On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-6, Dono. lied again:
>
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:08:54 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:21:01 AM UTC-6, Dono. lied:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:50:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maybe, maybe not. Minkowski diagrams have been a bane to many who
> > > > attempt to apply them to tachyons.
> > >
> > > You must be referring to your failed attempts.
> > > a published peer-reviewed paper

You must not like to hear the truth. Unfortunately for you, google keeps a record:

> > Only a despicable troll calls a published peer-reviewed paper a "failed
> > attempt" :-))
> > A troll who doesn't understand PEMDAS and who believes nature heeds
> > "definitions" proclaimed by humans.
>
> The ragpiece listed as a PREDATORY journal doesn't do any peer review,

You are twice a liar, don't_know. HRP publishes over 30 journals but only
three of them were tagged as "predatory" and UJPA was NOT among them.

Your accusation is essentially ad hominem: attacking the medium rather
than the message. It's the coward's way.

As for your other scurrilous lie, they list reviewers and I have the review of
my paper to prove it was reviewed.

> it publishes any crap (like your crap paper) for a fee.

And that's your third lie, don't_know. They didn't charge me anything
(probably because they thought it was so good they didn't want to miss
the chance of publishing a seminal work :-)

Don't_know, you have the habits of a troll and the behavior of a pit bull. Of course
you want to bury two of your gigantic missteps when you dishonestly attacked the
paper: DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. The really big one was claiming PEMDAS
doesn't matter, but the really, really big was was claiming that the 4MF is a definition.
Nature doesn't care a fig about human definitions, don't_know, and has no obligation
to follow them.

Alfred North Whitehead once said, ""Civilization advances by extending the number
of important operations which we can perform without thinking of them."

and that's what the 4MF is: an operation done without thinking about its assumptions.
It works in certain domains but doesn't work beyond c^2/v speeds. When the 4MF is
DERIVED from the basic physics, it's IOTTMCO.

The problem is that you're not a "casual" observer. You're an extremely biased one
with the manners of a Hamas Palestinian.

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 2:15:16 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-6, Dono. lied again:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:08:54 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:21:01 AM UTC-6, Dono. lied:
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:50:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe, maybe not. Minkowski diagrams have been a bane to many who
> > > > > attempt to apply them to tachyons.
> > > >
> > > > You must be referring to your failed attempts.
> > > > a published peer-reviewed paper
> You must not like to hear the truth. Unfortunately for you, google keeps a record:
> > > Only a despicable troll calls a published peer-reviewed paper a "failed
> > > attempt" :-))
> > > A troll who doesn't understand PEMDAS and who believes nature heeds
> > > "definitions" proclaimed by humans.
> >
> > The ragpiece listed as a PREDATORY journal doesn't do any peer review,
> You are twice a liar, don't_know. HRP publishes over 30 journals but only
> three of them were tagged as "predatory" and UJPA was NOT among them.
>

Actually, it IS. Crap paper by crank author published in crap journal.

> They didn't charge me anything
> (probably because they thought it was so good they didn't want to miss
> the chance of publishing a seminal work :-)
>

"Seminal" as in utterly crank. As in your utterly crank Minkowski diagrams.

> The problem is that you're not a "casual" observer. You're an extremely biased one
> with the manners of a Hamas Palestinian.

I am simply pointing out that your paper is crank crap and that you have basic mistakes in your Minkowski diagrams. You will go to your grave denying that and that makes you so entertaining. <shrug>

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:57:02 PM UTC-6, Dono. lied:
>
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 2:15:16 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-6, Dono. lied again:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:08:54 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:21:01 AM UTC-6, Dono. lied:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:50:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe, maybe not. Minkowski diagrams have been a bane to many who
> > > > > > attempt to apply them to tachyons.
> > > > >
> > > > > You must be referring to your failed attempts.
> > > > > a published peer-reviewed paper
> >
> > You must not like to hear the truth. Unfortunately for you, google keeps a record:
> >
> > > > Only a despicable troll calls a published peer-reviewed paper a "failed
> > > > attempt" :-))
> > > > A troll who doesn't understand PEMDAS and who believes nature heeds
> > > > "definitions" proclaimed by humans.
> > >
> > > The ragpiece listed as a PREDATORY journal doesn't do any peer review,
> >
> > You are twice a liar, don't_know. HRP publishes over 30 journals but only
> > three of them were tagged as "predatory" and UJPA was NOT among them.
>
> Actually, it IS. Crap paper by crank author published in crap journal.

Actually, don't_know is a liar. He uses innuendo and misrepresentation rather
than pointing out no valid errors in the paper.

> > They didn't charge me anything (probably because they thought it was so
> > good they didn't want to miss the chance of publishing a seminal work :-)
> >
> "Seminal" as in utterly crank. As in your utterly crank Minkowski diagrams.

As I said, innuendos but nothing specific. That's because don't_know can't
find anything wrong so he resors to calumny.

> > The problem is that you're not a "casual" observer. You're an extremely biased one
> > with the manners of a Hamas Palestinian.
>
> I am simply pointing out that your paper is crank crap and that you have basic
> mistakes in your Minkowski diagrams.

Don't_know makes aspersions because he can't come up with any specific error.

> You will go to your grave denying that and that makes you so entertaining.. <shrug>

Actually, don't_know is sounding more and more like Maciej. Now THAT'S entertaining!

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:31:15 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:57:02 PM UTC-6, Dono. lied:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 2:15:16 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-6, Dono. lied again:
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:08:54 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:21:01 AM UTC-6, Dono. lied:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:50:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe, maybe not. Minkowski diagrams have been a bane to many who
> > > > > > > attempt to apply them to tachyons.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You must be referring to your failed attempts.
> > > > > > a published peer-reviewed paper
> > >
> > > You must not like to hear the truth. Unfortunately for you, google keeps a record:
> > >
> > > > > Only a despicable troll calls a published peer-reviewed paper a "failed
> > > > > attempt" :-))
> > > > > A troll who doesn't understand PEMDAS and who believes nature heeds
> > > > > "definitions" proclaimed by humans.
> > > >
> > > > The ragpiece listed as a PREDATORY journal doesn't do any peer review,
> > >
> > > You are twice a liar, don't_know. HRP publishes over 30 journals but only
> > > three of them were tagged as "predatory" and UJPA was NOT among them.
> >
> > Actually, it IS. Crap paper by crank author published in crap journal.
> rather than pointing out no valid errors in the paper.

Your nose was rubbed into the errors in your crap paper. Multiple times. Being a hardened crank, you wait for a while, hoping that people have forgotten. We haven't.

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 5:35:04 PM UTC-6, Dono. cowers:
>
> Your nose was rubbed into the errors in your crap paper.
> Multiple times.

You're a liar, don't_know. All your delusional assertions were proven
wrong. C'mon, don't_know, get honest and let's start. Identify ONE
problem with DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.

> Being a hardened crank, you wait for a while, hoping that people have
> forgotten. We haven't.

I didn't start this, don't_know, YOU did. You just can't help lying, can you!
I challenge you to explicitly describe one problem instead of cowardly
making vague allegations. Afraid, aren't you!

On Wednesday, 25 October 2023 at 03:55:03 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 5:35:04 PM UTC-6, Dono. cowers:
> >
> > Your nose was rubbed into the errors in your crap paper.
> > Multiple times.
> You're a liar, don't_know. All your delusional assertions were proven
> wrong. C'mon, don't_know, get honest and let's start. Identify ONE
> problem with DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
> > Being a hardened crank, you wait for a while, hoping that people have
> > forgotten. We haven't.
> I didn't start this, don't_know, YOU did. You just can't help lying, can you!

He is a worshipper of relativity; how could he stop lying?

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:44:23 AM UTC-6, Dono. equivocated:
>
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 6:55:03 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 5:35:04 PM UTC-6, Dono. cowers:
> > >
> > > Your nose was rubbed into the errors in your crap paper.
> > > Multiple times.
> >
> > You're a liar, don't_know.
>
> You need to look at this forum.

I have. All your delusional assertions were proven wrong. I've
challenged you to identify ONE problem with the paper, but you
have just tacitly admitted that you can't do it. C;mom, don't_know,
man up. I'm even giving you the DOI so you can look and see that
all your nose-rubbing was on your nose not mine:

DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101

Your supposed "criticisms" were junk science and you fell flat on
your pugnacious nose every time. It was very entertaining :-)))

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:50:26 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:44:23 AM UTC-6, Dono. equivocated:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 6:55:03 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 5:35:04 PM UTC-6, Dono. cowers:
> > > >
> > > > Your nose was rubbed into the errors in your crap paper.
> > > > Multiple times.
> > >
> > > You're a liar, don't_know.
> >
> > You need to look at this forum.
> I have. All your assertions were proven wrong.

......in your crackpot mind. Hardened crackpots like you, Gary, go to their graves never admitting that they are wrong, it is in what makes you a crackpot. BTW, I was not the only one rubbing your nose in your shit , there were several of us.

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:04:48 PM UTC-6, Dono. emoted:
>
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:50:26 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:44:23 AM UTC-6, Dono. equivocated:
> > >
> > > You need to look at this forum.
> >
> > I have. All your assertions were proven wrong.
>
Dono can't put his finger on ONE error in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
He has nothing but lies and slander, like this:

> .....BTW, I was not the only one rubbing your nose in your shit , there were
> several of us.

No, Dono, that's another lie. Athel's only criticisms weren't technical since
his field didn't overlap the subject matter. The criticisms were (1) HRP had
purported "predatory practices" against three (out of over 30) of the journals
they published, none of them being UJPA, and (2) he thought the number of
citations on my published literature wasn't very high.

So (1) was guilt by association and (2) was because most of my work was
classified.

PCH complained that tachyons with speeds greater than c^/v could be
observed by only certain observers but not all. I showed him that was
not true and he went away without even an "Oh, sorry. my mistake."
I don't remember anyone else who made any substantive comment.

So Dono, YOU are the ONLY dung-thrower, but none of it lands on me.
You speak in vague generalities and ad hominems, just like Wozniak
because neither of you have anything valid. I'm still waiting for you to
come up with ONE error in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.

Your behavior says I'll be in my grave before you come through with that.

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:43:25 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:04:48 PM UTC-6, Dono. emoted:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:50:26 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:44:23 AM UTC-6, Dono. equivocated:
> > > >
> > > > You need to look at this forum.
> > >
> > > I have. All your assertions were proven wrong.
> >
> Dono can't put his finger on ONE error in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.

Meh,

Right from the very beginning, look at your Fig 2. Adding two "participants" as you call them doesn't change anything, A still receives the answer before he sent the initial message. Clear case of causality violation. You are not only a crank, you are a crook as well.

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 1:30:20 PM UTC-6, Dono. fooled himself:
>
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:43:25 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:04:48 PM UTC-6, Dono. emoted:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:50:26 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:44:23 AM UTC-6, Dono. equivocated:
> > > > >
> > > > > You need to look at this forum.
> > > >
> > > > I have. All your assertions were proven wrong.
> >
> > Dono can't put his finger on ONE error in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
? > Meh,
>
> Right from the very beginning, look at your Fig 2. Adding two "participants"
> as you call them doesn't change anything, A still receives the answer before
> he sent the initial message. Clear case of causality violation. You are not only
> a crank, you are a crook as well.

Silly, silly Dono! :-)) Figures 1 and 2 show the CONVENTIONAL viewpoint, that's
why they're in the INTRODUCTION :-))) The INTRODUCTION lays out the two
basic METHODS signals can be sent and received. Apparently, you just look
at the pretty pictures because you can't READ either the captions or the text.

If this is the best you can do, you'd better check yourself into a home for the
mentally-impaired. So far all you've shown is that you are easily deluded into
believing you have scored when the point went against you.

Minus one point for Dono.

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 2:45:07 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 1:30:20 PM UTC-6, Dono. fooled himself:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:43:25 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:04:48 PM UTC-6, Dono. emoted:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:50:26 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:44:23 AM UTC-6, Dono. equivocated:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You need to look at this forum.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have. All your assertions were proven wrong.
> > >
> > > Dono can't put his finger on ONE error in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
> ?
> > Meh,
> >
> > Right from the very beginning, look at your Fig 2. Adding two "participants"
> > as you call them doesn't change anything, A still receives the answer before
> > he sent the initial message. Clear case of causality violation. You are not only
> > a crank, you are a crook as well.
> Figures 1 and 2 show the CONVENTIONAL viewpoint,

Crooked Crank

Fig2 is identical to figs 4,5 in your pompous "Method II". The causality violation still exists, the "response" is received before the "call", you are simply dishonestly trying to cover it up with the game that you have always been playing by tying the relative speed between observer's frames to the speed of the tachyons. So , you end up with contradictory outcomes: there is causality violation depending on the relative speed between frames. The shell game that you have been playing all along. You have been pantsed. Again.

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:50:47 PM UTC-6, Dono. misrepresented:
>
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 2:45:07 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 1:30:20 PM UTC-6, Dono. fooled himself:
> > >
> > > Right from the very beginning, look at your Fig 2. Adding two "participants"
> > > as you call them doesn't change anything, A still receives the answer before
> > > he sent the initial message. Clear case of causality violation. You are not only
> > > a crank, you are a crook as well.
> >
> > Figures 1 and 2 show the CONVENTIONAL viewpoint,
>
> Crooked Crank

Dono, you demonstrate yourself to be a rank liar who doesn't read
the text and misrepresents the argument.

“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.”
– Mark Twain

> Fig2 is identical to figs 4,5 in your pompous "Method II".

So did you go directly from figure to figure again without reading and
trying to understand the text? Obviously, Figure 4 is NOT "identical" to
Figure 2, as you dishonestly claim. The return arrow does not complete
a path to [0,0] as Figure 2 does. You obviously didn't even read the
caption to Figure 4, which explains why the return path to [0,0] is wrong.

As for Figure 5, it's not even POSSIBLE that it's "identical" to Figure 2
because it's from the perspective of C and D in the moving frame.

> The causality violation still exists, the "response" is received before the
> "call",

Dono, either you're abysmally stupid or you're a lying weasel. The path
back to [0,0] in Figure 4 and back to [L,0] in Figure 5 cannot logically
exist as explained in the text which you're either too lazy or too stupid
to read.

“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.”
– Mark Twain

It's moronic to claim a figure is wrong without addressing the reasoning
behind the details. You failed to do that. Your score is now -2.

> [Delusional naked emperor's misrepresentations deleted]

Try THINKING before you post again. And learn to read, too. All you've
demonstrated so far is incompetence. Athel or PCH would undoubtedly
have done better than you've done so far.

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:47:40 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:50:47 PM UTC-6, Dono. misrepresented:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 2:45:07 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 1:30:20 PM UTC-6, Dono. fooled himself:
> > > >
> > > > Right from the very beginning, look at your Fig 2. Adding two "participants"
> > > > as you call them doesn't change anything, A still receives the answer before
> > > > he sent the initial message. Clear case of causality violation. You are not only
> > > > a crank, you are a crook as well.
> > >
> > > Figures 1 and 2 show the CONVENTIONAL viewpoint,
> >
> > Crooked Crank
> Dono, you demonstrate yourself to be a rank liar who doesn't read
> the text and misrepresents the argument.
>
> “A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.”
> – Mark Twain
> > Fig2 is identical to figs 4,5 in your pompous "Method II".
> Obviously, Figure 4 is NOT "identical" to
> Figure 2

Crooked crank

Actually, it IS. As you have done in the past, you , in true crank fashion, deny the sleigh of hands that you are trying.

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:33:17 PM UTC-6, Dono. maligned:
>
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:47:40 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:50:47 PM UTC-6, Dono. misrepresented:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 2:45:07 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 1:30:20 PM UTC-6, Dono. fooled himself:
> > > > >
> > > > > Right from the very beginning, look at your Fig 2. Adding two "participants"
> > > > > as you call them doesn't change anything, A still receives the answer before
> > > > > he sent the initial message. Clear case of causality violation. You are not only
> > > > > a crank, you are a crook as well.
> > > >
> > > > Figures 1 and 2 show the CONVENTIONAL viewpoint,
> > >
> > > Crooked Crank
> >
> > Dono, you demonstrate yourself to be a rank liar who doesn't read
> > the text and misrepresents the argument.
> >
> > “A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.”
> > – Mark Twain
> >
> > > Fig2 is identical to figs 4,5 in your pompous "Method II".
> >
> > Obviously, Figure 4 is NOT "identical" to Figure 2
>
> Crooked crank
>
> Actually, it IS.

I just showed that they were different, which anyone with good
eyesight can see. So you double down on misrepresentation
and vilification rather than doing the hard work of trying to
understand the argument like any honest person would do.

> As you have done in the past, you , in true crank fashion, deny the
> sleigh of hands that you are trying.

So you want to take sleigh ride? Okay, go right ahead, but first know
that the denial is on your part. Since you are too lazy to read and try to
understand a seven-page paper, I'll lay out the arguments that any
competent physicist could glean by actually reading it:

(1) The 4MF isn't immune from criticism because it's declared to be a
"definition. Nature doesn't care about what humans assert.

(2) By (1), the 4MF, particularly its transformation into other inertial
frames, must be justified only if it can be derived from more basic
considerations.

(3) The basic energy equation is E = mc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5.
For tachyons, m --> im.

(4) E = imc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5 is the accepted relationship for tachyons..

(5) E' = imc^2/(1 - u'^2/c^2)^0.5, where u' = (u -v)/(1 - uv/c^2).

(6) Equivalently, E' = mc^/(u'^2/c^2 - 1)^0.5

(7) E' never becomes negative for ANY real value of u', therefore the 4MF
is invalid for tachyons when u > c^2/v. For u < c^2/v, tachyons are
detectable by a stationary receiver, and there is no causality violation, as
described by Method I.

(8) u' becomes asymptotic as u approaches c^2/v. Going beyond that
is mathematically inappropriate.
(9) Tachyons with u > c^2/v can be detected by moving the receiver
toward the tachyon source such that u' < c^2/v, which converts the
situation to Method II.

(10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching
frames in the middle of solving the problem. Figures 4 and 5 in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 show that the two frames disagree
with the position of the observers, which is due to the relativity of
simultaneity. THAT is why switching frames in the middle leads to
incorrect conclusions, namely causality violation. The moral is to
stay in ONE frame and solve the problem. Then it's okay to go to the
other frame and STAY there and solve the whole problem. When you
do that, you cannot complete a path that violates causality.

Hence, tachyons would not violate causality even if they existed.
There, I've done your work for you since you seemed incapable of
doing it yourself. So pick a paragraph that you think is incorrect and
we'll discuss it. There's no need for vilification and posturing.

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:02:32 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:33:17 PM UTC-6, Dono. maligned:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:47:40 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:50:47 PM UTC-6, Dono. misrepresented:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 2:45:07 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 1:30:20 PM UTC-6, Dono. fooled himself:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right from the very beginning, look at your Fig 2. Adding two "participants"
> > > > > > as you call them doesn't change anything, A still receives the answer before
> > > > > > he sent the initial message. Clear case of causality violation. You are not only
> > > > > > a crank, you are a crook as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Figures 1 and 2 show the CONVENTIONAL viewpoint,
> > > >
> > > > Crooked Crank
> > >
> > > Dono, you demonstrate yourself to be a rank liar who doesn't read
> > > the text and misrepresents the argument.
> > >
> > > “A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.”
> > > – Mark Twain
> > >
> > > > Fig2 is identical to figs 4,5 in your pompous "Method II".
> > >
> > > Obviously, Figure 4 is NOT "identical" to Figure 2
> >
> > Crooked crank
> >
> > Actually, it IS.
> I just showed that they were different,

Crooked crank

You are trying to change the outcome of an experiment by adding observers, this is a typical crank idea. You have been trying this from the very beginning only to get slapped around.

> (10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching
> frames in the middle of solving the problem.

Crooked crank,

You cannot remove the causality violation by switching frames.

>Figures 4 and 5 in
> DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 show that the two frames disagree
> with the position of the observers, which is due to the relativity of
> simultaneity.

Crooked crank,

You cannot remove the causality violation by switching frames.

You cannot change the outcome of an experiment (the presence of the causality violation) by switching frames.

>THAT is why switching frames in the middle leads to
> incorrect conclusions, namely causality violation.

In the classical (as in non-crank) explanation of the "relativistic anti-telephone", no one is switching any frames. The causality violation is clearly present in Fig 1. So, whatever handwaving you are trying, it is just crank crap.

>The moral is to
> stay in ONE frame and solve the problem.

Classical explanations (as in the original one by Tolman) STAY in one frame.. Tolman, unlike you was not a crooked crank.

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:33:08 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:12:42 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 5:29:07 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:45:01 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yet, the velocity addition formula yielding the above answer is based on the Special Relativity time and space transformation equations proved to be unviable in this book:
> > > > Mathematical Conflicts in the Special Theory of Relativity: Second Edition: MS Radwan M. Kassir: 9781544691374: Amazon.com: Books' - Radwan Kassir Quora.
> > > Radwan Kassir is a mechanical engineer. He has no credentials whatsoever in relativity. He may be a terrific mechanical engineer but he is lousy at relativity. Why would you seek evidence from a mechanical engineer when there are umpteen actual physicists who claim differently? These actual physicists have written tons of textbooks and written tons of actual research papers. Why don't you read what the experts have written?
> > >
> > > Obviously, you don't know $hit about relativity and are apparently quite proud of the fact that your huge brain can figure all of this out without *ever* having read even a single textbook! Amazing! Also, doubly amazing is that you have many clones here who think the exact same way as you do! You guys should form a club and have a meeting where you can all rant and rave at mainstream physics! I'm pretty sure that Woz would be glad to host an event in his basement!
> > Omnidirectional light or a ball of light expands at 2c spherically, i.e.. the
> > diameter increases at 2c as the radius increases at c, of course,
> > because light's speed is constant.
> >
> > An image from a relativistic approach exists insofar as "behind the wavefront",
> > then as passing the last look and the look back, as that the look back,
> > is "reverse angle", so the rear-view would only see if proceeding on the
> > track the image came from, or as what image arrives in space otherwise
> > as that it would go out of perspective, which would appear as having shrunk,
> > but shrinking while it's observed, vanishing when it's not.
> >
> > I.e., something approaching directly and also meeting directly, is visible
> > coming and going, while not directly, it's only visible where it was,
> > as when the image arrives as when it was emitted.
> >
> > Loosely, ....
> When watching, it's motion and in motion.
>
>
> First, when talking about an irrational claim, is to make the case,
> that "irrational", is about the "rational". Here, "rational" is two
> things: it's both the completion of the reasoning, and, the completion
> of never being irrational, the rational. So, "relativity's most irrational",
> claim, would have to be so minimally irrational or directly rational,
> as what's never exercised irrational, is "irrational roots in relativity,
> are space and time units, their roots and rational roots and irrational roots".
>
> This is that "linear keeps in rational roots, irrational roots are also called non-linearities".
>
> Then, insofar as an irrational claim, then is for "what claim of Relativity actually
> is reasonably or reasonatingly irrational, claim that if irrational at all goes with it,
> other claims".
>
> I.e., relativity has an "ideal" "claim of irrationality", a guarantee of the
> guarantee's of its reasonings, that "if irrational at all falls down all roots",
> changing "confusion about everything to do with science, or here relativity,
> where I can't axiomatize integrable my integrand, that I do, what the
> guarantees of non-confusion, mean in the applied, and finally to the direct
> action, usually relativity's first effect, effects in light.
>
> Then "look" is to effect perspective, and "watch" is to effect perspective,
> that image is reflectively being present in the perspective, that "motion"
> and "motion in real-time", is that at any instant, the light diffuses, including shine.
>
> Clearly it's galilean as a "to light speed impulse", explaining for example chrome effects,
> reflections and that in effect mirrors, where the light is reflected, participate with
> the other observable incident rays at that location, going out, as reflections of sources
> make for that "under the eclipse the leaves of the tree have fringes in their shadow",
> that that moment of the focus, is that "look" is an effect of focus, that each location
> has only one "look" at a time, and is watching what it's looking at, or looking.
>
> I.e. "it's galilean to an infinite speed impulse, including a light speed impulse",
> making "thus effectively there are no mirrors between any two points in space".
>
> Then under "irrational roots" there finding either side "overcomplete" that not
> having that, property of mutual completion, it's called "Dirichlet" and "irrational roots"
> where "Dirichlet is rationals 1 irrationals 0" that "a Dirichlet function is about any
> function that density properties in completion are the same everywhere, but it's
> exactly two complementary domains only denseness properties and one 1 the other 0".
>
> Or, "relativity's most irrational claim" is then "for Einstein either SR or GR, here it
> is that special relativity's most irrational claim, is that light that went one meter,
> did not also go less than one meter with any object in the same 1 meter or it
> over 1 second".
>
> Then, "restoring relativity's most irrational claim to a contrivance of overcompleteness,
> a usual property guaranteeing what we have adds up, that light's speed is a constant
> and invariant, that then it's glow and shine, the optical and geometric".
>
> Light is always incident from all angles.
>
> The scale of the resolution of an image, here is what it means science has achieved "20 orders
> of magnitude resolution" and all the way to atomic scale "25 orders of magnitude resolution",
> the entire body of observability, in the micro is micro-optical and micro-geometric, and in
> the macro is macro-optical and macro-geometric, and in the meso- is optical and geometric.
>
> So, here I have even put the needle in "I won't even hear nonsense about relativity at all",
> "it's harder to actually of course validate special relativity experimentally", i.e. that point
> being that of course as far as I can tell, every experience I've ever had is explained quite
> well, my interpretation of having "researched special relativity" and "resolved relativity
> in foundations, physics", the point being that by being academic and making an apologetics
> first, then as it goes along I just point to the entire apologetics, mathematical foundations,
> coming up to physical foundations, of bringing that along and bringing one along, an
> entire canon and an apologetics that for "Relativity: the entire discussion and Einstein's
> theories thereon, with all respects to theories real physics", that making arguments in
> relativity always explaining "the light wasn't there", it's that special relativity is given
> the terms in the units, and dimensionless, about why "according to SI's units its these
> necessary formalisms in the Special Relativity all what may apply", is that then for
> example "wherever it falls out or even loosens in contraction, SR has no irrational
> claim in it, only any mistaken derivations after SR and other units, then also and
> especially: that SR's reflection and imaging optical and geometric the light-like,
> is built as continuity laws when not invariances, any invariance that is undercomplete".
>
> Then this is that "any conservation law is two conservation laws, one of it".
>
> And they have one continuity law, which least action in theory is time, t..
>
> "Relativity's most irrational claim: SR's, that things don't move, under roots
> building image, as so for each bundle of roots, that parallel transport is
> the entire picture, what under optical and gometric terms is only one point
> image, also only one-sided".
>
>
> Think of perspective as looking from infinitely far away, it's called 2-D perspective.
>
> This way mentally you reconstruct what you're seeing besides what's in front of the eyes -
> also it's the model construct in space terms which are of course equivalent:
> one mental drawing.
>
> The point is being that for Einstein and "SR or GR themselves or both",
> is that GR changes in the future, while SR is from the past, so having SR
> in front, is corresponding to the contents, which in imaging are free".
>
> So, one must separate "SR and GR" or "GR, then SR", and these days enough
> it's "why yes my units are classical but SR will relativize them, SR is then say
> STR and then GTR" and as Einstein's "SR, then GR, called STR then GTR".
> There's though that STR-arians say as GR then "GTR...", but it is though,
> "ah but now, my old GR is already Einstein's new old GR and already old SR's
> GTR to SR", so in this manner it's still SR and GR to "according to the units",
> that into STR are "these are our units..." then as "then it's one of Einstein's
> 'either SR, _or_ GR_", simply gently factoring Einstein's "SR" and "GR" among
> the other resulting constructs, as of course they go together in usual boost
> addition, what are frames the entire frame.
>
> It's not irrational, though, both Special Relativity and General Relativity of course
> have a no-nonsense theory, which are quite true and absolutely so in all respects.
>
> So, any "irrational claim" about relativity must have some "how irrational is it"
> and "how is it irrational", then there's "that's obviously irrational", or,
> "our knowledge of the theory really ends here, picking one or the other of
> the SR or GR because I don't have both, is that SR at least is computed always
> as constant velocity, because everything else in the universe is moving.
>
> "Light never moves: only glows and goes away."
>
> Light Speed Rest Frame theory <-> Glow Speed Rest Frame theory
>
> Then, rays over time, helps establish it's a continuous theory.

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:18:37 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:02:32 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > ....
> > I just showed that they were different,
>
> Crooked crank

Let's lose the pejoratives, Dono. That's #1 on Sagan's baloney detection kit
of things NOT to do in a debate:

https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

> You are trying to change the outcome of an experiment by adding observers,
> this is a typical crank idea. You have been trying this from the very beginning
> only to get slapped around.

Not true, Dono. Although the tachyonic antitelephone gedanken uses only two
observers in relative motion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone#Two-way_example

four observers are commonly employed in tachyon discussions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon#Causality

I haven't invented these ideas. I merely put handles on them (Method I
and Method II, respectively) for convenience. You needn't suppose any
"pomposity" was involved :-)

> > (10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching
> > frames in the middle of solving the problem.
>
> Crooked crank,

No, Dono. A "crank" is someone that adheres to an idea in spite of
overwhelming evidence that it is false. OTOH, a person that adheres to
an unpopular idea that eventually has merit is a champion.

I'm not saying I'm the latter, but I'm not the former either. And I'm not
"crooked", either. Your assertion that I'm trying to pull a fast one by adding
observers is unfounded. Actually, it was easier to prove that Method I was
free of causality violation than Method II.

> You cannot remove the causality violation by switching frames.

You have it backwards, Dono. When you DON'T switch frames there is no
causality violation.

> > Figures 4 and 5 in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 show that the two
> > frames disagree with the position of the observers, which is due to the
> > relativity of simultaneity.
>
> Crooked crank,

It's way past time to stop the derogatory, ill-mannered nonsense, Dono.
It's what "cranks" do.

> You cannot remove the causality violation by switching frames.
>
> You cannot change the outcome of an experiment (the presence of the
> causality violation) by switching frames.

Sure you can:

"An extremely important strategy in solving relativity problems is to plant
yourself in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts running through your head
should be what you observe. That is, don’t try to use reasoning along the lines
of, 'Well, the person I’m looking at in this other frame sees such-and-such.'
This will almost certainly cause an error somewhere along the way, because you
will inevitably end up writing down an equation that combines quantities that
are measured in different frames, which is a no-no. -- David Morin, "Introduction
to Classical Mechanics," p. 522.

"one should never mix together the descriptions of one phenomenon
yielded by different observers, otherwise--even in ordinary physics--
one would immediately meet contradictions" -- E. Recami
"Classical Tachyons and Possible Applications," Rivista Del Nuovo
Cimento, 9:6 (1986), p. 66.

> >THAT is why switching frames in the middle leads to
> > incorrect conclusions, namely causality violation.
>
> In the classical (as in non-crank) explanation of the "relativistic anti-
> telephone", no one is switching any frames.

It's subtle, but yes, they are, Dono. Look at it solely from A's perspective.
He sends a signal to D at t = 0 at u = \infty. It arrives at D at t = 0 (A's
time). D sends it back to A at what maximum speed? Can it be faster
than infinity? If u_return = -\infty, it arrives back at A at t = 0.

> The causality violation is clearly present in Fig 1.

Yes, it is -- because the signal going out was from the perspective of A
(u = \infty) but the signal coming back was from the perspective of D
(u' = -\infty). Of course, u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2), or rearranging:

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

Let u' approach -\infty then u = +c^2/v, which says the signal reverses
direction, which is nonsense. It happens at u' = -c^2/v, where u = \infty.

> So, whatever handwaving you are trying, it is just crank crap.

It's just algebra, Dono. Try handwaving around that singularity at u' = -c^2/v.

> > The moral is to stay in ONE frame and solve the problem.
>
> Classical explanations (as in the original one by Tolman) STAY in one frame.

No, they don't, Dono. They switch in Method I gedankens and they switch in
Method II gedankens, as I just demonstrated for you. They ASSUMED that D
could send the signal back at u' < -c^2/v (u' = -\infty idealistically), which
can only be done from D's perspective. In DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101
Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate this: the arrows with a question mark are from
the other frame's perspective and cannot be done without switching frames.
They also show that the relativity of simultaneity is the reason why causality
cannot be violated, even for superluminal objects.
> Tolman, unlike you was not a crooked crank.

No, but he was wrong because he switched frames in the middle of trying to
solve the problem. Relativity of simultaneity bit him in rear.

On Thursday, 26 October 2023 at 13:37:57 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:18:37 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:02:32 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > ....
> > > I just showed that they were different,
> >
> > Crooked crank
> Let's lose the pejoratives, Dono. That's #1 on Sagan's baloney detection kit
> of things NOT to do in a debate:

Gary, poor halfbrain - you're both fanatic idiots
worshipping inconsistent mumble of an insane
crazie. You're worthy each other.
And, well: what Giant Guru has taught you is
incosistent, so your disagreement is impossible
to avoid.

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:37:57 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:18:37 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:02:32 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > ....
> > > I just showed that they were different,
> >
> > Crooked crank
> Let's lose the pejoratives, Dono.

Nope, you have been exposed for the crooked crank you are. Once again.

> four observers are commonly employed in tachyon discussions:

Crooked crank

You are trying to change the outcome of an experiment by adding observers as I pointed out several times. Only a crooked crank like you will make such a crooked claim.

> > Crooked crank,
> No, Dono. A "crank" is someone that adheres to an idea in spite of
> overwhelming evidence that it is false.

Someone like Gary Harnagel.

> Your assertion that I'm trying to pull a fast one by adding
> observers is unfounded.

Actually you are. And you have been exposed. Repeatedly.

> > You cannot remove the causality violation by switching frames.
> >
> > You cannot change the outcome of an experiment (the presence of the
> > causality violation) by switching frames.
> Sure you can:

The trademark of a hardened crank is when exposed to dig himself deeper. Do you want a shovel or a pick axe?

> "An extremely important strategy in solving relativity problems is to plant
> yourself in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts running through your head
> should be what you observe. That is, don’t try to use reasoning along the lines
> of, 'Well, the person I’m looking at in this other frame sees such-and-such.'
> This will almost certainly cause an error somewhere along the way, because you
> will inevitably end up writing down an equation that combines quantities that
> are measured in different frames, which is a no-no. -- David Morin, "Introduction
> to Classical Mechanics," p. 522.
>

But you are advocating exactly the opposite.

> > In the classical (as in non-crank) explanation of the "relativistic anti-
> > telephone", no one is switching any frames.
> It's subtle, but yes, they are, Dono.

You maintain that mainstream physicists like Tolman are switching frames? You have gone off the deep end, Gary.

> > Classical explanations (as in the original one by Tolman) STAY in one frame.
> No, they don't, Dono.
You have gone off the deep end , Gary.

> Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate this: the arrows with a question mark are from
> the other frame's perspective and cannot be done without switching frames..

Figs 4,5, like the rest of your crap paper prove that you are a crooked crank.

> > Tolman, unlike you was not a crooked crank.
> No, but he was wrong because he switched frames in the middle of trying to
> solve the problem. Relativity of simultaneity bit him in rear.

Seek medical help.

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 8:19:45 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> [...]

I gave Dono a chance to present reasoned arguments against
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. I even provided a list of
possible points for discussion. Unfortunately, he continues to
rant and rave like an unhinged fanatic, making assertions that
I'm claiming exactly the opposite of what I've written.

I can only conclude that Dono is not competent to discuss the
topic in a rational manner and may need psychiatric intervention.
I think it best if his posts to this group not be responded to.

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 8:33:31 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 8:19:45 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > [...]
>
> I gave Dono a chance to present reasoned arguments against
> DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. I even provided a list of
> possible points for discussion.

All your points have been proven to be the idiocies of a hardened crank (you), You will go to your grave defending your crackpottery. Keep it up (the entertainment, I mean)

On Thursday, 26 October 2023 at 17:33:31 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 8:19:45 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > [...]
>
> I gave Dono a chance to present reasoned arguments against
> DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. I even provided a list of
> possible points for discussion. Unfortunately, he continues to
> rant and rave like an unhinged fanatic, making assertions that
> I'm claiming exactly the opposite of what I've written.

See, poor halfbrain - you run too, when asked "second, i.e. what."
That's the usual way of a relativistic idiot.

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 9:39:16 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 8:33:31 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > I gave Dono a chance to present reasoned arguments against
> > DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. I even provided a list of
> > possible points for discussion.
>
> All your points have been proven to be the idiocies of a hardened crank

ALL of them??! All that proves is that Dono is a hardened exremely biased
ne]er-do-well.

> You will go to your grave defending your crackpottery. Keep it up (the
> entertainment, I mean)

Sorry, old crank, it's much better than anything you've done.

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
news:yqidnSWeE7fNoqr4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com...

>On 10/23/23 3:33 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>> If this were only so, clocks taking different paths would never
>> physically read different when reunited. Either clocks physically slow
>> down, OR they travel through time "space-time" at different rates. You
>> can't have it both ways. [...]

>Your attempt to argue by exhaustive enumeration fails because YOU forgot
>a third possibility: clocks following different paths through spacetime
>have different path lengths between a given pair of endpoints, and the
>clock's elapsed proper time is that path length.

>This is no different from two sides of a triangle having
>a different total path length than the third side.

Nope. That's precisely what "travels through time at different rates means".
Its what actually *creates* the different path length.
Its why time in the LT has the gamma factor.

The "path length" can't change without travelling through "space-time", that
is "time", at different rates, by action of the gamma factor.

Unfortunately, you can't see the trees because the forest is in the way.

Your use of the word "path length" is just a meaningless word used to avoid
the fact that SR is time travel into the future. Its what the block universe
means. You are just in denial. Changing the word for an aspect of reality,
don't change the reality

https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf - 3rd party
account of the block universe

Can't be bothered with the rest of your meanderings.

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html