.....making a fool of himself. Here is the latest on neutrino mass measurements (published in peer reviewed journal in 2021): https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.00594

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 8:48:50 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> ....making a fool of himself. Here is the latest on neutrino mass measurements (published in peer reviewed journal in 2021): https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.00594

Gary, old fart imbecile, start reading at page 48, it explains the error in the derivation of m^2.

On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 1:48:50 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> ....making a fool of himself. Here is the latest on neutrino mass measurements (published in peer reviewed journal in 2021): https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.00594

What is your problem with life, cretin? Just hate and envy!

The paper doesn't contradict what was under discussion. Only show that THEY DON'T KNOW more now than 70 years ago!

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 9:05:13 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz ate some fresh shit:
> irrelevant<

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 10:02:12 PM UTC-7, Dono. misrepresented:
> Here is the latest on neutrino mass measurements (published in peer reviewed journal in 2021): https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.00594

It's a review article. What's a matter with actual research reports, dishonest one?

> Gary, old fart imbecile, start reading at page 48, it explains the error in the derivation of m^2.

Shifting directions again, old deceiver. Those errors are included in the error bars reported for
the experimental results. IOW, your baloney is just more misdirection and dishonesty.

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 10:10:15 PM UTC-7, Dono. defecated:
>
> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 9:05:13 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz ate some fresh shit:
>
> > irrelevant<

Yes, you certainly are.

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 9:23:31 PM UTC-8, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 10:02:12 PM UTC-7, Dono. misrepresented:
> > Here is the latest on neutrino mass measurements (published in peer reviewed journal in 2021): https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.00594
> It's a review article.

Yep, it explains the error in the CALCULATION of m^2.

> > Gary, old fart imbecile, start reading at page 48, it explains the error in the derivation of m^2.
> Shifting directions again,

Nope, giving you more kicks in the ass, crank. Your stubborness in your imbecility is what caused your being kicked around on this forum. And have caused your paper to be relegated to the vixra cesspool.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> Gary, old fart imbecile, start reading at page 48, it explains the
>> error in the derivation of m^2.
>
> Shifting directions again, old deceiver. Those errors are included in
> the error bars reported for the experimental results. IOW, your baloney
> is just more misdirection and dishonesty.

I like your theory. However errorbars aren't telling anything about a
measurement, which can be up 100% exact. Moreover, if you can tell the
tomorrow lottery numbers without causality violation, I am ready to
listen.

Affectionately,

Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 1:48:50 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>> ....making a fool of himself. Here is the latest on neutrino mass
>> measurements (published in peer reviewed journal in 2021):
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.00594
>
> What is your problem with life, cretin? Just hate and envy!
>
> The paper doesn't contradict what was under discussion. Only show that
> THEY DON'T KNOW more now than 70 years ago!

physics isn't changing along the years.

--
yours cordially,

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 10:50:23 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 9:23:31 PM UTC-8, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 10:02:12 PM UTC-7, Dono. misrepresented:
> > >
> > > Here is the latest on neutrino mass measurements (published in peer reviewed
> > > journal in 2021): https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.00594
> >
> > It's a review article.
>
> Yep, it explains the error in the CALCULATION of m^2.

It's not what you fantasize, DON'tknOw. Look at the PEER REVIEWED paper by REAL
experimental physicists. You seem to be completely oblivious what the error bars on
their result mean. You certainly don't understand what the one-sided confidence
number means.

> > > Gary, old fart imbecile, start reading at page 48, it explains the error in the derivation
> > > of m^2.
> >
> > Shifting directions again,
> Nope, giving you more kicks in the ass, crank.

You miss every time and kick your own butt instead. It's what cyberbullies with small minds do.

> Your stubborness in your imbecility is what caused your being kicked around on this forum.

You must be getting pretty sore by now. So are you ready for some Preparation-H?

> And have caused your paper to be relegated to the vixra cesspool.

More misrepresentation. You must have a complete blind spot in your brain:

The reviewer said: "I don't see any serious harm in publishing the paper."
and
"The argumentation in this paper is not incorrect but incomplete."
So, you see, I almost caught the brass ring. Your bullying bigotry discloses that you're just
jealous that the ability to write a scientific paper eludes you. So you sit in your paper
hovel hoping that someone somewhere will recognize your "genius" while tearing down
everyone else so you'll be above them. How's it working for you, troll?

On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 9:06:42 PM UTC-8, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 10:50:23 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 9:23:31 PM UTC-8, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 10:02:12 PM UTC-7, Dono. misrepresented:
> > > >
> > > > Here is the latest on neutrino mass measurements (published in peer reviewed
> > > > journal in 2021): https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.00594
> > >
> > > It's a review article.
> >
> > Yep, it explains the error in the CALCULATION of m^2.
> It's not what you fantasize,

It is exactly what the 2021 paper explains, stubborn crank. Only a crank like you can claim that Katrin has measured negative values for m^2. This is because you desperately want the neutrino to have superluminal speeds in order to support your crackpot "paper".

> > > > Gary, old fart imbecile, start reading at page 48, it explains the error in the derivation
> > > > of m^2.
> > >
> > > Shifting directions again,
> > Nope, giving you more kicks in the ass, crank.

Gary

The crank piece of garbage that you call your paper has been thoroughly debunked in this forum (and rejected by peer review). So, why do you keep coming back? You must enjoy the thrashing you are getting.

On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 10:47:55 PM UTC-7, DON'tknOw wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 9:06:42 PM UTC-8, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > It's not what you fantasize,
>
> It is exactly what the 2021 paper explains, stubborn crank. Only a crank like
> you can claim that Katrin has measured negative values for m^2.

Dead wrong, Desparate DON'tknOw:

C. Schwartz, "If Neutrinos are Tachyons, we may explain Dark Energy and Dark Matter"
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/TachGrav2_2.pdf

C. Schwartz, "Tachyon dynamics — for neutrinos?" Intl.J.Mod.Phys. A 33,1850056 (2018).
"the Cosmic Neutrino Background, if they are indeed tachyons, might explain both
phenomena of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. This theoretical study also makes contact
with the anticipated results from the experiments KATRIN and PTOLEMY, which focus on
beta decay and neutrino absorption by Tritium.

(Note: peer-reviewed paper :-)

And this completely demolishes your assertions :-))

R. Ehrlich, "Six observations consistent with the electron neutrino being a tachyon with
mass: m² = −0.11 ± 0.016eV²," Astropart. Phys.,66, 11-17, (2015).

(Note: peer-reviewed paper :-)

These papers assert that the measurements of neutrino mass squared are measuring THE
NEUTRINO MASS SQUARED and NOT your wildly inaccurate assertion that they're measuring
the difference between the neutrino flavors, which is a completely idiotic insinuation for the
reasons I have already laid out and which you dishonestly ignored.

> This is because you desperately want the neutrino to have superluminal speeds in order to
> support your crackpot "paper".

Completely false accusation. You have it exactly backwards. I'm writing papers for two
reasons:

I believe that neutrinos MAY be tachyonic because I follow the probabilities. Since the
most recent likely central value is m² = - 1.0 eV² with error bars or +0.9 and -1.0 eV², the
probability that m² > 0 is quite small, only one chance in 50 if the distribution is normal.

If neutrinos aren't tachyonic, then tachyons may still exist otherwise. I believe that
tachyons will not violate causality. That has been a major thrust of my efforts.

> Gary
>
> The crank piece of garbage that you call your paper has been thoroughly debunked in this
> forum

As if "this forum" is "peer review" :-))

> (and rejected by peer review).

Asininely misrepresented assertion, as I pointed out. The rejection came from the editors.
The reviewer said: "I don't see any serious harm in publishing the paper."
and
"The argumentation in this paper is not incorrect but incomplete."

So, DON'tknOw, you're dishonest to the core for not addressing this, but that's all that can
be expected from a lightweight cyberbully.

> So, why do you keep coming back? You must enjoy the thrashing you are getting.

YOU, "thrashing"? Don't grossly overestimate your miniscule efforts, puffbag :-))

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 7:48:49 AM UTC-8, crank Gary Harnagel kept eating shit:
> On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 10:47:55 PM UTC-7, DON'tknOw wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 9:06:42 PM UTC-8, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > It's not what you fantasize,
> >
> > It is exactly what the 2021 paper explains, stubborn crank. Only a crank like
> > you can claim that Katrin has measured negative values for m^2.

> R. Ehrlich, "Six observations consistent with the electron neutrino being a tachyon with
> mass: m² = −0.11 ± 0.016eV²," Astropart. Phys.,66, 11-17, (2015).
>
This has already been proven to be wrong. Se the 2021 paper.
> If neutrinos aren't tachyonic, then tachyons may still exist otherwise. I believe that
> tachyons will not violate causality.

No one gives a shit about what you, crank Gary Harnagel, "believes".
> >
> > The crank piece of garbage that you call your paper has been thoroughly debunked in this
> > forum
> As if "this forum" is "peer review" :-))

No, it isn't but we did point out the hilarious errors in your "paper". You can't get a simple Minkowski diagram right, crank.

> > (and rejected by peer review).
> Asininely misrepresented assertion, as I pointed out. The rejection came from the editors.
> The reviewer said: "I don't see any serious harm in publishing the paper."
> and
> "The argumentation in this paper is not incorrect but incomplete."

Bottom line, your garbage was rejected. So it is relegated to the vixra cesspool.

Believes that if he writes the last post in a thread, he somehow "wins."
What a pathetic creature! Once he gets a thought in his simple head,
it can never be replaced by the facts. Tsk! Tsk!

What a pathetic creature! He is so small-minded that he believes he
must tear others down so his insignificance can be seen. Tsk! Tsk!

What a pathetic creature! He has blinded his mind so badly that he
can't even read a peer-reviewed journal paper accurately. Rather than
read them, he will attempt to erase their existence. Unfortunately for
him, reality exists:

C. Schwartz, "If Neutrinos are Tachyons, we may explain Dark Energy and Dark Matter"
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/TachGrav2_2.pdf

C. Schwartz, "Tachyon dynamics — for neutrinos?" Intl.J.Mod.Phys. A 33,1850056 (2018).
"the Cosmic Neutrino Background, if they are indeed tachyons, might explain both
phenomena of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. This theoretical study also makes contact
with the anticipated results from the experiments KATRIN and PTOLEMY, which focus on
beta decay and neutrino absorption by Tritium.

(Note: peer-reviewed paper :-)

And this completely demolishes your assertions :-))

R. Ehrlich, "Six observations consistent with the electron neutrino being a tachyon with
mass: m² = −0.11 ± 0.016eV²," Astropart. Phys.,66, 11-17, (2015).

(Note: peer-reviewed paper :-)

These papers assert that the measurements of neutrino mass squared are measuring THE
NEUTRINO MASS SQUARED and NOT your wildly inaccurate assertion that they're measuring
the difference between the neutrino flavors, which is a completely idiotic insinuation for the
reasons I have already laid out and which you dishonestly ignored.

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 11:33:27 AM UTC-8, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> What a pathetic creature!

You sure are, coming back time and again for more embarrassment.

> C. Schwartz, "Tachyon dynamics — for neutrinos?" Intl.J.Mod.Phys. A 33,1850056 (2018).
> "the Cosmic Neutrino Background, if they are indeed tachyons,

Neutrinos are not tachyons, their measured speed is less than c. Keep it up , dumbestfuck.

>
> And this completely demolishes your assertions :-))
> R. Ehrlich, "Six observations consistent with the electron neutrino being a tachyon with
> mass: m² = −0.11 ± 0.016eV²," Astropart. Phys.,66, 11-17, (2015).
> (Note: peer-reviewed paper :-)
>

Yet, new measurements from Katrin show that m is in the range of 1.1 eV , real, not "imaginary" , so you are eating shit, crank.

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.012005

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Believes that if he writes the last post in a thread, he somehow "wins."
> What a pathetic creature! Once he gets a thought in his simple head,
> it can never be replaced by the facts. Tsk! Tsk!
> What a pathetic creature! He is so small-minded that he believes he
> must tear others down so his insignificance can be seen. Tsk! Tsk!

I hear you are big magician, capable of tomorrows lottery numbers given
today. I am ready to listen.

--
yours impassionedly,

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Naploean Donoparte spewed:
>
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 11:33:27 AM UTC-8, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > C. Schwartz, "Tachyon dynamics — for neutrinos?" Intl.J.Mod.Phys. A 33,1850056 (2018).
> > "the Cosmic Neutrino Background, if they are indeed tachyons,
>
> Neutrinos are not tachyons, their measured speed is less than c. Keep it up , dumbestfuck.

Wrongo, wannabe scientist. Measured speeds are so close to c that there is no measurable
difference, whether it's above or below cannot be determined. This is because the measurements
have only been made on neutrinos wigh highly-relativistic energies. If you wannabe a physicist
you should not make false assertions.

> > And this completely demolishes your assertions :-))
> > R. Ehrlich, "Six observations consistent with the electron neutrino being a tachyon with
> > mass: m² = −0.11 ± 0.016eV²," Astropart. Phys.,66, 11-17, (2015).
> > (Note: peer-reviewed paper :-)
> >
> Yet, new measurements from Katrin show that m is in the range of 1.1 eV , real, not "imaginary" ,

so you are eating shit, Donoparte

> https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.012005

Those aren't "new" measurements, cluelessDono, those are the same ones from the original
paper:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06048

Your dishonest blackhearted mind refuses to understand simple English: that 1.1 eV is the
UPPER LIMIT, not the most likely value, which is m² = -1.0 eV², as it plainly states in the
abstract. You'll always be a wannabe, Donoparte. Take off your jack boots and brownshirt,
you're a laughingstock. Way to go, Colonel Klink :-)

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 7:18:07 AM UTC-8, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > Neutrinos are not tachyons, their measured speed is less than c. Keep it up , dumbestfuck.
> Measured speeds are so close to c that there is no measurable
> difference, whether it's above or below cannot be determined.

The speed is BELOW c, eat shit Gary.

> > Yet, new measurements from Katrin show that m is in the range of 1.1 eV , real, not "imaginary" ,

> Those aren't "new" measurements, those are the same ones from the original
> paper:
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06048
>

....which also show m=1.1 EV, a real (not imaginary) number for the mass. You are eating shit at a very high level, crank.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> Neutrinos are not tachyons, their measured speed is less than c. Keep
>> it up , dumbestfuck.
>
> Wrongo, wannabe scientist. Measured speeds are so close to c that there
> is no measurable difference, whether it's above or below cannot be
> determined. This is because the measurements have only been made on
> neutrinos wigh highly-relativistic energies. If you wannabe a physicist
> you should not make false assertions.

that's what make a physicists, proving by negation, which are false. You
don't know?? They put HIV in your injections, called "vaccines".

They put HIV proteins into the COVID VACCINES!
https://www.brighteon.com/68d73909-bb9b-4625-aaaf-4f2a6fcb4281

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 9:00:46 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 7:18:07 AM UTC-8, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Deperado Donut babbled:
> > >
> > > Neutrinos are not tachyons, their measured speed is less than c.
> >
> > Measured speeds are so close to c that there is no measurable
> > difference, whether it's above or below cannot be determined.
>
> The speed is BELOW c, eat shit Gary.

You have absolutely no credence for that asinine claim. Eat it yourself,
Porky.

> > > Yet, new measurements from Katrin show that m is in the range of 1.1
> eV , real, not "imaginary" ,
> >
> > Those aren't "new" measurements, those are the same ones from the original
> > paper:
> >
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06048
>
> ...which also show m=1.1 EV, a real (not imaginary) number for the mass..

Wow! The facts still elude the Porkmeister's enfeebled mind. Here's what the
REAL physicists wrote:

"neutrino mass square value of (-1:0 + 0:9 - 1:1) eV². From this we derive an upper
limit of 1.1 eV (90% confidence level) on the absolute mass scale of neutrinos."

Get that, feeble-minded Donut? UPPER LIMIT! Cheez, what a crackbrain! Donut
the porker at dinner:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t&ei=UTF-8&p=pigs+eating+manure#id=1&vid=5f925a6b36225245450b476b1cdaa9e4&action=click

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 10:04:12 AM UTC-8, crank Gary Harnagel persisted in his stubborn idiocy:
> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 9:00:46 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 7:18:07 AM UTC-8, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >

> > > > Neutrinos are not tachyons, their measured speed is less than c.
> > >
> > > Measured speeds are so close to c that there is no measurable
> > > difference, whether it's above or below cannot be determined.
> >
> > The speed is BELOW c, eat shit Gary.
> You have absolutely no credence for that asinine claim. Eat it yourself,
> Porky.
> > > > Yet, new measurements from Katrin show that m is in the range of 1.1
> > eV , real, not "imaginary" ,
> > >
> > > Those aren't "new" measurements, those are the same ones from the original
> > > paper:
> > >
> > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06048
> >
> > ...which also show m=1.1 EV, a real (not imaginary) number for the mass.
> Wow!
> "neutrino mass square value of (-1:0 + 0:9 - 1:1) eV². From this we derive an upper
> limit of 1.1 eV (90% confidence level) on the absolute mass scale of neutrinos."
>

Yes, cretinoid,

1.1, as in real number, not imaginary. Keep it up (the entertainment), dumbestfuck.

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 11:09:08 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 10:04:12 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > "neutrino mass square value of (-1.0 + 0.9 - 1.1) eV². From this we derive an upper
> > limit of 1.1 eV (90% confidence level) on the absolute mass scale of neutrinos."
> >
> Yes, cretinoid,
>
> 1.1, as in real number, not imaginary. Keep it up (the entertainment), dumbestfuck.

Poor demented Dono. Poor soul, he doesn't comprehend that 1.1 eV is an upper limit.
The measured value is m² = -1.0 eV² with error bars +9.9, -1.1 eV², from which they DERIVE
said UPPER LIMIT. I can't believe anyone can be this stupid, but the only alternative is
that Dono is a lying piece of pig crap. I'd hate to apply the latter to anyone, but it fits
with his other "adorable" characteristics.

At least he seems to have given up on his initial fetish that they were measuring the difference
between the squares of the masses of the three flavors of neutrinos. Google keeps a record
of the depths he sank to with that ridiculous fabrication.

I guess he can be forgiven for his foibles. After all, he doesn't have a degree in physics and
he's never published a peer-reviewed journal paper.

"Jealousy is a disease" -- Robert A. Heinlein
“Isn't it kind of silly to think that tearing someone else down builds you up?” ― Sean Covey

“Resentment is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die.” ― Carrie Fisher

“Often those that criticise others reveal what he himself lacks.” ― Shannon L. Alder

"The jealous are possessed by a mad devil and a dull spirit at the same time." -- Johann Kaspar
Lavater

On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 12:33:52 AM UTC-3, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip>

> I guess he can be forgiven for his foibles. After all, he doesn't have a degree in physics and
> he's never published a peer-reviewed journal paper.

Maybe he has, and maybe he did. But due to his schizophrenia, he can't allow himself to become open, or
he could lost any respect that he got in his "other" life.

Nobody can behave like him for 16 years and be respected, so he's a total schizo. Here is Mr. Hyde and, out there,
is Dr. Jekyll.

But, for being Dr. Jekyll, he spend all his days and nights here, on a permanent watch. He lives in California, where
time is UTC/GMT -8 hours. I live at Argentina, 5 hours ahead of him. He stop posting around 07:30 AM UTC, and starts
again around 03:30 PM UTC. So, basically, he lives at and for this site 16 hours per day.

Why?

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 7:33:52 PM UTC-8, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 11:09:08 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 10:04:12 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > "neutrino mass square value of (-1.0 + 0.9 - 1.1) eV². From this we derive an upper
> > > limit of 1.1 eV (90% confidence level) on the absolute mass scale of neutrinos."
> > >
> > Yes, cretinoid,
> >
> > 1.1, as in real number, not imaginary. Keep it up (the entertainment), dumbestfuck.
> The measured value is m² = -1.0 eV² with error bars +9.9, -1.1 eV², from which they DERIVE
> said UPPER LIMIT.

So, you will not ask the Katrin people to explain to you the meaning of m^2? You will continue to ignore the very good explanation of Standard Model description of the neutrino mass eigenvalues? This stubbornness is what makes you into a crank.

> "Jealousy is a disease" -- Robert A. Heinlein

I have nothing to be jealous of, you are simply a pathetic crank.

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 8:47:22 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 12:33:52 AM UTC-3, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I guess he can be forgiven for his foibles. After all, he doesn't have a degree in physics and
> > he's never published a peer-reviewed journal paper.

Yet, I can point out all your two cranks idiocies. I want to thank you both for the never ending entertainment. Keep it up, dumbestfuck(s).