Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> this thread
>
> Dono is spewing bool poop again. There is nothing in this thread that
> supports his heinous slander.

i beg to differ. YOu steal arduino components from Taiwan China.

Grandson Of Charles De Gaulle Says If Russia Loses, The World Loses
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/1dJAvLLC0eQG

Russian Visiting Luftwaffe Museum Can't Seem To Find
*_Ukraine_and_Poland_* On A Map
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/IheEwlLIymcS

On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 5:12:49 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 3:57:49 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 2:54:12 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > I have all the valid justifications,
> > Previous threads were incomplete. Intuition told me that c^2/v was a valid limit
> > that prevented causality-violating communication around a loop.
>
> Well, in your deluded mind, you claim that. No one is buiyng the shit you are
> selling.

“The more you know, the dumber you sound to stupid people.”
-- Anonymous

Dono is getting so flustered he can't spell "buying" right. And how arrogant of
him to assert he knows what others "buy" :-))

> At this point I have debunked your crap paper paragraph by paragraph.

This demonstrates Dono's delusional beliefs. He has debunked nothing in

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

> For ultimate fun, let's ;ook at the crankeries in your "Conclusions" section.
> Crank Gary Harnagel writes:
>
> "Conclusion Number 1: The four-momentum formalism is
> incorrect for tachyons since it predicts the possibility of nega-
> tive energies, which is impossible by the Principle of Relativity"
>
> Well, the inconvenient truth is that the four-vector formalism is , of course,
> correct

Assertion without proof. Dono has misplaced faith in a map of reality. He
sits in the dark and fondles his "precious" while he denies the Principle of
Relativity.

> and that it nullifies your crap paper

Delusional Dono believes that a "formalism" is more basic than a principle.

> published in the predatory journal.

Dono doubles down in his onerous deceptions. Since UJPA is not on the
predatoryreports list, Dono is perpetrating the guilt-by-association fallacy.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/guilt-by-association-fallacy-definition-and-examples.html

"an argument by using irrelevant points, making false connections, failing
to address the main argument, or intentionally misleading the audience."

> The defect lies not with the four-vector formalism

And Dono doubles down that he doesn't believe in PEMDAS, either.

> but with your insane description of "tachyons".

"Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

Dono is slurring the reputations of all these physicists in a misguided attempt
to defame me:

O. M. P. Bilaniuk
V. K. Deshpande
E. C. G. Sudarshan
G. Feinberg
J. Cibrowski
J. Rembielinski
A. Chodos
A. I. Hauser
V. A. Kostelecky
M. Pavsic
E. Recami
C. Schwartz
R. Ehrlich

> There can be no contradiction betwen the four-vector formalism and PoR because...
> the four-vector formalism is derived straight from PoR.

Dono is either incompetent and/or dishonest. "and" is the correct choice.

He's incompetent because PoR says that if E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1), then
E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1).

And since the 4-momentum formalism disagrees with that, and since I posted this
previously in this very thread, Dono is incompetent AND dishonest.

> If you continue with your imbecilities, I am going to expose them for the rest of
> your conclusions.

Dono totally botched his "exposure" of Conclusion 1, he only proves that his
incompetence exceeds his intellect. Since he is a hardened troll, I am quite sure
that he will persist, giving me the opportunity to continue with the evisceration of
his weak mind.

So allow me to help him out:

Conclusion Number 2: Using the Principle of Relativity, it
has been demonstrated that there is no valid argument leading
to violation of causality for direct tachyon communication in
a loop between transmitters and receivers in relative motion
(Method I). On the contrary, it is adduced that this Method I
will obey causality.

Since Dono is clueless about what the PoR says (he believes that a formalism is a law:-))
he will persist in his insane kamakaze. Go for it, Dono. I'm waiting to hand you the
kozuka. I will not be your Kaishakunin, though. You can just bleed out .... slowly.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> Well, in your deluded mind, you claim that. No one is buiyng the shit
>> you are selling.
> “The more you know, the dumber you sound to stupid people.”
> -- Anonymous

here's another proof, the gringos kicked out from everywhere. Surprised to
realize how easy it can be done. These fucking terrorists and criminals.
Gave a big country on the hands of a criminal capitalist.

UK Column News - 24th March 2023
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/huKxDByHTHNU

On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 5:11:17 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

>
> Conclusion Number 2: Using the Principle of Relativity, it
> has been demonstrated that there is no valid argument leading
> to violation of causality for direct tachyon communication in
> a loop between transmitters and receivers in relative motion
> (Method I). On the contrary, it is adduced that this Method I
> will obey causality.
> This is an important point because textbooks and other
sources have claimed that this method does violate causality
[1,2,3,4,17,19]

Dumbfuck,

Your crap paper exhibits causality violation for all tachyon speeds exceeding c^2/v
You dug yourself deeper
by claiming the ultimate idiocy that Lorentz transform of time, dt'=\gamma(dt-vdx/c^2) is invalid for dt<vdx/c^2
To make matters even more amusing, you have the agnorrance to cite Einstein[1], Tolman[2] both of which contradict your insane claims since they show causality violation for 1-v/c^2dx/dt<0

PS: you are starting to post like your buddy crank, Richard Hertz, longer and longer posts, You are devolving, Gary. Keep it up, dumfuck! Shall we continue?

On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:39:31 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 5:11:17 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Conclusion Number 2: Using the Principle of Relativity, it
> > has been demonstrated that there is no valid argument leading
> > to violation of causality for direct tachyon communication in
> > a loop between transmitters and receivers in relative motion
> > (Method I). On the contrary, it is adduced that this Method I
> > will obey causality.
> > This is an important point because textbooks and other sources
> > have claimed that this method does violate causality
> > [1,2,3,4,17,19]
>
> Dumbfuck,

"Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

> Your crap paper exhibits causality violation for all tachyon speeds exceeding c^2/v
> You dug yourself deeper

Dono is delusional, as usual. He doesn't even define what he means by a "causality
violation." It apparently means whatever he wants it to mean. I am quite clear what
I mean by a causality violation: it's the ability to send a message to oneself from one's
future self. THAT does not happen for c < u < \infty and

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

proves it.

> by claiming the ultimate idiocy that Lorentz transform of time, dt'=\gamma(dt-vdx/c^2)
> is invalid for dt<vdx/c^2

So Dono believes that the LTE is VALID for dt < vdx/c^2. Assertion is not evidence. Let
him produce a valid mathematical proof for his claim. Otherwise, he's purveying bool poop.

> To make matters even more amusing, you have the agnorrance to cite Einstein[1], Tolman[2]
> both of which contradict your insane claims since they show causality violation for 1-v/c^2dx/dt<0

Dono also believes that once something is printed in a journal it's truth for all time. Einstein
also said quantum mechanics was wrong. Will Dono stand behind Einstein on that?

"By 1926, Albert Einstein had become completely unforgiving of quantum mechanics’
probabilistic interpretation of the universe and would step away from it forever."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/einstein-and-the-quantum/

Will Dono stand behind Einstein on that? Baloney detected again:

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

So experts are good?

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

I do science and Dono wallows in ignorance and arrogance.

> PS: you are starting to post like your buddy crank, Richard Hertz, longer and
> longer posts,

I wouldn't have to if Dono made rational posts. He conveniently forgets
everything that has sunk him before. Does he have Alzheimers, or does he
believe he can just declare victory and no one will notice?

> You are devolving, Gary. Keep it up, dumfuck!

"Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

> Shall we continue?

Dono hasn't disproved either Conclusion 1 or 2 yet.
It's time for him to order a kozuka from amazon.

"Sometimes, I think it's a sin when Dono feels like he's winning when he's
losing again.":

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

On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 9:18:14 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > by claiming the ultimate idiocy that Lorentz transform of time, dt'=\gamma(dt-vdx/c^2)
> > is invalid for dt<vdx/c^2
> So Dono believes that the LTE is VALID for dt < vdx/c^2. Assertion is not evidence.

Crackpot Gary Harnagel

The domain of applicability is ANY dx and any dt. You are digging yourself deeper and deeper, showing yourself to be more and more stupid. Actually, agnorrant (arrogant ignorant) is the correct term for you.

So, we continue with the demolition of your crap paper. Crank Gary Harnagel writes the third idiocy:

"Conclusion Number 3: Since tachyon energy cannot be negative, the “reinterpretation principle” is not only unnecessary, but it is incorrect"

Wrong conclusion. Correct conclusion: Since tachyon energy cannot be negative, tachyons are unphysical, they do not exist. The paper by crank Harnagel is a piece of crap.

Do you want to go to the next conclusion? There are only two left to demolish.

On 2023-03-25 00:11:16 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:

> On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 5:12:49 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 3:57:49 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:> >
>>> On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 2:54:12 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:> > >> > > I
>>> have all the valid justifications,
>>> Previous threads were incomplete. Intuition told me that c^2/v was a
>>> valid limit> > that prevented causality-violating communication around
>>> a loop.
>>
>> Well, in your deluded mind, you claim that. No one is buiyng the shit you are
>> selling.
> “The more you know, the dumber you sound to stupid people.”
> -- Anonymous
>
> Dono is getting so flustered he can't spell "buying" right.

Ridiculing what was obviously a typo confirms that you are running out
of serious arguments.

> And how arrogant of
> him to assert he knows what others "buy" :-))

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

On Saturday, 25 March 2023 at 08:56:32 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-03-25 00:11:16 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
>
> > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 5:12:49 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >>
> >> On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 3:57:49 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:> >
> >>> On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 2:54:12 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:> > >> > > I
> >>> have all the valid justifications,
> >>> Previous threads were incomplete. Intuition told me that c^2/v was a
> >>> valid limit> > that prevented causality-violating communication around
> >>> a loop.
> >>
> >> Well, in your deluded mind, you claim that. No one is buiyng the shit you are
> >> selling.
> > “The more you know, the dumber you sound to stupid people.”
> > -- Anonymous
> >
> > Dono is getting so flustered he can't spell "buying" right.
> Ridiculing what was obviously a typo confirms that you are running out
> of serious arguments.

Unlike, of course, waving arms and screaming
that there is nothing to discuss.

On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 10:58:33 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 9:18:14 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > by claiming the ultimate idiocy that Lorentz transform of time, dt'=\gamma(dt-vdx/c^2)
> > > is invalid for dt<vdx/c^2
> >
> > So Dono believes that the LTE is VALID for dt < vdx/c^2. Assertion is not evidence.
>
> Crackpot Gary Harnagel

“Unsuccessful people talk about people and problems. The successful
talk about ideas and goals. Your conversation chooses your destiny.”
-- Darren Hardy

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

"18 straw man — caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack"
-- Carl Sagan

> The domain of applicability is ANY dx and any dt.

This is still assertion without evidence. Any dx and dt is valid in the real world,
but Dono is still confusing the real world with a map.

> [Dono's rant deleted]
>
> So, we continue with the demolition ... [more ranting deleted]
>
> "Conclusion Number 3: Since tachyon energy cannot be negative, the
> “reinterpretation principle” is not only unnecessary, but it is incorrect"
>
> Wrong conclusion. Correct conclusion: Since tachyon energy cannot be negative,
> tachyons are unphysical, they do not exist.

Illogical conclusion. Dono's argument applied to bradyons: Bradyon energy is
E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - u^2/c^2) and cannot be negative; therefore, bradyons do not
exist.

> The paper by crank Harnagel is a piece of crap.

Assertion STILL without eveidence.

> Do you want to go to the next conclusion? There are only two left to demolish.

Dono hasn't demolished anything except his own credibility.

Conclusions 1, 2 and 3 are still standing unchallenged.

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 1:56:32 AM UTC-6, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> On 2023-03-25 00:11:16 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
> >
> > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 5:12:49 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 3:57:49 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:> >
> > > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 2:54:12 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:> > >> > > I
> > > > have all the valid justifications,
> > > > Previous threads were incomplete. Intuition told me that c^2/v was a
> > > > valid limit> > that prevented causality-violating communication around
> > > > a loop.
> > >
> > > Well, in your deluded mind, you claim that. No one is buiyng the shit you are
> > > selling.
> > “The more you know, the dumber you sound to stupid people.”
> > -- Anonymous
> >
> > Dono is getting so flustered he can't spell "buying" right.
>
> Ridiculing what was obviously a typo confirms that you are running out
> of serious arguments.

Really? You seem to be extremely biased in your "analysis." I have already presented
a multitude of serious arguments which neither you nor Dono have presented a
valid rebuttal.

And as to your "criticism," not checking for typos indicates hurried activity, which is
consistent with excessive hormone secretion during stress. You're a biochemist,
right?

> > And how arrogant of him to assert he knows what others "buy" :-))
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

As I wrote previously, you seem to have fallen afoul of the guilt-by-association fallacy,
too, no?

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 6:05:18 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Conclusions 1, 2 and 3 are still standing unchallenged.

I wouldn't expect anything else from the hardened crank Gary Harnagel. Let's go one with the demolition of his crap paper shopped to the predatory journal. Crank Gary Harnagel writes:

"Conclusion Number 4: It has also been shown that supplying additional participants (Method II) most likely won’t violate causality either, provided that tachyons and spacetime aren’t imbued with fictitious properties."
The violation of causality is independent of any "additional participants". You have really gone off the deep end, crank Gary.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> Dumbfuck,
>
> "Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
> And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
> But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace Of failing to logically
> argue your case." -- David Morin

sure, here's some khazar satanists, trying to pull humans in hell.

*_Zakharova_defeated_a_CNN_propagandist!_* Watch until the end! Ukraine.
https://youtu.be/4L-nK4gr1xk

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 8:54:46 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 9:04:19 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 6:05:18 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Conclusion Number 3: Since tachyon energy cannot be negative, the
> > > > “reinterpretation principle” is not only unnecessary, but it is incorrect"
> > > >
> > > > Wrong conclusion. Correct conclusion: Since tachyon energy cannot be negative,
> > > > tachyons are unphysical, they do not exist.
> > >

> > Crank,

> > The bradyon energy never becomes negative, the tachyon energy DOES become
> > negative for u>c^2/v.

> E' = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) does NOT become negative for ANY value of
> u': -\infty < u' < =\infty.

Using the four-vector formalism, turns out that E' <0 for u>c^2/v . hence a contradiction. Contradiction is resolve by concluding that "tachyons" cannot exist. Crank Gary Harnagel resolves the contradiction by claiming that the four-vector formalism is wrong. Way to go, cranko!
Should we now look at your last crank conclusion from your crap paper, Gary?

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 10:01:00 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 8:54:46 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 9:04:19 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 6:05:18 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Conclusion Number 3: Since tachyon energy cannot be negative, the
> > > > > “reinterpretation principle” is not only unnecessary, but it is incorrect"
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong conclusion. Correct conclusion: Since tachyon energy cannot be negative,
> > > > > tachyons are unphysical, they do not exist.
> > > >
> > > Crank,
> > > The bradyon energy never becomes negative, the tachyon energy DOES become
> > > negative for u>c^2/v.
> >
> > E' = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) does NOT become negative for ANY value of
> > u': -\infty < u' < =\infty.
>
> Using the four-vector formalism, turns out that E' <0 for u>c^2/v .

Dono is a dishonest troll. He refuses to look at what is right before his eyes, deleting
it from his reply so he can pretend his garbage is perfume. Here's the proof of his
dishonesty placed right before his dishonest eyes again:

"He didn't bother to explain that he was clinging to an expression that is
incorrect in the u > c^2/v range. He was SHOWN that it was incorrect because
of PEMDAS, but like the dishonest fool that he is, he keeps going back to it
like a dog to its vomit. Standing over his vomitous excretion he asserts, "Hey,
it's not vomit, it's steak!"

> hence a contradiction.

Hence a proof that Dono is a lying weasel. Does he need to study high school
algebra? The class he flunked? PEMDAS!! Unmitigated fool! PEMDAS! PEMDAS!
Does he even know what that means? Mathematically incompetent fool!

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 11:18:43 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 10:01:00 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 8:54:46 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 9:04:19 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 6:05:18 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Conclusion Number 3: Since tachyon energy cannot be negative, the
> > > > > > “reinterpretation principle” is not only unnecessary, but it is incorrect"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wrong conclusion. Correct conclusion: Since tachyon energy cannot be negative,
> > > > > > tachyons are unphysical, they do not exist.
> > > > >
> > > > Crank,
> > > > The bradyon energy never becomes negative, the tachyon energy DOES become
> > > > negative for u>c^2/v.
> > >
> > > E' = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) does NOT become negative for ANY value of
> > > u': -\infty < u' < =\infty.
> >
> > Using the four-vector formalism, turns out that E' <0 for u>c^2/v .

> "He didn't bother to explain that he was clinging to an expression that is
> incorrect in the u > c^2/v range.

I debunked your above idiocy multiple times. You claim that the four-vector formalism and the Lorentz transform for time are incorrect for u > c^2/v. A crankj claim of a crank desperate to defend his crap paper.

Let's finish debunking your crap paper that you shopped to the predatory journal. Crank Gary Harnagel writes:

"Conclusion Number 5: Since the principle of relativity is a
fundamental postulate and RoS is a fundamental consequence
of relativity, assertions that tachyons would violate causality
are unfounded"

In 1907 Einstein gave a very simple counter-proof to your crank claim that "tachyons" do not violate causality. The irony is that you cite his paper at position [1]. That proves that you understood nothing of his proof. This concludes the debunking of your crap paper.

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 12:29:59 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 11:18:43 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 10:01:00 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 8:54:46 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 9:04:19 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 6:05:18 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Conclusion Number 3: Since tachyon energy cannot be negative, the
> > > > > > > “reinterpretation principle” is not only unnecessary, but it is incorrect"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wrong conclusion. Correct conclusion: Since tachyon energy cannot be negative,
> > > > > > > tachyons are unphysical, they do not exist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Crank,
> > > > > The bradyon energy never becomes negative, the tachyon energy DOES become
> > > > > negative for u>c^2/v.
> > > >
> > > > E' = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) does NOT become negative for ANY value of
> > > > u': -\infty < u' < =\infty.
> > >
> > > Using the four-vector formalism, turns out that E' <0 for u>c^2/v .
> >
> > "He didn't bother to explain that he was clinging to an expression that is
> > incorrect in the u > c^2/v range.
>
> I debunked your above idiocy multiple times.

Dono is a delusional, incompetent and dishonest fool. He posts nonsense and
then declares victory.

> You claim that the four-vector formalism and the Lorentz transform for time are
> incorrect for u > c^2/v.

I didn't just "claim" it, PROVED it.

> Let's finish debunking my crappy, delusional vacuous assetion that the 4-momentum
formalism is absolutely correct for u > c^2/v, even though it violates the rules of
mathematics (which I reject, I don't care a fig about PEMDAS, what ever that is). I
don't care about rules or physics. All I care about is defecating on everyone.

“If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.”
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

> "Conclusion Number 5: Since the principle of relativity is a
> fundamental postulate and RoS is a fundamental consequence
> of relativity, assertions that tachyons would violate causality
> are unfounded"
>
> In 1907 Einstein gave a very simple counter-proof to your crank claim that "tachyons"

Repeating bool poop doesn't make it true. As I pointed out:

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

DON'tknOw has a very short memory. He needs to check into an Alzheimer's climic.

> do not violate causality. The irony is that you cite his paper at position [1].

The irony is that Dono is quoting from the INTRODUCTION under the SUBHEADING
"Arguments against superluminal phenomena."

> That proves that you understood nothing of his proof.

Einstein's "proof" was a conjecture": an opinion or supposition about (something) on
the basis of incomplete information. Bilaniuk et al. added more complete information
by hypothesizing the existence of a third particle domain.

> This concludes the debunking of your crap paper.

:-))) Silly incompetent Dono declares victory while standing in the shambles of
his vacuous assertions :-)))

I referenced three other sources in the arguments against, then I referenced SIX
references FOR (ALL of them much more recent than the one Dono drooled on).
Dishonest Dono refuses to consider them:

Baloney detection: "19 suppressed evidence, or half-truths" -- Cark Sagan

Dono defecates all over the authors of those six reference AND all of these, too:

J. Cibrowski
J. Rembielinski
A. Chodos
A. I. Hauser
V. A. Kostelecky
M. Pavsic
E. Recami
C. Schwartz
R. Ehrlich

But the important point is that

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

PROVES that the arguments of Einstein, Tolman et al. are incorrect
by application of energy transformation, the Principle of Relativity,
and, yes, PEMDAS (which disproves the assertion that the 4-momentum
expression, which predicts negative E') is correct even for u> c^2/v).

Dono is deathly afraid of PEMDAS :-))

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 3:46:26 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > Let's finish debunking my crappy, delusional vacuous assetion that the 4-momentum
> formalism is absolutely correct for u > c^2/v, even though it violates the rules of
> mathematics (which I reject, I don't care a fig about PEMDAS, what ever that is).

Crank.

The four-momentum formalism has nothing to do with any "PEDMAS", it has become very clear that you are obviously ignorant of the four-vector formalism

> > In 1907 Einstein gave a very simple counter-proof to your crank claim that "tachyons"
> Repeating bool poop doesn't make it true. As I pointed out:
> "2. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made
> mistakes in the past.

Note Einstein, agnorrant crank. Besides, his argument is very simple, only an agnorrant crank like you would petulantly dismiss.

> Einstein's "proof" was a conjecture": an opinion or supposition about (something) on
> the basis of incomplete information.

Only an agnorrant crank like Gary Harnagel would show such crass imbecility..

> But the important point is that my crap "paper"
> PROVES that the arguments of Einstein, Tolman et al. are incorrect

The unbridled agnorrance of crank Gary Harnagel

> PEMDAS (which disproves the assertion that the 4-momentum
> expression, which predicts negative E') is correct even for u> c^2/v).
>
Your insistence on "PEDMAS" only confirms your agnorrance. Keep it up, dumbfuck!

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 4:58:26 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 3:46:26 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > Let's finish debunking my crappy, delusional vacuous assetion that the 4-momentum
> > > formalism is absolutely correct for u > c^2/v, even though it violates the rules of
> > mathematics (which I reject, I don't care a fig about PEMDAS, what ever that is).
>
> Crank.

"Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

> The four-momentum formalism has nothing to do with any "PEDMAS",

My, my, my. Another vacuous assertion, and after I laid out the mathematical
proof that it does indeed hang on PEMDAS. Tsk,tsk, tsk!

it has become very clear that you are obviously ignorant of the four-vector
> formalism

:-)))

Poor Dono! It must be tough trying to rant about physics while being a
mathematical illiterate.

> > > In 1907 Einstein gave a very simple counter-proof to your crank claim that
> > > "tachyons"
> >
> > Repeating bool poop doesn't make it true. As I pointed out:
> > "2. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made
> > mistakes in the past.
>
> Note Einstein, agnorrant crank.

I'm so sorry to destroy your faith in the god you worship, Dono.

> Besides, his argument is very simple,

Yes, it is. Too simple, in fact, as Bilaniuk, Deshpande and Sudarshan demonstrated/

> only an agnorrant crank like you would petulantly dismiss.

No one is "dismissing Dono's god. Einstein made GREAT contributions to physics.
As Newton, however, he stood on the shoulders of giants, too. Newton was only human,
and at the risk of disappointing Dono, Einstein was only human, too. Bilaniuk, et al.
also stood on the shoulders of giants, one of them being Einstein.

> > Einstein's "proof" was a conjecture": an opinion or supposition about (something) on
> > the basis of incomplete information.
>
> Only an agnorrant crank like Gary Harnagel would show such crass imbecility.

Only Dono would blind his eyes so he wouldn't see the truth. I really hate writing really
long posts, but deceitful Dono forces my hand with hiss scurrilous attack on PEMDAS.
One more time, here is the proof that PEMDAS is responsible to ONE failure of the
4-momentum for u > c^2/v [sigh!]:

P' = \gamma {m/(u^2/c^2 - 1)^0/5 [c - uv/c, (u - v)]}

From which E/c = m(c - uv/c)/(u^2/c^2 - 1)^0/5

This can be derived from E' = mc^2/(u'^2/c^2 - 1)^0/5, where u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2
(which mathematically-challenged Dono has dishonestly denied :-)

E' = \gamma mc^2 [(1 - uv/c^2)^2]^0.5 /(u^2/c^2 - 1)^0.5

If (1 - uv/c^2) > = 0, the exponents in the numerator can be dispensed with, and the
result is EXACTLY the 4-momentum energy (so much for mathematically-ignorant
dishonest Dono).

BUT, when (1 -uv/c^2) < 0, the above shortcut is prohibited by PEMDAS: quantities
within (P)arentheses must be evaluated BEFORE {E}xponents, so squaring a negative
yields a POSITIVE number, and taking the square root yields a positive number, not a
negative number. Dono can check this out for himself if he were really an honest man.

sqrt[(-4)^2] = ? -2 or +2? Since the 4-momentum value was derived from
E' = mc^2/(u'^2/c^2 - 1)^0/5, which NEVER goes negative, +2 is the correct answer.

> [Another lying rant from a mathematically-challenged ignoramus on "PEDMAS" deleted]

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 7:21:11 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> I'm so sorry to destroy your faith in the god you worship, Dono.

Classical crank retort. You show no respect crank.

> No one is "dismissing Dono's god. Einstein made GREAT contributions to physics.

And crank Gary Harnagel is showing his crackpoterry

> > Only an agnorrant crank like Gary Harnagel would show such crass imbecility.
> here is the proof that PEMDAS is responsible to ONE failure of the
> 4-momentum for u > c^2/v [sigh!]:
>

The only failure here is your agnorrance.

> P' = \gamma {m/(u^2/c^2 - 1)^0/5 [c - uv/c, (u - v)]}
>
> From which E/c = m(c - uv/c)/(u^2/c^2 - 1)^0/5
>
> This can be derived from E' = mc^2/(u'^2/c^2 - 1)^0/5, where u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)

No, it cannot , crank. Not for "tachyons".

1. The formula u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2) is derived from:

dx'=\gamma(v)(dx-vdt)
dt'=\gamma(v)(dt-vdx/c^2)

via division u'=dx'/dt'

2. But the "tachyons" violate causality by making dt'/dt<0, so rank Gary Harnagel cannot use the formula u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2) in order to derive the energy-momentum transformation for "tachyons"

3. What crank Gary Harnagel could do is to drop his agnorrance and LEARN that the energy momentum transformation DOES NOT USE the relativistic speed composition. Here is a simple lesson how things get done for hardened crank Gary Harnagel
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/vec4.html#c2

4. So, doing things correctly, one obtains:

E'=\gamma(v)(E-vp)

or:

E'=\gamma(v)\gamma(u)m(c^2-uv)

5. So, for u>c^2/v E'<0. Meaning that "tachyons" are unphysical
6. We can all expect another rant about "PEDMAS" from the Gary Harnagel agnorrant.

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 9:36:20 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 7:21:11 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > I'm so sorry to destroy your faith in the god you worship, Dono.
>
> Classical crank retort. You show no respect

Respect to whom?

> crank.

So Dono shows no respect. This is pure hypocrisy.

> > No one is "dismissing Dono's god. Einstein made GREAT contributions to
> > physics.
>
> And crank Gary Harnagel is showing his crackpoterry

Dono shows no respect to anyone except his dead god.

> > here is the proof that PEMDAS is responsible to ONE failure of the
> > 4-momentum for u > c^2/v [sigh!]:
>
> The only failure here is your agnorrance.

Says the math-challenged incompetent ignoramus :-)

> > P' = \gamma {m/(u^2/c^2 - 1)^0/5 [c - uv/c, (u - v)]}
> >
> > From which E/c = m(c - uv/c)/(u^2/c^2 - 1)^0/5
> >
> > This can be derived from E' = mc^2/(u'^2/c^2 - 1)^0/5, where u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
>
> No, it cannot , crank. Not for "tachyons".

Says the abysmally stupid denier of mathematics :-))

> 1. The formula u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2) is derived from:
>
> dx'=\gamma(v)(dx-vdt)
> dt'=\gamma(v)(dt-vdx/c^2)
>
> via division u'=dx'/dt'

Yep, Dono is getting smart, but hen he sinks back into his
stupor:

> 2. But the "tachyons" violate causality by making dt'/dt<0,

Baloney detectied:

"3. argument from adverse consequences"
"6. begging the question, also called assuming the answer" -- Carl Sagan

> so rank Gary Harnagel cannot use the formula u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2) in
> order to derive the energy-momentum transformation for "tachyons"

"The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it."
--Chinese proverb

Mathematically-illiterate Dono just makes stuff up.

"5. special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical
trouble" -- Carl Sagan

> 3. What crank Gary Harnagel could do is to drop his agnorrance and LEARN that
> the energy momentum transformation DOES NOT USE the relativistic speed
> composition. Here is a simple lesson how things get done for innovative Gary Harnagel
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/vec4.html#c2

EXACTLY what is in the htpub paper:

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

Mathematically-incompetent Dono didn't link to a derivation of the transformation,
it is merely shown full-blown. It is EXPRESSED in matrix form.
> 4. So, doing things correctly, one obtains:
>
> E'=\gamma(v)(E-vp)

And just where does Demented Dono thiks this comes from?

Hint: E' = mc^2/sqrt(1 - u'^2/c^2)

From which, E' = \gamma (E - pv)

> or:
>
> E'=\gamma(v)\gamma(u)m(c^2-uv)
>
> 5. So, for u>c^2/v E'<0. Meaning that "tachyons" are unphysical

Non sequitur. Dono is pulling out what hair he has left, stressing out
making up bool poop that he gets all over himself.

> 6. We can all expect another rant about "PEDMAS" from the Gary Harnagel agnorrant.

We can expect Dono to be unable to get off his butt because he put both feet in his
mouth again. The mathematically-illiterate fool pretends he didn't fall asleep in high
school algebra class :-)) He is a math denier.

“Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you tell yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme

Dishonest Dono:
“Denial is an essential part of existence. Without it I am nothng.” – Jason Krumbine

Dono says:
“I have a very highly developed sense of denial.” – Gweneth Paltrow

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:18:39 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>lunatic rantings<
I tried to teach you mainstream physics from mainstream sources.
You are so far gone in your dishonesty and crankiness that you will go to your grave in the futile attempt to cover up your idiocies. Enjoy the stay in your lunatic asylum, Garry.

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 9:09:47 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:18:39 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> >lunatic rantings<

The truth hurts, so Dono tries to sweep it under his toupee.

> I tried to teach you mainstream physics from mainstream sources.

Dono is delusional. He can't "teach" someone who already knows the
subject orders of magnitude better than he does :-))

> You are so far gone in your dishonesty and crankiness that you will go
> to your grave in the futile attempt to cover up your idiocies. Enjoy the
> stay in your lunatic asylum, Garry.

Dono doesn't want his dirty laundry aired, so he pretends others are wrong
and attacks them personally. Dono's lies and errors are legion:

Dishonest DON'tknOw's lie:
"You are unable to construct a correct Minkowski diagram"

A vacuous assertion repeated over and over but he refuses to explain just
what is wrong with them.

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 Dono wrote:
I showed you that energy changes sign and that momentum jumps from +infinity
to -infinity, both dynamics arguments making the "tachyons" unphysical.

Dono didn't "show" me this. It's in my hrpub paper:
https://www.hrpub.org/download/20230228/UJPA1-18429574.pdf

where I showed that the 4-momentum method predicts that and then showed
that that prediction was wrong. Dono is in an unhealthy state of denial.

Dishonest DON'tknOw's lie:
"Neutrinos are not tachyons, their measured speed is less than c."

The truth:
"Due to their tiny mass, the predicted speed is extremely close to the speed
of light in all experiments, and current detectors are not sensitive to the
expected difference." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Speed

Dishonest DON'tknOw's lie:
"It is impossible to measure ANYTHING but the DIFFERENCES of the
neutrino square masses because the neutrino oscillates continuously
among its three flavors."

The truth:
The Mainz, Troitsk and KATRIN experiments measure the mass-squared
of the electron antineutrino, as categorically stated by the authors
of the papers. Dishonest DON'tknOw has finally admitted this by
default.

Dishonest DON'tknOw's lie:
"new measurements from Katrin show that m is in the range
of 1.1 eV , real, not "imaginary"

The truth:
"Numerous recent measurements indicate an excess of counts near
the endpoint of the electron energy spectrum in tritium decay. We show
that this effect is expected if the neutrino is a tachyon."
J. Ciborosky and J. Rembielinski, "Tritium decay and the hypothesis of
tachyonic neutrinos," Eur. Phys. J. C, 8:1 157-161 (1999).
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999EPJC....8..157C/abstract

I had to take a shower to remove the stench from having to deal with Dono's
garbage!

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 8:37:03 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> where I showed that the 4-momentum method predicts that and then showed
> that that prediction was wrong.

Nurse,

Patient Gary Harnagel needs to take his meds.
> Dishonest DON'tknOw's lie:
> "new measurements from Katrin show that m is in the range
> of 1.1 eV , real, not "imaginary"
>
> The truth:
> "Numerous recent measurements indicate an excess of counts near
> the endpoint of the electron energy spectrum in tritium decay. We show
> that this effect is expected if the neutrino is a tachyon."
> J. Ciborosky and J. Rembielinski, "Tritium decay and the hypothesis of
> tachyonic neutrinos," Eur. Phys. J. C, 8:1 157-161 (1999).

The paper is 24 years old, crank!

Nurse,

Patient Gary Harnagel needs to take his meds.

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 10:43:46 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 8:37:03 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > where I showed that the 4-momentum method predicts that and then showed
> > that that prediction was wrong.
>
> Nurse,
> Patient Gary Harnagel needs to take his meds.

Psychiatrist!
Whaco Dono needs to be constrained.

> > Dishonest DON'tknOw's lie:
> > "new measurements from Katrin show that m is in the range
> > of 1.1 eV , real, not "imaginary"
> >
> > The truth:
> > "Numerous recent measurements indicate an excess of counts near
> > the endpoint of the electron energy spectrum in tritium decay. We show
> > that this effect is expected if the neutrino is a tachyon."
> > J. Ciborosky and J. Rembielinski, "Tritium decay and the hypothesis of
> > tachyonic neutrinos," Eur. Phys. J. C, 8:1 157-161 (1999).
>
> The paper is 24 years old, crank!

Einstein's paper is 116 years old, hypocrite :-))

THIS is the kind of malarkey that Dono purveys. He has been wrong, weong, wrong
on EVERYTHING that he touches, so of course he's wrong about his latest asininity:

"1. The formula u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2) is derived from:

dx'=\gamma(v)(dx-vdt)
dt'=\gamma(v)(dt-vdx/c^2)

via division u'=dx'/dt'

2. But the "tachyons" violate causality by making dt'/dt<0, so rank Gary Harnagel cannot
use the formula u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2) in order to derive the energy-momentum
transformation for "tachyons"

So one cannot derive an algebraic relationship if the answer is undesirable :-)))))
Dono just makes things up, just like the cranks do. He screams, "Crank!" to warn
everyone he's coming, apparently :-))

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> > where I showed that the 4-momentum method predicts that and then
>> > showed that that prediction was wrong.
>>
>> Nurse, Patient Gary Harnagel needs to take his meds.
>
> Psychiatrist! Whaco Dono needs to be constrained.

how the fuck are you proving it predicts, by showing that prediction was
wrong. What a fucking idiot.