Just bumping my previous message, so it's not forgotten :)

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:20:16 AM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:42:14 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 7:48:04 AM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 1:36:50 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And my point is it's the other way round ;) You have not been careful enough, resulting in you
> > > > not realising that when you switch frames, you have also been switching realities.
> > >
> > > But I'm not the one switching frames. Please note that I did the entire analysis from the
> > > perspective of Alice and Bob. According to them, Carol is at x = v²L/c², not at x = 0.
> > > Therefore, tC' = γ(vL/c² - v^3L/c^4) = vL/c²/γ, not tC' = 0.
> > >
> > > It's you and everyone else that's been switching frames and claiming that Dave can send
> > > a signal at u' = -infinity to Carol at t' = 0 and then switching back and claiming that tachyons
> > > send Alice and Bob back in time to t = 0, and therefore tachyons can't exist.
> >
> > At core is the principle that no frame is "special". Anything and EVERYTHING that goes for
> > one frame, goes equally for EVERY frame. NO frame can lay ownership to "reality".
> >
> > Except you reject that. You allow infinite-speed tachyons - but ONLY in Alice/Bob's "Lab" frame S;
> > Not in the Dave/Carol's frame S' (so tough luck, I guess, if they had a lab as well ;) )
> You're missing my point. The fact that analysis (completely) from S and analysis (co,pletely) from
> S' don't agree tells us that we cannot create a valid loop with that particular arrangement. Doing
> half the analysis and then jumping frames for the other half obscured that fact and led to an
> invalid conclusion.
> > Those infinite-speed tachyons emitted from Alice at (x=0, t=0) arrive at Bob at (x=L, t=0). That's a
> > NEGATIVE t' in the C/D frame. You've sent Carol and Dave "back in time" - but that's OK because
> > that's not the Lab frame. But infinite-speed tachyons in the C/D frame doing the same to the A/B
> > "Lab" frame, no way.
> >
> > I reject the Lab frame being special.
> So do I. It's okay to send u = ∞ tachyons to receivers at relative rest, but they can't be used to create
> a message loop BECAUSE they result in two different realities. What we want to find is a scenario
> that results in ONE reality.

Firstly, great - I'm glad we agree that no frame is special.
So, we CAN send infinite-speed tachyons, but they can't be used to create message loops - OK, Still leaves the question - why can't they? For any such tachyon transmission, I CAN find a pair of frames that would have causality broken by that transmission.

This looks like another difference between us.

You are asking if there is a scenario of two frames where sending tachyons at certain speeds will not break causality for those frames, on the assumption that would mean those tachyons are allowable (at least for that scenario).

Wrong question, and flawed assumption.

I am asking if there is ANY pair of frames whose causality would be broken by those tachyons at those speeds, since that would mean that those tachyons are not allowed PERIOD.

The answer to my question is always "yes".

As part of this, it's important to realise that the tachyon velocities we've been discussing have been functions including "v" (the velocity between the two frames). Naturally, these functions always result in actual values (eg 10c). The question is, therefore : could there be ANY third frame whose velocity would mean that having 10c tachyons being sent would break their causality ? As I say, the answer is always "yes".

> > > > > Second, if Dave sends the signal at u' = infinity, time goes backward in S.
> > > > > That violates causality, entropy and the arrow of time. This is what happens
> > > > > when jumping frames ... um ... "illegally."
> > > >
> > > > Yes, which is why I say that Dave cannot send the signal at u' = infinity.
> > >
> > > So we're both in agreement on that.
> >
> > I also say Alice can't send a signal at u = infinity for exactly the same reason
> > - are we both in agreement on that ?
> Yep, as an active participant in a message loop.

What about for somebody who is NOT an active participant in a message loop - can they send a (near-)infinite-speed tachyon ?
If no, why not - what's stopping them ?
If yes, then what's stopping that message "inadvertently" getting into a message loop ?

Which brings us back to here :

> > > > We have an experiment where you are sending a (near-)infinite-speed tachyon
> > > > message to me in the same frame. During that experiment, the laws of physics
> > > > don't "know" whether I am intending to pass on that message (so potentially
> > > > creating a message loop) or not.
> > > >
> > > > So can you send me that (near-)infinite-speed tachyon message, or can't you ? You
> > > > can or you can't - Yes or No ?
> >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > OK, so your and my clocks have been previously synchronised. Your clock reads 0 at
> > the instant you send me those (near-)infinite-speed tachyons. What will my clock be
> > reading when I receive those tachyons ?
> t = 0+, of course.
> > Do you answers stand if you are with Dave and I am with Carol ?
> That depends on whether they're moving wrt us.

I meant you are standing still next to Dave, and I am standing still next to Carol; we are "in" the same frame as them.

You have said "Yes" to you CAN send me a (near-)infinite-speed tachyon - but let's also remove the inherent ambiguity of that "+" , and replace the ambiguous "(near-)infinte" with an exact speed like 1000c:

So let's say you send me a 1000c tachyon signal as your clock reads 0.
Do you agree that I will receive you signal as my clock reads t=<distance>/1000 (where <distance> is the distance between us as measured by our frame) ?

My question above remains though :
Since you CAN send me a (near-)infinite speed tachyon message, then what's stopping that message "inadvertently" getting into a message loop ?

> > > If we say that tC' = 0, what is the time on A's clock? If we say tA = 0, then when
> > > will A say that D launched the signal? If D launched it at tD' = 0, then A will say
> > > that the time was vL/c² in his frame.
> >
> > Right, basic SR.
> >
> > > Of course, A can't detect the signal,
> >
> > He can certainly receive a signal from someone co-located with him at that instant
> > - agree ?
> Yes, but that isn't the tachyon signal.

Doesn't matter - whether or not a message can be transferred has NOTHING to do with where that message came from or means of transmission. If I receive a message, of course I can ALWAYS later pass on the information it contained to someone I am passing.

For example, let's say you sent me two messages - first a news headline by normal radio message, then some time later a sports score by tachyon message. I receive both messages at the same time.

At that same time (or maybe shortly thereafter) I am co-located with Alice while passing her. Are you saying there are circumstances where I will only be able to hand-off to her the news headline, but NOT the sports score ???

I say I can hand off all information that I have, regardless of its origin or means of transmission to me. I don't see how your qualifier " but that isn't the tachyon signal." makes any sense ;)

>
> Look, Rob, direct tachyon communication between sources and receivers in relative
> motion has two and only two scenarios (moving away from each other or moving
> toward each other). The "hand-off " method has, seemingly, an infinite number of
> scenarios, so it's important not to jump from one to another to another ad infinitum.
>
> So far, we've agreed that with C and D moving to the right at v, a distance L apart
> as observed from stationary A and B; the time at D is tD' = -γvL/c² and the time at
> C is tC' = 0, right?
>
> Therefore, as far as A and B are concerned, D must send the signal at u' = -c²/v.
> This is what David Morin says to do. We need to get this settled between us before
> any other scenarios are trotted out. Is relativity of simultaneity real, or can you
> jump frames and pretend it doesn't exist?

That dichotomy is yours ;-) There are three statements :
a) Relativity of Simultaneity is Real
b) We can "jump frames" at will (ie, each frame has a reality at each instant that all frames agree)
c) FTL mechanisms such as tachyons exist.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:59:33 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 7:45:30 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 7:01:24 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 3:55:41 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So you don't believe energy is frame-dependent? That's the REAL sadness.
> > >
> > > Of course I believe that energy is frame-dependent.
> >
> > So you believe that if D is moving to the right at v and launches a tachyon
> > signal to the right at w' as he measures it, and which has energy
> > E' = mc²/sqrt(w'²/c² - 1)
> > then stationary A to the left of D will measure its velocity as w and its energy
> > as E, where
> >
> > w = (w' + v)/(1 + w'v/c²) and E = mc²/sqrt(w²/c² - 1)
>
> In frame F' the tachyon speed being w' the energy is E' = mc²/sqrt(w'²/c² - 1)
> In frame F the tachyon speed being w the energy is E = mc²/sqrt(w²/c² - 1)
>
> What does all this have to do with your inability to understand that tachyons
> generate causal loops?

Wow! You got SO close, but no kewpie doll! You didn't follow up with the relationship
between E' and E and w and w': At what value of w' does E' = 0? At what value
of w does E = 0? At what value of w' does E = 0?

> > > You are going off the deep end, must be your age-related dementia.
> So, it is your age-related dementia.

'Fraid not, ol' bean, it's you're inability to think outside the box.

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 4:29:12 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:59:33 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 7:45:30 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 7:01:24 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 3:55:41 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > So you don't believe energy is frame-dependent? That's the REAL sadness.
> > > >
> > > > Of course I believe that energy is frame-dependent.
> > >
> > > So you believe that if D is moving to the right at v and launches a tachyon
> > > signal to the right at w' as he measures it, and which has energy
> > > E' = mc²/sqrt(w'²/c² - 1)
> > > then stationary A to the left of D will measure its velocity as w and its energy
> > > as E, where
> > >
> > > w = (w' + v)/(1 + w'v/c²) and E = mc²/sqrt(w²/c² - 1)
> >
> > In frame F' the tachyon speed being w' the energy is E' = mc²/sqrt(w'²/c² - 1)
> > In frame F the tachyon speed being w the energy is E = mc²/sqrt(w²/c² - 1)
> >
> > What does all this have to do with your inability to understand that tachyons
> > generate causal loops?
> Wow! You got SO close, but no kewpie doll! You didn't follow up with the relationship
> between E' and E and w and w': At what value of w' does E' = 0? At what value
> of w does E = 0? At what value of w' does E = 0?

Totaly irrelevant , stubborn crank. The above has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that FTL signalling would violate causality. You are way off the deep end.

> > > > You are going off the deep end, must be your age-related dementia.
> > So, it is your age-related dementia.
> 'Fraid not, ol' bean, it's you're inability to think outside the box.

In crank parlay, thinking out of the box means spouting crackpot stuff. Good job, Gary, keep it up.

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 6:36:49 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 4:29:12 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:59:33 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 7:45:30 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So you believe that if D is moving to the right at v and launches a tachyon
> > > > signal to the right at w' as he measures it, and which has energy
> > > > E' = mc²/sqrt(w'²/c² - 1)
> > > > then stationary A to the left of D will measure its velocity as w and its energy
> > > > as E, where
> > > >
> > > > w = (w' + v)/(1 + w'v/c²) and E = mc²/sqrt(w²/c² - 1)
> > >
> > > In frame F' the tachyon speed being w' the energy is E' = mc²/sqrt(w'²/c² - 1)
> > > In frame F the tachyon speed being w the energy is E = mc²/sqrt(w²/c² - 1)
> > >
> > > What does all this have to do with your inability to understand that tachyons
> > > generate causal loops?
> >
> > Wow! You got SO close, but no kewpie doll! You didn't follow up with the relationship
> > between E' and E and w and w': At what value of w' does E' = 0? At what value
> > of w does E = 0? At what value of w' does E = 0?
>
> Totaly irrelevant ,

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

And now you fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down!

> The above has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that FTL signalling would violate
> causality. You are way off the deep end.

And you STILL sit in your cozy little box, not daring to poke your head out of your womb!

> > > > > You are going off the deep end, must be your age-related dementia..
> > > So, it is your age-related dementia.
>
> > 'Fraid not, ol' bean, it's you're inability to think outside the box.
>
> In crank parlay, thinking out of the box means spouting crackpot stuff. Good job,
> Gary, keep it up.

“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do.”
-- Benjamin Franklin

“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

"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way
 past them into the impossible." -- Arthur C. Clarke

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 4:58:32 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
>
> Just bumping my previous message, so it's not forgotten :)

Got squeezed out by the Prok, Dono and me altercations? :-)

> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:20:16 AM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:42:14 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
> > >
> > > At core is the principle that no frame is "special". Anything and EVERYTHING that goes
> > > for one frame, goes equally for EVERY frame. NO frame can lay ownership to "reality".
> > >
> > > Except you reject that. You allow infinite-speed tachyons - but ONLY in Alice/Bob's "Lab"
> > > frame S; Not in the Dave/Carol's frame S' (so tough luck, I guess, if they had a lab as well ;) )
> >
> > You're missing my point. The fact that analysis (completely) from S and analysis (co,pletely)
> > from S' don't agree tells us that we cannot create a valid loop with that particular arrangement.
> > Doing half the analysis and then jumping frames for the other half obscured that fact and led
> > to an invalid conclusion.
> >
> > > Those infinite-speed tachyons emitted from Alice at (x=0, t=0) arrive at Bob at (x=L, t=0).
> > > That's a NEGATIVE t' in the C/D frame. You've sent Carol and Dave "back in time" - but that's
> > > OK because that's not the Lab frame. But infinite-speed tachyons in the C/D frame doing the
> > > same to the A/B "Lab" frame, no way.
> > >
> > > I reject the Lab frame being special.
> >
> > So do I. It's okay to send u = ∞ tachyons to receivers at relative rest, but they can't be used to
> > create a message loop BECAUSE they result in two different realities. What we want to find is
> > a scenario that results in ONE reality.
>
> Firstly, great - I'm glad we agree that no frame is special.
> So, we CAN send infinite-speed tachyons, but they can't be used to create message loops - OK,
> Still leaves the question - why can't they? For any such tachyon transmission, I CAN find a pair
> of frames that would have causality broken by that transmission.

That depends on what you mean by a broken causality. If you were following the discussion with
Prok, you'd note that I believe the Method I paradigm (tachyons by sources and receivers in
relative motion) is more fundamental than the Method II one (sources and receivers at rest wrt
each other). By Method I it's impossible to violate causality, event though some observers might
see E1 (a tachyon signal is emitted) and E2 (the tachyon signal received) are reversed.

> This looks like another difference between us.
>
> You are asking if there is a scenario of two frames where sending tachyons at certain speeds
> will not break causality for those frames, on the assumption that would mean those tachyons
> are allowable (at least for that scenario).
>
> Wrong question, and flawed assumption.

I don;t think so. It's a matter of logistics for Method II. There's a tachyon speed limit for completing
a loop. We see that when we get TWO realities instead of one when we analyze the problem
completely from S and then do the whole thing completely from S'.

> I am asking if there is ANY pair of frames whose causality would be broken by those tachyons at
> those speeds, since that would mean that those tachyons are not allowed PERIOD.
>
> The answer to my question is always "yes".

My answer is a resounding NO :-)

Such speeds are allowed, but they result in a split-reality analysis.

> As part of this, it's important to realise that the tachyon velocities we've been discussing
> have been functions including "v" (the velocity between the two frames). Naturally, these
> functions always result in actual values (eg 10c). The question is, therefore : could there be
> ANY third frame whose velocity would mean that having 10c tachyons being sent would
> break their causality ? As I say, the answer is always "yes".

And my answer is a resounding NO :-)

Such speeds are allowed, but they result in a split-personality analysis.

> > > I also say Alice can't send a signal at u = infinity for exactly the same reason
> > > - are we both in agreement on that ?
> >
> > Yep, as an active participant in a message loop.
>
> What about for somebody who is NOT an active participant in a message loop -
> can they send a (near-)infinite-speed tachyon ?

Sure.

> If no, why not - what's stopping them ?
> If yes, then what's stopping that message "inadvertently" getting into a message loop ?

They result in a split-personality analysis, two realities, which we both agree is a no-no.
Morin's urging that we plant ourselves "in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts
running through your head should be what you observe" is VERY powerful. I believe.
And THAT'S what leads to split realities when too high tachyon velocities are shoe-
horned into the problem.

> Which brings us back to here :
>
> > > > > We have an experiment where you are sending a (near-)infinite-speed tachyon
> > > > > message to me in the same frame. During that experiment, the laws of physics
> > > > > don't "know" whether I am intending to pass on that message (so potentially
> > > > > creating a message loop) or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > So can you send me that (near-)infinite-speed tachyon message, or can't you ? You
> > > > > can or you can't - Yes or No ?
> > >
> > > > Yes.
> > >
> > > OK, so your and my clocks have been previously synchronised. Your clock reads 0 at
> > > the instant you send me those (near-)infinite-speed tachyons. What will my clock be
> > > reading when I receive those tachyons ?
> >
> > t = 0+, of course.
> >
> > > Do you answers stand if you are with Dave and I am with Carol ?
> >
> > That depends on whether they're moving wrt us.
>
> I meant you are standing still next to Dave, and I am standing still next to Carol; we are "in"
> the same frame as them.

I'm standing still next to Dave ... is Dave next to me at t = 0, t = 1, etc.?

> You have said "Yes" to you CAN send me a (near-)infinite-speed tachyon - but let's also
> remove the inherent ambiguity of that "+" , and replace the ambiguous "(near-)infinte" with
> an exact speed like 1000c:
>
> So let's say you send me a 1000c tachyon signal as your clock reads 0.
> Do you agree that I will receive you signal as my clock reads t=<distance>/1000 (where
> <distance> is the distance between us as measured by our frame) ?
>
> My question above remains though :
> Since you CAN send me a (near-)infinite speed tachyon message, then what's stopping
> that message "inadvertently" getting into a message loop ?

With whom? It CAN get in a message loop, but only with frames moving a v < c/1000.
Apply the Morin Principle. Does the analyses create two realities or only one?

> > > > If we say that tC' = 0, what is the time on A's clock? If we say tA = 0, then when
> > > > will A say that D launched the signal? If D launched it at tD' = 0, then A will say
> > > > that the time was vL/c² in his frame.
> > >
> > > Right, basic SR.
> > >
> > > > Of course, A can't detect the signal,
> > >
> > > He can certainly receive a signal from someone co-located with him at that instant
> > > - agree ?
> >
> > Yes, but that isn't the tachyon signal.
>
> Doesn't matter - whether or not a message can be transferred has NOTHING to do with
> where that message came from or means of transmission. If I receive a message, of
> course I can ALWAYS later pass on the information it contained to someone I am passing.

Can you? Apply the Morin Principle and find out.

> For example, let's say you sent me two messages - first a news headline by normal radio
> message, then some time later a sports score by tachyon message. I receive both messages
> at the same time.
>
> At that same time (or maybe shortly thereafter) I am co-located with Alice while passing her.
> Are you saying there are circumstances where I will only be able to hand-off to her the news
> headline, but NOT the sports score ???
>
> I say I can hand off all information that I have, regardless of its origin or means of transmission
> to me. I don't see how your qualifier " but that isn't the tachyon signal.." makes any sense ;)

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 4:29:12 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> You didn't follow up with the relationship
> between E' and E and w and w': At what value of w' does E' = 0? At what value
> of w does E = 0? At what value of w' does E = 0?
The crux of your crackpoterry can be found in the Dynamics section of your fresh crank "paper" uploaded on vixra (a crackpoterry also reflected in the <<relationship between E' and E>> in the line above). You write:
"The signal has almost no energy relative to D, but its energy relative to A must be subtracted
from its energy relative to D."

Err, A and D represent observers in two different frames, in motion wrt each other. So, like a crank you are, you are "subtracting" E from E'. How is this called , Gary? Jumping frames much, crackpot?

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:13:16 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 4:29:12 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > You didn't follow up with the relationship
> > between E' and E and w and w': At what value of w' does E' = 0? At what value
> > of w does E = 0? At what value of w' does E = 0?
>
> The crux of your crackpoterry can be found in the Dynamics section of your fresh
> crank "paper" uploaded on vixra (a crackpoterry also reflected in the <<relationship
> between E' and E>> in the line above). You write:
> "The signal has almost no energy relative to D, but its energy relative to A must be
> subtracted from its energy relative to D."
>
> Err, A and D represent observers in two different frames, in motion wrt each other.
> So, like a crank you are, you are "subtracting" E from E'.

D is moving away from A, so consider that D sent a blue photon pulse to A. What
color would A see it as? Reddened, of course, due to the motion of D.

I see that I didn't describe it well in https://vixra.org/abs/2011.0076.
I should have said that it's energy relative to A will be less than its energy relative to
D. A error like that doesn't make one a crank, Dono. Besides, anyone with a brain
should be able to figure out what I meant to say since I said it correctly previously in
describing when they're moving toward each other.

Whew! I just checked to make sure I didn't do this in my submitted paper. There I
wrote, "The signal has almost no energy relative to D, but its energy relative to A
must be obtained by subtracting its energy relative to D from D's energy of motion."

> How is this called , Gary? Jumping frames much, crackpot?

Not at all, Dono. It's what one SEES in the frame you're planted in. One can certainly
predict what the other frame sees, can't one? Oh, I guess someone can only do that
if they can think outside of the box :-)

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:38:55 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I see that I didn't describe it well in https://vixra.org/abs/2011.0076.
> I should have said that it's energy relative to A will be less than its energy relative to
> D. A error like that doesn't make one a crank, Dono.

You are a crank, Gary. You still don't admit to your stupidities.

Gary Harnagel 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

Me too, was a bit suspicious about those colored arrows. You stole the
arrows and the figures from that guy, sir. Have you no shame?

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 11:13:06 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> 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:

> > > 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.

No, Dono.

A note on a new paradox in superluminal signalling
Vassili F. Perepelitsa
The Tolman paradox is well known as a base for demonstrating the causality
violation by faster-than-light signals within special relativity. It is constructed
using a two-way exchange of faster-than-light signals between two inertial
observers who are in a relative motion receding one from another. Recently a
one-way superluminal signalling arrangement was suggested as a possible
construction of a causal paradox. In this note we show that this suggestion
is not correct, and no causality principle violation can occur in any one-way
signalling by the use of faster-than-light particles and signals.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.05632

By the way, Gary. It's obvious that although you may have skimmed the paper
quickly, you never understood Fayngold's claims, or you would never have
written, "....it's just Mermin et al Method I again."

You do not have the expertise to evaluate papers written at this level. As I
have repeatedly stated, you need to master the BASICS before you can hope
to contribute usefully to the subject. You have not mastered the basics.

> It is the subject that has been beaten to death. You could use it though in your job as wiki "editor".

Hi Gary,

I was going to make a reply - and probably will do shortly, but first I have one question about figure 7 in your document >:->

Let's recap - we both agree to the validity of the Lorentz transformations. Those transformations are centred around the fact of a shared origin - that (x=0, t=0) is coincident with (x'=0, t'=0) as they pass. This fact is, of course, embedded in the equations themselves - that given x=0 and t=0 will return x'=0 and t'=0.

So, your Figure 7 in https://vixra.org/pdf/2011.0076v1.pdf :

You have A is always at x = 0, and C is always at x' = 0.

Can you tell me where that common origin is - where (x=0, t=0) is coincident with (x'=0, t'=0) ?

For example, Figure 7a is at t=0, so A is at (x=0, t=0) in that figure - but C is a good distance away from A at that time.

On Friday, May 7, 2021 at 2:58:08 AM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 11:13:06 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > 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:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> No, Dono.
>
> A note on a new paradox in superluminal signalling
> Vassili F. Perepelitsa
> The Tolman paradox is well known as a base for demonstrating the causality
> violation by faster-than-light signals within special relativity. It is constructed
> using a two-way exchange of faster-than-light signals between two inertial
> observers who are in a relative motion receding one from another. Recently a
> one-way superluminal signalling arrangement was suggested as a possible
> construction of a causal paradox. In this note we show that this suggestion
> is not correct, and no causality principle violation can occur in any one-way
> signalling by the use of faster-than-light particles and signals.
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.05632
>
> By the way, Gary. It's obvious that although you may have skimmed the paper
> quickly, you never understood Fayngold's claims, or you would never have
> written, "....it's just Mermin et al Method I again."
>
> You do not have the expertise to evaluate papers written at this level. As I
> have repeatedly stated, you need to master the BASICS before you can hope
> to contribute usefully to the subject. You have not mastered the basics.

Come now, Prok, I made no effort to "evaluate" the paper. I noted that it used
two observers in relative motion and correctly concluded it was indeed
Mermin et al all over again. I've never been able to get a copy of Tolman's paper,
but from your comments, it looks like the same thing. Einstein, OTOH, merely
looked at t' = γ(t - vL/c²) and noted that t' could be < 0 for t > 0.

You see, Prok, the case of source and receiver in relative motion cannot possibly
send a message into the past, even one way.

C --> v _________ D --> v
A ----> w ___________ B

At t = 0, A launches a ta ... oops! ... a FTL signal to D (this is Event 1). He must
send it at w < c²/v or it will have no energy wrt to D. So D passes B (at x = L) as
he receives the ... um ... signal. This is Event 2.

At t = 0, C's clock reads tC' = 0: E1 = (0,0) in S and [0,0] in S'.

The signal arrives at D and B at tB = L/w = vL/c² and tD' = γ(vL/c² - vL/c²) = 0.
Hence u' = ∞. E2 = (L,vL/c²) in S and [γL,0] in S'.

So please tell me how exactly I fail to understand the "basics," Prok.

I think it's YOU that fails to understand that energy plays a pivotal role in this
kind of scenario, which explains why A must send the signal at w = c²/v.

In the scenarios where A sends the FTL signal to B and D sends it to C, the
same factor comes into play, not because of energy but because of RoS:
When we plant ourselves in S, tC' = tD' = γvL/c² ... ALWAYS! So as far as S
is concerned, D CANNOT send the signal faster than u' = -c²/v.

If we plant ourselves in S', tB - tA = vL/c² ... ALWAYS! So as far as S' is
concerned, A CANNOT send the signal faster than w = c²/v. As we have
seen, when A does this, w' = ∞.

If you weren't so bullheaded, you'd be able to understand this, but you're
steeped in the unfounded assertions of those who've failed to apply the
full implications of SR.

On Friday, May 7, 2021 at 3:11:11 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> I was going to make a reply - and probably will do shortly, but first I have one question
> about figure 7 in your document >:->
>
> Let's recap - we both agree to the validity of the Lorentz transformations. Those trans-
> formations are centred around the fact of a shared origin - that (x=0, t=0) is coincident
> with (x'=0, t'=0) as they pass. This fact is, of course, embedded in the equations
> themselves - that given x=0 and t=0 will return x'=0 and t'=0.
>
> So, your Figure 7 in https://vixra.org/pdf/2011.0076v1.pdf :
>
> You have A is always at x = 0, and C is always at x' = 0.
>
> Can you tell me where that common origin is - where (x=0, t=0) is coincident with
> (x'=0, t'=0) ?
>
> For example, Figure 7a is at t=0, so A is at (x=0, t=0) in that figure - but C is a good
> distance away from A at that time.

Yes, you may, of course, insert another observer, call him O, at x' = 0, t' =0 in Figure 7a.
C just happens to be not that observer. Then in 7b, O will be at xO = v²L/c² and his
clock will read tO' = γ(vL/c² - vxO/c²).

On Saturday, May 8, 2021 at 12:08:15 AM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 7, 2021 at 3:11:11 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:

> > For example, Figure 7a is at t=0, so A is at (x=0, t=0) in that figure - but C is a good
> > distance away from A at that time.
> Yes, you may, of course, insert another observer, call him O, at x' = 0, t' =0 in Figure 7a.
> C just happens to be not that observer. Then in 7b, O will be at xO = v²L/c² and his
> clock will read tO' = γ(vL/c² - vxO/c²).

Right - except that doesn't agree with the lengths.

Look at 7b - in the AB frame, D is co-located with B and C is co-located with A. This means the distance D to C is L as measured in the AB frame (and therefore proper length = γL ).

Now look at 7a. Still in the AB frame, is the distance D to C still L as measured in the AB frame ? No - it's v²L/c² + L/γ² - so proper length = γL(v²/c² + 1/γ²) .

So why has it changed (and which C is the one who will receive that -c²/v tachyon sent from D) ?

But regardless of that, I'm still trying to see if your basic idea is workable - right from the start I said my aim was to get a complete statement of your rules, and thus far in I'm still no further forward.

For example, take two people (call them Peter and Quentin) at the instant they are passing , either Peter can hand off a message (ANY message) to Quentin, or not. The laws of physics - the rules ;) - that determine whether that message can be handed off should be a simple, involving only the factors at that event. In all SR scenarios, those rules are very simple - it's always "yes, co-located observers can hand off any message at that event".

But not with your tachyons.

Suddenly, it depends on whether Peter got that message via tachyons or not, and if tachyons then how fast those tachyons were travelling compared to the relative speed between Peter and Quentin ... but that might all be irrelevant depending on whether there's a message loop or not - ie, whether Quentin might decide to keep the message, or passes it on (and if he does pass it on, then on who he passes it on to).

> > Since you CAN send me a (near-)infinite speed tachyon message, then what's stopping
> > that message "inadvertently" getting into a message loop ?
>
> With whom? It CAN get in a message loop, but only with frames moving a v < c/1000.
> Apply the Morin Principle. Does the analyses create two realities or only one?

> > I say I can hand off all information that I have, regardless of its origin or means of transmission
> > to me. I don't see how your qualifier " but that isn't the tachyon signal." makes any sense ;)
>
> Apply the MP and find out what "makes sense."

No, it doesn't make sense, with or without the MP.

So, instead of starting with A,B,C,D up front, let's start from the beginning and see where something breaks.

Mark is 100 light-seconds due east of Neil (they are stationary relative to eachother). At t= -90, Mark sends Neil a joke by radio, then at t=0, Mark sends Neil a poem via 10c tachyons. This means Neil receives both at t=10. He puts the joke in one email, the poem in another email. Emails can, of course, can always be sent and successfully received between co-located individuals as they pass (eg by radio such as wi-fi) - after all, as stated it's never a problem with standard SR.

At t=11, Neil is co-located with Oliver and Oscar, who both have relative velocity v=0.9c eastwards. Oliver is only interested in receiving the joke and poem for himself (he'll delete them after reading them). Oscar has a penchant for passing on whatever he receives to other people (so could well lead to a message loop ;-) )

So (and bearing in mind that Neil could be either Alice or Dave from our previous Alice,Bob,Charlie,Dave scenario, if that makes any difference ;) ) :

Q1) any disagreements with what I have laid out so far ? eg, are there any circumstances where Neil would not receive the poem as his clock reads t=10 ?

Q2) When Neil sends both emails to Oliver , does Oliver receive both successfully (does the fact he'll never pass them on make any difference) ?

Q3) When Neil sends both emails to Oscar , does Oscar receive both successfully (does the fact he will pass them on make any difference) ?

Q4) Would your answers be any different if v = 0.05c ?

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 7:24:20 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
>
> On Saturday, May 8, 2021 at 12:08:15 AM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, May 7, 2021 at 3:11:11 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
> > >
> > > For example, Figure 7a is at t=0, so A is at (x=0, t=0) in that figure - but C is a good
> > > distance away from A at that time.
> >
> > Yes, you may, of course, insert another observer, call him O, at x' = 0, t' =0 in Figure 7a.
> > C just happens to be not that observer. Then in 7b, O will be at xO = v²L/c² and his
> > clock will read tO' = γ(vL/c² - vxO/c²).
>
> Right - except that doesn't agree with the lengths.
>
> Look at 7b - in the AB frame, D is co-located with B and C is co-located with A. This means
> the distance D to C is L as measured in the AB frame (and therefore proper length = γL ).
>
> Now look at 7a. Still in the AB frame, is the distance D to C still L as measured in the AB
> frame ? No - it's v²L/c² + L/γ² - so proper length = γL(v²/c² + 1/γ²) .

Umm, γL(v²/c² + 1/γ²) = γL(v²/c² + 1 - v²/c²) = γL

> So why has it changed (and which C is the one who will receive that -c²/v tachyon sent from D) ?

From the viewpoint of A and B, it's IOTTMCO.

> But regardless of that, I'm still trying to see if your basic idea is workable - right from the
> start I said my aim was to get a complete statement of your rules, and thus far in I'm still
> no further forward.
>
> For example, take two people (call them Peter and Quentin) at the instant they are passing ,
> either Peter can hand off a message (ANY message) to Quentin, or not. The laws of physics
> - the rules ;) - that determine whether that message can be handed off should be a simple,
> involving only the factors at that event. In all SR scenarios, those rules are very simple - it's
> always "yes, co-located observers can hand off any message at that event"..
>
> But not with your tachyons.
>
> Suddenly, it depends on whether Peter got that message via tachyons or not, and if tachyons
> then how fast those tachyons were travelling compared to the relative speed between Peter
> and Quentin ... but that might all be irrelevant depending on whether there's a message loop
> or not - ie, whether Quentin might decide to keep the message, or passes it on (and if he does
> pass it on, then on who he passes it on to).

Well, Rob, they aren't "my" tachyons. Many have written about tachyons and how they obey the
rules of SR and causality. There has been some disagreement, however, about just HOW they
obey those rules. Several have claimed a "switching" or reinterpretation" "principle" where source
becomes receiver and receiver becomes source. I disagree with that since other observers will
see them continuing on.

IMHO, Morin's rule is paramount when dealing with tachyons. Bright physicists may be able to
go around it when dealing with bradyons and luxons, but there is NO support for doing that with
tachyons. In fact, those who continue to flaunt Morin's rule wind up "proving" that tachyons
violate causality while those who follow it prove that they don't.

Furthermore, following the rule leads to agreement with direct tachyon communication between
sources and receivers in relative motion, which is a VERY strong point in favor of it. So the BIG
rule to follow has been right in front of you:

"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.

Consider it not just "a nice rule to follow when convenient" but a PRINCIPLE.

> > > Since you CAN send me a (near-)infinite speed tachyon message, then what's stopping
> > > that message "inadvertently" getting into a message loop ?
> >
> > With whom? It CAN get in a message loop, but only with frames moving a v < c/1000.
> > Apply the Morin Principle. Does the analyses create two realities or only one?

There ya go.

> > > I say I can hand off all information that I have, regardless of its origin or means of
> transmission to me. I don't see how your qualifier " but that isn't the tachyon signal."
> makes any sense ;)
> >
> > Apply the MP and find out what "makes sense."
>
> No, it doesn't make sense, with or without the MP.

I disagree. It certainly makes sense to plant yourself in one frame, doesn't it?

> So, instead of starting with A,B,C,D up front, let's start from the beginning and see where
> something breaks.
>
> Mark is 100 light-seconds due east of Neil (they are stationary relative to eachother).
> At t= -90, Mark sends Neil a joke by radio, then at t=0, Mark sends Neil a poem via
> 10c tachyons. This means Neil receives both at t=10. He puts the joke in one email,
> the poem in another email. Emails can, of course, can always be sent and successfully
> received between co-located individuals as they pass (eg by radio such as wi-fi) - after
> all, as stated it's never a problem with standard SR.
>
> At t=11, Neil is co-located with Oliver and Oscar, who both have relative velocity v=0.9c
> eastwards. Oliver is only interested in receiving the joke and poem for himself (he'll
> delete them after reading them). Oscar has a penchant for passing on whatever he
> receives to other people (so could well lead to a message loop ;-) )
>
> So (and bearing in mind that Neil could be either Alice or Dave from our previous Alice,
> Bob,Charlie,Dave scenario, if that makes any difference ;) ) :
>
> Q1) any disagreements with what I have laid out so far ? eg, are there any circumstances
> where Neil would not receive the poem as his clock reads t=10 ?

Nope.
> Q2) When Neil sends both emails to Oliver , does Oliver receive both successfully (does
> the fact he'll never pass them on make any difference) ?

Nope. He'll be adjacent to Mark at t = 11 + 100/0.9 = 122

> Q3) When Neil sends both emails to Oscar , does Oscar receive both successfully (does
> the fact he will pass them on make any difference) ?

Nope. He'll be adjacent to Mark at t = 11 + 100/0.9 = 122

> Q4) Would your answers be any different if v = 0.05c ?

Why would it be? I don't see any point to this exercise, Rob. You haven't set up a proper
A, B, C, D scenario. You need to have someone adjacent to Mark when O gets the message
in order to contrive an apparent causality violation.

And if you plant yourself in the M-M frame, there's no way causality can be violated because
O's clock will be behind the clock of the guy beside Mark. Now plant yourself in the O-O
frame. To them, Mark's clock will be ahead of Neil's clock. Get it, Rob? When you do the
complete analysis from one frame, you CAN'T violate causality!

Frame-jumpers violate reality.