On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 11:33:10 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 5:34:53 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 5:55:29 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > For -c²/v < u' < 0, you get meaningful answers, and for -∞ < u' < -c²/v you get BS.
> >
> > In other words, you assert that the allowable speed of tachyons in a
> > frame are dependent on v. The laws of physics in a frame are dependent
> > on the frame's motions with respect to some "other" frame. This
> > represents an utter violation of PoR. Your theory is dead, and you
> > somehow refuse to understand why.
> Prok, you completely misrepresent the facts. It comes from your prejudicial position
> that you REFUSE to consider Method I. This distorts your view of FTL physics.
>
> Your assignment is to reread Section II of viXra 2011.0076
>
> Unless you can find something wrong with my conclusion that Method I cannot
> violate causality, your arguments about Method II are pointless. The ONLY way
> the two methods can be brought into agreement is to obey RoS and Morin's
> strategy when analyzing Method II scenarios.

I have read it. It is nonsense. For any two frames, there are speeds
of tachyons that will not allow breaking of causality. So what? This
does not translate into a law that limits tachyon speed, or if it did,
the purported law incorporates "v".

> Meanwhile my paper is still hanging in there:
> "This submission is Under review and is being reviewed.
> "It was submitted on April 27, 2021 and has been under consideration for a total of 25 days."
>
> If it's as bad as you claim, it would have been rejected within the first five days. And you
> wonder why I think you're prejudiced? :-))
>
> BTW, could you please provide a reference for Morin's text that you quoted?
> Thanks

That shows that you haven't been reading my posts. I've given the
reference multiple times in different threads, and this is at least
the third time that I provided you with links to photocopies of these
pages. Try carefully reading the section where I present Figure 4-4.

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 11:38:28 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 11:33:10 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 5:34:53 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In other words, you assert that the allowable speed of tachyons in a
> > > frame are dependent on v. The laws of physics in a frame are dependent
> > > on the frame's motions with respect to some "other" frame. This
> > > represents an utter violation of PoR. Your theory is dead, and you
> > > somehow refuse to understand why.
> >
> > Prok, you completely misrepresent the facts. It comes from your prejudicial position
> > that you REFUSE to consider Method I. This distorts your view of FTL physics.
> >
> > Your assignment is to reread Section II of viXra 2011.0076
> >
> > Unless you can find something wrong with my conclusion that Method I cannot
> > violate causality, your arguments about Method II are pointless. The ONLY way
> > the two methods can be brought into agreement is to obey RoS and Morin's
> > strategy when analyzing Method II scenarios.
>
> I have read it. It is nonsense.

Complete baloney, Prok. You merely demonstrate your prejudicial attitude and your
complete lack of understanding Physics 101.

> For any two frames, there are speeds of tachyons

Gasp! You've used that WORD! I guess the shaky friendship is off :-)

> that will not allow breaking of causality. So what? This
> does not translate into a law that limits tachyon speed, or if it did,
> the purported law incorporates "v".

You claim you read Section II, but this is proof that either you didn't or
you didn't understand it.

You demonstrate that you don't understand Physics 101. Consider that
A launches a ball with mass m and velocity u to D who is moving toward
A at velocity v. Let's stay with low speed dynamics for this experiment.
A will claim that the energy of the ball is E = mu²/2. D will claim that the
energy of the ball is mu'²/2, where u' ~ u + v. The energy measured by D
is GREATER than the energy measured by A. ENERGY is the key variable,
not velocity, but velocity is in the solution: E' = m(u - v)²/2.

Do you understand this?

With tachyons, we must use relativistic principles, but energy is still the key
variable and its velocity is still in the solution. A tachyon source, A, at
x = 0, t = 0. emits a tachyon pulse at t = 0 and velocity u ( to the right). A
claims the energy of the pulse is E = mc²/sqrt(u²/c² - 1).

A tachyon receiver, D, whose equation of motion is xD = x0 - vt receives the
signal at t = x0/(u+ v). Since D is moving toward A, D will measure the
tachyon energy to be E' = mc²/sqrt(u'²/c² - 1).

Since u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c²), v will still be in the solution! In fact, since v is
negative (to the left), for u = ∞, u' = c²/v. So what is it with people like you
that claim the solution shouldn't involve v, when Physics 101, and Relativity
101, show unequivocally that it DOES?

So you claim Section II in viXra 2011.0076 is "nonsense"? Do you also claim
that Physics 101 is nonsense, too? This is really, really bad, Prok.

> > Meanwhile my paper is still hanging in there:
> > "This submission is Under review and is being reviewed.
> > "It was submitted on April 27, 2021 and has been under consideration for a total of 25 days."
> >
> > If it's as bad as you claim, it would have been rejected within the first five days. And you
> > wonder why I think you're prejudiced? :-))
> >
> > BTW, could you please provide a reference for Morin's text that you quoted?
> > Thanks
>
> That shows that you haven't been reading my posts.

Pot, kettle, black! :-))

> I've given the reference multiple times in different threads, and this is at least
> the third time that I provided you with links to photocopies of these
> pages. Try carefully reading the section where I present Figure 4-4.

Ah, yes, Ref. 34, then. "Special Relativity for the Enthusiastic Beginner"
https://www.amazon.com/Special-Relativity-Enthusiastic-David-Morin/dp/1542323517
"This book is written for high school and college students learning about special relativity
for the first time."

IOW, for Relativity 101 students. Did he repeat his Morin's strategy somewhere in that book?

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 4:51:00 AM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> The original paper seemed leaky, but the rebuttal, although plausible,
>> didn't quite satisfy me either. But I don't consider myself expert
>> enough to pass definitive judgement. It was evident to me, however,
>> that Gary's cursory reading of the paper was way off. The same warped
>> view of physical law that distorts his interpretation of the classic
>> arguments against superluminal signaling completely prevent him from
>> understanding these papers.
>
> Prok, you're completely into nutso baloney. All I said was:
>
> "This is the direct communication method between source and receiver in
> relative motion,"
>
> Do you deny that energy is frame-dependent? You've absolutely refused
> to deal with the physics of source and receiver in relative motion (call
> it Method I). The "hand-off" method (call it Method II) touted these
> days is NOT the "classical"
> approach. Anyone who understands the relativistic energy equation E² =
> p²c² + (mc²)², or E = mc²/(1 - v²/c²) and u = u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c²), and
> would apply them to Method I, would understand that Method I CANNOT
> violate causality.

here we go. You keep dividing by zero, like there is no day tomorrow.
Your puerile perseverance transcends into another dimension,
mathematically. Think again. That's why I stick with my arduino. Arduino
is safe.

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 11:00:32 PM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 11:52:24 PM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:

> > So we have C who starts their day with a nailgun loaded with a single nail. At the instant that
> > C receives a tachyon message from D, then C will fire that nail into the AB frame's ground (so
> > marking that one spot in the AB frame that C was passing at that instant).
> >
> > That's it. Nothing more nor less. Dead simple.
> >
> > And all I want to know is : Do both frames agree precisely where that nail ends up ? Basically,
> > do both frames agree about whether or not that nail ends up at A's feet ?
> >
> > Because if they do NOT agree, then that is a contradiction against tachyons.
> >
> > You have agreed that "D CANNOT send the signal at u' = -∞." due to that
> > contradiction.
> I have?

Well, your statement immediately following my statement of that contradiction for "OPTION 1 - D emits infinite speed tachyon" was "Thus D CANNOT send the signal at u' = -∞.".

> > The question remains about tachyons with speeds less than ∞.
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Whoa - hold on.
> >
> > FIRSTLY, you just admitted that ""D CANNOT send the signal at u' = -∞." - so how come A can
> > send an infinitely-fast tachyon now ???
> You specified that we're not trying to create a loop, so the conditions may not be the same.
> Whether you're sending a message or driving a nail (which is a message, too), logistics matter.
> > Either an individual (ie EVERYBODY) CAN send an infinitely-fast tachyon, or they CANNOT (ie
> > NOBODY can). There is no law of physics that applies only to some of the people for some of
> > the time, and if that's what your tachyon proposal is based on, then IMHO it's busted 8-P
> So you don't believe that logistics is ALWAYS irrelevant? How strange :-)

Firstly, I suspect a typo - As written, that contradicts "logistics matter", so I'm guessing instead of "irrelevant" you meant "relevant" :-)

"conditions may not be the same" - no, the conditions are exactly the same so far as C and D are concerned. D has a tachyon-emitter with a speed dial that he sets to speed = (near-)infinity when sending to C. Exactly the same.

So you believe "logistics matter". By "logistics", do you mean what happens before D sends the tachyons and/or after C receives them ??? Then I am amazed that you think that those things "matter", in terms of what speed setting it is possible that D can set on their tachyon machine. ;-)

> > Let's say all individuals have identical tachyon-emitting machines with an emission-speed dial.
> > EITHER that dial includes a setting for ∞ so people *CAN* send infinitely-fast tachyons, OR that
> > dial does not have a setting for ∞, so people *CANNOT* send infinitely-fast tachyons.
> I've never denied that possibility; however, when we say "infinite" it's understand that we mean
> "almost" infinite since tachyons have no energy at infinite speed.

I always have done, and none of my arguments are based on such a distinction. I try to say "(near-)" each time for correctness (a habit born from talking with pedants on various forums), but the argument doesn't change if on occasion I forget; you can always understand that I mean "(near-)" on those occasions, just as I extend the same courtesy of understanding likewise when you say "infinite".

So hold on ..... was your "D CANNOT send the signal at u' = -∞." nothing whatsoever to do with addressing the contradiction I was raising, but instead just not extending that same understanding on an occasion when I forgot to type "(near-)" ??? :-(

> > So : Do those tachyon-emitting machines have that setting for ∞ so is it possible for EVERYBODY
> > (including D) to emit ∞ speed tachyons (no matter what other frames happen to be passing) ?
> > YES or NO.
> It's IOTTMCO.
> > If your answer is "YES", then your statement "D CANNOT send the signal at u' = -∞." is false, which
> > means this contradiction must still be addressed :
> Don't conflate two different issues, Rob. YOU'RE the one that has changed the conditions.
> > =========
> > 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.
> > =========

And that contradiction doesn't change on whether "infinite" or "near-infinite" tachyons are used - so no, I never "changed the conditions".

So OK, let's try again :-)

OPTION 1 - D emits NEAR-infinite speed tachyons

1-AB frame) Nail ends up at A's feet - maybe a millimetre away from where an infinite-speed tachyon (if such a thing were possible) would have resulted

1-CD frame) Nail ends up some distance away from A (as C fired the nailgun while still approaching A)

CONTRADICTION. That single nail can only end up at one location - either at A's feet or not at A's feet.

So D cannot send a NEAR-infinite speed tachyon - Agreed ?

If you do agree, then notice that this example is totally general - there is no dependency on the "v" of the AB frame. In other words, agreement would mean that NOBODY can send a near-infinite speed tachyon PERIOD, since any and every near-infinite speed tachyon is subject to this contradiction.

Yes ? :-)

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 7:30:51 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 11:00:32 PM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 11:52:24 PM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
> > >
> > > So we have C who starts their day with a nailgun loaded with a single nail. At the instant that
> > > C receives a tachyon message from D, then C will fire that nail into the AB frame's ground (so
> > > marking that one spot in the AB frame that C was passing at that instant).
> > >
> > > That's it. Nothing more nor less. Dead simple.
> > >
> > > And all I want to know is : Do both frames agree precisely where that nail ends up ? Basically,
> > > do both frames agree about whether or not that nail ends up at A's feet ?
> > >
> > > Because if they do NOT agree, then that is a contradiction against tachyons.
> > >
> > > You have agreed that "D CANNOT send the signal at u' = -∞." due to that contradiction.
> >
> > I have?
>
> Well, your statement immediately following my statement of that contradiction for "OPTION 1 -
> D emits infinite speed tachyon" was "Thus D CANNOT send the signal at u' = -∞.".

There was obviously more to that than "D CANNOT send the signal at u' = -∞." As a general rule,
OF COURSE D can send a signal at nearly infinite speed.

> > > The question remains about tachyons with speeds less than ∞.
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Whoa - hold on.
> > >
> > > FIRSTLY, you just admitted that ""D CANNOT send the signal at u' = -∞." - so how come A can
> > > send an infinitely-fast tachyon now ???
> >
> > You specified that we're not trying to create a loop, so the conditions may not be the same.
> > Whether you're sending a message or driving a nail (which is a message, too), logistics matter.
> >
> > > Either an individual (ie EVERYBODY) CAN send an infinitely-fast tachyon, or they CANNOT (ie
> > > NOBODY can). There is no law of physics that applies only to some of the people for some of
> > > the time, and if that's what your tachyon proposal is based on, then IMHO it's busted 8-P
> >
> > So you don't believe that logistics is ALWAYS irrelevant? How strange :-)
>
> Firstly, I suspect a typo - As written, that contradicts "logistics matter", so I'm guessing instead of
> "irrelevant" you meant "relevant" :-)

Nope.

> "conditions may not be the same" - no, the conditions are exactly the same so far as C and D are
> concerned. D has a tachyon-emitter with a speed dial that he sets to speed = (near-)infinity when
> sending to C. Exactly the same.
>
> So you believe "logistics matter". By "logistics", do you mean what happens before D sends the
> tachyons and/or after C receives them ??? Then I am amazed that you think that those things "matter",
> in terms of what speed setting it is possible that D can set on their tachyon machine. ;-)

Logistics: "1. the detailed coordination of a complex operation involving many people, facilities, or
supplies"

D can send a signal at any speed. Whether it can be received is a matter of logistics.

> > > Let's say all individuals have identical tachyon-emitting machines with an emission-speed dial.
> > > EITHER that dial includes a setting for ∞ so people *CAN* send infinitely-fast tachyons, OR that
> > > dial does not have a setting for ∞, so people *CANNOT* send infinitely-fast tachyons.
> >
> > I've never denied that possibility; however, when we say "infinite" it's understand that we mean
> > "almost" infinite since tachyons have no energy at infinite speed.
>
> I always have done, and none of my arguments are based on such a distinction. I try to say "(near-)"
> each time for correctness (a habit born from talking with pedants on various forums), but the argument
> doesn't change if on occasion I forget; you can always understand that I mean "(near-)" on those
> occasions, just as I extend the same courtesy of understanding likewise when you say "infinite".

Good enough. It gets uncertain, however, when you claim that I claim that D can't send an "infinitely-fast"
signal with no conditions attached.

> So hold on ..... was your "D CANNOT send the signal at u' = -∞." nothing whatsoever to do with addressing
> the contradiction I was raising, but instead just not extending that same understanding on an occasion
> when I forgot to type "(near-)" ??? :-(

Nope. See above.

> > > So : Do those tachyon-emitting machines have that setting for ∞ so is it possible for EVERYBODY
> > > (including D) to emit ∞ speed tachyons (no matter what other frames happen to be passing) ?
> > > YES or NO.
> >
> > It's IOTTMCO.
> >
> > > If your answer is "YES", then your statement "D CANNOT send the signal at u' = -∞." is false, which
> > > means this contradiction must still be addressed :
> >
> > Don't conflate two different issues, Rob. YOU'RE the one that has changed the conditions.
> > > =========
> > > 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.
> > > ========> And that contradiction doesn't change on whether "infinite" or "near-infinite" tachyons are used - so no, I never
> "changed the conditions".

With one breath you claim that I claim D can't send signals infinitely-fast without stating conditions, then with
the next breath ... well, onward:

> So OK, let's try again :-)
>
> OPTION 1 - D emits NEAR-infinite speed tachyons
>
> 1-AB frame) Nail ends up at A's feet - maybe a millimetre away from where an infinite-speed tachyon (if such
> a thing were possible) would have resulted
> 1-CD frame) Nail ends up some distance away from A (as C fired the nailgun while still approaching A)
> CONTRADICTION. That single nail can only end up at one location - either at A's feet or not at A's feet.
> So D cannot send a NEAR-infinite speed tachyon - Agreed ?
>
> If you do agree, then notice that this example is totally general - there is no dependency on the "v" of the AB
> frame. In other words, agreement would mean that NOBODY can send a near-infinite speed tachyon PERIOD,
> since any and every near-infinite speed tachyon is subject to this contradiction.
>
> Yes ? :-)

Nope. Let's look at your assertion more closely:

t = 0:
C --> v___________ u' <---- D --> v
A _____________________ B

In this configuration, the logistics require the u' = -c²/v. That is u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c²) = -∞, agreed?
Let's look at it from S':

t' = -γvL/c²:
v <-- A_____________ v <-- B
C ________________u' <---- D

D sends the signal to C at tD' = -γvL/c², tB = 0. There is nothing that prevents D from setting his tachyon
speed dial to u' = -∞, but if he does, C can't drive the nail at A's feet then. C must wait until A arrives.

Okay, so let's adjust the logistics:

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 8:26:08 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> So you may fantasize that tachyons are nonexistent, but you need not worry. if they're found to exist,
> that you may find your existence erased from the universe because someone went back in time and
> prevented you grandfather from procreating :-)

Tachyons would exhibit the unusual property of increasing in speed as their energy decreases, going to infinity when their speed is going to c. This means that it would take infinite energy to slow down to the speed of light. This means that it is impossible to detect the tachyons. They are exactly like the clothes of the emperor.

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 9:54:56 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 8:26:08 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > So you may fantasize that tachyons are nonexistent, but you need not worry. if they're found to exist,
> > that you may find your existence erased from the universe because someone went back in time and
> > prevented you grandfather from procreating :-)
>
> Tachyons would exhibit the unusual property of increasing in speed as their energy decreases, going to
> infinity when their speed is going to c.

So what?

> This means that it would take infinite energy to slow down to the speed of light.

So what?

>This means that it is impossible to detect the tachyons (so long as u < ∞).

Non sequitur. They have REAL energy, therefore they ARE detectable.

> They are exactly like the clothes of the emperor.

False analogy.

Stick with causality based on RoS and energy, if you can understand the technicalities
But don't worry, Rob's doing a respectable job of learning about that.

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 10:58:07 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 9:54:56 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 8:26:08 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > So you may fantasize that tachyons are nonexistent, but you need not worry. if they're found to exist,
> > > that you may find your existence erased from the universe because someone went back in time and
> > > prevented you grandfather from procreating :-)
> >
> > Tachyons would exhibit the unusual property of increasing in speed as their energy decreases, going to
> > infinity when their speed is going to c.
> So what?

Means that you are an ignorant and a crank who cannot follow simple experimental disproof.
> > This means that it would take infinite energy to slow down to the speed of light.
> So what?
>
Means that you are an ignorant and a crank who cannot follow simple experimental disproof.
> >This means that it is impossible to detect the tachyons (so long as u < ∞).
>
> Non sequitur. They have REAL energy, therefore they ARE detectable.
The experimental proof is totally absent. For reasons explained above.
> > They are exactly like the clothes of the emperor.
> False analogy.

Truth hurts.

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 12:41:09 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 10:58:07 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 9:54:56 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 8:26:08 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So you may fantasize that tachyons are nonexistent, but you need not worry. if they're found to exist,
> > > > that you may find your existence erased from the universe because someone went back in time and
> > > > prevented you grandfather from procreating :-)
> > >
> > > Tachyons would exhibit the unusual property of increasing in speed as their energy decreases, going to
> > > infinity when their speed is going to c.
> >
> > So what?
>
> Means that you are an ignorant and a crank who cannot follow simple experimental disproof.

There is no experimental "disproof."

> > > This means that it would take infinite energy to slow down to the speed of light.
> >
> > So what?
> >
> Means that you are an ignorant and a crank who cannot follow simple experimental disproof.

There is no experimental "disproof." Or do you believe that the fact that you don't have a tachyon
in your pocket is some kind of "disproof"?

> > >This means that it is impossible to detect the tachyons (so long as u < ∞).
> >
> > Non sequitur. They have REAL energy, therefore they ARE detectable.
>
> The experimental proof is totally absent.

The experimental "disproof" is also totally absent.

> For reasons explained above.

Your "explanations" have no validity.

> > > They are exactly like the clothes of the emperor.
> >
> > False analogy.
>
> Truth hurts.

You must be in pain right now :-)

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 3:40:59 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 12:41:09 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 10:58:07 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 9:54:56 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 8:26:08 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > So you may fantasize that tachyons are nonexistent, but you need not worry. if they're found to exist,
> > > > > that you may find your existence erased from the universe because someone went back in time and
> > > > > prevented you grandfather from procreating :-)
> > > >
> > > > Tachyons would exhibit the unusual property of increasing in speed as their energy decreases, going to
> > > > infinity when their speed is going to c.
> > >
> > > So what?
> >
> > Means that you are an ignorant and a crank who cannot follow simple experimental disproof.
> There is no experimental "disproof."
> > > > This means that it would take infinite energy to slow down to the speed of light.
> > >
> > > So what?
> > >
> > Means that you are an ignorant and a crank who cannot follow simple experimental disproof.
> There is no experimental "disproof." Or do you believe that the fact that you don't have a tachyon
> in your pocket is some kind of "disproof"?

Crank

I explained to you why it is impossible to devise any experiment for the detection of tachyons. You obviously stuck your hands over your eyes, in classical crackpot style.

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 5:53:28 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 3:40:59 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 12:41:09 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > Means that you are an ignorant and a crank who cannot follow simple experimental disproof.
> >
> > There is no experimental "disproof."
> >
> > > > > This means that it would take infinite energy to slow down to the speed of light.
> > > >
> > > > So what?
> > > >
> > > Means that you are an ignorant and a crank who cannot follow simple experimental disproof.
> >
> > There is no experimental "disproof." Or do you believe that the fact that you don't have a tachyon
> > in your pocket is some kind of "disproof"?
>
> Crank

Only a crank would believe that absence of proof is proof of absence :-))

So that's not me, that's YOU :-)))

> I explained to you why it is impossible to devise any experiment for the detection of tachyons.

And I explained to you that your "explanation" explained nothing. And then I explained to you
that tachyons would have REAL energy and REAL energy is detectable.

> You obviously stuck your hands over your eyes, in classical crackpot style.

Says the guy who failed Physics 101 :-))

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 5:09:58 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 5:53:28 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 3:40:59 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 12:41:09 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Means that you are an ignorant and a crank who cannot follow simple experimental disproof.
> > >
> > > There is no experimental "disproof."
> > >
> > > > > > This means that it would take infinite energy to slow down to the speed of light.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what?
> > > > >
> > > > Means that you are an ignorant and a crank who cannot follow simple experimental disproof.
> > >
> > > There is no experimental "disproof." Or do you believe that the fact that you don't have a tachyon
> > > in your pocket is some kind of "disproof"?
> >
> > Crank

Dumbestfuck

I explained why no one can conceive any experiment that would detect "tachyons". You are too dishonest to follow the argument.

>
> So that's not me, that's YOU :-)))
> > I explained to you why it is impossible to devise any experiment for the detection of tachyons.
> And I explained to you that your "explanation" explained nothing.

I did not expect that any part of the explanation will go thru your thick skull.

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 6:18:38 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> I explained why no one can conceive any experiment that would detect "tachyons".
> You are too dishonest to follow the argument.

No, I'm not dishonest. But you ARE an ignoramus, as well as a dishonest being.
And you have no valid "argument." You'd better re-take those physics classes you
flunked before you try to criticize. Maybe you'll discover why you badly misfired on
the neutrino mass experiments, too. Better take some ethics classes while you're
at it.

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 5:39:03 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 6:18:38 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > I explained why no one can conceive any experiment that would detect "tachyons".
> > You are too dishonest to follow the argument.
> No, I'm not dishonest.

All your threads on your "idee fixe" about the tachyons prove your dishonesty. All mainstream persons who interacted with you called you on your intellectual dishonesty.

> Maybe you'll discover why you badly misfired on
> the neutrino mass experiments, too.

I knew that you were going to go there. You are a cretin, Gary, you do not understand the KATRIN experiment, you left ample proof in this forum that you have no clue.