I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of light possible?" today. The editor wrote:

"While the reviewers expressed interest in your work, they were unconvinced by your analysis. One reviewer offers specific recommendations for restructuring your analysis in terms of Minkowski spacetime, to make it easier to understand. I encourage you to use the reviewers' comments to recast your analysis in a more convincing way."

I consider use of Minkowski spacetime to be the problem rather than the solution because it encourages the belief that time is symmetrical when all physical evidence shows it to be asymmetrical. I avoided Minkowski diagrams for that very reason, but that point needs to be emphasized and expanded.

The other reviewer took issue with my claim, “Infinite speed represents a barrier which cannot be breached, even by a tachyon. Furthermore, infinite speed would mean that the tachyon would be everywhere at once, which would present an analytical and philosophical conundrum.”

"The author just says this, without any analysis or any reference to other experts. It may seem intuitive to the author. It might be readily accepted as true by students who heard such statements from their physics teacher. But it is incorrect."

I don't think it's "incorrect," but the claim would seem to require significantly more development. Some of the discussion with Ron has already begun this. It appears that an acceptable paper would require a lot more detail on the two major concerns expressed by the reviewers.

I thought it was strange that the first reviewer would say, "the speculative nature of the article suggests to me that AJP is not the appropriate journal for this article" since the first publication on FTL particles that obeyed SR was in the AJP :-))

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of
> light possible?" today. The editor wrote:
>
> "While the reviewers expressed interest in your work, they were
> unconvinced by your analysis. One reviewer offers specific
> recommendations for restructuring your analysis in terms of Minkowski
> spacetime, to make it easier to understand. I encourage you to use the
> reviewers' comments to recast your analysis in a more convincing way."
>
> I consider use of Minkowski spacetime to be the problem rather than the
> solution because it encourages the belief that time is symmetrical when
> all physical evidence shows it to be asymmetrical. I avoided Minkowski
> diagrams for that very reason, but that point needs to be emphasized and
> expanded.

Then you say is that you dismiss spacetime, described by Minkowski. Thus,
you have to start by describing your *new_spacetime*, before thinking
going full speed tachyon.

On 29-May-21 7:57 am, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of
> light possible?" today. The editor wrote:
>
> "While the reviewers expressed interest in your work, they were
> unconvinced by your analysis. One reviewer offers specific
> recommendations for restructuring your analysis in terms of Minkowski
> spacetime, to make it easier to understand. I encourage you to use
> the reviewers' comments to recast your analysis in a more convincing
> way."
>

They were being polite. Let me paraphrase for them:

"Get this garbage out of our face."

Sylvia.

On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 4:06:00 PM UTC-7, Braden Earman wrote:
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> > I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of
> > light possible?" today. The editor wrote:
> >
> > "While the reviewers expressed interest in your work, they were
> > unconvinced by your analysis. One reviewer offers specific
> > recommendations for restructuring your analysis in terms of Minkowski
> > spacetime, to make it easier to understand. I encourage you to use the
> > reviewers' comments to recast your analysis in a more convincing way."
> >
> > I consider use of Minkowski spacetime to be the problem rather than the
> > solution because it encourages the belief that time is symmetrical when
> > all physical evidence shows it to be asymmetrical. I avoided Minkowski
> > diagrams for that very reason, but that point needs to be emphasized and
> > expanded.
> Then you say is that you dismiss spacetime, described by Minkowski. Thus,
> you have to start by describing your *new_spacetime*, before thinking
> going full speed tachyon.
Wow

AJP has published a lot of garbage in the past 10 years (due to the ineptitude of the referees and of the editors). The referees didn't even realize the full scope of your crankery. I suggest that you persevere, resubmit it, for sure these idiots will accept it.

On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 4:57:52 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> I consider use of Minkowski spacetime to be the problem rather than the
> solution because it encourages the belief that time is symmetrical when
> all physical evidence shows it to be asymmetrical.

Minkowski diagrams are nothing more than a graphical representation of the
Lorentz transformation. Although not useful for exact calculation, they are
valuable because they allow one to intuitively grasp relativistic scenarios.

By refusing to use Minkowski diagrams, you set yourself up to make many
silly mistakes of a most elementary nature.

> I avoided Minkowski diagrams for that very reason, but that point needs
> to be emphasized and expanded.

Alternatives to Minkowski diagrams exist. Have you heard of Loedel
diagrams? I would have preferred to use Loedel diagrams for Fig 4-4
except that they are relatively unfamiliar. With Minkowski diagrams, the
complete symmetry between S and S' is not especially evident. I suspect
that much of your problem with understanding the classic argument
against FTL stems from your having being deceived by the apparent
asymmetry between S and S' in Minkowski diagrams. I recommend that
you take a look at the Loedel diagram argument against FTL. With
Minkowski diagrams, it is a little bit more difficult than it -should- be to
illustrate the consequences of faster-than-c-but-not-infinite-speed signals.
With Loedel diagrams, this scenario is perfectly simple to illustrate and to
understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime_diagram#The_speed_of_light_as_a_limit

On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 2:57:52 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I thought it was strange that the first reviewer would say, "the speculative nature of the article suggests to me that AJP is not the appropriate journal for this article" since the first publication on FTL particles that obeyed SR was in the AJP

Translation: "Mr. Harnagel, you are a antirelativity crank"

On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 6:23:08 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 4:57:52 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > I consider use of Minkowski spacetime to be the problem rather than the
> > solution because it encourages the belief that time is symmetrical when
> > all physical evidence shows it to be asymmetrical.
>
> Minkowski diagrams are nothing more than a graphical representation of the
> Lorentz transformation. Although not useful for exact calculation, they are
> valuable because they allow one to intuitively grasp relativistic scenarios.
>
> By refusing to use Minkowski diagrams, you set yourself up to make many
> silly mistakes of a most elementary nature.

OTOH, using MDs sets one up to make many silly mistakes about tachyons.

> > I avoided Minkowski diagrams for that very reason, but that point needs
> > to be emphasized and expanded.
>
> Alternatives to Minkowski diagrams exist. Have you heard of Loedel
> diagrams? I would have preferred to use Loedel diagrams for Fig 4-4
> except that they are relatively unfamiliar. With Minkowski diagrams, the
> complete symmetry between S and S' is not especially evident. I suspect
> that much of your problem with understanding the classic argument
> against FTL stems from your having being deceived by the apparent
> asymmetry between S and S' in Minkowski diagrams.

Not at all. The "classical argument" has problems not knowing when to
stop and rethink negative slopes. That's an indication time goes backwards,
which clearly doesn't happen. Furthermore, limitations on FTL velocities
due to frame-dependent energy in Method I insures that causality is never
violated.

> I recommend that you take a look at the Loedel diagram argument against
> FTL. With Minkowski diagrams, it is a little bit more difficult than it -should-
> be to illustrate the consequences of faster-than-c-but-not-infinite-speed signals.
> With Loedel diagrams, this scenario is perfectly simple to illustrate and to
> understand.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime_diagram#The_speed_of_light_as_a_limit

The same problem arises there as with Minkowski diagrams, and the solution is the
same: Both assume that particle speed can be greater than c²/v in both directions,
which is refuted by frame-dependent particle energy.

A ----> w ______________ D --> v

w' = (w - v)/(1 - wv/c²)

So w' approaches infinity as w approaches c²/v. From D's perspective, D sends the
signal back to A:

v <-- A ________ u' <---- D

D must send it to A at u' > -c²/v so A receives it with SOME energy:

u = (u' + v)/(1 + u'v/c²)

A receives it approaching infinite speed but D sends it approaching -c²/v.
When you put that in either M or L diagrams, there is no causality violation.

Anyway, wouldn't L diagrams put off the reviewers? I think it was good advice
to include MDs, particularly for the Method I argument, since reviewers would
feel more comfortable with that. It probably would have helped if I had pointed
out the the diagrams I DID draw were what an observer in a laboratory would
see, but I did reference "Tachyons from a laboratory perspective." They had a
month to review it, but they probably didn't go to any references.

So I'm going to address the concerns they brought up. I think they're mostly
helpful. I sent an email to one potential reviewer I suggested to see if he was
given an opportunity to address it.

On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 5:27:55 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> On 29-May-21 7:57 am, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of
> > light possible?" today. The editor wrote:
> >
> > "While the reviewers expressed interest in your work, they were
> > unconvinced by your analysis. One reviewer offers specific
> > recommendations for restructuring your analysis in terms of Minkowski
> > spacetime, to make it easier to understand. I encourage you to use
> > the reviewers' comments to recast your analysis in a more convincing
> > way."
> >
> They were being polite. Let me paraphrase for them:
>
> "Get this garbage out of our face."
>
> Sylvia.

Do you believe it's garbage? Upon what would you base such an opinion?

On 29-May-21 12:33 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 5:27:55 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>> On 29-May-21 7:57 am, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of
>>> light possible?" today. The editor wrote:
>>>
>>> "While the reviewers expressed interest in your work, they were
>>> unconvinced by your analysis. One reviewer offers specific
>>> recommendations for restructuring your analysis in terms of Minkowski
>>> spacetime, to make it easier to understand. I encourage you to use
>>> the reviewers' comments to recast your analysis in a more convincing
>>> way."
>>>
>> They were being polite. Let me paraphrase for them:
>>
>> "Get this garbage out of our face."
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Do you believe it's garbage? Upon what would you base such an opinion?
>

I've seen samples of your work.

Sylvia.

On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 9:02:27 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> On 29-May-21 12:33 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 5:27:55 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >
> > > They were being polite. Let me paraphrase for them:
> > >
> > > "Get this garbage out of our face."
> > >
> > > Sylvia.
> >
> > Do you believe it's garbage? Upon what would you base such an opinion?
> >
> I've seen samples of your work.
>
> Sylvia.

What "samples" would those be, pray tell?
Have you read https://vixra.org/abs/2011.0076?

With what therein do you disagree? I particularly refer you to Section 2.
Seriously, I'd liked to understand any valid criticism, but banal broadsides
are akin to the old saw of shooting the messenger.

On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 9:31:46 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 6:23:08 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime_diagram#The_speed_of_light_as_a_limit
> The same problem arises there as with Minkowski diagrams, and the solution is the
> same: Both assume that particle speed can be greater than c²/v in both directions,
> which is refuted by frame-dependent particle energy.

So. Why should maximum particle speed be dependent on the relative
motion of our frame with another frame?

Here I am on Earth. I send a signal with my tachyon transmitter in the
general direction of 3c273. I don't really intend to communicate with
anybody on that rapidly retreating quasar, but with somebody who is
"along the way". Why should the 44,700 km/s recessional speed of
3c273 influence the maximum speed of my tachyon beam?

Why are the laws of physics in my frame dependent on my frame's
motions with respect to another frame?

On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 10:05:55 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 9:31:46 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 6:23:08 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime_diagram#The_speed_of_light_as_a_limit
> >
> > The same problem arises there as with Minkowski diagrams, and the solution is the
> > same: Both assume that particle speed can be greater than c²/v in both directions,
> > which is refuted by frame-dependent particle energy.
>
> So. Why should maximum particle speed be dependent on the relative
> motion of our frame with another frame?
>
> Here I am on Earth. I send a signal with my tachyon transmitter in the
> general direction of 3c273. I don't really intend to communicate with
> anybody on that rapidly retreating quasar, but with somebody who is
> "along the way". Why should the 44,700 km/s recessional speed of
> 3c273 influence the maximum speed of my tachyon beam?
>
> Why are the laws of physics in my frame dependent on my frame's
> motions with respect to another frame?

It's because energy is frame-dependent. It's just Physics 101, we're taught
that that E = mu²/2, where u is the speed of a mass m moving at speed u
relative to some reference frame, are we not? In a different frame, the energy
is E' = mu'²/2, yes? And we're taught in Math 101 that u' = u - v, nein?

So E' = m(u - v)²/2. So if u = v, E' = 0 in Newtonian physics, and the particle
has zero energy, and we'll never detect it. And it all comes down to dependence
on v.

Relativity and tachyons are a bit more complicated since E = mc²/sqrt(u²/c² - 1)
for tachyons and u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c²), but the same principle applies,
E' = mc²/sqrt(u'²/c² - 1), and u' is dependent on v.

One problem that has escaped Sudarshan and others is what to do when u'
changes sign as u passes c²/v. Some have claimed that the particle reverses
and goes backward in time. This has been named the reinterpretation principle
(RIP) -which should be interpreted as "Rest In Peace," IMHO. It makes the source
the receiver and the receiver the source to those who observe this. I believe
Wheeler and Feynman called it the Switching principle, but it's just as dead.

If you remember our discussion of receivers on tank treads (going much too fast
for ordinary materials, but okay as a thought experiment), then this poor observer
who is going too fast can rev up his RoTT and detect the particle by having the
tread speed offsetting his motion relative to the source. And he finds the signal
is still there! It's not going backward in time nor is it reversing direction, nor has
the receiver become a transmitter.

But the speed of the signal is dependent upon the relative speed between the
source and the RoTT. It's obvious from what one reviewer commented that I'll
have to include this kind of narrative in a revised paper. I assumed they'd be able
to figure this out, but we know what "assume" is composed of :-) I guess I had
fair warning when Tom made the same comment (not in question format) as you
have. I ignored it at my peril :-(

Anyway, THAT'S why c²/v shows up as a limit in the analysis. In Newtonian physics,
it shows up as u = v.

On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 9:57:29 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> But the speed of the signal is dependent upon the relative speed between the
> source and the RoTT.

Only in your crackpot mind.

>It's obvious from what one reviewer commented that I'll
>have to include this kind of narrative in a revised paper.

As I predicted, you will sink deeper in your madness. Keep up the entertainment, Gary.

On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 11:57:29 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Relativity and tachyons are a bit more complicated since E = mc²/sqrt(u²/c² - 1)
> for tachyons and u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c²), but the same principle applies,
> E' = mc²/sqrt(u'²/c² - 1), and u' is dependent on v.

So what is the maximum speed of tachyon transmission with my friend?
Is it determined by the relative speed of 3c273 or the relative speed of
my friend with respect to me?

Suppose I want to communicate with TWO friends in the same
transmission? One lives on 3c273, and the other lives right nearby
but in the same direction?

On 29-May-21 1:23 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 9:02:27 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>> On 29-May-21 12:33 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 5:27:55 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>
>>>> They were being polite. Let me paraphrase for them:
>>>>
>>>> "Get this garbage out of our face."
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Do you believe it's garbage? Upon what would you base such an opinion?
>>>
>> I've seen samples of your work.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> What "samples" would those be, pray tell?
> Have you read https://vixra.org/abs/2011.0076?
>
> With what therein do you disagree? I particularly refer you to Section 2.
> Seriously, I'd liked to understand any valid criticism, but banal broadsides
> are akin to the old saw of shooting the messenger.
>

I may have confused you with someone else, sorry about that.

But your thinking is hard to follow in your document. Having realised
that infinite speeds create ambiguities within special relativity, your
proper course was to conclude that such speeds are meaningless, rather
than trying to rescue your position using rhetoric that properly belongs
in political discourse not physics.

The problem is that speeds implied by a pair of space like separated
events vary from just over the speed of light all the way up to
infinity, with the speed being frame dependent. Even the direction of
travel between the events is not well defined.

Trying to force the speed to be infinite just leads to contradictions,
and any conclusions you might try to reach through the use of such
speeds will be invalid.

Sylvia.

On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 11:56:38 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 11:57:29 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Relativity and tachyons are a bit more complicated since E = mc²/sqrt(u²/c² - 1)
> > for tachyons and u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c²), but the same principle applies,
> > E' = mc²/sqrt(u'²/c² - 1), and u' is dependent on v.
>
> So what is the maximum speed of tachyon transmission with my friend?
> Is it determined by the relative speed of 3c273 or the relative speed of
> my friend with respect to me?
===============> Here I am on Earth. I send a signal with my tachyon transmitter in the
> general direction of 3c273. I don't really intend to communicate with
> anybody on that rapidly retreating quasar, but with somebody who is
> "along the way". Why should the 44,700 km/s recessional speed of
> 3c273 influence the maximum speed of my tachyon beam?

I presume you mean this configuration:

t = 0:
C --> v _________________ D --> v
A ______________________B

Where A is you, D is 3c273 and B is your friend, right? C isn't mentioned
but we may presume it for reference purposes.

We presume A's clock and C's clock both read zero as C passes A. Thus
D's clock reads -γvL/c² as it passes B. So A sends a nearly infinitely fast
signal to B at t = 0, right?

So, of course, your next step is to pull a switcheroo and claim that B can
pass a message to D as it passes. Then you're going to pull another one
and claim that D can send an infinitely-fast signal to C. It's the tired old
ansible game, and the same one we've been dealing with throughout many
threads. And the answer is the same:

C is at x = 0, her clock reads tC' = 0. D's clock reads tD' = -γvL/c². In order
for C to receive the signal and pass the message to A, D must send the
signal at velocity u' = (0 - γL)/(0 + γvL/c²) = -c²/v or faster. If D sends it
faster, C isn't adjacent to A when it's received, so she must wait until t' = 0.

So the message (apparently) gets back almost as soon as it's sent, and
there's no causality violation, although it (apparently) gets back sooner than
the signal sent directly to D and D sends it back directly to A. But wait ....
t' = -γvL/c²:
__ v <-- A _________ B
C ________________ D

tB = 0, so xB' = γ(L + 0)= γL, but
xA' = -vt' = γ²v²L/c²; tA = γ[t' - v²t'/c²) = t'/γ = -vL/c²

But A didn't send the signal until t' = 0:
t' = 0:
v <-- A _________ B
____ C ________________ D

Oops! B has already passed D. A (you) can't send a message into your own
past. Contradiction! If you're trying to make a loop, only specific configurations
allow it.

> Suppose I want to communicate with TWO friends in the same
> transmission? One lives on 3c273, and the other lives right nearby
> but in the same direction?

You must send the signal to the one on 3c273 at less than c²/v so it will arrive
with SOME energy. So if w = c²/v, w' = (w - v)/(1 - wv/c²) = ∞. Since it's sent at
tC' = 0, and tD' = -γvL/c², it arrives at tD' = 0. tB = vL/c². Consistency!

On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 3:41:11 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> On 29-May-21 1:23 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 9:02:27 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >
> > > I've seen samples of your work.
> > >
> > > Sylvia.
> >
> > What "samples" would those be, pray tell?
> > Have you read https://vixra.org/abs/2011.0076?
> >
> > With what therein do you disagree? I particularly refer you to Section 2.
> > Seriously, I'd liked to understand any valid criticism, but banal broadsides
> > are akin to the old saw of shooting the messenger.
>
> I may have confused you with someone else, sorry about that.
>
> But your thinking is hard to follow in your document. Having realised
> that infinite speeds create ambiguities within special relativity, your
> proper course was to conclude that such speeds are meaningless, rather
> than trying to rescue your position using rhetoric that properly belongs
> in political discourse not physics.
>
> The problem is that speeds implied by a pair of space like separated
> events vary from just over the speed of light all the way up to
> infinity, with the speed being frame dependent. Even the direction of
> travel between the events is not well defined.
>
> Trying to force the speed to be infinite just leads to contradictions,
> and any conclusions you might try to reach through the use of such
> speeds will be invalid.
>
> Sylvia.

But if w approaches -∞, then w' = (w - v)/(1 - wv/c²) approaches -c²/v.
So it's not so that infinite speed MUST lead to contradiction (i.e., signals
go back in time.

I'll admit that the viXra paper is a bit hard to follow, and the one I submitted
to AJP is better, but still, apparently, not clear enough. Using the fact that
energy is frame-dependent, direct communication between source and
receiver in relative motion (Method I) CANNOT violate causality. It turns
out that RoS is the factor that results in c²/v, and it's RoS in the "hand-off"
approach (Method II) that makes that method consistent with Method I.

On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 7:01:33 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> I'll admit that the viXra paper is a bit hard to follow, and the one I submitted
> to AJP is better, but still, apparently, not clear enough. Using the fact that
> energy is frame-dependent, direct communication between source and
> receiver in relative motion (Method I) CANNOT violate causality. It turns
> out that RoS is the factor that results in c²/v, and it's RoS in the "hand-off"
> approach (Method II) that makes that method consistent with Method I.

This website is ideal for your "masterpieces" : https://forum.cosmoquest.org/forumdisplay.php?17-Against-the-Mainstream&s=d6889bdb7da9de789ade304c9a72c08e

On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 7:25:40 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 7:01:33 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I'll admit that the viXra paper is a bit hard to follow, and the one I submitted
> > to AJP is better, but still, apparently, not clear enough. Using the fact that
> > energy is frame-dependent, direct communication between source and
> > receiver in relative motion (Method I) CANNOT violate causality. It turns
> > out that RoS is the factor that results in c²/v, and it's RoS in the "hand-off"
> > approach (Method II) that makes that method consistent with Method I.
> This website is ideal for your "masterpieces" : https://forum.cosmoquest.org/forumdisplay.php?17-Against-the-Mainstream&s=d6889bdb7da9de789ade304c9a72c08e

This place is very good as well: https://www.physicsforums.com/forums/special-and-general-relativity.70/

On 5/28/21 5:05 PM, Braden Earman wrote:
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
>> I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of
>> light possible?" today. The editor wrote:
>>
>> "While the reviewers expressed interest in your work, they were
>> unconvinced by your analysis. One reviewer offers specific
>> recommendations for restructuring your analysis in terms of Minkowski
>> spacetime, to make it easier to understand. I encourage you to use the
>> reviewers' comments to recast your analysis in a more convincing way."

That's an exceptionally MILD criticism by reviewers.

Dono. wrote:

>> > I consider use of Minkowski spacetime to be the problem rather than
>> > the solution because it encourages the belief that time is
>> > symmetrical when all physical evidence shows it to be asymmetrical. I
>> > avoided Minkowski diagrams for that very reason, but that point needs
>> > to be emphasized and expanded.
>> Then you what say is that you dismiss spacetime, described by
>> Minkowski. Thus, you have to start by describing your *new_spacetime*,
>> before thinking going full speed tachyon.
>
> Wow
> AJP has published a lot of garbage in the past 10 years (due to the
> ineptitude of the referees and of the editors). The referees didn't even
> realize the full scope of your crankery. I suggest that you persevere,
> resubmit it, for sure these idiots will accept it.

Meant ironically, might escaped you.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> > Do you believe it's garbage? Upon what would you base such an
>> > opinion?
>> >
>> I've seen samples of your work. Sylvia.
>
> What "samples" would those be, pray tell?
> Have you read https://vixra.org/abs/2011.0076? With what therein do you
> disagree? I particularly refer you to Section 2.

You don't even have a proper spacetime for your tachyon. What is it she
don't understand? You take things upside-down. And you can't
*approach_infinity*, not being convergent. Is this so difficult for you
to understand? Which *fake_money* country are you??

On Fri, 28 May 2021 14:57:51 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of light possible?" today. The editor wrote:
>
>"While the reviewers expressed interest in your work, they were unconvinced by your analysis. One reviewer offers specific recommendations for restructuring your analysis in terms of Minkowski spacetime, to make it easier to understand. I encourage you to use the reviewers' comments to recast your analysis in a more convincing way."
>
>I consider use of Minkowski spacetime to be the problem rather than the solution because it encourages the belief that time is symmetrical when all physical evidence shows it to be asymmetrical. I avoided Minkowski diagrams for that very reason, but that point needs to be emphasized and expanded.
>
>The other reviewer took issue with my claim, “Infinite speed represents a barrier which cannot be breached, even by a tachyon. Furthermore, infinite speed would mean that the tachyon would be everywhere at once, which would present an analytical and philosophical conundrum.”
>
>"The author just says this, without any analysis or any reference to other experts. It may seem intuitive to the author. It might be readily accepted as true by students who heard such statements from their physics teacher. But it is incorrect."
>
>I don't think it's "incorrect," but the claim would seem to require significantly more development. Some of the discussion with Ron has already begun this. It appears that an acceptable paper would require a lot more detail on the two major concerns expressed by the reviewers.
>
>I thought it was strange that the first reviewer would say, "the speculative nature of the article suggests to me that AJP is not the appropriate journal for this article" since the first publication on FTL particles that obeyed SR was in the AJP :-))

Experiments count.
(Aka measurements)
If your theories lead a path to new experiments,
I would donate one Dollar.

w.

On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:49:22 AM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> You must send the signal to the one on 3c273 at less than c²/v so it will arrive
> with SOME energy.

Bugus objection. My friend on 3c273, with the benefit of the advanced
technology of his(?) species, has set up a high speed paddle wheel with
tachyon antennas mounted on the rim. Spinning with a circumferential
velocity of 44,700 km/s, the antennas on "top" of the paddle wheels have
a relative speed of 0 km/s with respect to us.

If I aim a 1e10 c beam at my closeby friend, she receives the signal
within nanoseconds of transmission. The beam continues on at 1e10 c
in the direction of 3c273, and within a matter of weeks, my friend on
3c273 receives the same transmission with his(?) arrangement of
paddle-wheel antennas.

All of your so-called "energy conditions" are met.

On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 6:45:28 PM UTC-6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:49:22 AM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > You must send the signal to the one on 3c273 at less than c²/v so it will arrive
> > with SOME energy.
>
> Bugus objection.

Not at all, Prok. Don't you think that I've already thought of this?

> My friend on 3c273, with the benefit of the advanced
> technology of his(?) species, has set up a high speed paddle wheel with
> tachyon antennas mounted on the rim. Spinning with a circumferential
> velocity of 44,700 km/s, the antennas on "top" of the paddle wheels have
> a relative speed of 0 km/s with respect to us.
>
> If I aim a 1e10 c beam at my closeby friend, she receives the signal
> within nanoseconds of transmission. The beam continues on at 1e10 c
> in the direction of 3c273, and within a matter of weeks, my friend on
> 3c273 receives the same transmission with his(?) arrangement of
> paddle-wheel antennas.
>
> All of your so-called "energy conditions" are met.

You forget that the energy constraint is due to RoS, remember? So your
friend is ... where? Moving at velocity ... what? You've just made assertions
without specifying parameters. The "paddle wheels" (I prefer Receivers on
Tank Treads -- RoTT) must obey RoS, too, and RoS cannot be summarily
dismissed.