On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 4:28:36 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Monday, May 17, 2021 at 6:32:58 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, May 17, 2021 at 3:42:09 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. A consequence of the PoR is that no change of frame can alter reality.
> >
> > I guess that depends on what you mean by "reality," Prok. I measure your clock as
> > running slow as you go ... running past me,, you measure it as running at its usual speed.
> > Remember this now ...
>
> (sigh)
> Although some physical quantities are measured as having the
> different values when measured from different frames, the laws
> of physics must hold true in all frames. See Halliday and Resnick,
> chapter 7-2 (depending on edition), "Reference frames".

Sure, but you've made false claims.

> > > 2. In other words, if a superluminal signal is transmitted from event D to event C,
> > > observers in all frames will agree that a signal was transmitted from D to C.
> >
> > Will they? A signal? They will know that there are two events, E1 and E2. How will
> > they know that a signal was sent?
> > (1) They will detect the signal themselves (not possible for ALL observers), or
> > (2) Observers who sent and received the signal will report that they did so, or
> > (3) The observers or their minions passing E1 and E2 will verify that E1 and E2 occurred.
>
> Let transmission of a signal cause a transmission receipt to be printed.
> Let receipt of a signal cause a firecracker to go off.
> All observers will agree that a transmission receipt was printed, and
> that the firecracker exploded.

Exactly what I said: E1 and E2.

> Observers will disagree on whether printing of the receipt occurred
> before or after the firecracker exploded.

Sure. So what? You seem to believe that what some passing observer sees must be the same
as ALL observer sees. What has that to do with the laws of physics or causality? There's
nothing in either that requires that E2 precede E1.

> > > 3. Since D and C are spacelike-separated, RoS tells us that an infinity of frames exist
> > > in which D is observed as before C, D is observed as after C, and D and C are
> > > simultaneous.
> > > 4. Simultaneous D and C implies infinite velocity tachyons. There is no such thing
> > > as a limit on tachyon speed. The "energy conditions" that Gary cites as preventing
> > > infinite speed signals simply do not make sense.
> >
> > Only if you stick your head in the sand and ignore DIRECT signaling between source
> > and receiver in relative motion. For that mode, it is IOTTMCO that signal speed is limited
> > to c²/v one way and infinity the other, at least observers who know that that tachyon
> > speeds are frame dependent:
> >
> > C --> v ________________ D --> v
> > A _____________________ B
> >
> > How fast can D send a signal directly to A?
> >
> > If he sends it almost infinitely fast, it has nearly no energy. C can barely detect it. If D sent
> > it AT u' = -∞, C couldn't detect it.
> >
> > Now suppose that D sent it at u' = -c²/v + ε. A can barely detect it. If D sent it at u' = -c²/v,
> > A cannot detect it.
> >
> > This makes perfect sense, since tA = 0 while tD' = -γvL/c² and tC' = 0. Furthermore, the
> > velocity of the signal in S is
> >
> > u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c²)
> >
> > For u' = -c²/v, u = -∞. So now A sends the signal back to D, and she must send it at (nearly)
> > w = c²/v. D will receive it at tD' = 0. Round-trip time = vL/c² in S, γvL/c² in S'.
> >
> > I consider this mode of communication the sine qua non of the argument. If two moving
> > observers can't communicate faster that c²/v, then adding more observers can't either.
> > Why the c²/v limit? It comes from RoS.
> >
> > Using Morin's strategy, why must D send the signal to C at tC' = tD' + γvL/c²? Because of RoS.
> >
> > > If superluminal signaling from
> > > D to C is observed in *any* frame, the signaling must be observable in all frames
> > > regardless of the temporal relationship between D and C.
> >
> > This is a false requirement, a hold-over from pre-tachyon rules, as pointed out above.
> >
> > > 5. I see no creation of multiple realities resulting merely from the hypothesized
> > > existence of tachyons.
> > > 6. Creation of multiple realities comes about when Gary imposes rules to prevent
> > > signals from traveling from D to C when C is before D.
> >
> > I'm not the one doing that, Prok, YOU are. I'm saying that from S, D must send it at -c²/v
> > or RoS is violated. If he sends it at -∞, it violates RoS AND PoR.
> >
> > That is, if one wishes to complete a loop. Certainly, D can send a signal to C at -∞,
> > and A and B will claim that E1 and E2 are reversed. It happens all the time because
> > tC' - tD' = γvL/c². You pick a v and that determines ∆t' = tC' - tD'. Causality doesn't
> > enter into it until you try to form a loop. That's prevented because you can't make a
> > valid loop AND violate RoS and PoR.
> >
> > Notice in the direct communication mode, no observer moving faster than v can
> > detect the signal that A sends to B. Any observer detecting the signal that D sends
> > to C will be moving at v1 in a range that will guarantee that he can't violate causality
> > by participating in the loop.
> >
> > There's enough about this. Let's wait and see what the reviewers say.
>
> Any good peer-reviewed journal will reject your paper.

Wow! Now you're like Dono, standing on Mt. Olympus and predicting the future. And you
do this with ZERO comments about all I wrote above. What's the matter? Can't refute it
so you just make a vacuous claim of foreknowledge?

Certainly it WILL be rejected if all the reviewers have closed minds, but not all do. For
example:

https://physics.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/charles-schwartz

Int. J. Mod. Phys A 33, 1850056 (2018) arXiv:1710.09904

International Journal of Modern Physics A Vol. 31, No. 9 (2016) 1650041

https://archive.org/details/arxiv-1104.2927/page/n1/mode/2up

There WAS Robert Ehrlich, but he inconveniently died this past January. But there are others
who I listed as potential reviewers who will, hopefully, still have some intellectual flexibility :-),
such as David Morin, David Mermin and John Norton. I panned Mermin's and Norton's
conclusions about tachyons in the paper, so we'll see how that goes :-)

I submitted it April 27th and a few days later it was "out for review." It's been "under review"
for over two weeks now, which is encouraging since the editor didn't reject it. I figure the
longer it's "under review," the better since it's not being rejected out of hand.

There isn't unanimity of thought about tachyons as you seem to believe.

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:25:42 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 4:28:36 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Any good peer-reviewed journal will reject your paper.
> Wow! Now you're like Dono, standing on Mt. Olympus and predicting the future. And you
> do this with ZERO comments about all I wrote above. What's the matter? Can't refute it
> so you just make a vacuous claim of foreknowledge?

You must not have been read ANY of my voluminous previous replies
to you on this subject, or studied ANY of my many illustrations. Sad.

You make the laws of physics in a frame dependent on v. Without
needing to go into superfluous detail, that sinks your proposal.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> Observers will disagree on whether printing of the receipt occurred
>> before or after the firecracker exploded.
>
> Sure. So what? You seem to believe that what some passing observer
> sees must be the same as ALL observer sees. What has that to do with
> the laws of physics or causality? There's nothing in either that
> requires that E2 precede E1.

Nonsense. You can't eat the egg before having it, crashed and swallowed
into your stomach. Try it, tell me what you got, we are here to help. As
Dr. Mitchell says "there is a *big_bang_zero* order", which is Entropy.

Basically, nr one indicator for a crappy "theory" is the destruction of
Entropy. Something you most certainly didn't even know. And *slow_now*,
that you know, you don't want to know. And since you do, nobody want play
balls with you.

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 1:31:53 AM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 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.

Nope. For every tachyon signal, I can introduce another frame that will lead to a contradiction with where the receiver's "nail" will end up ;-)

> > 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' = -∞.

Hold on - d "CANNOT" ???

First let's reiterate what I stated above : this nailgun scenario is not about completing a message loop, but is more fundamental than that. Having different frames have the nail ending up in different locations is contradiction enough.

Throughout all our discussions, you have been happy that any individual CAN send a tachyon at speed = at (or near) ∞, claiming instead that such tachyons could not be used to make a message loop.

but this scenario is not about completing a message loop. It's simply one person sending an at (or near) ∞ tachyon to another person in the same frame.

That led to a contradiction. Are you now accepting that any person CANNOT send tachyons at (or near) ∞, PERIOD ?

> > 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.

Except this "particular arrangement" is totally general.

There is only ONE tachyon being sent (again, this scenario is not about completing a message loop).
That "c²/v" evaluates to an actual velocity eg, for c²/v = 10c ..
That means for ANY tachyon velocity (eg 10c) leads to the relative velocity of a frame (eg, 10c tachyon => v=0.1c) that results in a contradiction..

In other words, ANY one tachyon signal leads to a contradiction.

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 7:42:09 AM UTC+10, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 10:32:43 PM UTC-5, 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:
> >
> > > > 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.
> I'm not sure about this argument of yours that we can forget about message loops.

A message loop is a causality violation, but that is not the only problem with tachyons - rather, ALL contradictions must be avoided. My argument is that, even without message loops, a contradiction is always present for any FTL signal.

That is, for any tachyon signal between an emitter and receiver in the same frame, a second frame can always be introduced that would lead to that contradiction - hence that signal would be disallowed.

>
> 1. A consequence of the PoR is that no change of frame can alter reality.
> 2. In other words, if a superluminal signal is transmitted from event D to event C,
> observers in all frames will agree that a signal was transmitted from D to C.
> 3. Since D and C are spacelike-separated, RoS tells us that an infinity of frames exist
> in which D is observed as before C, D is observed as after C, and D and C are
> simultaneous.

Yes, but it's not only timings, but locations. Picture the Pole-Barn scenario (which, actually, is what Gary's A,B,C,D is). At the instant that the front tip of the pole (D) is at the barn exit (B), the back tip of the pole (C) is just at the barn entrance A (in the AB barn frame) or is still well outside the barn still approaching A (in the CD frame).

It is that difference in location of C due to RoS that I am illustrating with the nail being fired by C "at that instant", and it is that contradiction of the nail's location that contradicts infinite-speed tachyons .... but not only infinite-speed, but lower speed tachyons as well, since that contradiction only vanishes (ie, the nail is at one location agreed by all frames) when the speed of the signal being sent from D to C is reduced to c.

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 7:22:24 AM UTC-5, Rob Acraman wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 7:42:09 AM UTC+10, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 10:32:43 PM UTC-5, 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:
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> > I'm not sure about this argument of yours that we can forget about message loops.
> A message loop is a causality violation, but that is not the only problem with tachyons - rather, ALL contradictions must be avoided. My argument is that, even without message loops, a contradiction is always present for any FTL signal.
>
> That is, for any tachyon signal between an emitter and receiver in the same frame, a second frame can always be introduced that would lead to that contradiction - hence that signal would be disallowed.

There was at least one previous attempt to demonstrate contradictions
inherent in one-way superluminal signaling, which didn't work out.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.05632

> > 1. A consequence of the PoR is that no change of frame can alter reality.
> > 2. In other words, if a superluminal signal is transmitted from event D to event C,
> > observers in all frames will agree that a signal was transmitted from D to C.
> > 3. Since D and C are spacelike-separated, RoS tells us that an infinity of frames exist
> > in which D is observed as before C, D is observed as after C, and D and C are
> > simultaneous.
> Yes, but it's not only timings, but locations. Picture the Pole-Barn scenario (which, actually, is what Gary's A,B,C,D is). At the instant that the front tip of the pole (D) is at the barn exit (B), the back tip of the pole (C) is just at the barn entrance A (in the AB barn frame) or is still well outside the barn still approaching A (in the CD frame).
>
> It is that difference in location of C due to RoS that I am illustrating with the nail being fired by C "at that instant", and it is that contradiction of the nail's location that contradicts infinite-speed tachyons .... but not only infinite-speed, but lower speed tachyons as well, since that contradiction only vanishes (ie, the nail is at one location agreed by all frames) when the speed of the signal being sent from D to C is reduced to c.

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 9:56:03 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:25:42 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 4:28:36 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Any good peer-reviewed journal will reject your paper.
> >
> > Wow! Now you're like Dono, standing on Mt. Olympus and predicting the future. And you
> > do this with ZERO comments about all I wrote above. What's the matter? Can't refute it
> > so you just make a vacuous claim of foreknowledge?
>
> You must not have been read ANY of my voluminous previous replies
> to you on this subject, or studied ANY of my many illustrations. Sad.
>
> You make the laws of physics in a frame dependent on v. Without
> needing to go into superfluous detail, that sinks your proposal.

Au contraire, mon ami. I HAVE read your voluminous replies and I seriously considered them.
YOU must not have read my acknowledgments in https://vixra.org/pdf/2011.0076v1.pdf:

"The author thanks R.T. Longo for helpful discussions and members of the Google
sci.physics.relativity discussion group for ardently presenting the mainstream view."

I would have included your name, too, if I knew what it was because your replies were a
significant, probably indispensable, part of the development from a naive position to a robust
position. Many years ago, I started thinking about FTL and concluded that c²/v was key, but
I couldn't figure out how to apply it rigorously. I found it when I stumbled into the fact that
energy is important. That should have happened sooner because I was taught during my
oral exam that most physics problems can be solved from energy considerations.

As I said to Rob, I consider the understanding of direct communication between source and
receiver in relative motion to be absolutely crucial to solving the causality problem. Anyone
who dismisses this while claiming FTL violates causality, PoR (or whatever) isn't being
intellectually honest. Ignoring energy, as Mermin, Norton, Tipler and Llewellyn and others
have done in their analyses, was fatal to their incorrect conclusions. The "hand-off" method
still presented a problem. I moved in the right direction to do that in the title of 2011.0076,
"Tachyons from a Laboratory Perspective." That was before I came across Morin's Strategy.
Once I saw that, I knew the "hand-off" problem was put to rest. I wrote my new paper and
submitted it for peer review.

I find it stunning that you and Rob refuse to grasp something so obvious, deprecating MS as
valid only for "beginners."

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 8:04:23 AM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> I find it stunning that you and Rob refuse to grasp something so obvious,
> deprecating MS as valid only for "beginners."

As I have stated, you are WORSE than a beginner. Not only have
you not mastered even the basics, the more you develop your
own "theory", the further and further behind beginner-level you
drift.

As I've stated before, you make the laws of physics in a frame
dependent on v. This fact by itself, and without my needing to
go into superfluous detail, totally sinks your proposal, since
that means that your proposal discards the PoR.

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 6:33:44 AM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 7:22:24 AM UTC-5, Rob Acraman wrote:
> >
> > That is, for any tachyon signal between an emitter and receiver in the same frame,
> > a second frame can always be introduced that would lead to that contradiction - hence
> > that signal would be disallowed.

Perhaps you're overstating the definition of "contradiction." You have a signal sent, E1 and
a nail being driven, E2. So you're demanding that E1 must ALWAYS precede E2?

> There was at least one previous attempt to demonstrate contradictions
> inherent in one-way superluminal signaling, which didn't work out.
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.05632

This is the direct communication method between source and receiver in relative motion,
which is clearly dealt with by realizing that energy is frame-dependent.

--------
> > It is that difference in location of C due to RoS that I am illustrating with the nail being
> fired by C "at that instant", and it is that contradiction of the nail's location that contradicts
> infinite-speed tachyons .... but not only infinite-speed, but lower speed tachyons as well,
> since that contradiction only vanishes (ie, the nail is at one location agreed by all frames)
> when the speed of the signal being sent from D to C is reduced to c.

So let's say that A sends a signal to B infinitely-fast which prompts B to drive a nail in ... S.
We have E1 = (0,0) and E2 = (L,0). We also have C at (0,0), [0,0] moving to the right at v and D at
(L,0), [γL,-γvL/c²] also moving to the right at v:

t = 0:
C --> v ______________ D --> v
A ----> w = ∞ ________ B

So the nail is at (L, 0), [γL, -γvL/c²]. So far, no violation of PoR or RoS, only a pseudo-violation
of pseudo-causality. C needs to be at (0,0) to record that A sent the signal and D needs to be
at (L,0) to record the fact that the nail was driven. They will claim that the nail was driven
before the signal was sent:

t' = -γvL/c²:
___ v <-- A __________ B
C __________________ D

t' = 0:
___ v <-- A __________ B
________C __________________ D

Note that if C received an infinitely-fast signal from D that the nail was driven at t' = -γvL/c²,
C couldn't pass that message to A before t' = 0, and A couldn't send a signal to B before tB =0.
IOW, B couldn't receive a message that the nail was driven before B drove it.

It makes absolutely no difference whether or not S' thinks that E1 happened after E2.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> > That is, for any tachyon signal between an emitter and receiver in
>> > the same frame,
>> > a second frame can always be introduced that would lead to that
>> > contradiction - hence that signal would be disallowed.
>
> Perhaps you're overstating the definition of "contradiction." You have
> a signal sent, E1 and a nail being driven, E2. So you're demanding that
> E1 must ALWAYS precede E2?

You are reversing the Entropy, which is the time arrow, something you may
not do under any circumstances. In 100% laminar flow you could reverse
the position in space, kiss my ass, but not NEVER the arrow of time.

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 7:11:39 AM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 8:04:23 AM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > I find it stunning that you and Rob refuse to grasp something so obvious,
> > deprecating MS as valid only for "beginners."
>
> As I have stated, you are WORSE than a beginner. Not only have
> you not mastered even the basics, the more you develop your
> own "theory", the further and further behind beginner-level you
> drift.

:-))

> As I've stated before, you make the laws of physics in a frame
> dependent on v. This fact by itself, and without my needing to
> go into superfluous detail, totally sinks your proposal, since
> that means that your proposal discards the PoR.

Nope, you still abjectly fail to understand even the basics of what
I'm saying. You seem to have some sort of mental block that precludes
cogent thought. You continue to attack the messenger without
discerning the message. Furthermore, you refuse to consider the fact
that communication between relatively-moving source and receiver
violates neither causality nor PoR. Since that's the case, the belief that
the "hand-off" method does so violate must be a canard. And Morin's
strategy proves it. You're stuck riding a dead horse.

Tachyons don't violate the PoR. People do. YOU do.

If it were as obvious as you claim that my proposal is erroneous, it
would take much less that two weeks for it to be rejected by reviewers.
In fact, it wouldn't have gotten past the editor.

It may be rejected, but not for any of the assertions YOU have made.

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 7:38:07 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> It may be rejected,

When you get the rejection letter , please publish it. That should settle the issue.

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 9:48:56 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 7:38:07 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > It may be rejected,
>
> When you get the rejection letter , please publish it. That should settle the issue.

Wow! Yoy sure have problems writing clear sentences! "Publish"? The rejection
letter? Did you mean to say "post"? And what does "it" refer to? The rejection
letter, or the paper? "Letters" like that aren't "published."

So let's be clear, I'll POST the letter regardless of its rejection or acceptance. How's
that for FAIRNESS (a word which you clearly don't understand)?

And if it's rejected, I'll PUBLISH it on viXra. But there are other possibilities: a
reviewer might ask for clarification, or he might disagree on a point and want
something changed. Of course, those are tantamount to an eventual acceptance.

Although peer review is supposed to be double blind, often it isn't. My friend had
a reviewer call him (he figured out who he was) and compliment him on such a
great paper. It was eventually published in J Appl. Phys. There is a hint in my
paper about who wrote it.

So, are you HAPPY now? Of COURSE you're not. Some atheists are never happy
because life is an existential threat to them: "each person is alone and the world
has no meaning." Thus some feel they must denigrate others so they can garner
a brief moment of simulated happiness. Now THAT'S sad.

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 9:14:33 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> So let's be clear, I'll POST the letter regardless of its rejection or acceptance.

Excellent.

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 10:33:44 PM UTC+10, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 7:22:24 AM UTC-5, Rob Acraman wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 7:42:09 AM UTC+10, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 10:32:43 PM UTC-5, 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:
> > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > I'm not sure about this argument of yours that we can forget about message loops.
> > A message loop is a causality violation, but that is not the only problem with tachyons - rather, ALL contradictions must be avoided. My argument is that, even without message loops, a contradiction is always present for any FTL signal.
> >
> > That is, for any tachyon signal between an emitter and receiver in the same frame, a second frame can always be introduced that would lead to that contradiction - hence that signal would be disallowed.
> There was at least one previous attempt to demonstrate contradictions
> inherent in one-way superluminal signaling, which didn't work out.
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.05632

That paper is again talking about cause-and-effect (*). The issue I am raising is much simpler - with C firing the nail when he receives the tachyon message, will that nail end up inside (or at the entrance of) the barn, or outside the barn. If that is claimed to be frame-dependant, then that is a contradiction.

(*) As an aside, I'm not sure the original paper's case was answered.

In that original paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06721.pdf , the single scenario for a single tachyon was that A and B would each see themselves emitting the tachyon - specifically : "While Alice sees tachyon emission by A followed by its absorption at B, Bob records tachyon emission from B followed by its absorption at A." So looks a bit like the idea of is a positron an electron going back in time.

The rebuttal in the paper you reference assumes tachyon emission at A is a separate scenario from tachyon emission at B.

Still, that is just a cursory reading, and don't want to derail this discussion with Gary :)