On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 9:34:23 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 6:27:26 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > The reason you believe that it does violate PoR seems to be because you haven't updated your
> > knowledge of what "my theory" is since an earlier paper that had three versions in which I was
> > groping towards what it is now. The one I submitted to a journal is quite polished, IMHO. It's out
> > for review now, and I listed Morin, Mermin, Schwartz, Norton and others as potential reviewers.
> > So we'll see how your accusations stack up :-)
>
> It doesn't "stack up". Because it is still utter crankerry. Here is why:
>
> You either:
>
> 1. Restrict the tachyon speed to u<c^2/v
>
> or
>
> 2. Restrict the relative speed of frames to v<c^2/u
>
> In the domains above the restrictions mentioned above you refuse to admit the creation of causal
> loops.

You are wrong, erroneous-breath. Those limitations eliminate causal loops. Had you studied
mathematics, as I have, you may have not made this glaring error.

> Face it Gary, you are a crank of the Ken Shito caliber.

Face it DON'tknOw, you see only what you are inside.

On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 10:21:33 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 9:34:23 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 6:27:26 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The reason you believe that it does violate PoR seems to be because you haven't updated your
> > > knowledge of what "my theory" is since an earlier paper that had three versions in which I was
> > > groping towards what it is now. The one I submitted to a journal is quite polished, IMHO. It's out
> > > for review now, and I listed Morin, Mermin, Schwartz, Norton and others as potential reviewers.
> > > So we'll see how your accusations stack up :-)
> >
> > It doesn't "stack up". Because it is still utter crankerry. Here is why:
> >
> > You either:
> >
> > 1. Restrict the tachyon speed to u<c^2/v
> >
> > or
> >
> > 2. Restrict the relative speed of frames to v<c^2/u
> >
> > In the domains above the restrictions mentioned above you refuse to admit the creation of causal
> > loops.
Those limitations eliminate causal loops.

Crank,

1. For tachyon speeds u>c^2/v you have an infinity of examples of causal loops
2. For relative frame speeds c^2/u<v<c you have an infinity of examples of causal loops

You are a very hardened crank

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> It was an absurd claim for a couple of reasons. One is that tachyons
> can't violate causality.
> The other is that I believe neutrinos are tachyons and most of them will
> go right through any detector a present-observer would have But a
> totally absurd claim was perpetrated by everyone that developed the
> equation of motion of the tachyon signal and then extended it into
> domains where it becomes nonsense.

Write down the gamma for tachyon then. You can't have it without gamma.
Let me see your apparatus.

On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 12:07:40 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 10:21:33 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 9:34:23 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 6:27:26 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The reason you believe that it does violate PoR seems to be because you haven't updated your
> > > > knowledge of what "my theory" is since an earlier paper that had three versions in which I was
> > > > groping towards what it is now. The one I submitted to a journal is quite polished, IMHO. It's out
> > > > for review now, and I listed Morin, Mermin, Schwartz, Norton and others as potential reviewers.
> > > > So we'll see how your accusations stack up :-)
> > >
> > > It doesn't "stack up". Because it is still utter crankerry. Here is why:
> > >
> > > You either:
> > >
> > > 1. Restrict the tachyon speed to u<c^2/v
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > 2. Restrict the relative speed of frames to v<c^2/u
> > >
> > > In the domains above the restrictions mentioned above you refuse to admit the creation of causal
> > > loops.
>
> Those limitations eliminate causal loops.
>
> Crank,

Ignoramus.

> 1. For tachyon speeds u>c^2/v you have an infinity of examples of causal loops

But such speeds aren't possible according to the MS.

t = vL/c²:
C --> v _____ u' <--- D --> v
A _______________ B
xA = 0, xB = L

What is tC'? (Hint for ignoramuses: tC' = γvL/c²)
What is tD? (Hint for ignoramuses: tD' = 0)

Following Morin's strategy, what is the most negative possible velocity for u'?
(Hint for ignoramuses: u' = (0 - γL)/(γvL/c² - 0)

> 2. For relative frame speeds c^2/u<v<c you have an infinity of examples of causal
> loops

You believe turning an equation around changes anything?

> You are a very hardened crank

You are a very ignorant ignoramus.

On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 4:11:31 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > 1. For tachyon speeds u>c^2/v you have an infinity of examples of causal loops
> But such speeds aren't possible according to the MS.
You are resorting to outright lies, tachyons can have any speed.

> > 2. For relative frame speeds c^2/u<v<c you have an infinity of examples of causal
> > loops
> You believe turning an equation around changes anything?

It simply points out your imbecility <shrug>

On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 6:11:31 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > 1. For tachyon speeds u>c^2/v you have an infinity of examples of causal loops
> But such speeds aren't possible according to the MS.

Why should the maximum speed of signals within a frame be
dependent on v, the frame's motions with respect to another
frame? You propose a violent rejection of the PoR.

On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 6:16:46 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 6:11:31 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > 1. For tachyon speeds u>c^2/v you have an infinity of examples of causal loops
> >
> > But such speeds aren't possible according to the MS.
>
> Why should the maximum speed of signals within a frame be
> dependent on v, the frame's motions with respect to another
> frame? You propose a violent rejection of the PoR.

YOU propose a violent rejection of RoS:

t = vL/c²:
C --> v _____ u' <--- D --> v
A _______________ B
xA = 0, xB = L

Do you deny that tC' = γvL/c²?
Do you deny that tD' = 0?

If you deny that, then you disagree with RoS and YOU are a relativity-denier.
If you DON'T deny it, then you can graduate from Relativity 101.

If YOU believe that D can send a signal to C at tC' = 0 (causing time in S to
go backward), then YOU are a reality-denier.

So I'M the one embracing relativity and YOU are denying it.

On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 8:05:17 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> If YOU believe that D can send a signal to C at tC' = 0 (causing time in S to
> go backward), then YOU are a reality-denier.
>
> So I'M the one embracing relativity and YOU are denying it.

Do you not understand? It is your insistence that FTL signaling exists
that leads to all of this. The only way that you manage to accommodate
the existence of FTL signaling without leading to causality violation is
for you to abandon the PoR, by proposing that the maximum speed of
FTL signaling is a function of v, the relative speed of a frame with
respect to some other frame. This is ***ABSURD***. The PoR is one of
the most basic underlying principles of physics.

Therefore, FTL signaling must be rejected.

On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 8:36:50 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 8:05:17 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > If YOU believe that D can send a signal to C at tC' = 0 (causing time in S to
> > go backward), then YOU are a reality-denier.
> >
> > So I'M the one embracing relativity and YOU are denying it.\
>
> Do you not understand? It is your insistence that FTL signaling exists
> that leads to all of this.

That is absolutely false, Prok. It's YOUR insistence that you can jump frames
with impunity that leads to the false assertion that tachyons violate causality.

> The only way that you manage to accommodate
> the existence of FTL signaling without leading to causality violation is
> for you to abandon the PoR,

Nope. It's YOUR insistence that RpS doesn't matter. That you can sweep it
aside by jumping frames.

> by proposing that the maximum speed of FTL signaling is a function of v,
> the relative speed of a frame with respect to some other frame.

Which is a rock-solid conclusion for communication BETWEEN moving frames.
You STILL have refused to properly address that scenario which completely
destroys your argument about PoR in that context, and weakens your argument
for hand-off scenarios to the point of absurdity.

> This is ***ABSURD***. The PoR is one of the most basic underlying principles
> of physics.

So is RoS.

> Therefore, FTL signaling must be rejected.

Au contraire, mon ami. You're failing to understand that obeying RoS saves PoR,
too. I notice that you refuse to address this also:

t = 0:
C --> v __________ D --> v
____A---> w____________ B
xA = 0, xB = L

t = vL/c²:
____ C --> v _____ u' <--- D --> v
____ A _______________ B
Do you deny that tC' = γvL/c²?
Do you deny that tD' = 0?

Apparently, you do. You pretend that tachyons do something different from what is
observed by A and B in the S frame. The above scenario violates neither RoS nor PoR
provided we follow Morin's strategy.

Let's look at YOUR Figure 4-4 scenario:

t = 0:
C --> v _________ D --> v
A ___________________ B
xA = 0, xB = L
tC' = 0

t = vL/c²:
____ C --> v ____ u' <--- D --> v
A ___________________ B
xC = v²L/c², xD = L
tC' = vL/γc², tD' = 0

You somehow believe that you can evade C at xC = v²L/c² and pick C at xC = 0 out of
the past. THAT operation is what destroys PoR, RoS and causality. But it's a canard.
The graphic above shows that if you follow Morin's strategy, the loop cannot be made
from the perspective of S. Now let's look at it from the perspective of S':

t' = 0
v <-- A __________________ v <-- B
____ C _______________________ D

tA = 0, tB = vL/c²

So from this viewpoint, D must send the signal at u' = -∞ to C and C passes it to A at
tA = 0. But using MS, A must send it to B at w = c²/v. Don't you see? A MUST send it
at c²/v because, in the S frame, B and D aren't adjacent at t = 0! It shows up in S as a
distance, but it shows up in S' as a time. The c²/v factor is the result of RoS.
And if A sent it at w = ∞, B wouldn't be adjacent to D and would have to wait.

So there is no causality violation as perceived from S' (∆t = 0), but from S there is either
a causality violation using YOUR baloney that forces S to go backward in time. or there
no possible loop using MS, this proves that the scenario is not viable since it presents
two different realities.

This is YOUR scenario, Prok. It's YOUR mistaken beliefs that caused the asserted
causality violation (which doesn't happen from the S' perspective) and PoR violation..

Tachyons don't violate causality, people do, YOU do.

On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 11:42:54 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> This is YOUR scenario, Prok. It's YOUR mistaken beliefs that caused the asserted
> causality violation (which doesn't happen from the S' perspective) and PoR violation..
>
> Tachyons don't violate causality, people do, YOU do.

I'm sorry, Gary. You don't even count as a rank beginner.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> by proposing that the maximum speed of FTL signaling is a function of
>> v,
>> the relative speed of a frame with respect to some other frame.
>
> Which is a rock-solid conclusion for communication BETWEEN moving
> frames.
> You STILL have refused to properly address that scenario which
> completely destroys your argument about PoR in that context, and weakens
> your argument for hand-off scenarios to the point of absurdity.

Not sure, but you are posting in a thread entitled:

Re: Crank Gary harnagel perseveres

are you sure?

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> by proposing that the maximum speed of FTL signaling is a function of
>> v, the relative speed of a frame with respect to some other frame.
>
> Which is a rock-solid conclusion for communication BETWEEN moving
> frames. You STILL have refused to properly address that scenario which
> completely destroys your argument about PoR in that context, and weakens
> your argument for hand-off scenarios to the point of absurdity.

I am asking this because I see no mathematics in your repertoire. Arrows,
arrows, arrows my ass. Everybody can draw colored arrows, not a big deal.
Shall I draw some sets of colored arrows refuting your colored arrows?

Btw, population reduction through cooked gain-of-function super-viruses
is permitted and supported due "national security" issues. Here you have
it.

SarsCov2 ManMade from Wuhan Labs Fauci knew All about it the Whole Time!!!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/deOVpIBcO3Y/

Fauci: "Doctor Bareek is NOT doing gain-of-function research, and if it
is, it's a ..."

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> 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.

Excuse me sir your sarcasm is dripping.. could you please put on a moldy
cloth diaper over your mouth to keep that from spreading??

On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 2:37:28 AM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 11:42:54 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > This is YOUR scenario, Prok. It's YOUR mistaken beliefs that caused the asserted
> > causality violation (which doesn't happen from the S' perspective) and PoR violation..
> >
> > Tachyons don't violate causality, people do, YOU do.
>
> I'm sorry, Gary. You don't even count as a rank beginner.

You are wrong, derogatory-breath. Rather than address the serious issues, you make
arrogant pronouncements from Mt. Olympus. And you tell yourself lies.

Your Figure 4-4 is in serious trouble and you sit there fat, dumb and happy about it,
refusing to even admit the slightest possibility that you might be wrong.

You'd better STUDY what I wrote in my last message that you dismissed and deleted,
because it's gonna come back and bite your behind.

Look, Prok, it's normal to feel defensive when one's pet theory is criticized, but we must
rise above the normal thing, which engenders knee-jerk reactions, and do what humans
do best: THINK!

“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am
persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

“What is the necessary direction of evolution to the next dominant
species?” …. “To be able to think better.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

“We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct
answers…. Most people do that stunt just well enough to get to
the corner store and back without breaking a leg.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 2:25:30 AM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 6:25:21 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:

> > > 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.
> >
> > Alternatively, those who "jump frames" are able to do so because there is a single reality, and
> > different frames are simply different viewpoints on that single reality..
> And we've found that too many tachyon causality-violation "proofs" lack that single reality.
> Thus the initial arrangement is bogus.

Nope, it's that the tachyon causality-violation proofs expose the lack of a single reality inherent when trying to combine RoS with FTL signals such as tachyons ;-P

This can be seen if we forget about the message loop, and consider something even more fundamental - how the two (contradictory) realities are created from one tachyon signal, such as that from D to C.

We can give C a marker, like a nail-gun with just a single nail. At any instant, C can fire that nail into the ground - but not the CD frame's ground, but the AB frame's ground (eg, if we imagine CD as a train passing the AB platform, passenger C on the train marks that point on the platform that he is passing at that instant).

For example, it C fires that nail at the instant he is passing A, then that nail would be (and remain) at A's feet - AND **EVERYBODY** WOULD AGREE IT IS THERE. It is a fact that will remain true even at the end of the scenario.

Like wise, if C fired that nail when he was NOT co-located with A, then it would not end up at A's feet - and again, everybody would agree that it is not with A.

Consistency (ie, a SINGLE reality) would be where everybody (in both frames) EITHER agrees that the nail is at A's feet, OR agrees that the nail is not at A's feet.

Contradiction (ie, two realities) is where one frame says that the nail is at A's feet, but the other frame says that it is not.

So, with C suitably armed and ready, let's consider A,B,C,D from the viewpoint of standard SR (inc RoS).

At the instant that B and D are co-located, then we have :
- In the AB frame, C is co-located with A
- In the CD frame, C is still approaching (so some distance away from) A

It is important to emphasise that this is NOT two realities, but the single reality that is simply being viewed from two viewpoints (ie two frames).

This means that all the usual SR scenarios (pole/barn, or train-in-tunnel, etc) remain consistent under the usual SR rules (signals not exceeding c). In particular, if any observer C-with-nailgun was introduced into any of these, consistency would be maintained (ie, both frames would always agree with the final location of the nail).

So now, let's introduce tachyons. D will send a tachyon to C, who will fire his nailgun at the instant he receives it (effectively, the "nail" could therefore be considered "the message").

OPTION 1 - D emits infinite speed tachyon
1-AB frame) Nail ends up at A's feet
1-CD frame) Nail ends up some distance away from A (as C fired the nailgun while still approaching A)

Oh-oh - Two realities - CONTRADICTION. That single nail can only end up at one location - either at A's feet or not at A's feet. Let's try :

OPTION 2 - D emits tachyon at velocity -c²/v
2-AB frame) Nail ends up between A and B (as C fired the nailgun some time after passing - and so some distance away from - A)
2-CD frame) Nail ends up at A's feet

So still two realities - CONTRADICTION.

As I say, you've been taking the contradiction inherent in trying to apply tachyons under RoS, and claiming that that contradiction was introduced by the analysis, so tachyons under RoS is fine. It isn't - tachyons under RoS is the contradiction ;-)

On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 9:32:43 PM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 2:25:30 AM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 6:25:21 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Alternatively, those who "jump frames" are able to do so because there is a single reality, and
> > > different frames are simply different viewpoints on that single reality.
> >
> > And we've found that too many tachyon causality-violation "proofs" lack that single reality.
> > Thus the initial arrangement is bogus.
>
> Nope, it's that the tachyon causality-violation proofs expose the lack of a single reality inherent when
> trying to combine RoS with FTL signals such as tachyons ;-P

But there ARE scenarios which have that single reality, even with RoS.

> This can be seen if we forget about the message loop, and consider something even more fundamental
> - how the two (contradictory) realities are created from one tachyon signal, such as that from D to C.
>
> We can give C a marker, like a nail-gun with just a single nail. At any instant, C can fire that nail into the
> ground - but not the CD frame's ground, but the AB frame's ground (eg, if we imagine CD as a train passing
> the AB platform, passenger C on the train marks that point on the platform that he is passing at that instant).
>
> For example, it C fires that nail at the instant he is passing A, then that nail would be (and remain) at A's feet
> - AND **EVERYBODY** WOULD AGREE IT IS THERE. It is a fact that will remain true even at the end of the
> scenario.
>
> Like wise, if C fired that nail when he was NOT co-located with A, then it would not end up at A's feet - and
> again, everybody would agree that it is not with A.
>
> Consistency (ie, a SINGLE reality) would be where everybody (in both frames) EITHER agrees that the nail
> is at A's feet, OR agrees that the nail is not at A's feet.
>
> Contradiction (ie, two realities) is where one frame says that the nail is at A's feet, but the other frame says that
> it is not.
>
> So, with C suitably armed and ready, let's consider A,B,C,D from the viewpoint of standard SR (inc RoS).
>
> At the instant that B and D are co-located, then we have :
> - In the AB frame, C is co-located with A
> - In the CD frame, C is still approaching (so some distance away from) A

t = 0:
C --> v ___________ D --> v
A ________________ B

t' = -γvL/c²
v <-- A _________ v <-- B
C __________________ D

> It is important to emphasise that this is NOT two realities, but the single reality that is simply being
> viewed from two viewpoints (ie two frames).

But of course!

> This means that all the usual SR scenarios (pole/barn, or train-in-tunnel, etc) remain consistent under
> the usual SR rules (signals not exceeding c). In particular, if any observer C-with-nailgun was introduced
> into any of these, consistency would be maintained (ie, both frames would always agree with the final
> location of the nail).
>
> So now, let's introduce tachyons. D will send a tachyon to C, who will fire his nailgun at the instant he
> receives it (effectively, the "nail" could therefore be considered "the message").

From B, or he initiates the message himself.

> OPTION 1 - D emits infinite speed tachyon
> 1-AB frame) Nail ends up at A's feet

t = 0:
C --> v ________ u' = -∞ <---- D --> v
A _______________________ B

> 1-CD frame) Nail ends up some distance away from A (as C fired the nailgun while still approaching A)
>
> Oh-oh - Two realities - CONTRADICTION. That single nail can only end up at one location - either at A's
> feet or not at A's feet. Let's try :

t' = -γvL/c²
v <-- A ______________ v <-- B
C u' = -∞ <---- _____________ D

Thus D CANNOT send the signal at u' = -∞.

> OPTION 2 - D emits tachyon at velocity -c²/v
> 2-AB frame) Nail ends up between A and B (as C fired the nailgun some time after passing - and so
> some distance away from - A)

t = 0:
C --> v _____ u' = -c²/v <---- D --> v
A _______________________ B

> 2-CD frame) Nail ends up at A's feet

t' = -γvL/c²
v <-- A ___________________ v <-- B
____ ____C u' = -c²/v <---- __________ D

> So still two realities - CONTRADICTION.
>
> As I say, you've been taking the contradiction inherent in trying to apply tachyons under RoS, and
> claiming that that contradiction was introduced by the analysis, so tachyons under RoS is fine. It isn't
> - tachyons under RoS is the contradiction ;-)

You are wrong, contradiction breath. All you've shown is that the particular arrangement you've set
up causes contradiction, but that doesn't mean it's that tachyons can't exist. It means that tachyons
can't complete a message loop under that particular scenario, and that's because you must place
C (in S) to the left of A when the signal from D is launched, so C receives it when A is adjacent.
Problem solved, as demonstrated by Figure 7.

Look, Rob, Mermin in "It's About Time," Tipler and Llewellyn in "Classical Physics," Norton in "PS-0410/
chapters/spacetime-tachyon," and others have all used the relatively-moving source and receiver mode
rather than the hand-off method that we've been discussing. They concluded that tachyons violated
causality in that mode, but they were completely and disastrously wrong because they didn't consider
the fact that tachyon energy was frame-dependent. Taking that into account, A could not receive a
tachyon signal directly from D, so neither method works with your scenario. Figure 7 works with BOTH
modes of delivery, and they agree AND they obey RoS AND they don't violate causality AND they don't
violate PoR. When tachyons are demonstrated to exist and experiments are performed on them, THIS
is the way they'll work, and all the bogus arguments about violation of PoR and this and that will be
buried for good.

On Monday, May 17, 2021 at 8:31:53 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> All you've shown is that the particular arrangement you've set
> up causes contradiction, but that doesn't mean it's that tachyons can't exist.

Dumbestfuck,

One contradiction is sufficient. As pointed out earlier:

1. One contradiction is sufficient (learn "proof by contradiction" in the scientific method)
2. In reality, there is an infinity of contradictions. This happens for the domains:
2a. u>c^2/v
2b. c^2/u<v<c

where u is the tachyon speed, v is the relative speed between frames