On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:51:02 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > section 3 which explains that tachyons with zero energy can still be
> > detected, and using either formalism.
>
> Section III (Tachyon Kinematics) of your crap paper is based on your
> incorrect, cooked up Minkowski diagrams,

Dishonest Dono shrieks this over and over again, as if repeating lies can
make them true :-))

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRFsiJC1sPQ

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:21:33 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:51:02 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > section 3 which explains that tachyons with zero energy can still be
> > > detected, and using either formalism.
> >
> > Section III (Tachyon Kinematics) of your crap paper is based on your
> > incorrect, cooked up Minkowski diagrams,
> reduced you to acting stupid<

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 9:32:59 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:21:33 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > Section III (Tachyon Kinematics) of your crap paper is based on your
> > > incorrect, cooked up Minkowski diagrams,
> >
> > reduced you to acting stupid<

I was trying to raise you out of your philistinism. Oh, just LOOK at all the people
celebrating my lordly paper:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t-s&ei=UTF-8&p=aida+triumphal+entry+verdi+youtube#id=3&vid=577d4b8482b51ba2533e755b6b9d9752&action=click

And you STLL can't explain why you think my Minkowski diagrams are wrong :-))
Perhaps it would help if you shrieked, "They're just wrong!" louder. Or in the olden
days they would cut themselves to call down the gods. Well, mone of that worked
out so well, just like your absurdities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f683uucgGps

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 9:44:45 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 9:32:59 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:21:33 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Section III (Tachyon Kinematics) of your crap paper is based on your
> > > > incorrect, cooked up Minkowski diagrams,
> > >
> > > reduced you to acting stupid<
> I was trying to raise you out of your philistinism. Oh, just LOOK at all the people
> celebrating my lordly paper:
>
> https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t-s&ei=UTF-8&p=aida+triumphal+entry+verdi+youtube#id=3&vid=577d4b8482b51ba2533e755b6b9d9752&action=click
>

You have gone off the deep end

> And you STLL can't explain why you think my Minkowski diagrams are wrong :-))

This was explained to you in this forum ad nauseaum. You, being a crank. never admitted to being wrong. You will go to your grave never admitting to your crap paper being wrong.

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:51:02 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:11:02 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 4:24:21 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:58:36 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 9:28:27 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 8:00:46 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 1:56:35 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the Principle of Relativity, if (4) is correct then
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (5) E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > is also correct in a different inertial frame. And since, by the LTE
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (6) u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2),
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (7) E' = \gamma mc^2 sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) = \gamma E sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Clearly, E' = 0 when u = c^2/v.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > E'=0 means u'=infinity, which is clearly unphysical.
> > > ? ?
> > ..meaning that "tachyons" don't exist.
>The crap paper
>
> crowing self-reference removed<
>
> demonstrates that even though E = 0, the tachyon signal CAN be detected..

Here is a simple disproof of your crank claims:

E=0 corresponds to p=0. So, there is no way of detecting the "tachyon" if E=0.

Indeed:

E'=0 for u'->infinity
Since p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1) it follows that p'->0 for u'->infinity

Likewise, E->0 and p->0 for the corresponding speed u->c^2/v

So, your crank claim from your crap paper, "that even though E = 0, the tachyon signal CAN be detected" is just that, a crank claim .

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 11:16:10 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 9:44:45 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 9:32:59 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:21:33 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Section III (Tachyon Kinematics) of your crap paper is based on your
> > > > > incorrect, cooked up Minkowski diagrams,
> > > >
> > > > reduced you to acting stupid<
> >
> > I was trying to raise you out of your philistinism. Oh, just LOOK at all the people
> > celebrating my lordly paper:
> >
> > https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t-s&ei=UTF-8&p=aida+triumphal+entry+verdi+youtube#id=3&vid=577d4b8482b51ba2533e755b6b9d9752&action=click
> >
> You have gone off the deep end

But, but, that's what Dono ALWAYS says :-))

> > And you STLL can't explain why you think my Minkowski diagrams are wrong :-))
>
> This was explained to you in this forum ad nauseaum.

No, it wasn't. This is ALSO what Dono always says.

> You, being a crank. never admitted to being wrong.

Pot, kettle, black. :-))

> You will go to your grave never admitting to your crap paper being wrong.

Dono believes he can keep lying and never have to back up his scurrilous
fabrications. Come on, Dono, you've spent more time avoiding an explanation
than it would take to come clean. What's wrong with the Minkowski diagrams?

And then there's THIS hilarious "disproof" from DON'tknOw:

> > demonstrates that even though E = 0, the tachyon signal CAN be detected.
>
> Here is a simple disproof of your crank claims:

Yup, it sure is SIMPLE :-))

> E=0 corresponds to p=0.

No, it doesn't! Dono demonstrates that he doesn't understand the simple algebra
of tachyons:

p = mu/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)

Taking the limit as u approaches infinity, p = mc. Tachyons STILL have momentum
even though their energy approaches zero.

Not that it matters because even if the p were equal to zero, the tachyons could still
be detected :see (A) below

> So, there is no way of detecting the "tachyon" if E=0.

Dono's mouth must be full of feet by now :-))

(A) As my regal paper demonstrates, if an observer at rest wrst S' moves his receiver
toward the tachyon transmitter in S, the receiver will find that the tachyons have
both energy and momentum wrt the receiver.

> Indeed:
>
> E'=0 for u'->infinity
> Since p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1) it follows that p'->0 for u'->infinity

Yes, it approaches mc in the S' frame. This is old, old news :-))

> Likewise, E->0 and p->0 for the corresponding speed u->c^2/v

Yep, energy and momentum are frame dependent. Wow, what an epiphany!

C'mon, Dono, now tell your public what you believe is wrong with my
Minkowski diagrams. Everyone is awaiting this momentous event with
baited breath.

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 2:38:46 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> p = mu/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
>
> Taking the limit as u approaches infinity, p = mc.

No, it doesn't. You are not only an idiot when it comes to physics, you are an idiot when it comes to calculus.

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 2:38:46 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Not that it matters because even if the p were equal to zero, the tachyons could still
> be detected

You have gone off the deep end.

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 3:55:39 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 2:38:46 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > p = mu/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
> >
> > Taking the limit as u approaches infinity, p = mc.
>
> No, it doesn't. You are not only an idiot when it comes to physics, you are
> an idiot when it comes to calculus.

Screams the mathematically-challenged incompetent reality-denier :-))
This is what Defunct Dono continually does: Shrieks denial with not a
shred of proof to back up his outrageously bogus assertions.

Dono needs to go study the algebra classes he slept through:

https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcI/LimitsAtInfinityI.aspx

Look at Examples 2 and 3. Obviously, Dono, needs a LOT of help with
math.

> > Not that it matters because even if the p were equal to zero, the
> > tachyons could still be detected
>
> You have gone off the deep end.

So Dono is physics-challenged, too. Apparently, he needs a little help here,
too. Obviously, if a tachyon source is sending out tachyons at u = \infty, a
receiver at rest wrt the source couldn't receive a zero-energy signal. But
suppose the receiver is moving toward the source at velocity -v. It would see
the signal speed as:

u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2}

Letting u --> \infty,

u' = 1/(-v/c^2) = c^2/(-v)

Since v is in the negative direction, since u' is in the positive direction:

u' = c^2/|v|

This is just TOO easy, Dull Dono. What about the Minkowski diagrams?

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:24:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>Obviously, if a tachyon source is sending out tachyons at u = \infty, a
> receiver at rest wrt the source couldn't receive a zero-energy signal. But
> suppose the receiver is moving toward the source at velocity -v. It would see
> the signal speed as:
> u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2}
> Letting u --> \infty,
>
> u' = 1/(-v/c^2) = c^2/(-v)
>
> Since v is in the negative direction, since u' is in the positive direction:
>
> u' = c^2/|v|
>
Crank
PoR teaches everyone (except hardened cranks like you) that if a particle cannot detect a signal in one frame, it will NOT detect that signal in ANY frame.
If the "tachyon" is not detected in one frame, it will not be detected in ANY frame.
You are going off the rails in your desperate attempts to cover your crankiness. Keep it up, dumbfuck!

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:57:37 PM UTC-6, Desperate Dono. spewed:
>
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:24:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Obviously, if a tachyon source is sending out tachyons at u = \infty, a
> > receiver at rest wrt the source couldn't receive a zero-energy signal. But
> > suppose the receiver is moving toward the source at velocity -v. It would see
> > the signal speed as:
> > u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2}
> > Letting u --> \infty,
> >
> > u' = 1/(-v/c^2) = c^2/(-v)
> >
> > Since v is in the negative direction, since u' is in the positive direction:
> >
> > u' = c^2/|v|
>
> Crank

Zero semantic rant :-)

> PoR teaches everyone (except hardened cranks like you) that if a particle
> cannot detect a signal in one frame, it will NOT detect that signal in ANY frame.
> If the "tachyon" is not detected in one frame, it will not be detected in ANY frame.

Desperate Dono displays dementia :-))

Consider a narrow-band em signal source and a narrow-band receiver tuned to
the same frequency. The signal is received just fine. Now the receiver begins
moving away from the source and the signal is now out of the bandwidth of the
receiver. The signal isn't detected in that new frame: it has the wrong energy.

I just explained how a tachyon signal can be detected in ANY frame by "retuning"
the receiver and Dummkopf Dono starts foaming at the mouth asserting his
usual banal malarkey :-))

Dono has gone off the rails in his desperate attempt to cover up his utter
incompetence. He's incapable of realizing that he's lost totally lost it.

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 9:33:03 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:57:37 PM UTC-6, Desperate Dono. spewed:
> >
> > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:24:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Obviously, if a tachyon source is sending out tachyons at u = \infty, a
> > > receiver at rest wrt the source couldn't receive a zero-energy signal.. But
> > > suppose the receiver is moving toward the source at velocity -v. It would see
> > > the signal speed as:
> > > u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2}
> > > Letting u --> \infty,
> > >
> > > u' = 1/(-v/c^2) = c^2/(-v)
> > >
> > > Since v is in the negative direction, since u' is in the positive direction:
> > >
> > > u' = c^2/|v|
> >
> > Crank
> Zero semantic rant :-)
> > PoR teaches everyone (except hardened cranks like you) that if an observer
> > cannot detect a signal in one frame, it will NOT detect that signal in ANY frame.
> > If the "tachyon" is not detected in one frame, it will not be detected in ANY frame.
<reduced you to frothing at the mouth once again>

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 11:33:03 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:57:37 PM UTC-6, Desperate Dono. spewed:

> > PoR teaches everyone (except hardened cranks like you) that if a particle
> > cannot detect a signal in one frame, it will NOT detect that signal in ANY frame.
> > If the "tachyon" is not detected in one frame, it will not be detected in ANY frame.
> Desperate Dono displays dementia :-))
>
> Consider a narrow-band em signal source and a narrow-band receiver tuned to
> the same frequency. The signal is received just fine. Now the receiver begins
> moving away from the source and the signal is now out of the bandwidth of the
> receiver. The signal isn't detected in that new frame: it has the wrong energy.

BOTH you and Dono are being absurd. Done is so enraged
that he cannot express himself clearly. You are so dense
that you have been unable for the last several years to
understand a simple point: In relativity, reality is not
dependent on the observer. (Don't go around trying to
throw in quantum stuff. That's irrelevant here.)

If transmission and receipt of a signal are spacelike
separated events,
1) There are observers for whom receipt occurs after
transmission
2) There are observers for whom receipt and transmission
are simultaneous
3) There are observers for whom receipt occurs before
transmission.

That's relativity of simultaneity 101. You are, of course,
free to reject this most basic premise of relativity.

The last scenario leads to paradox. In your paper, you
eliminate paradox by declaring that transmission of
signals into the past is impossible. But if you do that,
you have the situation that reality depends on the
observer, as seen in the second row of three panels:
That is nonsense.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NWtwLAt5CaPE0__3d6NxDLwW3jqFeCbp/view?usp=share_link
The only way to resolve paradoxes associated with time
travel is in the third row, simply to accept that FTL
transmission of signals does not occur.

Alternatively, if FTL signaling is ever discovered, accept
that the universe is a bizarre place where causality can
be broken. I cannot *prove* that the universe is consistent,
but I definitely prefer a universe where cause and effect
behave in a sensible fashion.

Now quit bickering. *NEITHER* of you are as expert as you
suppose yourselves to be, and I'm tired of both of you.

On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 08:35:16 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 11:33:03 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:57:37 PM UTC-6, Desperate Dono. spewed:
> > > PoR teaches everyone (except hardened cranks like you) that if a particle
> > > cannot detect a signal in one frame, it will NOT detect that signal in ANY frame.
> > > If the "tachyon" is not detected in one frame, it will not be detected in ANY frame.
> > Desperate Dono displays dementia :-))
> >
> > Consider a narrow-band em signal source and a narrow-band receiver tuned to
> > the same frequency. The signal is received just fine. Now the receiver begins
> > moving away from the source and the signal is now out of the bandwidth of the
> > receiver. The signal isn't detected in that new frame: it has the wrong energy.
> BOTH you and Dono are being absurd.

Usual thing between The Shit's knights.

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 1:35:16 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 11:33:03 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:57:37 PM UTC-6, Desperate Dono. spewed:
> > >
> > > PoR teaches everyone (except hardened cranks like you) that if a particle
> > > cannot detect a signal in one frame, it will NOT detect that signal in ANY frame.
> > > If the "tachyon" is not detected in one frame, it will not be detected in ANY frame.
> >
> > Desperate Dono displays dementia :-))
> >
> > Consider a narrow-band em signal source and a narrow-band receiver tuned to
> > the same frequency. The signal is received just fine. Now the receiver begins
> > moving away from the source and the signal is now out of the bandwidth of the
> > receiver. The signal isn't detected in that new frame: it has the wrong energy.
>
> BOTH you and Dono are being absurd.

I respectfully disagree.

> Done is so enraged that he cannot express himself clearly.

Yhat's obvious :-)

> You are so dense that you have been unable for the last several years to
> understand a simple point: In relativity, reality is not dependent on the
> observer.

But ... what is reality? You bring up a philosophical bent to the discussion
which should be carefully defined or it will defocus any possible point you're
trying to make.

> (Don't go around trying to throw in quantum stuff. That's irrelevant here..)

I wouldn't do THAT ... at least for now. I've thought a bit about it, though :-)

> If transmission and receipt of a signal are spacelike separated events,
> 1) There are observers for whom receipt occurs after transmission
> 2) There are observers for whom receipt and transmission are simultaneous
> 3) There are observers for whom receipt occurs before transmission.
>
> That's relativity of simultaneity 101. You are, of course, free to reject this
> most basic premise of relativity.
>
> The last scenario leads to paradox. In your paper, you eliminate paradox
> by declaring that transmission of signals into the past is impossible.

Not quite, PCH. My thesis is that causality can't be violated via a closed loop
between observers in relative motion.

> But if you do that, you have the situation that reality depends on the observer,
> as seen in the second row of three panels:
> That is nonsense.
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NWtwLAt5CaPE0__3d6NxDLwW3jqFeCbp/view?usp=share_link
> The only way to resolve paradoxes associated with time
> travel is in the third row, simply to accept that FTL transmission of signals does not occur.
>
> Alternatively, if FTL signaling is ever discovered, accept
> that the universe is a bizarre place where causality can
> be broken. I cannot *prove* that the universe is consistent,
> but I definitely prefer a universe where cause and effect
> behave in a sensible fashion.
>
> Now quit bickering. *NEITHER* of you are as expert as you
> suppose yourselves to be, and I'm tired of both of you.

Okay, how about you and me "bickering"? :-)

How about discussing why you believe row two destroys reality.
Using the work of Bilaniuk et al, wherein bradyons and luxons are
Type I and II particles, respectively, representing two domains,
Type III particles, if they exist, represents a new domain. That may
require some slightly different rules.

As for the second row, I explained this in my last post to (shudder)
Dono: It's a matter of "tuning" the receiver. Row 1 requires tuning
also, but it is ASSUMED that the happy faces represent observers
with properly-tuned receivers. Your row two ASSUMES that observers
in panels two and three aren't tuned properly. I explained how to
tune receivers at the end of section two of

https://www.hrpub.org/download/20230228/UJPA1-18429574.pdf

BTW, that solution comes partly from discussions I've had with you
in old threads. Remember your idea of a moving belt between
participants? I took it farther by having local individual "belts." I'm
now envisioning something like a cathode ray tube with an electron
beam deflected into a circle. If an incoming particle collides with
an electron, it will deflect it and cause it to strike the screen outside
the circle. This receiver could be "tuned" by adjusting the speed of
the electrons in the beam (i.e., the final accelerating voltage).

Thank you for finally posting -- sorry you felt put upon by the rants,
I was getting pretty tired of them, too :-) OTOH, it helped me a bit to
marshal my thoughts on the issues. Now if YOU would supply some
input, I will refrain from replying to Dono :-) I think he's about run
out of gas, anyway.

Also, BTW, how are you coming with your study of general relativity?

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 12:35:16 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> BOTH you and Dono are being absurd. Done is so enraged
> that he cannot express himself clearly.

I express myself very clearly, so get off your high horse.

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:24:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> But
> suppose the receiver is moving toward the source at velocity -v. It would see
> the signal speed as:
> u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2}
> Letting u --> \infty,
>

When you "let" u --> \infty, you automatically get 1 - uv/c^2<0 which triggers dt'/dt<0. i.e. the causality violation pointed out by Einstein and Tolman. So, you got stuffed again and again by this basic error, crank. BTW, you repeat this error throughout your Minkowski diagrams in your crap "paper" published in the predatory journal.

>What about the Minkowski diagrams?

They all have the basic error pointed out above. Now , you should stop crowing about your crap "paper".

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 7:28:37 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:24:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > But suppose the receiver is moving toward the source at velocity -v.
> > It would see the signal speed as:
> > u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2}
> > Letting u --> \infty,
>
> When you "let" u --> \infty, you automatically get 1 - uv/c^2<0 which triggers
> dt'/dt<0. i.e. the causality violation pointed out by Einstein and Tolman..

Slipshod Dono didn't want to notice that v is negative (o.e., it's moving BACK
TOWARD THE SOURCE), which makes the equation

u' = (u + |v|)/(1 + u|v|/c^2)

Source ---> u ......... -v <-- Receiver
........................................ Observer --> v

So, Dono gets his foot stuffed in his mouth "again and again by this basic
error." Obviously, Dono isn't expressing himself "very clearly" at all :-|

> BTW, you repeat this error throughout your Minkowski diagrams in your crap
> "paper" published in the predatory journal.

All bluster, no content.

> >What about the Minkowski diagrams?
>
> They all have the basic error pointed out above.

A (1 - uv/c^2) term in a Minkowski diagram, where u > c^2/v, would show up
as a downward sloping arrow. My Minkowski diagrams reject that situation.
Figures 1 and 2 in my paper are from the conventional literature (the ones that
YOU claimed were correct) show downward sloping arrows .

Dono didn't point out any error "above." He just keeps lying and crowing that he did.
He keeps stuffing his feet in his mouth, a really, really bad case of athlete's mouth.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 5:13:09 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 7:28:37 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:24:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > But suppose the receiver is moving toward the source at velocity -v.
> > > It would see the signal speed as:
> > > u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2}
> > > Letting u --> \infty,
> >
> > When you "let" u --> \infty, you automatically get 1 - uv/c^2<0 which triggers
> > dt'/dt<0. i.e. the causality violation pointed out by Einstein and Tolman.
> v is negative (o.e., it's moving BACK
> TOWARD THE SOURCE), which makes the equation
>
> u' = (u + |v|)/(1 + u|v|/c^2)
>

1. You get the same exact failures in your crap paper on every Minkowski diagram since you also claim u --> -\infty, deceptive crank.
2. You also get the causality violation for ANY frame moving away from the source at v.
3. You keep trying to pick and choose the combinations that do not cause causality violations while desperately trying to sweep under the rug yhe INFINITY of cases that DO cause causality violations. A typical con-man attitude.

..
> > >What about the Minkowski diagrams?
> >
> > They all have the basic error pointed out above.
> A (1 - uv/c^2) term in a Minkowski diagram, where u > c^2/v, would show up
> as a downward sloping arrow. My Minkowski diagrams reject that situation.

You keep trying to pick and choose the combinations that do not cause causality violations while desperately trying to sweep under the rug yhe INFINITY of cases that DO cause causality violations. A typical con-man attitude.
> Figures 1 and 2 in my paper are from the conventional literature

Figure 1 contradicts your crank claims since it shows causality violation.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 9:19:53 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 5:13:09 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 7:28:37 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:24:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > But suppose the receiver is moving toward the source at velocity -v..
> > > > It would see the signal speed as:
> > > > u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2}
> > > > Letting u --> \infty,
> > >
> > > When you "let" u --> \infty, you automatically get 1 - uv/c^2<0 which triggers
> > > dt'/dt<0. i.e. the causality violation pointed out by Einstein and Tolman.
> >
> > v is negative (o.e., it's moving BACK
> > TOWARD THE SOURCE), which makes the equation
> >
> > u' = (u + |v|)/(1 + u|v|/c^2)
>
> 1. You get the same exact failures in your crap paper on every Minkowski diagram
> since you also claim u --> -\infty, deceptive crank.

Dono doubles down on his ignominious blunder :-))

> 2. You also get the causality violation for ANY frame moving away from the source
> at v.

And I even drew him a picture. Tsk, tsk!

> 3. You keep trying to pick and choose the combinations that do not cause causality
> violations while desperately trying to sweep under the rug yhe INFINITY of cases
> that DO cause causality violations. A typical con-man attitude.

Dumpster-Diver Dono is denser than deutronium (twice as dense as neutronium) :-)
Observe, Dull-bulb:

A= source, B = receiver, D = observer moving away from source controlling B

A ---> u .......... v <-- B
................................ D --> v

D is moving away from A, but he causes his receiver, B, to move toward A. Thus the
receiver is either (1) moving toward A at velocity -v if the symbol is wrt the stationary
frame of the diagram or (2) stationary wrt A if the symbol "v" is wrt to D.

Dodo is shooting from the hip before he identifies the target. There is no "sweeping
under the rug" here because who in his right mind would point his receiver AWAY from
the source :-))

> > > > What about the Minkowski diagrams?
> > >
> > > They all have the basic error pointed out above.
> >
> > A (1 - uv/c^2) term in a Minkowski diagram, where u > c^2/v, would show up
> > as a downward sloping arrow. My Minkowski diagrams reject that situation.
>
> You keep trying to pick and choose the combinations that do not cause causality
> violations while desperately trying to sweep under the rug yhe INFINITY of cases
> that DO cause causality violations. A typical con-man attitude.

Silly, silly Dodo. Apparently, he will NEVER understand practical physics.

> > Figures 1 and 2 in my paper are from the conventional literature
>
> Figure 1 contradicts your crank claims since it shows causality violation..

Actually, my whole paper contradicts the conventional views depicted in
Figures 1 and 2. THEY are the ones that contradict reality (Por, RoS and the fact
that energy is frame-dependent).

Poor Dodo! He just keeps misunderstanding the written word, or can't visualize
a problem like a REAL physicist can, or has trouble parsing English sentences.

Hey PCH, had enough time digesting my post to you? I'm trying to explain it to
Dodo, but he seems to be playing with his mental blocks. I'd go easier on him
if he had a smidgen of humility rather than posting smears and slurs. OTOH,
I DO forgive him of all his calumny:

"Sometimes, the first step towards forgiveness is realizing
the other person was born an idiot." -- Anonymous

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:10:12 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 9:19:53 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 5:13:09 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 7:28:37 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:24:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > > But suppose the receiver is moving toward the source at velocity -v.
> > > > > It would see the signal speed as:
> > > > > u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2}
> > > > > Letting u --> \infty,
> > > >
> > > > When you "let" u --> \infty, you automatically get 1 - uv/c^2<0 which triggers
> > > > dt'/dt<0. i.e. the causality violation pointed out by Einstein and Tolman.
> > >
> > > v is negative (o.e., it's moving BACK
> > > TOWARD THE SOURCE), which makes the equation
> > >
> > > u' = (u + |v|)/(1 + u|v|/c^2)
> >
> > 1. You get the same exact failures in your crap paper on every Minkowski diagram
> > since you also claim u --> -\infty, deceptive crank.

> > 2. You also get the causality violation for ANY frame moving away from the source
> > at v.

> > 3. You keep trying to pick and choose the combinations that do not cause causality
> > violations while desperately trying to sweep under the rug yhe INFINITY of cases
> > that DO cause causality violations. A typical con-man attitude.

Hardened crank,

For ANY v there is an INFINITY of values u for which 1\pm uv/c^2<0 so dt'/dt<0 resulting into causality violation. No matter how much you squirm, how much you try to con, you get stuffed.
The AJP reviewers smelled the rat in your crap "paper" , so they rightfully rejected it. This is why you ended up in the predatory journal. Keep it up, dumbfuck!

> > > A (1 - uv/c^2) term in a Minkowski diagram, where u > c^2/v, would show up
> > > as a downward sloping arrow. My Minkowski diagrams reject that situation.
> >
> > You keep trying to pick and choose the combinations that do not cause causality
> > violations while desperately trying to sweep under the rug yhe INFINITY of cases
> > that DO cause causality violations. A typical con-man attitude.

> > Figure 1 contradicts your crank claims since it shows causality violation.
> Actually, my whole paper contradicts the conventional views depicted in
> Figures 1 and 2. THEY are the ones that contradict reality (Por, RoS and the fact
> that energy is frame-dependent).

Ahh, the whole world of mainstream physics contradicts your crankeries. So, all the mainstream physicists , starting with Einstein and Tolman are wrong. Master crank Gary Harnagel is right , lol.
You have gone off the deep end, wacko.

> "Sometimes, the first step towards forgiveness is realizing
> the other person was born an idiot." -- Anonymous

I have forgiven you. Especially since you post such entertaining imbecilities. Thanks for the daily comics.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:10:12 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> A= source, B = receiver, D = observer moving away from source controlling B
>
> A ---> u .......... v <-- B
> ............................... D --> v
>
> D is moving away from A, but he causes his receiver, B, to move toward A. Thus the
> receiver is either (1) moving toward A at velocity -v if the symbol is wrt the stationary
> frame of the diagram or (2) stationary wrt A if the symbol "v" is wrt to D.
>

Meh, look at this

v<-B......................u<-A
......D=>v

Causality violation, as explained earlier. The point is, crank, that you keep trying to pick and choose the setups that do not cause causality violations while, in your deep dishonesty, you apply blinders to the INFINITY of setups that DO cause causality violations. In your insanity, you consider yourself smarter than Einstein and Tolman. In reality, you are a sad sack crank with an idee fixe.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 12:58:09 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:10:12 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > A= source, B = receiver, D = observer moving away from source controlling B
> >
> > A ---> u .......... v <-- B
> > ............................... D --> v
> >
> > D is moving away from A, but he causes his receiver, B, to move toward A. Thus the
> > receiver is either (1) moving toward A at velocity -v if the symbol is wrt the stationary
> > frame of the diagram or (2) stationary wrt A if the symbol "v" is wrt to D.
>
> Meh, look at this
>
> v<-B......................u<-A
> .....D=>v
>
> Causality violation, as explained earlier.

Clueless DON'tknOw doesn't understand that space is ISOTROPIC. His diagram is in
principle EXACTLY the same as mine :-))

x_A = L, t_A = 0, x_B = -vt, x_D = 0, A launches a (nearly) infinitely-fast signal toward B. B
can't receive it directly, but B sends his receiver, D, back toward A to compensate for his
velocity away from A, Voila!

Therefore D is stationary wrt A and can receive a (nearly) infinitely-fast signal from A and
pass it to B. So, we know that t_B = \gamma (t + vx/c&2) = 0. What is the time in B's frame
at position A (x_A = L): t_A' = \gamma(t + vL/c^2) = \gamma vL/c^2.

So in order to send a signal from B back to A through a cohort, C, passing A at t = 0 (t_C' t_A'), B would have to send it at w' = c^2/v, which is w = (w' - v)/(1 - w'v/c^2) = \infty. It
arrives back at t = 0+ Voila! No causality violation.

B could send it to C infinitely-fast (w' = \infty), but C wouldn't be adjacent to A and couldn't
pass the message until he was (at t = 0) and no causality violation, either.

The point is, Clueless Dono doesn't understand even the basic concepts of physics. And he
can't do math on physics problems that he set up himself.

The only picking going on is occurring between Dono's finger and his nose. He needs to
stuff it in deeper to tickle his brain into activity :-)

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:06:34 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 12:58:09 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:10:12 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > A= source, B = receiver, D = observer moving away from source controlling B
> > >
> > > A ---> u .......... v <-- B
> > > ............................... D --> v
> > >
> > > D is moving away from A, but he causes his receiver, B, to move toward A. Thus the
> > > receiver is either (1) moving toward A at velocity -v if the symbol is wrt the stationary
> > > frame of the diagram or (2) stationary wrt A if the symbol "v" is wrt to D.
> >
> > Meh, look at this
> >
> > v<-B......................u<-A
> > .....D=>v
> >
> > Causality violation, as explained earlier.
> His diagram is in principle EXACTLY the same as mine

Crank,

By simply reversing the sense for the "tachyon" speed , u, a causality violation occurs.being a hardened crank, you put on your blinders, as expected. Keep it up, dumbfuck!

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:06:34 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >>
> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 12:58:09 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:10:12 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A= source, B = receiver, D = observer moving away from source controlling B
> > > >
> > > > A ---> u .......... v <-- B
> > > > ............................... D --> v
> > > >
> > > > D is moving away from A, but he causes his receiver, B, to move toward A. Thus the
> > > > receiver is either (1) moving toward A at velocity -v if the symbol is wrt the stationary
> > > > frame of the diagram or (2) stationary wrt A if the symbol "v" is wrt to D.
> > >
> > > Meh, look at this
> > >
> > > v<-B......................u<-A
> > > .....D=>v
> > >
> > > Causality violation, as explained earlier.
> >
> > His diagram is in principle EXACTLY the same as mine
> Crank,

Ignoramus.

> By simply reversing the sense for the "tachyon" speed , u, a causality violation occurs.
> being a hardened crank, you put on your blinders, as expected. Keep it up, dumbfuck!

Clueless ignoramus Desperate Dodo believes he can poit a receiver AWAY from the source
and still receive the signal :-)))

He saw that my diagram didn't violate causality, reversed it and asserted (without doing
due diligence) that it did violate causality. He was disastrously wrong. He shoots from
the hip and misses the target EVERY TIME.

I used to believe that he was actually intelligent, but it looks like I was wrong.

See? I admit MY mistakes.