On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7:55:59 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 8:42:11 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

> > Here is a paper from 2015 that shows clearly that tachyons are non-existent : https://www.academia.edu/42388219/A_new_paradox_in_superluminal_signaling
> Well thank you very much for that. Although Fayngold doesn't really do anything
> new IMHO, his list of references may have some

When I linked the Fayngold paper I was fully aware that I am throwing pearls before the pig. Thank you for confirming.

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:42:11 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:

> Here is a paper from 2015 that shows clearly that tachyons are non-existent :
> https://www.academia.edu/42388219/A_new_paradox_in_superluminal_signaling

I wouldn't cite the academia.edu version of the paper. Since 2016, academia.edu
has been a "pay-for-preferential-treatment" site where *anybody* can get their
paper a "recommended" status. Before 2016, academia.edu appears to have been
reputable, but it is currently a rather shady site. Currently, getting a paper published
on academia.edu is a means for tainting your professional reputation.

I spent -months- repeatedly unsubscribing from academia.edu to stop notifications
of crackpot papers from appearing in my inbox, before the alerts finally stopped.

There is an arXiv version of the paper:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.06721v4

In the years since publication, this paper has been cited exactly -once- in a
self-citation by Fayngold.

That doesn't exactly inspire confidence in Fayngold's analysis.

Dono. wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7:55:59 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 8:42:11 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
>> > Here is a paper from 2015 that shows clearly that tachyons are
>> > non-existent :
>> > https://www.academia.edu/42388219/
A_new_paradox_in_superluminal_signaling
>> Well thank you very much for that. Although Fayngold doesn't really do
>> anything new IMHO, his list of references may have some
>
> When I linked the Fayngold paper I was fully aware that I am throwing
> pearls before the pig. Thank you for confirming.

Nonsense. Don't be fooled. Most probably, there's already stolen stuff
from it, in his vixra paper. Actually he confirms it above.

"Although Fayngold doesn't really do anything new " lol.

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 10:21:35 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 10:18:20 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Is not xC = v(t - vL/c²) the equation of motion of C as observed from the stationary
> > frame of A and B? Is not xD = L + v(t - vL/c²) not the equation of motion of D as
> > observed from the stationary frame?
>
> None of what your attempted arguments matter.

What "argument" would that be? I just set out a perfectly simple scenario and asked
some perfectly simple questions about it based on what someone planted firmly in
the "stationary" frame would see. This is PRECISELY what David Morin prescribed:

""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."

Are you implying that one should NOT do that at all?

The only "argument" is you trying to read more into it than is there.

> I have -already- explained why your "solution" to the problem of FTL causal loops
> represents a totally ***ABSURD*** violation of PoR:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mZJcqaV2KieXFNU5iWHCsVtDK21HOLWE/view?usp=sharing
>
> No possible observer motion can possibility affect the ability to send an
> FTL signal between event 1 and event 2. But for any FTL signal, there are always
> frames where the signal is observed to go backwards in time. There is no
> possible way to prevent this from happening that does not involve
> violating PoR.

You've never explained just how that "violates" PoR, but that's beside the point. What I've
asked you to do is merely say yea or nay about the equations that I claim govern the
scenario:

t = 0:
C --> v __________ D --> v
____ A _____ _________ B

t = vL/c²:
____ C --> v __________ D --> v
____ A _____ _________ B

xA = 0, xB = L, therefore, xC = v(t - vL/c²), xD = L + v(t - vL/c²)

Can you please explain what is wrong with these diagrams and equations?

At t = vL/c², tC' = γ(vL/c² - 0) = γvL/c², tD' = γ(vL/c² - vL/c²) = 0.

Or perhaps I have made a mistake in these equations? I would certainly appreciate
your wisdom in indicating where that is.

Rather than do this, you immediately jump to some bizarre beliefs about what you
think I think about FTL signals.

Look, Prok, we both have coronary problems. This is not good for either of us.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 6:25:07 AM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> You've never explained just how that "violates" PoR,

I have explained multiple times. You have a mental block that refuses to
accept the explanation. Rob has also noted the same thing, but with different
words.

> Look, Prok, we both have coronary problems. This is not good for either of us.

The violation of the PoR in your proposed solution to the problem of FTL causal
loops is obvious to anybody who has the ***SLIGHTEST*** understanding of
special relativity.

If two events e1 and e2 are spacelike separated, the ordering of e1 and e2
depends on the reference frame from which they are observed. So if a signal
is transmitted from e1 to e2, there are reference frames from which the signal
is observed to go backwards in time. If a signal goes backwards in time, then
a causal loop can be created. Your so-called "solution" to causality issues
invokes an observer-dependent reality, where the maximum speed of signals
is subject to a c²/v limit that is dependent on the relative speed of an observer
frame. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 6:43:37 AM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 6:25:07 AM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > You've never explained just how that "violates" PoR,
>
> I have explained multiple times. You have a mental block that refuses to
> accept the explanation. Rob has also noted the same thing, but with different
> words.

I guess I'm just dense. Would you please explain that again?

> > Look, Prok, we both have coronary problems. This is not good for either of us.
>
> The violation of the PoR in your proposed solution to the problem of FTL causal
> loops is obvious to anybody who has the ***SLIGHTEST*** understanding of
> special relativity.
>
> If two events e1 and e2 are spacelike separated, the ordering of e1 and e2
> depends on the reference frame from which they are observed. So if a signal
> is transmitted from e1 to e2, there are reference frames from which the signal
> is observed to go backwards in time. If a signal goes backwards in time, then
> a causal loop can be created. Your so-called "solution" to causality issues
> invokes an observer-dependent reality, where the maximum speed of signals
> is subject to a c²/v limit that is dependent on the relative speed of an observer
> frame. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.

You really need to address the scenario of FTL sources and receivers in relative
motion. You've asserted that I'm wrong about that not violating causality (actually,
that Mermin, Tipler and Llewellyn, Norton, etc. AREN'T wrong whereas I claim they
are), but you've not engaged in a discussion to support your claim. OTOH, I have
clearly laid out the physical laws why this scenario CANNOT violate causality.

You're talking about "a signal going backward in time." How do you know it "went
backward in time"? You're assuming some random pair of observers can detect
this purported signal, are you not? What if it's impossible for them to do so?

You see, Prok, EVERYTHING hinges on the case where sources and receivers of
FTL communication are in relative motion. And you refuse to discuss it.

And you refuse to answer simple questions about this:

t = 0:
C --> v __________ D --> v
____ A _____ _________ B

t = vL/c²:
____ C --> v __________ D --> v
____ A _____ _________ B

xA = 0, xB = L, therefore, xC = v(t - vL/c²), xD = L + v(t - vL/c²)

Can you please explain what is wrong with these diagrams and equations?

At t = vL/c², tC' = γ(vL/c² - 0) = γvL/c², tD' = γ(vL/c² - vL/c²) = 0.

Or perhaps I have made a mistake in these equations? I would certainly appreciate
your wisdom in indicating where that is.

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:57:40 PM UTC-7, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:42:11 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
>
> > Here is a paper from 2015 that shows clearly that tachyons are non-existent :
> > https://www.academia.edu/42388219/A_new_paradox_in_superluminal_signaling
> I wouldn't cite the academia.edu version of the paper. Since 2016, academia.edu
> has been a "pay-for-preferential-treatment" site where *anybody* can get their
> paper a "recommended" status. Before 2016, academia.edu appears to have been
> reputable, but it is currently a rather shady site. Currently, getting a paper published
> on academia.edu is a means for tainting your professional reputation.
>

Err, it is from arxiv. Have you read the paper?

> I spent -months- repeatedly unsubscribing from academia.edu to stop notifications
> of crackpot papers from appearing in my inbox, before the alerts finally stopped.
>
> There is an arXiv version of the paper:
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.06721v4
>
> In the years since publication, this paper has been cited exactly -once- in a
> self-citation by Fayngold.
>
> That doesn't exactly inspire confidence in Fayngold's analysis.

I see that you found it on arxiv. Have you read it?

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 6:28:00 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Or perhaps I have made a mistake in these equations? I would certainly appreciate
> your wisdom in indicating where that is.

Look, Gary

I'll spell it out for you in the simplest way, such that it might get thru your thick skull:

1. You claim that there are frames in which the FTL signal makes the round trip in such a way that the total round trip is positive.

2. The problem is that there are frames in which the FTL signal makes the round trip in such a way that the total round trip is negative.

You take no.1 as "proof" that FTL signalling is positive but science doesn't work this way, one instance of contradiction is all that is necessary and sufficient to rebut a theory. As an aside , the fact that you "cook" up the speeds (u=c^2/v) at which the FTL signalling does not create causal loops is your most dishonest trait.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:25:16 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 6:28:00 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Or perhaps I have made a mistake in these equations? I would certainly appreciate
> > your wisdom in indicating where that is.
>
> Look, Gary
>
> I'll spell it out for you in the simplest way, such that it might get thru your thick skull:

Allow ME to spell it out for you, Dono: Those equations have NOTHING to do with FTL.
Even one with YOUR thick skull should be able to see that.

> 1. You claim that there are frames in which the FTL signal makes the round trip in such
> a way that the total round trip is positive.

Not only are there such frames, they are the ONLY frames that can make a round trip.

> 2. The problem is that there are frames in which the FTL signal makes the round trip
> in such a way that the total round trip is negative.

Dead wrong, Dono.

> You take no.1 as "proof" that FTL signalling is positive but science doesn't work this
> way, one instance of contradiction is all that is necessary and sufficient to rebut a
> theory.

Actually, that's not quite true: It's irrelevant if it's merely an ASSERTION of contradiction.

> As an aside , the fact that you "cook" up the speeds (u=c^2/v) at which the FTL
> signalling does not create causal loops is your most dishonest trait.

Not at all, venomous villifier, since communication between sources and receivers in
relative motion REQUIRE that u < c²/v in one direction, it would be dishonest to deny
it. I'm very much afraid that the finger points back at you :-O

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 7:45:25 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:25:16 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 6:28:00 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Or perhaps I have made a mistake in these equations? I would certainly appreciate
> > > your wisdom in indicating where that is.
> >
> > Look, Gary
> >
> > I'll spell it out for you in the simplest way, such that it might get thru your thick skull:
> Allow ME to spell it out for you, Dono: Those equations have NOTHING to do with FTL.
> Even one with YOUR thick skull should be able to see that.
> > 1. You claim that there are frames in which the FTL signal makes the round trip in such
> > a way that the total round trip is positive.
> Not only are there such frames, they are the ONLY frames that can make a round trip.
> > 2. The problem is that there are frames in which the FTL signal makes the round trip
> > in such a way that the total round trip is negative.
> Dead wrong, Dono.
> > You take no.1 as "proof" that FTL signalling is positive but science doesn't work this
> > way, one instance of contradiction is all that is necessary and sufficient to rebut a
> > theory.
> Actually, that's not quite true: It's irrelevant if it's merely an ASSERTION of contradiction.
> > As an aside , the fact that you "cook" up the speeds (u=c^2/v) at which the FTL
> > signalling does not create causal loops is your most dishonest trait.

I knew I was throwing pearls before THE pig when I wrote the post. You will get more of the same in the rejection letter from the peer reviewed journal. What will you do then? Argue with the editors?

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:52:12 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> I knew I was throwing pearls before THE pig when I wrote the post.

You'd make a poor jeweler. That wasn't a pearl you threw, it was a pig.
So what you did was, you threw swine before a pearl :-))

> You will get more of the same in the rejection letter from the peer reviewed
> journal. What will you do then? Argue with the editors?

Aren't you EVER positive? I worry that your mental health is at risk, Dono:

https://www.learning-mind.com/negativity-bias-effects/

And I couldn't help but notice that you shrank from the challenge of
defending your assertion that Mermin et al were right and I was wrong about
communicating between source and receiver in relative motion. But then,
so did PCH.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:28:00 AM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 6:43:37 AM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 6:25:07 AM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > You've never explained just how that "violates" PoR,
> >
> > I have explained multiple times. You have a mental block that refuses to
> > accept the explanation. Rob has also noted the same thing, but with different
> > words.
> I guess I'm just dense. Would you please explain that again?
> > > Look, Prok, we both have coronary problems. This is not good for either of us.
> >
> > The violation of the PoR in your proposed solution to the problem of FTL causal
> > loops is obvious to anybody who has the ***SLIGHTEST*** understanding of
> > special relativity.
> >
> > If two events e1 and e2 are spacelike separated, the ordering of e1 and e2
> > depends on the reference frame from which they are observed. So if a signal
> > is transmitted from e1 to e2, there are reference frames from which the signal
> > is observed to go backwards in time. If a signal goes backwards in time, then
> > a causal loop can be created. Your so-called "solution" to causality issues
> > invokes an observer-dependent reality, where the maximum speed of signals
> > is subject to a c²/v limit that is dependent on the relative speed of an observer
> > frame. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.
> You really need to address the scenario of FTL sources and receivers in relative
> motion.

You are getting events and world lines mixed up.

A signal originates from an EVENT and terminates at an EVENT.

There is no such thing as two events in relative motion.

FTL signaling implies that the origination event is spacelike-separated from the
termination event.

Relative motion of FTL sources and receivers (i.e along their world lines) has
nothing to do with my argument. The ordering of two spacelike-separated
events depends on the observer. Frames always exist where a signal from
one of a pair of spacelike-separated events to the other will be observed as
going backwards in time.

Backwards-in-time signaling implies the ability to create causal loops.

> You've asserted that I'm wrong about that not violating causality (actually,
> that Mermin, Tipler and Llewellyn, Norton, etc. AREN'T wrong whereas I claim they
> are), but you've not engaged in a discussion to support your claim. OTOH, I have
> clearly laid out the physical laws why this scenario CANNOT violate causality.
>
> You're talking about "a signal going backward in time." How do you know it "went
> backward in time"? You're assuming some random pair of observers can detect
> this purported signal, are you not? What if it's impossible for them to do so?
>
> You see, Prok, EVERYTHING hinges on the case where sources and receivers of
> FTL communication are in relative motion. And you refuse to discuss it.
>
> And you refuse to answer simple questions about this:
> t = 0:
> C --> v __________ D --> v
> ____ A _____ _________ B
>
> t = vL/c²:
> ____ C --> v __________ D --> v
> ____ A _____ _________ B
>
> xA = 0, xB = L, therefore, xC = v(t - vL/c²), xD = L + v(t - vL/c²)
>
> Can you please explain what is wrong with these diagrams and equations?
>
> At t = vL/c², tC' = γ(vL/c² - 0) = γvL/c², tD' = γ(vL/c² - vL/c²) = 0.
>
> Or perhaps I have made a mistake in these equations? I would certainly appreciate
> your wisdom in indicating where that is.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:09:18 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:57:40 PM UTC-7, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

> > There is an arXiv version of the paper:
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.06721v4
> >
> > In the years since publication, this paper has been cited exactly -once- in a
> > self-citation by Fayngold.
> >
> > That doesn't exactly inspire confidence in Fayngold's analysis.
> I see that you found it on arxiv. Have you read it?

I won't waste time studying a paper that in five years has NEVER been
cited by anybody other than the original author. The utter lack of citation
gives me no confidence that the paper is any good.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:43:24 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:52:12 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > I knew I was throwing pearls before THE pig when I wrote the post.
> You'd make a poor jeweler.

You obviously do not understand proof by contradiction: one counter-example is sufficient in order to disprove a theory. The fact that there are frames (actually an infinity of them) in which the FTL signal returns before it has been emitted is sufficient counter-proof. You will get the same answer in the rejection from the peer reviewed journal.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:54:39 AM UTC-7, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:09:18 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:57:40 PM UTC-7, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > There is an arXiv version of the paper:
> > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.06721v4
> > >
> > > In the years since publication, this paper has been cited exactly -once- in a
> > > self-citation by Fayngold.
> > >
> > > That doesn't exactly inspire confidence in Fayngold's analysis.
> > I see that you found it on arxiv. Have you read it?
> I won't waste time studying a paper that in five years has NEVER been
> cited by anybody other than the original author. The utter lack of citation
> gives me no confidence that the paper is any good.

Axtually, the paper is quite dood. It is the subject that has been beaten to death. You could use it though in your job as wiki "editor".

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:12:22 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:54:39 AM UTC-7, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:09:18 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:57:40 PM UTC-7, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > There is an arXiv version of the paper:
> > > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.06721v4
> > > >
> > > > In the years since publication, this paper has been cited exactly -once- in a
> > > > self-citation by Fayngold.
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't exactly inspire confidence in Fayngold's analysis.
> > > I see that you found it on arxiv. Have you read it?
> > I won't waste time studying a paper that in five years has NEVER been
> > cited by anybody other than the original author. The utter lack of citation
> > gives me no confidence that the paper is any good.
Actually, the paper is quite good. It is the subject that has been beaten to death. You could use it though in your job as wiki "editor".

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:50:21 AM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:28:00 AM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 6:43:37 AM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The violation of the PoR in your proposed solution to the problem of FTL causal
> > > loops is obvious to anybody who has the ***SLIGHTEST*** understanding of
> > > special relativity.
> > >
> > > If two events e1 and e2 are spacelike separated, the ordering of e1 and e2
> > > depends on the reference frame from which they are observed. So if a signal
> > > is transmitted from e1 to e2, there are reference frames from which the signal
> > > is observed to go backwards in time. If a signal goes backwards in time, then
> > > a causal loop can be created. Your so-called "solution" to causality issues
> > > invokes an observer-dependent reality, where the maximum speed of signals
> > > is subject to a c²/v limit that is dependent on the relative speed of an observer
> > > frame. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.
> >
> > You really need to address the scenario of FTL sources and receivers in relative
> > motion.
>
> You are getting events and world lines mixed up.

I said nothing about either, but we can discuss FTL sources and receivers in relative
motion in those terms.

> A signal originates from an EVENT and terminates at an EVENT.

But of course. I didn't say anything to make you believe I disagree.

> There is no such thing as two events in relative motion.

I never said there was, Prok. Whatever made you think so?

> FTL signaling implies that the origination event is spacelike-separated
> from the termination event.
>
> Relative motion of FTL sources and receivers (i.e along their world lines)
> has nothing to do with my argument.

I believe it does. If you would just bear with me for a bit, you might gain
from the process.

“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.
But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama

> The ordering of two spacelike-separated events depends on the observer.
> Frames always exist where a signal from one of a pair of spacelike-
> separated events to the other will be observed as going backwards in time..
>
> Backwards-in-time signaling implies the ability to create causal loops.
I respectfully disagree. Causal loops require the ability to actually complete
the loop. You've described only 1/4 of the loop if you're referring to the A to
B to C to D to A method (which I refer to as Method II), or only 1/2 the loop
if you're talking about the A to D to A method (which I refer to as Method I).

Okay, since you've refused to deal with my questions once again, let's talk about
Method I:

A ----> w ________ D --> v

So A is at x = 0 and D is moving away from A. At t = 0, A launches a FTL signal
to D. We'll say that the signal will reach D at x = L (adjustable depending on
what we choose for w).

We can give D a compadre, C, who passes A as A launches the signal and whose
clock, synchronized with D's clock, reads tC' = 0 and whose position is x = 0, at E1.
We can transform E1 to S' if we want, but that's academic.

Now let's discuss the physics of FTL from the standpoint of energy. If A launches
a pulse of FTL particles at velocity w (that's your event E1), he will measure the
energy of that pulse as E = mc²/sqrt(w²/c² - 1), where m is the absolute value of
mass of the FTL particles in the pulse.

D will receive it at velocity w' = (w - v)/(1 - wv/c²), or will he? The energy of the
pulse when it reaches him won't be E, it will be E' = mc²/sqrt(w'²/c² -1). If E' isn't
greater than zero, there's no way he can detect it. Therefore w' < ∞, which
means w < c²/v. We'll idealize the case and let w' = ∞ and w = c²/v, so the equation
of motion of D is

xD = L + v(t - t2), where (L, t2) is E2, the event of the pulse reaching D.

and the equation of motion of the pulse is xP = wt, and xP = L when t = t2.

That is, t2 = L/w = wL/c².

Gosharootie! That looks just like the term is the LT: t' = γ(t - vx/c²), so t2' = 0.
Note that it's NOT negative as a misbegotten Method II asserts.

You can do the other half of the loop and you'll find that the pulse doesn't get
back before it was sent, so Method I CANNOT violate causality.

Furthermore, anyone moving at, say, v1, won't be able to violate causality,
either, even if they horn in and try to send a pulse back to A. This is a rock-
solid proof that Mermin, Tipler and Llewellyn, Norton, etc. are dead wrong,
as I've repeatedly said and you've never dealt with except with an unsupported
denial.

So even though some observers may say that E2 happened before E1, they
can't form a loop wherein the signal gets back to A before it's sent.
Thus Method I CANNOT violate causality even though some observers may
see E1 and E2 reversed. Thus the argument that E1/E2 reversal proves that
FTL isn't possible is falsified.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:54:39 AM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:09:18 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > There is an arXiv version of the paper:
> > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.06721v4
>
> I won't waste time studying a paper that in five years has NEVER been
> cited by anybody other than the original author. The utter lack of citation
> gives me no confidence that the paper is any good.

Well, I read it, and it's just Mermin et al Method I again. He shows that the
half loop has E1 and E2 reversed for some observers, but it's the second
half that counts :-)

I'm sorry I'm now involved with tar-baby academia.edu :-(
That's one more thing I owe Dono for.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 3:23:05 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> So even though some observers may say that E2 happened before E1, they
> can't form a loop wherein the signal gets back to A before it's sent.
> Thus Method I CANNOT violate causality even though some observers may
> see E1 and E2 reversed. Thus the argument that E1/E2 reversal proves that
> FTL isn't possible is falsified.

This is obviously hopeless.