On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 1:25:33 PM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 4:18:14 PM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 6:03:13 AM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 9:23:33 PM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [Much, much too long a message for me, so I'm cutting to the chase}
> >
> > Yep, and that's after I regularly cut things as well ;-) No problems with cutting to the chase.
> >
> > > > On WEDNESDAY, Just as Oliver emits the tachyons, he is again being passed by Quentin, and also Peter is
> > > > (at the same time in the OP frame) being passed by Ralph (Quentin and Ralph are stationary wrt eachother,
> > > > so "in" the same QR frame). Peter ignores Ralph (certainly has no intention of handing anything off to him).
> > > > Still, Peter receives the tachyons as his clock also reads (near-) 0. So in diagram form, this is as below, but
> > > > NO INTERACTION between the frames :
> > > > V <-- R ________________V <-- Q
> > > > ____ P _____________________ O
> > > >
> > > > RESULT: Success - perfectly possible.
> > > >
> > > > On THURSDAY, Just as Oliver emits the tachyons, he is again being passed by Quentin, and Peter by Ralph
> > > > (Quentin and Ralph are in the same frame). This time, however, Peter has decided that when he gets the
> > > > tachyon message, he will hand it off to Ralph. So in diagram form, this is :
> > > > V <-- R ________________V <-- Q
> > > > ____ P _____________________ O
> > > >
> > > > RESULT: IMPOSSIBLE. This is a contradiction as you earlier stated. Consequently, no way - NO WAY - can D
> > > > possibly emit those tachyons, because of what Peter is going to do with them when he receives them.
> > >
> > > Not impossible at all. Note that in RQ, they can't detect the signal, all they know is that an event E1 at (M,0),
> > > [γM,γvM/c²] occurred and an event E2 at (0,0), [0,0] occurred.
> >
> > Not forgetting of course that Peter will hand off to Ralph, as stated.
> Even so, from PO's perspective, the signal can't exceed c²/v since tR' = 0 and tQ' = γvM/c².

No - We are NOT doing the big "let's forget that the scenario was clearly and explicitly stated as the tachyon speed dial set to (near-)infinity, and instead jump to an entirely different scenario where he has the tachyon speed dial set to c²/v instead" switcheroo.

Again, if you think something is impossible, THEN JUST SAY SO ! :-)

On the contrary, when I suggested "RESULT: IMPOSSIBLE", you immediately contradicted me with the firm statement that this clear scenario explicitly with (near-)infinite speed tachyons (as opposed to c²/v ) is "Not impossible at all. ".

So, do you want to reverse that now, to say that RESULT: IMPOSSIBLE was correct after all ??? In other words, you are now saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for O to have his tachyon speed dial set to -(near-)infinity - right ?

Also, what about the MONDAY, TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY - are you now saying that any of those are impossible as well ?

> > Putting it all together, if I understand you right then just as Quantum Mechanics has the "Many Worlds"
> > scenario, you have decided something similar must be happening for tachyons under SR - let's call it
> > MWSR (Many Worlds SR). Just as Quantum Mechanics means the universe "splits" when a
> > measurement is made, so you seem to be saying that the frames "split" when a tachyon is transmitted
> > that would otherwise violate causality - right ? This is your "extended Mermin's principle",yes ?
> I think the "MW theory in QM or SR is nonsense.
> > Hence also why you are against "frame jumping" - just as you can't "world jump" in Quantum Mechanics
> > switching between the realities seeing the cat dead then alive, so also you reject "frame jumping"
> > switching between frames (and so realities) of seeing Alice dead or alive. Just as each "world" in
> > "Many Worlds" is a separate reality, so you reckon each frame in MWSR is a separate reality - yes?
> Absolutely not!

Then I have no idea what your proposal is ( to put it another way, how it could possibly be consistent).

You have stated that you believe my previous scenario :

- Sticking in the CD frame, we believe what S' sees, so Carol receives the tachyons just as she is adjacent to Alice
- Sticking in the AB frame, we believe what S sees, so Carol receives the tachyons long after she passed Alice

So far as I am concerned, those are two incompatible realities - as is clearly evidenced by Alice's fate being different.

> > For myself, I'm afraid I don't buy that at all.
> I'm glad to hear that :-)
> > As I said, for me there is a single reality, and different frames are nothing but different measurements of
> > that single reality (nor do I see anything in Mermin, Norton, et al to indicate that they disagree with me ;-) ).
> Nor do I.

And yet you reject that events have to be consistent between frames (eg, when Carol receives the tachyons, whether Alice is with her or not)

>
> Okay, if truth be told, I favor multiple parallel branes, but not in the sense of splitting reality.
> > If Alice remains alive in one frame, then that is the single reality - she remains alive in ALL frames (and
> > hence why nothing wrong with frame-jumping).
> But if you frame jump and your complete analyses from each frame show that she;s alive in one but
> dead in the other, what do you do?

You ADDRESS THAT CONTRADICTION.
You don't say "Well, let's instead switch to talk about a different scenario that doesn't have that contradiction". That is not addressing the original contradiction.

We have a scenario that you believe in :
- Sticking in the CD frame, we believe what S' sees, so Carol receives the tachyons just as she is adjacent to Alice
- Sticking in the AB frame, we believe what S sees, so Carol receives the tachyons long after she passed Alice

The direct consequence of that belief is that Alice is alive in one frame, but not in the other.

And let's be clear here - your complaints about "jumping frames" up until now have been about jumping from A to B in mid-scenario.

THIS scenario (and the fate of Alice) is not like that. Rather, this is :
- At the start, taking the view in the CD frame, run the whole scenario through to the end, which has Carol receiving the tachyons (and she's adjacent to Alice), and the bomb goes off. THE END.
- At the start, taking the view in the AB frame, run the whole scenario through to the end, which has Carol receiving the tachyons (and she's nowhere near Alice), and the bomb goes off. THE END.

We have stuck in each frame individually, doing a full analysis from beginning (B and D are co-located) to end (bomb goes off) within each frame as you have mandated. We haven't jumped frame in mid-scenario.

We still have the contradiction.

The problem is not with frame-jumping, not with the analysis.

> My answer is that we've set up a configuration that cannot form
> a valid loop. So adjust the parameters where a valid loop CAN be formed. THAT's what REAL tachyons
> will do.

And that is NOT addressing the contradiction.

You say anyone can always emit tachyons, including near-infinite speed tachyons.

I point out Cofiguration-A that results in a contradiction when someone sets their tachyon-speed-dial to near-infinite.

You say "Well, yes, that is a contradiction, so that just means we have to forget Configuration-A, and instead look at Configuration-B where that individual chooses to set their tachyon-speed-dial to a lower value instead. Ta-Da ! Configuration-B has no contradiction, which means anyone can always emit tachyons, including near-infinite speed tachyons."

No. Configuration-A has still NOT been addressed.

> IOW, the view from the laboratory (either AB's of CD's) is WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET.

Except you also say it's not ;->

You want to claim all of :
1) Any individual can always emit (near-) infinite speed tachyons
2) No frame can interfere with another frame
3) In the PO frame, O cannot emit (near-) infinite speed tachyons (nor any tachyons exceeding c²/v) because of the RQ frame ( since tR' = 0 and tQ' = γvM/c² ).

BELIEVE
> that RoS is real and the moving observer's time depends upon position in the lab frame. And Nobody
> is sending a signal to some fictitious past.

Yes, I agree with that wholeheartedly :-)
That's why I reject FTL signals (like tachyons) >8-P

On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 1:59:09 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 1:25:33 PM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > But if you frame jump and your complete analyses from each frame show that she;s alive in one but
> > dead in the other, what do you do?
>
> You ADDRESS THAT CONTRADICTION.
> You don't say "Well, let's instead switch to talk about a different scenario that doesn't have that
> contradiction". That is not addressing the original contradiction.

Yes, it is. The contradiction is FATAL to what you're suggesting. I've explained WHY it's fatal
but YOU don't address THAT. You want to stop and conclude that FTL is impossible.

> We have a scenario that you believe in :
> - Sticking in the CD frame, we believe what S' sees, so Carol receives the tachyons just as she is adjacent
> to Alice - Sticking in the AB frame, we believe what S sees, so Carol receives the tachyons long after she
> passed Alice
> The direct consequence of that belief is that Alice is alive in one frame, but not in the other.
>
> And let's be clear here - your complaints about "jumping frames" up until now have been about jumping
> from A to B in mid-scenario.

Things are getting incoherent here, RoB. A and B have always been at relative rest. There's no jumping
between A and B.

> THIS scenario (and the fate of Alice) is not like that. Rather, this is :
> - At the start, taking the view in the CD frame, run the whole scenario through to the end, which has Carol
> receiving the tachyons (and she's adjacent to Alice), and the bomb goes off. THE END.
> - At the start, taking the view in the AB frame, run the whole scenario through to the end, which has Carol
> receiving the tachyons (and she's nowhere near Alice), and the bomb goes off. THE END.
>
> We have stuck in each frame individually, doing a full analysis from beginning (B and D are co-located)
> to end (bomb goes off) within each frame as you have mandated. We haven't jumped frame in mid-scenario.
>
> We still have the contradiction.

Tachyons don't violate causality, people do. I don't know what configuration you're talking about because
YOU keep switching from one to another.

> The problem is not with frame-jumping, not with the analysis.

I think it is, but I have NO idea what your purported configuration is.

> > My answer is that we've set up a configuration that cannot form a valid loop. So adjust the parameters
> > where a valid loop CAN be formed. THAT's what REAL tachyons will do.
> And that is NOT addressing the contradiction.
>
> You say anyone can always emit tachyons, including near-infinite speed tachyons.
>
> I point out Cofiguration-A that results in a contradiction when someone sets their tachyon-speed-dial to
> near-infinite.

Don't just say "Configuration A" without describing it with diagrams.

> You say "Well, yes, that is a contradiction, so that just means we have to forget Configuration-A, and
> instead look at Configuration-B where that individual chooses to set their tachyon-speed-dial to a lower
> value instead. Ta-Da ! Configuration-B has no contradiction, which means anyone can always emit tachyons, including near-infinite speed tachyons."
>
> No. Configuration-A has still NOT been addressed.

I disagree.

> > IOW, the view from the laboratory (either AB's of CD's) is WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET.
>
> Except you also say it's not ;->
>
> You want to claim all of :
> 1) Any individual can always emit (near-) infinite speed tachyons
> 2) No frame can interfere with another frame
> 3) In the PO frame, O cannot emit (near-) infinite speed tachyons (nor any tachyons exceeding c²/v)
> because of the RQ frame ( since tR' = 0 and tQ' = γvM/c² ).

You're misrepresenting my position, Rob. It's basically a straw man argument.

> > BELIEVE that RoS is real and the moving observer's time depends upon position in the lab frame.
> > And Nobody is sending a signal to some fictitious past.
>
> Yes, I agree with that wholeheartedly :-)
> That's why I reject FTL signals (like tachyons) >8-P

You have free will, so you're free to reject whatever you wish.

I believe that Method I is an accurate theoretical description of the capability of tachyons and that
the multiple Method II configurations are mostly sleight-of-hand. The trick is to be like Houdini and
discover how the trickster Mediums are hoodwinking the public. One approach to discovery is by
dual analysis. You've made the observation that DA results is contradiction for certain configurations,
and I agree. But here we go different ways. You say that proves FTL is impossible while I say the
proposed configuration is impossible. My support for that includes the points (1) it doesn't agree with
Method I, (2) it violates Morin's strategy/Recami's moral and (3) it plays fast and loose with RoS.

The conventional view (Mermin, Tipler and Llewellyn, Norton, etc.) that Method I violates causality
is debunked by demonstrating that tachyon energy and velocity are frame-dependent.

So the "authorities" were wrong.

"Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made
mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better
way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there
are experts." -- Carl Sagan

But they were SUPPOSED to be "experts," too!

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Richard P. Feynman

So what do we do without experts and authorities?

"Don't pay attention to 'authorities.' Think for yourself." -- Richard Feynman

Well, that's good, but we have strong evidence from this "discussion" group that

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

Hopefully, we think better than that :-|

So let's reset. Propose a configuration, in diagram form, that you think proves that FTL
is impossible and we'll discuss it, following it to the bitter end :-)

On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 5:48:45 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> So let's reset. Propose a configuration, in diagram form, that you think proves that FTL
> is impossible and we'll discuss it, following it to the bitter end :-)

You are becoming more and more like David Seppala, scumbag

On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 2:40:00 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 5:48:45 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > So let's reset. Propose a configuration, in diagram form, that you think proves that FTL
> > is impossible and we'll discuss it, following it to the bitter end :-)
>
> You are becoming more and more like David Seppala, scumbag

"Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 10:48:45 PM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 1:59:09 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 1:25:33 PM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > But if you frame jump and your complete analyses from each frame show that she;s alive in one but
> > > dead in the other, what do you do?
> >
> > You ADDRESS THAT CONTRADICTION.
> > You don't say "Well, let's instead switch to talk about a different scenario that doesn't have that
> > contradiction". That is not addressing the original contradiction.
> Yes, it is. The contradiction is FATAL to what you're suggesting. I've explained WHY it's fatal
> but YOU don't address THAT. You want to stop and conclude that FTL is impossible.

No, the contradiction is fatal to FTL.

We have a configuration (say the nailgun scenario) built on FTL. If FTL was not involved, there would be no contradiction. With FTL, there IS a contradiction. The contradiction is with FTL.

> > We have a scenario that you believe in :
> > - Sticking in the CD frame, we believe what S' sees, so Carol receives the tachyons just as she is adjacent
> > to Alice - Sticking in the AB frame, we believe what S sees, so Carol receives the tachyons long after she
> > passed Alice
> > The direct consequence of that belief is that Alice is alive in one frame, but not in the other.
> >
> > And let's be clear here - your complaints about "jumping frames" up until now have been about jumping
> > from A to B in mid-scenario.
> Things are getting incoherent here, RoB. A and B have always been at relative rest. There's no jumping
> between A and B.

Apologies - I had in mind (and had probably typed in an earlier bit) "jumping from Frame-A to Frame -B" - yes, just "A to B" doesn't cut it :-D

> > > IOW, the view from the laboratory (either AB's of CD's) is WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET.
> >
> > Except you also say it's not ;->
> >
> > You want to claim all of :
> > 1) Any individual can always emit (near-) infinite speed tachyons
> > 2) No frame can interfere with another frame
> > 3) In the PO frame, O cannot emit (near-) infinite speed tachyons (nor any tachyons exceeding c²/v)
> > because of the RQ frame ( since tR' = 0 and tQ' = γvM/c² ).
> You're misrepresenting my position, Rob. It's basically a straw man argument.

Sorry, I don't want to misrepresent your position, but that is my honest understanding of the statements that you have made during our discussions.

Which of those statements do you reject ?

> > > BELIEVE that RoS is real and the moving observer's time depends upon position in the lab frame.
> > > And Nobody is sending a signal to some fictitious past.
> >
> > Yes, I agree with that wholeheartedly :-)
> > That's why I reject FTL signals (like tachyons) >8-P
> You have free will, so you're free to reject whatever you wish.
>
> I believe that Method I is an accurate theoretical description of the capability of tachyons and that
> the multiple Method II configurations are mostly sleight-of-hand.

I understand you want to disallow tachyons violating causality, which prima-facie they would do. So, for a given pair of frames with relative velocity v, you reason that there must be no causality violation if tachyons are limited to c²/v. So you looked for a possible mechanism to enforce this whilst still allowing emitters to emit anything upto (near-)infinite speed tachyons. Success, you decided energy considerations disallow (near-)infinite speed reception using Method 1 (where the receiver is travelling at v away from the emitter).

The trouble is, that mechanism plainly does not apply to Method 2, where the receiver is stationary wrt the emitter.

So you push the line that since you have a mechanism to disallow (near-)infinite speed transmission using Method 1 , so we should also disallow (near-)infinite speed transmission using Method 2 as well, because ....... well, just because.

THAT is the sleight of hand - and it's yours, not ours ;->

The trick is to be like Houdini and
> discover how the trickster Mediums are hoodwinking the public. One approach to discovery is by
> dual analysis. You've made the observation that DA results is contradiction for certain configurations,
> and I agree. But here we go different ways. You say that proves FTL is impossible while I say the
> proposed configuration is impossible. My support for that includes the points (1) it doesn't agree with
> Method I, (2) it violates Morin's strategy/Recami's moral and (3) it plays fast and loose with RoS.

But the proposed configuration *IS* FTL. So I don't see how that is different from :

I say "here's a configuration where someone emitting (near-)infinite speed tachyons results in a contradiction"

You reply : "Since that configuration results in a contradiction, then that means that configuration is impossible by definition - therefore there is no possible configuration that results in a contradiction. Let's ignore the emitter setting their tachyon speed dial to (near-)infinity, and instead say he sets it to c²/v. ....."

No. If you reckon someone CAN set they tachyon speed dials to (near-)infinite speed, then let's examine what happens when they DO set their tachyon speed dials to (near-)infinite speed.

For those "supports" : (1) I don't agree with the sleight-of-hand I described above, (2) I don't agree with your interpretation/"enhancement" of Morin's strategy (3) on the contrary, it fully honours and enforces the single-reality of RoS.

>
> So let's reset. Propose a configuration, in diagram form, that you think proves that FTL
> is impossible and we'll discuss it, following it to the bitter end :-)

Well, there's Nailgun, the "Alice to Smithereens", and the Oliver-to-Peter without the switcheroo of "from PO's perspective, the signal can't exceed c²/v"

First off, let's be sure we're on the same page about that "from PO's perspective, the signal can't exceed c²/v", since that's similar to what you've said about the other configurations, and frankly to me it can only mean that O sets his tachyon speed dial to c²/v and NOT infinity - Is that what you mean ?

- if so, then that directly contradicts the stated scenario

- if not, then what DO you mean, since nothing else makes any sense - For example, let's say the distance from Oliver to Peter is such that a signal at speed c²/v would take 1 hour (all as per the OP frame - ie, given distance M between O and P, then Mv/c² = 1 hour). Oliver sets his tachyon speed dial to (near-)infinity, and emits the tachyons as his clock shows 3pm, therefore Peter receives them as his clock shows (near-)3pm - as expected (and as consistent only with) tachyons at (near-)infinite speed. This is obviously way different from Oliver setting his tachyon-speed-dial to c²/v, since then Peter would have received them as his clock shows 4pm.

So I cannot see how Peter's clock reading (near-)3pm at reception is at all compatible with anything other than the tachyons travelling (within the PO frame's perspective) at the speed set on O's speed dial (ie (near-)infinity) wrt the PO frame - ie, from PO's perspective, the signal was travelling at -(near-)infinity, as expected from the speed dial.

So can you explain clearly and concisely exactly what you mean by "from PO's perspective, the signal can't exceed c²/v" ?

Needless to say, I REALLY hope there's no suggestion that Peter's clock would read 4pm as he receives the tachyons, as that really would be crazy ;-)

On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 3:44:49 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 10:48:45 PM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 1:59:09 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 1:25:33 PM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But if you frame jump and your complete analyses from each frame show that she;s alive in one but
> > > > dead in the other, what do you do?
> > >
> > > You ADDRESS THAT CONTRADICTION.
> > > You don't say "Well, let's instead switch to talk about a different scenario that doesn't have that
> > > contradiction". That is not addressing the original contradiction.
> >
> > Yes, it is. The contradiction is FATAL to what you're suggesting. I've explained WHY it's fatal
> > but YOU don't address THAT. You want to stop and conclude that FTL is impossible.
>
> No, the contradiction is fatal to FTL.
>
> We have a configuration (say the nailgun scenario) built on FTL. If FTL was not involved, there
> would be no contradiction. With FTL, there IS a contradiction. The contradiction is with FTL.

The contradiction occurs because of what you ASSUME FTL means.

> > > We have a scenario that you believe in :
> > > - Sticking in the CD frame, we believe what S' sees, so Carol receives the tachyons just as she is adjacent
> > > to Alice - Sticking in the AB frame, we believe what S sees, so Carol receives the tachyons long after she
> > > passed Alice
> > > The direct consequence of that belief is that Alice is alive in one frame, but not in the other.
> > >
> > > And let's be clear here - your complaints about "jumping frames" up until now have been about jumping
> > > from A to B in mid-scenario.
> >
> > Things are getting incoherent here, RoB. A and B have always been at relative rest. There's no jumping
> > between A and B.
>
> Apologies - I had in mind (and had probably typed in an earlier bit) "jumping from Frame-A to Frame -B" -
> yes, just "A to B" doesn't cut it :-D
>
> > > > IOW, the view from the laboratory (either AB's of CD's) is WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET.
> > >
> > > Except you also say it's not ;->
> > >
> > > You want to claim all of :
> > > 1) Any individual can always emit (near-) infinite speed tachyons
> > > 2) No frame can interfere with another frame
> > > 3) In the PO frame, O cannot emit (near-) infinite speed tachyons (nor any tachyons exceeding c²/v)
> > > because of the RQ frame ( since tR' = 0 and tQ' = γvM/c² ).
> >
> > You're misrepresenting my position, Rob. It's basically a straw man argument.
>
> Sorry, I don't want to misrepresent your position, but that is my honest understanding of the statements
> that you have made during our discussions.
>
> Which of those statements do you reject ?

I reject 5). of course. O can emit (near-) infinite speed tachyons. If he does, though, he can't form a
loop.

> > > > BELIEVE that RoS is real and the moving observer's time depends upon position in the lab frame.
> > > > And Nobody is sending a signal to some fictitious past.
> > >
> > > Yes, I agree with that wholeheartedly :-)
> > > That's why I reject FTL signals (like tachyons) >8-P
> >
> > You have free will, so you're free to reject whatever you wish.
> >
> > I believe that Method I is an accurate theoretical description of the capability of tachyons and that
> > the multiple Method II configurations are mostly sleight-of-hand.
>
> I understand you want to disallow tachyons violating causality, which prima-facie they would do.
> So, for a given pair of frames with relative velocity v, you reason that there must be no causality
> violation if tachyons are limited to c²/v. So you looked for a possible mechanism to enforce this whilst
> still allowing emitters to emit anything upto (near-)infinite speed tachyons. Success, you decided
> energy considerations disallow (near-)infinite speed reception using Method 1 (where the receiver is
> travelling at v away from the emitter).
>
> The trouble is, that mechanism plainly does not apply to Method 2, where the receiver is stationary wrt
> the emitter.
> So you push the line that since you have a mechanism to disallow (near-)infinite speed transmission
> using Method 1 , so we should also disallow (near-)infinite speed transmission using Method 2 as well,
> because ....... well, just because.
>
> THAT is the sleight of hand - and it's yours, not ours ;->
>
> >The trick is to be like Houdini and
> > discover how the trickster Mediums are hoodwinking the public. One approach to discovery is by
> > dual analysis. You've made the observation that DA results is contradiction for certain configurations,
> > and I agree. But here we go different ways. You say that proves FTL is impossible while I say the
> > proposed configuration is impossible. My support for that includes the points (1) it doesn't agree with
> > Method I, (2) it violates Morin's strategy/Recami's moral and (3) it plays fast and loose with RoS.
>
> But the proposed configuration *IS* FTL. So I don't see how that is different from :
>
> I say "here's a configuration where someone emitting (near-)infinite speed tachyons results in a contradiction"
>
> You reply : "Since that configuration results in a contradiction, then that means that configuration is impossible
> by definition - therefore there is no possible configuration that results in a contradiction. Let's ignore the emitter
> setting their tachyon speed dial to (near-)infinity, and instead say he sets it to c²/v. ....."
>
> No. If you reckon someone CAN set they tachyon speed dials to (near-)infinite speed, then let's examine what
> happens when they DO set their tachyon speed dials to (near-)infinite speed.
>
> For those "supports" : (1) I don't agree with the sleight-of-hand I described above, (2) I don't agree with your
> interpretation/"enhancement" of Morin's strategy (3) on the contrary, it fully honours and enforces the single-
> reality of RoS.
>
> > So let's reset. Propose a configuration, in diagram form, that you think proves that FTL
> > is impossible and we'll discuss it, following it to the bitter end :-)
>
> Well, there's Nailgun, the "Alice to Smithereens", and the Oliver-to-Peter without the switcheroo of "from PO's
> perspective, the signal can't exceed c²/v"

That's not A configuration, that's TWO.

> First off, let's be sure we're on the same page about that "from PO's perspective, the signal can't exceed c²/v",
> since that's similar to what you've said about the other configurations, and frankly to me it can only mean that
> O sets his tachyon speed dial to c²/v and NOT infinity - Is that what you mean ?
>
> - if so, then that directly contradicts the stated scenario

WHAT "stated" scenario? Where's the diagram? Which way are the observers moving? Where are they at
t = 0?

Stick with Alice, Bob, Carol and Dave. There is no need to invent any other names.

Since you haven't drawn a diagram, it's left up to me to do so. Let's use PCH's Figure 4-4:

t = 0:
C --> v ____________ D --> v
A _____________________ B
Figure 1.

t = vL/c²:
_____ C --> v ____________ D --> v
A ______________________ B
Figure 2. B initiates a message and passes it to D when they are adjacent.

t = vL/c²+: D sends an FTL signal to C containing the message.
_____ C --> v ______u' <---- D --> v
A ______________________ B
Figure 3. D sends an FTL signal to C containing the message.

The question is, what does Figure 4 look like? What is the speed of u'?

You claim that D is free to send it at (near) infinite speed, thus "causing A
and B (in fact, the whole slice of time in which A and B reside) to regress
in time (back to Figure 1).

We both agree that no frame can regress in time. You claim this means
that FTL is impossible, while I claim that C cannot be less than xC = v²L/c²,
which means that, insofar as A is concerned, the time on C's clock is
tC' ≥ vL/γc² while tD' ≥ 0 (i.e., tC' - tD' = vL/γc², which is RoS).

So IF FTL is possible, then -c²/v > u' > c. One explanation for this is that the
two frames have become joined together by B passing the message to D.

So I think this describes where we're at. It contains all the pertinent points
over which we disagree, so let's stick with this one configuration and wring
all we can out of it.

On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 6:36:37 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> So IF FTL is possible, then -c²/v > u' > c. One explanation for this is that the
> two frames have become joined together by B passing the message to D.

....and it is impossible for all u'>c^2/v , dishonest imbecile. Meaning that there is an infinity of counter-examples to your crank theory.

Again cutting to the chase :-)

On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 11:36:37 PM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 3:44:49 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:

> > First off, let's be sure we're on the same page about that "from PO's perspective, the signal can't exceed c²/v",
> > since that's similar to what you've said about the other configurations, and frankly to me it can only mean that
> > O sets his tachyon speed dial to c²/v and NOT infinity - Is that what you mean ?
> >
> > - if so, then that directly contradicts the stated scenario
> WHAT "stated" scenario? Where's the diagram? Which way are the observers moving? Where are they at
> t = 0?

There was only one scenario about which you said "from PO's perspective, the signal can't exceed c²/v" .... so THAT scenario - that one labelled "THURSDAY" ;-)

Hey, it even had a diagram :

V <-- R ________________V <-- Q
____ P _____________________ O

with O explicitly stated as having tachyon-speed-dial set to -(near-)infinity.

>
> Stick with Alice, Bob, Carol and Dave. There is no need to invent any other names.
>
> Since you haven't drawn a diagram, it's left up to me to do so.

OK, so my diagram renamed to A,B,C,D is :

v <-- A ________________v <-- B
____ C _____________________ D

with D explicitly stated as having the tachyon-speed-dial set to -(near-)infinity.

Likewise, "from PO's perspective, the signal can't exceed c²/v" becomes "from CD's perspective, the signal can't exceed c²/v" - except that statement makes absolutely no sense.

To see this, let's say you had a mate who turned up one day in an old rusty car, but claims it is capable of going at 1,000 mph.
When you refuse to believe him, he says "Sure it does. I left Town-D at exactly 1pm, and drove full speed and non-stop to Town-C, a distance of 1,000 miles."
You reply with some amazement : "So are you telling me you arrived at Town-C at 2pm ?"
He replies : "No, I arrived at Town-C at 11pm. So the car did 1000mph as I said, but it's just that from our (or the earth frame's) perspective, the car can't exceed 100mph"

That counter-claims of "from the frame's perspective, the speed can't exceed <some other random value>" is just meaningless baloney - both for his car, and for the tachyons.

The speed of the tachyons in the CD frame is set by the tachyon speed dial - that is the speed in the frame's perspective. Anything else is baloney.

> Let's use PCH's Figure 4-4:
> ....
> t = vL/c²+: D sends an FTL signal to C containing the message.
> _____ C --> v ______u' <---- D --> v
> A ______________________ B
> Figure 3. D sends an FTL signal to C containing the message.
>
> The question is, what does Figure 4 look like? What is the speed of u'?
>
> You claim that D is free to send it at (near) infinite speed,

I claim ??????? Isn't it YOUR claim that an individual can emit tachyons ??? And emit them at any speed > c AND <= (near-)infinite ???

Or are you now saying that (near-)infinite speed tachyons are impossible ? In which case, what do you say is the maximum possible tachyon speed between two individuals stationary wrt eachother ?

> You claim that D is free to send it at (near) infinite speed, thus "causing A
> and B (in fact, the whole slice of time in which A and B reside) to regress
> in time (back to Figure 1).
>
> We both agree that no frame can regress in time. You claim this means
> that FTL is impossible, while I claim that C cannot be less than xC = v²L/c²,
> which means that, insofar as A is concerned, the time on C's clock is
> tC' ≥ vL/γc² while tD' ≥ 0 (i.e., tC' - tD' = vL/γc², which is RoS).

Which is as I've been saying repeatedly : a huge switcheroo !!

The scenario was explicitly stated that D has his tachyon speed dial set to -(near-)infinite when he emits the tachyons at t'D = 0, but your trying to say that C receives them at tC' = vL/γc² means you are switching that scenario to D having his tachyon speed dial set to c²/v instead - so simply refusing to deal with what happens if D DOES have his tachyon speed dial set to -(near-)infinite.

Look, t'C is the time showing on C's clock as the signal is received. That HAS to be a single, fixed value - for example, we can imagine Carol printing it on a big sheet of paper for everyone (in every frame) to see.

That means that t'C cannot - simply CANNOT - be frame-dependent, CANNOT be influenced by another frame. It's insane to suggest that it could be.

If it was frame-dependent, that would mean that A would see one value printed on the sheet, but another observer passing by at a different velocity would see a different value printed on the sheet - so obviously can't happen, a nonsense.

So again, t'C (the time showing on C's clock at signal reception) obviously CANNOT be frame-dependent - right ?

Except "frame-dependent" means having a function that includes the value "v" - and guess what ?
Your tC' ≥ vL/γc² *IS* frame dependant, since it does include "v".

Sorry, but claiming that the time showing on C's clock when she receives the signal is frame dependent is simply nonsense - and if that's what your tachyon proposal is built on, then that's not good news for your tachyon proposal >8->

On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 8:54:38 AM UTC-6, Rob Acraman wrote:
>
> Again cutting to the chase :-)
> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 11:36:37 PM UTC+10, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > WHAT "stated" scenario? Where's the diagram? Which way are the observers moving? Where are they at
> > t = 0?
>
> There was only one scenario about which you said "from PO's perspective, the signal can't exceed c²/v"
> .... so THAT scenario - that one labelled "THURSDAY" ;-)
>
> Hey, it even had a diagram :
> V <-- R ________________V <-- Q
> ____ P _____________________ O
> with O explicitly stated as having tachyon-speed-dial set to -(near-)infinity.
> >
> > Stick with Alice, Bob, Carol and Dave. There is no need to invent any other names.
> >
> > Since you haven't drawn a diagram, it's left up to me to do so.
>
> OK, so my diagram renamed to A,B,C,D is :
> v <-- A ________________v <-- B
> ____ C _____________________ D
>
> with D explicitly stated as having the tachyon-speed-dial set to -(near-)infinity.
>
> Likewise, "from CD's perspective, the signal can't exceed c²/v" - except that statement
> makes absolutely no sense.

I'm presuming we're talking about a signal from A to B, right? Otherwise, I'm lost.
Also, the S' frame time is t' = 0; so tA = 0 and tB = vL/c². If w = ∞ (A to B) then it
arrived at B at tB = 0, but B snd D weren't adjacent then.

So just what do you believe "makes absolutely no sense"?

> [rusty car commentary deleted]
>
> That counter-claims of "from the frame's perspective, the speed can't exceed
> <some other random value>" is just meaningless baloney - both for his car, and
> for the tachyons.
>
> The speed of the tachyons in the CD frame is set by the tachyon speed dial - that
> is the speed in the frame's perspective. Anything else is baloney.

The baloney is in the basic configuration, as I will show with this:

> > Let's use PCH's Figure 4-4:
> > ....
> > t = vL/c²+: D sends an FTL signal to C containing the message.
> > _____ C --> v ______u' <---- D --> v
> > A ______________________ B
> > Figure 3. D sends an FTL signal to C containing the message.
> >
> > The question is, what does Figure 4 look like? What is the speed of u'?
> >
> > You claim that D is free to send it at (near) infinite speed,
>
> I claim ??????? Isn't it YOUR claim that an individual can emit tachyons ???
> And emit them at any speed > c AND <= (near-)infinite ???

Actually, it is claimed in Figure 4-4 as a reductio ad absurdum. Isn't that what
you're doing, too?
> Or are you now saying that (near-)infinite speed tachyons are impossible ?
> In which case, what do you say is the maximum possible tachyon speed
> between two individuals stationary wrt eachother ?

Figure 4-4 is about sending a message around a loop and violation causality
in the process.

> > You claim that D is free to send it at (near) infinite speed, thus "causing A
> > and B (in fact, the whole slice of time in which A and B reside) to regress
> > in time (back to Figure 1).
> >
> > We both agree that no frame can regress in time. You claim this means
> > that FTL is impossible, while I claim that C cannot be less than xC = v²L/c²,
> > which means that, insofar as A is concerned, the time on C's clock is
> > tC' ≥ vL/γc² while tD' ≥ 0 (i.e., tC' - tD' = vL/γc², which is RoS).
>
> Which is as I've been saying repeatedly : a huge switcheroo !!
>
> The scenario was explicitly stated that D has his tachyon speed dial set to
> -(near-)infinite when he emits the tachyons at t'D = 0, but your trying to say that
> C receives them at tC' = vL/γc² means you are switching that scenario to D
> having his tachyon speed dial set to c²/v instead - so simply refusing to deal with
> what happens if D DOES have his tachyon speed dial set to -(near-)infinite.

You keep trying to pretend that D is free to set his speed dial to > -c²/v AND interact
with another frame (like pass a message or shoot a nail). I'm saying he can't do both.

> Look, t'C is the time showing on C's clock as the signal is received. That HAS to be
> a single, fixed value -

Yes, indeed!

> for example, we can imagine Carol printing it on a big sheet of paper for everyone (in
> every frame) to see.
>
> That means that t'C cannot - simply CANNOT - be frame-dependent, CANNOT be
> influenced by another frame. It's insane to suggest that it could be.
>
> If it was frame-dependent, that would mean that A would see one value printed on the
> sheet, but another observer passing by at a different velocity would see a different
> value printed on the sheet - so obviously can't happen, a nonsense.

I agree.

> So again, t'C (the time showing on C's clock at signal reception) obviously CANNOT be
> frame-dependent - right ?

Yes, the reception of the signal is an event, E2. E1 was B passing the message to D and
D immediately sending a signal to C. Also at E2, C passed the message to A.. Then E3 is
B receiving the signal from A.

> Except "frame-dependent" means having a function that includes the value "v" - and guess what ?
> Your tC' ≥ vL/γc² *IS* frame dependant, since it does include "v".

But v is a parameter of the problem. IOW, it's treated as a CONSTANT. The initial positions
of C may, and D does, also contain v. It all works out, Rob.

> Sorry, but claiming that the time showing on C's clock when she receives the signal is frame
> dependent is simply nonsense - and if that's what your tachyon proposal is built on, then that's
> not good news for your tachyon proposal >8->

I'm afraid that you're slipping into straw-man arguments, and you've missed the entire point of
the exercise with Figure 4-4. So let's REALLY look at it:

t = 0:
C --> v ____________ D --> v
A _____________________ B
Figure 1.

Absolutely nothing happens at t = 0. (A purportedly received a message
from C which B passed to D at a later time, but this is ridiculous.)

t = vL/c²:
_____ C --> v ____________ D --> v
A ______________________ B
Figure 2. B initiates a message and passes it to D when they are adjacent.

There seems to be no problem with this. This is Event 1. But B has interacted
with D, so is D free to send an infinitely-fast signal to C? That's the REAL
question here, is it not?

So let's follow the logic assuming that's true. One problem with that is that we
must violate Morin's strategy because, with our feet planted in S, C is NOT
adjacent to A. In fact tC' = 0 isn't in this time slice.

t = vL/c²+: D sends an FTL signal to C containing the message.
_____ C --> v ______u' <---- D --> v
A ______________________ B
Figure 3. D sends an FTL signal to C containing the message.

The question is, what does Figure 4 look like? What is the speed of u'?
If u' =-∞, Figure 4 looks like Figure 1! Time regressed in S! Now let's look at
it from S':

t' = 0
v <-- A ________________v <-- B
____ C _____________________ D

Ooh, things are DIFFERENT! B passes the message to D at tB = vL/c², tD' = 0,
and D sends it at u' = -∞ to C, and it arrives at tC' = 0, and C passes it to A at
tA = 0, and A sends it to B. So we have the same problem! If A sends it to B
at w = ∞, B gets it at t' < 0. So B "receives" the message before he gave it to
D.

APPARENTLY a causality violation, but why did we require that B originated
the message at t = vL/c². Could he not have created it at t = 0? Suddenly, the
CV disappears! It also disappears if we specify A created the message and
sent it to B at w = ∞. D receives it at tD' = -vL/γc², sends it to C at u' = -∞,
it arrives at C at tC' = -vL/γc², and C must wait until A is adjacent, which doesn't
happen until t' = t = 0, and no CV. It's ONLY by ASSUMING that B initiates the
message at t = vL/c² does a CV occur. This should make one question that
skullduggery may be afoot, that the problem is NOT with tachyons.

“The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude
about the problem.” – Captain Jack Sparrow

OTOH, if we go by Morin's strategy, A sends it at w = c²/v and D is adjacent and
no causality violation.

But if MS is valid in S', it's valid in S, so D had to send it to C at u' = -c²/v, in
which case:

t' = vL/γc²:
A ________________v <-- B
____ C _____________________ D

Oops! No dice. So by MS, this configuration cannot create a message loop
Which is just what was suspected assuming infinite speed.

On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 12:42:29 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> “The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude
> about the problem.” – Captain Jack Sparrow

Absolutely, your is one of a stubborn crank. On par with Ken Shito.