. Because many don't believe we've seen them, they don't exist.
> > > What if they are particles we HAVE seen, but we don't recognize them as
> > > tachyons?
> >
> > If they are not being measured what is your evidence?
> The particles I'm thinking of are neutrinos.. We do have evidence for them.
> We just don't have a high probability that they're tachyons, but the probability
> that they ARE tachyons is greater than zero.

Doesn't this contradict the experimental results (mass > 0, etc.)

--
Jan

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 2:30:30 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 11:42:35 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Particles cannot reach the speed of light.
> What about photons?

How do you know photons exist?
How does an infinitely small light particle
get absorbed in the atom particle?

> > What accelerates neutrinos to near light speed?
> What accelerates photons TO the speed of light?
> Nothing. photons are created moving at the speed of light.

Is that a fundamental speed of created neutrinos?
Do they all have the same speed and from where?

>
> > What accelerated tachyons to FTL
>
> Just as photons were created traveling at the speed of light,
> tachyons would be created traveling faster than the speed of light.

So what created something that comes from the future?
How does Higgs?

> > in the future? No. There is no evidence
> > for tachyon existence.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> “If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it..” -- Albert Einstein

There is genius that is more objective...
>
> “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible,
> he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he
> is very probably wrong.” -- Arthur C. Clarke
>
> “The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t
> know anything about” – Wayne Dyer
>
> “I’m right and you’re wrong.” – Everyone on the internet

You have a right to be wrong. But it is wrong to be wrong...

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 6:44:26 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:01:05 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:42:42 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > If they are not being measured what is your evidence?
> >
> > The particles I'm thinking of are neutrinos.. We do have evidence for them.
> > We just don't have a high probability that they're tachyons, but the probability
> > that they ARE tachyons is greater than zero.
>
> Doesn't this contradict the experimental results (mass > 0, etc.)
>
> --
> Jan

The KATRIN latest result is m_beta^2 = 0.25 +/- 0.34 eV^2 (one sigma) where

m_beta^2 = U_e1^2 m_1^2 + U_e2^2 m_2^2 + U_e3^2 m_3^2

m_beta^2 = m_1^2 +/- K, where K is about 0.003 eV^2 due to the m_i^2 - m_j^2 terms.

So m_1^2 is about equal to m_beta^2,

Anyway, assuming a gaussian distribution, the probability is about 22% that the true
value is less than zero. It;s even higher if the initial KATRIN data is included. It's a bit
unsettling that the initial run result was -1.0 + 0.9 -1.0 eV^2. That was quite a jump,
and a suspicious person would wonder if they did something unusual in one or the
other. They're using a stronger tritium source in the latter so they have better signal to
noise ratio. Awaiting further results but hope springs eternal :-)

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:25:23 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 6:44:26 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:01:05 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:42:42 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If they are not being measured what is your evidence?
> > >
> > > The particles I'm thinking of are neutrinos.. We do have evidence for them.
> > > We just don't have a high probability that they're tachyons, but the probability
> > > that they ARE tachyons is greater than zero.
> >
> > Doesn't this contradict the experimental results (mass > 0, etc.)
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> The KATRIN latest result is m_beta^2 = 0.25 +/- 0.34 eV^2 (one sigma) where
>
> m_beta^2 = U_e1^2 m_1^2 + U_e2^2 m_2^2 + U_e3^2 m_3^2
>
> m_beta^2 = m_1^2 +/- K, where K is about 0.003 eV^2 due to the m_i^2 - m_j^2 terms.
>
> So m_1^2 is about equal to m_beta^2,
>

This is not how m_1^2 is calculated. You are unwilling and unable to learn, so, you are replacing the mainstream method (which you do not know) with your own hack

> Anyway, assuming a gaussian distribution, the probability is about 22% that the true
> value is less than zero. It;s even higher if the initial KATRIN data is included. It's a bit
> unsettling that the initial run result was -1.0 + 0.9 -1.0 eV^2. That was quite a jump,
> and a suspicious person would wonder if they did something unusual in one or the
> other.

"They" (the KATRIN group) are real scientists. You, by contrast,. are a crank with an agenda.

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 9:03:44 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 7:07:53 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Tachyons, the four-momentum formalism and simultaneity
> >
> > Journal issue appeared 2/28/23. The reviewer's report before revisions
> > was
>
> So, vixra has peer reviewers now? Good to know.
>
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:04:54 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:25:23 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > The KATRIN latest result is m_beta^2 = 0.25 +/- 0.34 eV^2 (one sigma) where
> >
> > m_beta^2 = U_e1^2 m_1^2 + U_e2^2 m_2^2 + U_e3^2 m_3^2
> >
> > m_beta^2 = m_1^2 +/- K, where K is about 0.003 eV^2 due to the m_i^2 - m_j^2 terms.
> >
> > So m_1^2 is about equal to m_beta^2,
>
> This is not how m_1^2 is calculated. You are unwilling and unable to learn, so, you are
> replacing the mainstream method (which you do not know) with your own hack

If one will look at Figure 1 in
https://journals.aps.org/prd/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.016003

one will observe that for m_eff(i.e. m_beta) greater than about 0.04 eV, m_1 ~ m_eff,
which is just what the above equation says. Their figure seems to have smaller errors
than the K, but it's quite small in any case. Note that m_beta' IS my equation above.

> > Anyway, assuming a gaussian distribution, the probability is about 22% that the true
> > value is less than zero. It;s even higher if the initial KATRIN data is included. It's a bit
> > unsettling that the initial run result was -1.0 + 0.9 -1.0 eV^2. That was quite a jump,
> > and a suspicious person would wonder if they did something unusual in one or the
> > other.
>
> "They" (the KATRIN group) are real scientists. You, by contrast,. are a crank with an agenda.

That's very unkind of you, Dono. And on my birthday, too :-|

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:02:45 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 9:03:44 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 7:07:53 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Tachyons, the four-momentum formalism and simultaneity
> > >
> > > Journal issue appeared 2/28/23. The reviewer's report before revisions
> > > was
> > So, vixra has peer reviewers now? Good to know.
>
> your published "paper" contains all the errors from the vixra ones plus some
> fresh ones. thanks for the entertainment

The reviewer disagrees with you. So unless you can find someone more
advanced than an amateur to agree with you, we'll just have to agree to
disagree.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 9:03:44 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
>> This is not how m_1^2 is calculated. You are unwilling and unable to
>> learn, so, you are replacing the mainstream method (which you do not
>> know) with your own hack
>
> If one will look at Figure 1 in
> https://journals.aps.org/prd/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.016003
>
> one will observe that for m_eff(i.e. m_beta) greater than about 0.04 eV,
> m_1 ~ m_eff, which is just what the above equation says. Their figure
> seems to have smaller errors than the K, but it's quite small in any
> case. Note that m_beta' IS my equation above.

effective does not involves negative numbers, idiot, only the integration
of the positive part, which is ½ peak value ~0.707 for a sinus wave.
Idiot.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 9:03:44 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
>> This is not how m_1^2 is calculated. You are unwilling and unable to
>> learn, so, you are replacing the mainstream method (which you do not
>> know) with your own hack
>
> If one will look at Figure 1 in
> https://journals.aps.org/prd/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.016003
>
> one will observe that for m_eff(i.e. m_beta) greater than about 0.04 eV,
> m_1 ~ m_eff, which is just what the above equation says. Their figure
> seems to have smaller errors than the K, but it's quite small in any
> case. Note that m_beta' IS my equation above.

was to say 1/√2 times the peak value, ~ 0.707