On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:39:10 AM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> But wait, we jumped frames to do this, and David Morin said that's a no-no!

David Morin did not say anything of the sort !

He said "writing down an equation that combines quantities that are measured in different frames, which is a no-no"

So if you have a an un-primed and a primed frame, his no-no is that you never write t'/L or t/L'.

NOTHING against the perfectly good and proper practice of being able to observe for any frame, at any time t in that frame, the (x, y, z) coordinates in that frame at that frame's time t of all objects.

This, of course, is perfectly normal, standard, consistent, error-free practice for SR. You can "jump frames" like this while doing ANY mainstream SR scenario - just multiple views of the same reality. Since there is only one reality, there is no problem.

The fact you get inconsistencies when you apply this practice to your tachyon scenarios, is not a problem with that practice ;) Rather, it is an indication that you are trying to shoehorn/smuggle two realities (or two different/contradictory scenarios) under the guise of one.

One thing we never quite got clear in our previous discussions :

Suppose Alice and Bob are in the same frame (so stationary wrt eachother), some distance L apart from eachother, and of course they have synchronised their clocks.
At t=0, Alice sends Bob both a tachyon signal travelling at 10c, and a normal radio signal.
What time will Bob receive the tachyon signal ?

My interest here is for you to give a COMPLETE statement of what this will be for your tachyon model - for a standard SR setting (in a vacuum, etc), ALL the factors you think would impact what time will be showing on Bob's clock when he receives the message. Bob will by definition receive the message when his clock is showing some specific single time, so you should be able to express that value as a single equation that incorporates all necessary factors, that will therefore always hold true no matter what scenario I bring up.

For the radio signal, I can state it quite easily : t = 10ls / c . This will ALWAYS be the case, no matter when viewed from ANY frame, so resulting in EVERYONE in EVERY frame ALL agreeing that Bob's clock shows t=10 seconds when he receives the radio signal.

Over to you - what will his clock show (that EVERYONE in EVERY frame agrees) when he receives that 10c tachyon signal ?

(and from our previous discussions, the simple t = 10ls/10c is clearly NOT your COMPLETE answer)

On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 8:10:26 PM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:39:10 AM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > But wait, we jumped frames to do this, and David Morin said that's a no-no!
>
> David Morin did not say anything of the sort !

Well, Rob, it looks to me like he did:

"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"

> He said "writing down an equation that combines quantities that are measured in different frames, which is a no-no"
>
> So if you have a an un-primed and a primed frame, his no-no is that you never write t'/L or t/L'.

Sure, but you never do that if you "plant yourself in a frame and stay there."

> NOTHING against the perfectly good and proper practice of being able to observe for any frame, at any time t
> in that frame, the (x, y, z) coordinates in that frame at that frame's time t of all objects.
>
> This, of course, is perfectly normal, standard, consistent, error-free practice for SR. You can "jump frames" like
> this while doing ANY mainstream SR scenario - just multiple views of the same reality. Since there is only one
> reality, there is no problem.
>
> The fact you get inconsistencies when you apply this practice to your tachyon scenarios, is not a problem with
> that practice ;) Rather, it is an indication that you are trying to shoehorn/smuggle two realities (or two different/
> contradictory scenarios) under the guise of one.

It seems to me that has been done since FTL first came up a century ago, and has been perpetuated ever since.

> One thing we never quite got clear in our previous discussions :
>
> Suppose Alice and Bob are in the same frame (so stationary wrt eachother), some distance L apart from
> eachother, and of course they have synchronised their clocks.
> At t=0, Alice sends Bob both a tachyon signal travelling at 10c, and a normal radio signal.
> What time will Bob receive the tachyon signal ?

If u = 10c, then ∆t = L/u, n'est-ce pas?

> My interest here is for you to give a COMPLETE statement of what this will be for your tachyon
> model - for a standard SR setting (in a vacuum, etc), ALL the factors you think would impact
> what time will be showing on Bob's clock when he receives the message. Bob will by definition
> receive the message when his clock is showing some specific single time, so you should be able
> to express that value as a single equation that incorporates all necessary factors, that will
> therefore always hold true no matter what scenario I bring up.

ANY scenario? Aye, that's the problem. As soon as you start pontificating other frames, you get
into Morin Land.

> For the radio signal, I can state it quite easily : t = 10ls / c .

You can? I thought the distance was L :-)

> This will ALWAYS be the case, no matter when viewed from ANY frame, so resulting in EVERYONE
> in EVERY frame ALL agreeing that Bob's clock shows t=10 seconds when he receives the radio signal.

They all agree that the signal travels at c, of course, but the time for the transmission won't be the
same as Alice and Bob's, will it? Say, Carol and Dave are moving to the right. At t = 0, Carol passes
Alice just as Alice launches the radio signal, and at t = L/c, Dave passes Bob just as Bob receives it.
The times on Alice's and Carol's clock is, of course zero (tA = 0, tC' = 0).
The time on Bob's clock is, of course, tB = L/c, but the time on Dave's clock is tD' = γ(L/c - vL/c²),
or tD' = γL/c(1 - v/c), yes? That doesn't look like L/c to me.

> Over to you - what will his clock show (that EVERYONE in EVERY frame agrees) when he receives
> that 10c tachyon signal ?

Ah, you were talking about the time on BOB'S clock, not the time in other frames.

> (and from our previous discussions, the simple t = 10ls/10c is clearly NOT your COMPLETE answer)

Why wouldn't they? Carol reads Alice's clock as she goes by and Dave reads Bob's clock as he
goes by. What Carol's and Dave's clocks show is another matter.

You realize, of course, that those in other frames won't see the tachyons traveling at 10c. This is
the big mistake that everyone seems to have made.

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 1:12:48 PM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 8:10:26 PM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:39:10 AM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > But wait, we jumped frames to do this, and David Morin said that's a no-no!
> >
> > David Morin did not say anything of the sort !
> Well, Rob, it looks to me like he did:
> "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"

Nothing there about a big no-no; The big no-no is explicitly mixing terms in equations, as I said.

> > He said "writing down an equation that combines quantities that are measured in different frames, which is a no-no"
> >
> > So if you have a an un-primed and a primed frame, his no-no is that you never write t'/L or t/L'.
> Sure, but you never do that if you "plant yourself in a frame and stay there."

And you don't do that if your careful either.

Let's take the typical standard SR Pole-Barn.
We can consider a multitude of points, like :
- The front of pole
- The back of the Pole
- The Barn's Entry Door
- The Barn's exit door
- etc, etc, etc

Throughout the entire lifetime of each of those locations, at every instant they each have simultaneously an (x, y, z, t) in the barn frame, and an (x', y', z', t') in the pole frame.

Because that is true, that means simply that for any time Tb in (say) the barn frame, we can determine precisely, uniquely and unambiguously the (x, y, z) coordinates for each of those locations that have t=Tb. That is the reality in the barn frame for that instant in the barn's time - and we can determine that precisely, uniquely and unambiguously regardless of whatever has gone on before or after.

Likewise for any time Tp in (say) the pole frame, we can determine precisely, uniquely and unambiguously the (x', y', z') coordinates for each of those locations that have t'=Tp. That is the reality in the pole frame for that instant in the pole's time - and we can determine that precisely, uniquely and unambiguously regardless of whatever has gone on before or after.

At least that's all true for mainstream SR, and Morin does not say anything against that. We can take a snapshot of where everything is at a specific time (for that frame) of where everything is. It doesn't matter if we had previously taken another snapshot from that frame, or from the other frame. Each snapshot validly stands by itself.

So you are saying that that just totally blows up as soon as FTL is involved - basically that you can no longer determine precisely, uniquely and unambiguously the location of a tachyon at every instant through its lifetime.

That is a problem with FTL, not with taking the time-slice of the coordinates.

> > The fact you get inconsistencies when you apply this practice to your tachyon scenarios, is not a problem with
> > that practice ;) Rather, it is an indication that you are trying to shoehorn/smuggle two realities (or two different/
> > contradictory scenarios) under the guise of one.
> It seems to me that has been done since FTL first came up a century ago, and has been perpetuated ever since.

Yep, FTL fans have been doing that shoehorning from the start ;)

> > One thing we never quite got clear in our previous discussions :
> >
> > Suppose Alice and Bob are in the same frame (so stationary wrt eachother), some distance L apart from
> > eachother, and of course they have synchronised their clocks.
> > At t=0, Alice sends Bob both a tachyon signal travelling at 10c, and a normal radio signal.
> > What time will Bob receive the tachyon signal ?
> If u = 10c, then ∆t = L/u, n'est-ce pas?

ALWAYS ?? Regardless of other frames ??????????

> > My interest here is for you to give a COMPLETE statement of what this will be for your tachyon
> > model - for a standard SR setting (in a vacuum, etc), ALL the factors you think would impact
> > what time will be showing on Bob's clock when he receives the message. Bob will by definition
> > receive the message when his clock is showing some specific single time, so you should be able
> > to express that value as a single equation that incorporates all necessary factors, that will
> > therefore always hold true no matter what scenario I bring up.
> ANY scenario? Aye, that's the problem. As soon as you start pontificating other frames, you get
> into Morin Land.

The point is : Other frames ALWAYS exist.

According to standard SR, that's no problem because what happens in my frame remains entirely unaffected by all those already-existing other frames. Fred flying past in a rocketship has no affect on the time Bob receives that radio message.

You have made it plain that your tachyon model, on the other hand, is highly sensitive to the existence of those other frames, and which frame I'm in - something like :
"Sure, Bob will receive it when his clock is showing ∆t = L/u ..... oh wait, Fred's going past him at V, well in that case ......., "

Actually, of course, Fred's frame still exists (and going past Alice and Bob at velocity V) even if Fred is nowhere to be seen.

> > For the radio signal, I can state it quite easily : t = 10ls / c .
> You can? I thought the distance was L :-)

Drats - guess where I edited ;-O

> > This will ALWAYS be the case, no matter when viewed from ANY frame, so resulting in EVERYONE
> > in EVERY frame ALL agreeing that Bob's clock shows t=10 seconds when he receives the radio signal.
> > Over to you - what will his clock show (that EVERYONE in EVERY frame agrees) when he receives
> > that 10c tachyon signal ?
> Ah, you were talking about the time on BOB'S clock, not the time in other frames.

Yes, the time showing on Bob's clock.

> > (and from our previous discussions, the simple t = 10ls/10c is clearly NOT your COMPLETE answer)
> Why wouldn't they? Carol reads Alice's clock as she goes by and Dave reads Bob's clock as he
> goes by. What Carol's and Dave's clocks show is another matter.

We're not talking reception time of the tachyons, not the times when people pass eachother.

>
> You realize, of course, that those in other frames won't see the tachyons traveling at 10c. This is
> the big mistake that everyone seems to have made.

Totally irrelevant. Let's say Alice at t=0 also sends a mini-rocket at 0.5c to Bob. Other frames will not see that rocket travelling at 0.5c, but they will still all agree that Bob's clock will be showing the value t=20 seconds when he receives it. Likewise, all frames agree that Bob's clock will be showing t = 10 seconds when he receives the radio message..

This is because in standard SR, other frames do not have any effect on what happens in any other frame. The time showing on Bob's clock is entirely unaffected by Fred flying by.

To recap, Alice at t=0 sending Bob (10ls away in the same frame) a 10c (in that frame) tachyon message.
I'm after everything you reckon is important, including dependencies on any other frames.

WHAT TIME WILL BOB'S CLOCK BE SHOWING WHEN BOB RECEIVES THAT TACHYON MESSAGE FROM ALICE ?

On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 11:42:40 PM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 1:12:48 PM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 8:10:26 PM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:39:10 AM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But wait, we jumped frames to do this, and David Morin said that's a no-no!
> > >
> > > David Morin did not say anything of the sort !
> >
> > Well, Rob, it looks to me like he did:
> >
> > "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"
>
> Nothing there about a big no-no; The big no-no is explicitly mixing terms in equations, as I said.

It seems to me that jumping frames is the cause of mixing terms, so if mixing terms is a no-no,
then jumping frames is, too.

> > > He said "writing down an equation that combines quantities that are measured in different
> > > frames, which is a no-no"
> > >
> > > So if you have a an un-primed and a primed frame, his no-no is that you never write t'/L or t/L'.
> >
> > Sure, but you never do that if you "plant yourself in a frame and stay there."
>
> And you don't do that if your careful either.

But everyone seems to get that wrong when dealing with tachyons.

> Let's take the typical standard SR Pole-Barn.

No, let's not. All you want to do is "test me" to see if I pass some criteria you've imagined.
I've jumped through enough hoops already and I'm tired of solving problems that I really
don't care about.

> [Pole-barn scenario deleted]

> So you are saying that that just totally blows up as soon as FTL is involved - basically
> that you can no longer determine precisely, uniquely and unambiguously the location of
> a tachyon at every instant through its lifetime.

You're "putting words in my mouth" :-)

> That is a problem with FTL, not with taking the time-slice of the coordinates.

You say "FTL" without defining what you mean by that. You seem to mean a frame that's
traveling FTL. Is that right? If so, that's not at all what I wrote.

> > > The fact you get inconsistencies when you apply this practice to your tachyon
> scenarios, is not a problem with that practice ;) Rather, it is an indication that you
> > > are trying to shoehorn/smuggle two realities (or two different/contradictory
> > > scenarios) under the guise of one.
> >
> > It seems to me that has been done since FTL first came up a century ago, and has
> > been perpetuated ever since.
>
> Yep, FTL fans have been doing that shoehorning from the start ;)
>
> > > One thing we never quite got clear in our previous discussions :
> > >
> > > Suppose Alice and Bob are in the same frame (so stationary wrt eachother), some
> > > distance L apart from eachother, and of course they have synchronised their clocks.
> > > At t=0, Alice sends Bob both a tachyon signal travelling at 10c, and a normal radio
> > > signal. What time will Bob receive the tachyon signal ?
> >
> > If u = 10c, then ∆t = L/u, n'est-ce pas?
>
> ALWAYS ?? Regardless of other frames ??????????

Other frames have nothing to do with ∆t. How could they? They would measure ∆t'.

> > > My interest here is for you to give a COMPLETE statement of what this will be for your tachyon
> > > model - for a standard SR setting (in a vacuum, etc), ALL the factors you think would impact
> > > what time will be showing on Bob's clock when he receives the message.. Bob will by definition
> > > receive the message when his clock is showing some specific single time, so you should be able
> > > to express that value as a single equation that incorporates all necessary factors, that will
> > > therefore always hold true no matter what scenario I bring up.
> >
> > ANY scenario? Aye, that's the problem. As soon as you start pontificating other frames, you get
> > into Morin Land.
>
> The point is : Other frames ALWAYS exist.

That's irrelevant to Alice and Bob.

> According to standard SR, that's no problem because what happens in my frame remains entirely
> unaffected by all those already-existing other frames. Fred flying past in a rocketship has no affect on
> the time Bob receives that radio message.
>
> You have made it plain that your tachyon model, on the other hand, is highly sensitive to the existence
> of those other frames, and which frame I'm in

That is simply not true. You're conflating "my tachyon model" with "YOUR tachyon model." :-)

> - something like : "Sure, Bob will receive it when his clock is showing ∆t = L/u .... oh wait, Fred's going
> past him at V, well in that case ......., "
>
> Actually, of course, Fred's frame still exists (and going past Alice and Bob at velocity V) even if Fred is
> nowhere to be seen.

Why wouldn't Fred be seen? That's by photons, not tachyons.

> > > For the radio signal, I can state it quite easily : t = 10ls / c .
> >
> > You can? I thought the distance was L :-)
>
> Drats - guess where I edited ;-O

No problem. I understood, but I'm morally weak enough to give a little jab.. Sorry.

> > > This will ALWAYS be the case, no matter when viewed from ANY frame, so resulting in EVERYONE
> > > in EVERY frame ALL agreeing that Bob's clock shows t=10 seconds when he receives the radio signal.
> > > Over to you - what will his clock show (that EVERYONE in EVERY frame agrees) when he receives
> > > that 10c tachyon signal ?
> >
> > Ah, you were talking about the time on BOB'S clock, not the time in other frames.
>
> Yes, the time showing on Bob's clock.
>
> > > (and from our previous discussions, the simple t = 10ls/10c is clearly NOT your COMPLETE answer)
> >
> > Why wouldn't they? Carol reads Alice's clock as she goes by and Dave reads Bob's clock as he
> > goes by. What Carol's and Dave's clocks show is another matter.
>
> We're not talking reception time of the tachyons, not the times when people pass eachother.

Then I don't know what you're talking about.

> > You realize, of course, that those in other frames won't see the tachyons traveling at 10c. This is
> > the big mistake that everyone seems to have made.
>
> Totally irrelevant.

Actually, it's not.

> Let's say Alice at t=0 also sends a mini-rocket at 0.5c to Bob. Other frames will not see that rocket
> travelling at 0.5c, but they will still all agree that Bob's clock will be showing the value t=20 seconds
> when he receives it. Likewise, all frames agree that Bob's clock will be showing t = 10 seconds
> when he receives the radio message.
>
> This is because in standard SR, other frames do not have any effect on what happens in any other
> frame. The time showing on Bob's clock is entirely unaffected by Fred flying by.
>
> To recap, Alice at t=0 sending Bob (10ls away in the same frame) a 10c (in that frame) tachyon message.
> I'm after everything you reckon is important, including dependencies on any other frames.
>
> WHAT TIME WILL BOB'S CLOCK BE SHOWING WHEN BOB RECEIVES THAT TACHYON MESSAGE FROM ALICE ?

t = L/u = 1, of course. You're still pretending the incorrect tachyon model is the "correct" one. You know,
the one that makes time go backwards and violates causality and other conundrums. This doesn't
happen with "real" tachyons. This should have been obvious if you worked through the scenario I provided
two days ago.

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

For example, your scenario of u = 10c and assuming v anything between -c < v < c has considerations
that you're glossing over. Look, in section 2 of my paper:

https://vixra.org/abs/2011.0076

tachyon dynamics is discussed. Have you read it? If so, you'll realize that some observers will receive
the tachyons traveling slower than 10c, some faster, and some won't detect them at all. For the latter
group, how will they be able to calculate from their own measurements what Bob's clock will read?

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 5:55:38 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Look, in section 2 of my paper:
Your "paper" is total crackpot stuff. All 3 versions of it. Deal with it, Gary.

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 7:48:23 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 5:55:38 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Look, in section 2 of my paper:
>
> Your "paper" is total crackpot stuff. All 3 versions of it. Deal with it, Gary.

You are wrong, crank-breath.

Section 2 is fully supported by SR dynamics and kinematics. Deal with it yourself.

Section 3 gropes toward a synthesis of the direct method of Section 2 (which I'm
now calling Method I in my new paper) and the hand-off method now, Method II.
Although it came up with the correct arrangement for Method II, it wasn't well
supported. That's changed, but that has slipped right past fatuous dunderheads
like you, and smart fellers, too, for that matter.

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 7:37:32 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Section 2 is fully supported by SR dynamics and kinematics. Deal with it yourself.
>

No, it isn't. You are craving attention, just like your fellow cranks, Thomas Heger, David Seppala, Ed Lake, Keith Stein, Ken Seto. No matter how many times you are proven wrong, you come back.

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:43:04 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 7:37:32 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Section 2 is fully supported by SR dynamics and kinematics. Deal with it yourself.
> >
> No, it isn't.

You are wrong, barmy breath. If you were correct. you'd point out just where it's wrong.
You've exposed your ignorance before, so please do it again :-)

> You are craving attention,

Not on your tintype, farcical breath. I'd rather not, actually. I'd prefer if someone else did
it, but there doesn't seem to be anyone so enlightened :-)

> just like your fellow cranks, Thomas Heger, David Seppala, Ed Lake, Keith Stein, Ken Seto.
> No matter how many times you are proven wrong, you come back.

You are wrong, redundant breath. No matter how many times you say the same thing
over and over again, do you REALLY expect a different outcome? If you do, then
you're insane ;-)

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results." -- Albert Einstein

Silly Dono! And you have no concept how much hilarity your ramblings produce :-))
You just DOn't kNOw!

"You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones
at every dog that barks." -- Winston Churchill

I guess you'll never get there :-)) Woof! Woof!

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:38:08 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> If you were correct. you'd point out just where it's wrong.

Classical crank comeback. You see, Gary, I (and several others) have already pointed out your mistakes.

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:46:33 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:38:08 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > If you were correct. you'd point out just where it's wrong.
>
> Classical crank comeback.

Also a classic request from one knowledgeable person to another. Since it's
universal, your assertion fails the logic test.

You see, Gary, I (and several others) have already pointed out your mistakes.

Don't put yourself in the same class as "others," DOn'tkNOw. You are FAR below
their plane. In fact, you have NEVER mounted a valid criticism of your own.
And you're continually mistaken. Remember neutrino mass? BOZO-BOMB!

The argument has changed, bozo-breath, but you don't even realize it. You're
hilarious! :-))

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:14:40 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In fact, you have NEVER mounted a valid criticism of your own.

You are lying , Gary
I was the first one to point out that your Minkowski diagrams are incorrect, that, in fact, you have no clue how to construct a correct Minkowski diagram. You still don't.

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 3:59:13 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:14:40 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > In fact, you have NEVER mounted a valid criticism of your own.
>
> You are lying , Gary

You are wrong, mendacious-breath. I may be mistaken but I don't lie.
YOU, OTOH, undeniably do.

> I was the first one to point out that your Minkowski diagrams are incorrect,

And you tell a lie in the very next sentence! My, but you a such a chump :-))

You only claimed that because PCH didn't understand that I was talking about
observers and he thought I was talking about events. You WAITED until you
found out which way the wind was blowing before you jumped in. You're very
careful and cunning that way.
> that, in fact, you have no clue how to construct a correct Minkowski diagram.
> You still don't.

And you tell another lie in the very NEXT sentence. Doesn't your atheists church
teach that it's unethical to lie? Or do you have selective memory like Keith Stein?

BTW, you're probably clueless about the big problem with Minkowski diagrams.
That's because you don't really think ... well, about anything except yourself.

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 4:27:29 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> You WAITED until you found out which way the wind was blowing before you jumped in.

You are lying again, crank
I was the first one to point out your errors. Google keeps the record, lying crank. .

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 4:27:29 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> BTW, you're probably clueless about the big problem with Minkowski diagrams.
There is no problem with the Minkowski diagrams. The only problem is that you are a masquerading as a "scientist"

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:59:34 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 4:27:29 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > You WAITED until you found out which way the wind was blowing before you
> > jumped in.
>
> You are lying again, crank

Nope. Like I told you, I don't lie. You're just projecting.
> I was the first one to point out your errors. Google keeps the record, lying crank. .

Talk is cheap, and you're a cheapskate.

> > BTW, you're probably clueless about the big problem with Minkowski diagrams.
>
> There is no problem with the Minkowski diagrams.

See? Totally clueless, or a liar. You choose.

> The only problem is that you are a masquerading as a "scientist"

I have a degree. Where's yours? DON't have One, do you. Here's your song.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t-s&ei=UTF-8&p=the+great+pretender#id=1&vid=da15701661a70d55e367e6fe0bddc5f4&action=click

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:51:53 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>.
> > > BTW, you're probably clueless about the big problem with Minkowski diagrams.
> >
> > There is no problem with the Minkowski diagrams.
> See? Totally clueless, or a liar. You choose.

Keep it up , crank

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:38:03 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:51:53 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > > BTW, you're probably clueless about the big problem with Minkowski diagrams.
> > >
> > > There is no problem with the Minkowski diagrams.
> >
> > See? Totally clueless, or a liar. You choose.
? > Keep it up , crank

SO I guess you choose totally clueless :-)

But thanks for digging those threads up. They show that you are indeed clueless.
The first post in the earlier one is dated 8/29/19, but v1 of "Causality Between
Events with Space-Like Separation" is dated 8/14/19. I started a thread BEFORE
8/29/19 announcing the paper. There was altercation between PCH and me in
that previous thread. So did you find that first thread and found that you weren't
the first to post? Anyway, it's clear from the title that the 8/29/19 thread wasn't
the first.

But just to demonstrate how clueless you are/were, here's YOUR response to the
title of the thread, " Why Hasn't Figure 4-4 been Corrected?":

> Because it doesn't. You need to stop lying. For v>c \gamma(v) is imaginary.

Totally clueless DOn'tkNOw! v is the relative velocity between frames. You know,
frames that observers can occupy. Observers aren't made of tachyons, clueless
wonder. Tachyons can't be made of charged particles like protons and electrons,
bloviating bozo. So let's see you crash and burn again trying to lie your way out
of that.

So you claim incorrectly that the 8/29/19 thread was my first post, and your first
response was dead wrong. Good going, DOn'tkNOw! Keep putting your foot in
your mouth. It fits well :-))

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 9:19:19 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I started a thread BEFORE
> 8/29/19 announcing the paper.

So, you posted the same crankeries in an eralier thread, must have missed it. As I was saying, you do things the same exact way as your fellow crank, David Seppala, Ed Lake, Ken Shito, Keith RocksFerBrains, you open a crank thread, you take it in the chin, you avandon the thread, wait for the people to forget about you and you open a new thread . With the same exact crankerries. You never learn, Gary.

Dono. wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:14:40 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>> In fact, you have NEVER mounted a valid criticism of your own.
>
> You are lying , Gary I was the first one to point out that your
> Minkowski diagrams are incorrect, that, in fact, you have no clue how to
> construct a correct Minkowski diagram. You still don't.

What?? It explains why he wrote some places near his figures variable "s"
etc *_"approaches_infinity"_*. I bet he still has it.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> Keep it up , crank
>
> SO I guess you choose totally clueless
>
> But thanks for digging those threads up. They show that you are indeed
> clueless. The first post in the earlier one is dated 8/29/19, but v1 of

error number 2. You guys write the month, day, year in something which
should reassemble current date. It makes no sense. One defaults to
guesses, the day being less than 12, which one is it. Completely idiotic.

> "Causality Between Events with Space-Like Separation" is dated 8/14/19.
> I started a thread BEFORE 8/29/19 announcing the paper. There was
> altercation between PCH and me in that previous thread. So did you find
> that first thread and found that you weren't the first to post? Anyway,
> it's clear from the title that the 8/29/19 thread wasn't the first.

Stop lying.