On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 10:05:53 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 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.

> > > "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 :-))
>

Still valid, imbecile. The one you cited has been disproven by CONTEMPORARY experiment.
I see that you are back on the insanity that the neutrino is a "tachyon".

> 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 :-)))))

Of course not, idiot. And you pretend to be a scientist.

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 11:13:48 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 10:05:53 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > 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:
> > > >

Dono dishonestly tries to hide his dirty laundry. Dirt restored:

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 :-))
> >
> Still valid, imbecile.

Ah, so just what is "valid"? Dono vacuously asserts that Saint Albert "proved" that
FTL was impossible, so I laboriously translated his 1907 paper from the German.
He said it was his opinion. So Dono's "validity" takes another nosedive.

> The one you cited has been disproven by CONTEMPORARY experiment.

No, it has not been "disproven." See below. Only cranks speak so confidently about
their assertions.

"What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth." -- Richard Feynman

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” -- Bertrand Russell

> I see that you are back on the insanity that the neutrino is a "tachyon".

Baloney detected: straw man argument. It MAY be a tachyon. Latest data
(m^2 = 0.26 +/- 0.34 eV^2) predicts a 22% chance. If the latest data is comvined
with the preliminary data (0.1 +/- 0.3 eV^2), the probability is 37%.

> > 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 :-)))))
>
> Of course not, idiot. And you pretend to be a scientist.

Dono is SO confident of his asinine answers :-))

“There is generally an inverse relationship between confidence and
intelligence.” – Jean Campbell

“A wise person is full of questions. A dull person is full of answers.”
– Paulo Coelho

“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin

The hrpub paper proves mathematically that tachyons can't violate
causality (i.e., receiving a message from one's future self), so Dono's
asinine assertion doesn't happen. Ergo, the derivation is just fine (which
it would even if the result predicted negative t' -- the rules of mathematics
aren't governed by Dono's whimsical yammering).

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 3:07:29 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Ah, so just what is "valid"? Dono vacuously asserts that Saint Albert

Typical pathetic crank expression. Nurse, inpatient Harnagel needs his daily meds.

Tachyons don't exist. Only a paper about them does...
Gamma shows no FTL is a law of motion.
The paper isn't worth reading.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 4:49:13 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 3:07:29 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Ah, so just what is "valid"? Dono vacuously asserts that Saint Albert
>
> Typical pathetic crank expression.

Just laughing at Dono's apoplexy :-)

"When you stop laughing, that’s when the trouble begins." -- Buddhist Monk

> Nurse, I'm having a heart attack

Dono definitely doesn't want to discuss all those times he was wrong, wrong,
wrong. Must they be posted again? Naw, everyone already knows that Dono
has zero credibility.

PCH showed up here early on and claimed that it was incorrect that my thesis
was invalid because some observers couldn't receive tachyon signals.
I relieved him of that concern by showing how signals still could be received by
moving the receiver toward the transmitter (mentioned in the hrp paper}.
I haven't heard from him since.

I waiting for him to bring up his other concern: signal speed has to be constrained
to c^2/v when in any given frame signal speed is not constrained. Perhaps he's
figured out that moving the receiver removes that constraint, too. Dono has ranted
about this "problem" so he obviously has not done so. Just one more down-check
for Dono's powers of analysis, not that any more were needed.
But I'm a forgiving man.

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

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 5:24:01 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Tachyons don't exist.

“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

“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin

> Only a paper about them does...
> Gamma shows no FTL is a law of motion.

Mitch is confused. The Principle of Relativity is a law. The existence of an invariant
speed is a law. 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) is NOT a law. It isn't even an equation.

> The paper isn't worth reading.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

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

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." - Albert Einstein

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 5:22:26 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> signal speed has to be constrained
> to c^2/v when in any given frame signal speed is not constrained.

Crank,

Causality violation occurs for all frames with v>c^2/u. You cannot "constrain" the signal speed to what is convenient for your demented agenda. Keep it up, dumbfuck!

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:02:38 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 5:22:26 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > signal speed has to be constrained to c^2/v when in any given frame
> > signal speed is not constrained.

Taking a message out of context is a bit dishonest.

> 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

As I showed, however, Dono is the one acting like a crank: only cranks are
so-o-o confident. The inconvenient truth is:

“There is generally an inverse relationship between confidence and
intelligence.” – Jean Campbell

“A wise person is full of questions. A dull person is full of answers.”
– Paulo Coelho

“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin

> Causality violation occurs for all frames with v>c^2/u.

That depends on what is meant by "causality violation." I define it as
receiving a message from the future. The hrpub paper proves that
that can't happen for any value of u. That a stationary observer in
frame S, we'll call her A for Alice, can send an {nearly) infinitely-fast
message (at t = 0) to another observer stationary in S, we'll all him B
for Bob, appears to go backward in time for an observer stationary in
S", we'll call him D for Dave, is irrelevant because no message can get
back to the sender before it is sent. Observer C for Carol is passing A
at t = 0 (T_C' = 0) and can receive a message from D at any speed, but
if D sends the message (nearly) infinitely fast NIF), C is NOT adjacent
to A and must wait until she passes A at t = 0. In which case, A receives
back the message AFTER he has sent it.

The other scenario is B waits until t_B = vL/c^2, originates a message
and passes it to D at t_D' = 0. D immediately sends it to C NIF. It arrives
at C at t_C' = 0 BUT ... A is no longer at t_A = 0: A's time is synchronized
with B's time because they are stationary wrt each other: A and C are no
longer adjacent so the message loop cannot be completed.

> You cannot "constrain" the signal speed to what is convenient for your
> demented agenda.

As I demonstrated above, there is no restrictions on tachyon speed UNLESS
one desires to complete a message loop. Relativity of simultaneity auto-
matically restricts the speed in the second case (C can be initialized so
it is adjacent to A at t_A = vL/c^2).

> Keep it up, 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

Dono goes away empty-handed again. Sorry, Dono, you got nuthin'

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:16:25 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:02:38 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 5:22:26 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > signal speed has to be constrained to c^2/v when in any given frame
> > > signal speed is not constrained.

> > Causality violation occurs for all frames with v>c^2/u.
> That depends on what is meant by "causality violation." I define it as
> receiving a message from the future.

Which is exactly what happens when the effect precedes the cause, dumbfuck!
Which is exactly what dt'/dt<0 means, hardened crank.
Once you were a scientist, now you are just a pathetic deceptive crank that keeps squirming trying to cover up his imbecilities. It isn't working.

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 8:31:59 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:16:25 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:02:38 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 5:22:26 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > signal speed has to be constrained to c^2/v when in any given frame
> > > > signal speed is not constrained.
> > >
> > > Causality violation occurs for all frames with v>c^2/u.
> >
> > That depends on what is meant by "causality violation." I define it as
> > receiving a message from the future.
>
> Which is exactly what happens when the effect precedes the cause,

Dono is so-o-o sure of himself again. It's always in another frame that
this is observed. The hrpub paper,
https://www.hrpub.org/download/20230228/UJPA1-18429574.pdf
proves that such an observation can't be used to send a message from
the future to the present in any given frame.

> 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

Dono hasn't addressed the scenarios in the post he pretends to respond to,
rather, he sends the Baloney Detector off-scale again with:

"1. ad hominem — attacking the arguer and not the argument."
"6. begging the question, also called assuming the answer"
"11. non sequitur"
"18 straw man — caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack"
Baloney Detection Kit -- Carl Sagan

> Which is exactly what dt'/dt<0 means, hardened crank.

There goes the Baloney Detector again. The hrpub paper proves that dt'/dt < 0
does NOT imply that one can receive a message from one;s future. Furthermore,
Dono deleted a proof of that I just gave, meaning that he hasn't bothered to
take the time to understand it, preferring to shoot from the hip again (and missing
the barn).

> Once you were a scientist, now you are just a pathetic deceptive crank that
> keeps squirming trying to cover up his imbecilities. It isn't working.

What isn't working is Dono's obsession with trying to annihilate any viewpoint
that disagrees with his own. When he tries to do this by actually discussing the
issue, he invariably fails, so he falls back on Baloney.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> Which is exactly what happens when the effect precedes the cause,
>
> Dono is so-o-o sure of himself again. It's always in another frame that
> this is observed. The hrpub paper,
> https://www.hrpub.org/download/20230228/UJPA1-18429574.pdf
> proves that such an observation can't be used to send a message from the
> future to the present in any given frame.

if you are in the future, you can't send anything to the present. tHE
presend is his past. Present for him doesn't exists.

"kiss my ass" --David Morin --anonymous.