Discussion:
Manuscript submission
Add Reply
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-28 21:57:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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 :-))
Braden Earman
2021-05-28 23:05:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of
"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.
Dono.
2021-05-29 00:14:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Braden Earman
Post by Gary Harnagel
I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of
"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.
Lee Woo
2021-05-29 15:27:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
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.
Mike Fontenot
2021-05-29 15:13:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of
"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.
Sylvia Else
2021-05-28 23:27:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of
"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.
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-29 02:33:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Gary Harnagel
I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of
"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."
"Get this garbage out of our face."
Sylvia.
Do you believe it's garbage? Upon what would you base such an opinion?
Sylvia Else
2021-05-29 03:02:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Gary Harnagel
I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of
"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."
"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.
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-29 03:23:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
"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.
Sylvia Else
2021-05-29 09:41:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
"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.
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-29 14:01:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Sylvia Else
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.
Dono.
2021-05-29 14:25:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
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
Dono.
2021-05-29 14:31:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
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/
Sylvia Else
2021-05-31 04:17:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Sylvia Else
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.
That can't be right. In SR, if the speed in one frame exceeds c, then it
exceeds c in all frames. That is to say, events that are space-like
separated are space-like separated in all frames. Ditto events that are
time-like separated, and events that are light-like separated.

Sylvia.
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-31 04:52:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Gary Harnagel
But if w approaches -∞, then w' = (w - v)/(1 - wv/c²) approaches -c²/v.
That can't be right. In SR, if the speed in one frame exceeds c, then it
exceeds c in all frames. That is to say, events that are space-like
separated are space-like separated in all frames. Ditto events that are
time-like separated, and events that are light-like separated.
Sylvia.
Not so, Sylvia. If speed is c in one frame, it's c in all frames. Use the
relativistic velocity addition equation as I wrote above. Set it up in a
spreadsheet and see for yourself.
Sylvia Else
2021-05-31 05:32:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Gary Harnagel
But if w approaches -∞, then w' = (w - v)/(1 - wv/c²) approaches -c²/v.
That can't be right. In SR, if the speed in one frame exceeds c, then it
exceeds c in all frames. That is to say, events that are space-like
separated are space-like separated in all frames. Ditto events that are
time-like separated, and events that are light-like separated.
Sylvia.
Not so, Sylvia. If speed is c in one frame, it's c in all frames. Use the
relativistic velocity addition equation as I wrote above. Set it up in a
spreadsheet and see for yourself.
If the speed is c, then the events are light-like separated, and, as I
said, they are light-like separated in all frames.

Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
2021-05-31 06:33:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Gary Harnagel
But if w approaches -∞, then w' = (w - v)/(1 - wv/c²) approaches -c²/v.
That can't be right. In SR, if the speed in one frame exceeds c, then it
exceeds c in all frames. That is to say, events that are space-like
separated are space-like separated in all frames. Ditto events that are
time-like separated, and events that are light-like separated.
Sylvia.
Not so, Sylvia.  If speed is c in one frame, it's c in all frames.
Use the
relativistic velocity addition equation as I wrote above.  Set it up in a
spreadsheet and see for yourself.
If the speed is c, then the events are light-like separated, and, as I
said, they are light-like separated in all frames.
Sylvia.
However, I'd misread your equation, which is consistent with my
statement that if it exceeds c in one frame, it exceeds c in all frames.
The wider significance escapes me, though.

Sylvia.
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-31 13:58:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
That can't be right. In SR, if the speed in one frame exceeds c, then it
exceeds c in all frames. That is to say, events that are space-like
separated are space-like separated in all frames. Ditto events that are
time-like separated, and events that are light-like separated.
Sylvia.
Not so, Sylvia. If speed is c in one frame, it's c in all frames.
Use the relativistic velocity addition equation as I wrote above. Set it up
in a spreadsheet and see for yourself.
If the speed is c, then the events are light-like separated, and, as I
said, they are light-like separated in all frames.
Sylvia.
However, I'd misread your equation, which is consistent with my
statement that if it exceeds c in one frame, it exceeds c in all frames.
The wider significance escapes me, though.
Sylvia.
And I misread your original comment. Sorry, but we're on the same page now.
I agree that if a particle's speed is > c in one frame, it's > c in all frames. But
the relativistic velocity addition equation:

w' = (w - v)/(1 - wv/c²)

has some troubling regions if wv > c² where the sign of u' becomes opposite to
the sign of u. There's been a lot of controversy about what that means for
tachyons. Bilaniuk et al. proposed that the tachyon went backward in time and
reversed direction, making the source the receiver and the receiver the source.
This was called the reinterpretation procedure (RIP). I strongly disagree with
this and think it should be Rest In Peace :-).

PCH proposed a belt thought experiment with tachyon transmitters and receivers
mounted thereon. I modified this to a set of two tank tread belts (Receivers on
Tank Treads - RoTT) to keep all the advantages of the concept and eliminating the
disadvantage of a material connection between source and receiver. We have
individually simplified this to a circular geometry (PCH calls it paddle wheel) and
I envisioned it as a way to communicate over interstellar distances with minimal
delay: https://vixra.org/abs/2012.0108.

Using a PWD (paddle wheel device), it affords way to detect tachyons that are
traveling beyond the limit of c²/v (relative to the receiver, i.e., u'). Thus tachyons
are shown to continue on in the same direction regardless of the speed of the
receiver: they do NOT reverse direction nor do they go backward in time.
Dono.
2021-05-31 17:45:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Using a PWD (paddle wheel device), it affords way to detect tachyons that are
traveling beyond the limit of c²/v (relative to the receiver, i.e., u'). Thus tachyons
are shown to continue on in the same direction regardless of the speed of the
receiver: they do NOT reverse direction nor do they go backward in time.
Gary

No device can circumvent the fact that u' has a vertical asymptiote at c^2/v, where u' exhibits a jump between +infinity and -infinity. I explained that to you from day one. The only other way to think about it is that the relativistic speed/velocity composition formula does not apply to tachyons. I explained that to you from day 1 as well. There is no reason to use the Lorentz transforms for tachyons since they were derived for tardyons ONLY. Forcing them on tachyons leads to contradictions. But , of course, all this falls on your crank ears.
Dono.
2021-05-31 17:45:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Using a PWD (paddle wheel device), it affords way to detect tachyons that are
traveling beyond the limit of c²/v (relative to the receiver, i.e., u'). Thus tachyons
are shown to continue on in the same direction regardless of the speed of the
receiver: they do NOT reverse direction nor do they go backward in time.
Gary
No device can circumvent the fact that u' has a vertical asymptote at c^2/v, where u' exhibits a jump between +infinity and -infinity. I explained that to you from day one. The only other way to think about it is that the relativistic speed/velocity composition formula does not apply to tachyons. I explained that to you from day 1 as well. There is no reason to use the Lorentz transforms for tachyons since they were derived for tardyons ONLY. Forcing them on tachyons leads to contradictions. But , of course, all this falls on your crank ears.
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-31 22:03:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Using a PWD (paddle wheel device), it affords way to detect tachyons that are
traveling beyond the limit of c²/v (relative to the receiver, i.e., u'). Thus tachyons
are shown to continue on in the same direction regardless of the speed of the
receiver: they do NOT reverse direction nor do they go backward in time.
Gary
No device can circumvent the fact that u' has a vertical asymptote at c^2/v, where
u' exhibits a jump between +infinity and -infinity.
So now you're an exspurt on physical and mathematical infinity? :-))
I explained that to you from day one.
No, you didn't, squirt-spurt. "Explaining" means actually doing more than making
unsubstantiated assertions. Stop attributing omniscience to yourself.

"He is a self-made man and worships his creator." - John Bright
The only other way to think about it is that the relativistic speed/velocity composition
formula does not apply to tachyons.
So, are you saying that any equation that has an infinity is wrong? So you don't believe
quantum field theory? So you believe ANY equation like y = 1/(x - a) is completely
useless and should be thrown out? How about (x² - 1)/x? Is it your opinion that we
should we throw out L'Hopital's rule? Do you even know what a limit is?
I explained that to you from day 1 as well.
And every physicist dealing with tachyons has rejected such outrageous baloney.
There is no reason to use the Lorentz transforms for tachyons since they were derived
for tardyons ONLY. Forcing them on tachyons leads to contradictions. But , of course, all
this falls on your crank ears.
Wow! So you don't even understand how the LT are derived, but you insist on "explaining"
them. Well, I've derived them for myself, so I know you're purveying pure baloney. If you
knew anything about the LT, you'd know that they are kinematic relationships. Apparently,
you don't even know what "kinematic" means, yet you appropriate omniscience about the
LT to yourself.

You see, Don'tknow, you can't find a single symbol that refers to mass in the LT, so your
claim that it only applies to bradyons (the correct term) is ludicrously false. It obviously
applies to luxons, too, and there's is no reason whatever that it shouldn't apply to tachyons
since the LT are KINEMATIC.

But a term for mass IS in the relativistic energy equation, and that's where the concept of
tachyons was spawned. It might be just a mathematical trick to make m imaginary, or it
may not. Reality is determined by experiment, but mathematics is a guide. And right now,
neutrinos MAY be tachyonic because the most likely value for m² has been drifting more
negative. Yes, we all know, you've mansplained that m² isn't "really" the neutrino mass,
but every physicist violently rejects THAT baloney, too.

Don'tknow, you're batting zero on ALL of your vacuous assertions.

“Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.”
Proverbs 4:7

But you won't because getting wisdom is a religious thing :-)) and beyond your abilities, anyway.
And understanding is even further beyond your abilities.
Lee Woo
2021-05-31 22:35:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
No device can circumvent the fact that u' has a vertical asymptote at
c^2/v, where u' exhibits a jump between +infinity and -infinity.
So now you're an exspurt on physical and mathematical infinity? )
I explained that to you from day one.
No, you didn't, squirt-spurt. "Explaining" means actually doing more
than making unsubstantiated assertions. Stop attributing omniscience to
yourself.
My bet you've been fooled by those colored arrows you stole from somebody
else. You thought it made sense. Arrows not enough in physics, my
penticostal friend.
Dono.
2021-05-31 23:29:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Gary Harnagel
Using a PWD (paddle wheel device), it affords way to detect tachyons that are
traveling beyond the limit of c²/v (relative to the receiver, i.e., u'). Thus tachyons
are shown to continue on in the same direction regardless of the speed of the
receiver: they do NOT reverse direction nor do they go backward in time.
Gary
No device can circumvent the fact that u' has a vertical asymptote at c^2/v, where
u' exhibits a jump between +infinity and -infinity.
So now you're an exspurt on physical and mathematical infinity? :-))
It is just basic calculus, stubborn crank.
Post by Gary Harnagel
So, are you saying that any equation that has an infinity is wrong?
There is nothing wrong with the equation, it is the your crank interpretation that is wrong. I explained that to you multiple times but it doesn't go thru your thick skull.
Dono.
2021-05-31 23:40:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
But a term for mass IS in the relativistic energy equation, and that's where the concept of
tachyons was spawned. It might be just a mathematical trick to make m imaginary, or it
may not. Reality is determined by experiment, but mathematics is a guide. And right now,
neutrinos MAY be tachyonic because the most likely value for m² has been drifting more
negative. Yes, we all know, you've mansplained that m² isn't "really" the neutrino mass,
but every physicist violently rejects THAT baloney, too.
Utter cretin,

Neutrino oscillates between 3 flavors. Contrary to your ignorant person, m^2, doesn't represent what you ASSume it does. I told you this repeatedly but you are unable to read the KATRIN papers (or any mainstream literature on the subject). Because you either refuse or you are unable to read the mainstream literature, I will explained that to you, old fart:

The masses of the 3 flavors are real, NOT imaginary as you claim, as an ignorant crank you are. Let's call them m_1, m_2. m_3. Currently we cannot measure them , all we can measure are the quantities:

(m_12)^2=(m_1)^2-(m_2)^2
(m_23)^2=(m_2)^2-(m_3)^2
(m_31)^2=(m_3)^2-(m_1)^2

Obviously, (m_ij)^2 above can have any sign, INCLUDING negative. That doesn't mean that the squared mass of the neutrino can be positive, utter imbecile. The reference to negative neutrino squared mass in your shit paper makes you a laughing stock (amongst many other idiocies).
Dono.
2021-06-01 00:51:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
But a term for mass IS in the relativistic energy equation, and that's where the concept of
tachyons was spawned. It might be just a mathematical trick to make m imaginary, or it
may not. Reality is determined by experiment, but mathematics is a guide. And right now,
neutrinos MAY be tachyonic because the most likely value for m² has been drifting more
negative. Yes, we all know, you've mansplained that m² isn't "really" the neutrino mass,
but every physicist violently rejects THAT baloney, too.
Utter cretin,
(m_12)^2=(m_1)^2-(m_2)^2
(m_23)^2=(m_2)^2-(m_3)^2
(m_31)^2=(m_3)^2-(m_1)^2
Obviously, (m_ij)^2 above can have any sign, INCLUDING negative. That doesn't mean that the squared mass of the neutrino can be negative, as you keep claiming, utter imbecile. The reference to negative neutrino squared mass in your shit paper makes you a laughing stock (amongst many other idiocies).
Gary Harnagel
2021-06-01 04:25:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[Blah, blah, blah, oink, oink, oink]
I don't have to watch the idiocies of your vacuous thought processes. You haven't
a CLUE about neutrinos, merely repeating things that you don't understand.

You take facts, which you twist into absurdities. And that's because you are
without understanding. I explained this to you long ago :-))
Obviously, (m_ij)^2 above can have any sign, INCLUDING negative. That doesn't mean
that the squared mass of the neutrino can be negative,
The value of the squared mass of the electron antineutrino is subject to EXPERIMENTAL
determination. THAT'S what Mainz, Troitsk and KATRIN have MEASURED. So far, the
central value is about -1 eV² with the ongoing KATRIN. All three experiments were < 0.

You, sir, are a fool and a liar. You lack wisdom and understanding and you'll never have
either because you falsely believe you have both in abundance.

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool ... shun him.
-- Persian Proverb

You are shunned. Now crawl back into your hole. I will not be interacting any further
with an abject fool.
Dono.
2021-06-01 05:52:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
The value of the squared mass of the electron antineutrino is subject to EXPERIMENTAL
determination. THAT'S what Mainz, Troitsk and KATRIN have MEASURED. So far, the
central value is about -1 eV² with the ongoing KATRIN. All three experiments were < 0.
When you repeat this idiocy to the referees, the might not know what a deceiving piece of shit you are but they'll sure figure you out for the idiot you are. Thank you for keeping up the entertainment in this forum.
Dono.
2021-06-01 06:03:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
The value of the squared mass of the electron antineutrino is subject to EXPERIMENTAL
determination. THAT'S what Mainz, Troitsk and KATRIN have MEASURED. So far, the
central value is about -1 eV² with the ongoing KATRIN. All three experiments were < 0.
When you repeat this idiocy to the referees, they might not know what a deceiving piece of shit you are but they'll sure figure you out for the idiot you are. Thank you for keeping up the entertainment in this forum.
Gary Harnagel
2021-06-01 12:33:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
When you repeat this idiocy to the referees, they might not know what a deceiving piece
of shit you are but they'll sure figure you out for the idiot you are.
As I said, you're a fool and an ignoramus. No reviewer mentioned your delusional belief,
rather, they took issue with REAL flaws in my paper. You, sir, are an ignorant bully.

“You are mean because inside you’re tiny. So tiny you cannot hold up the weight of your
own body. You must inflate your ego just to fill the skin. You float around like a helium
balloon. Blown up and bloated and gassy and empty.” ― Rivers Solomon

I've come across decomposed bodies that are less offensive than you are. --- Anon.
Dono.
2021-06-01 13:48:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
No reviewer mentioned your delusional belief,
rather, they took issue with REAL flaws in my paper.
I agree, there are too many real issues with your "paper". Your imbecility about the neutrino mass comes towards the end, the referees didn't bother to finish.
Gary Harnagel
2021-06-01 14:56:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
No reviewer mentioned your delusional belief,
rather, they took issue with REAL flaws in my paper.
I agree, there are too many real issues with your "paper".
Since you haven't read it, you are obviously making stuff up from your diseased brain.
I wrote:

"As a practical matter, any signal reception requires at least some expenditure of energy,
hence it is not physically possible to detect a tachyon signal at infi nite speed. Infi nite
speed represents a barrier which cannot be breached, even by a tachyon.

One reviewer took issue with the second sentence, and he is correct. What I should have
written is, "Infi nite speed represents a barrier [to detection] which cannot be breached,
even by a tachyon [receiver]."

The other reviewer thought I should have used space-time and energy-momentum diagrams
and 4-vector notation. He also thought it would be useful to have clear definitions in terms
of the spacetime geometry as well as operational definitions. He didn't think that the
"speculative" nature of the paper was suitable for the AJP.

He also said, "While the topic is interesting, the article is not self-contained. The terminology
used is not sufficiently well defined and not physically motivated."

So your delusional guesses are completely off base. Your only predilection seems to be toward
denigration and disparagement. THIS is why you are a small-souled package total wrapped up
in yourself.
Post by Dono.
Your imbecility about the neutrino mass comes towards the end, the referees didn't bother to
finish.
So now you attribute to yourself the ability to read other people's minds? You sink lower and
lower into your delusional fantasies. And you're still an ignorant bully:

“You are mean because inside you’re tiny. So tiny you cannot hold up the weight of your own body.
You must inflate your ego just to fill the skin. You float around like a helium balloon. Blown up and
bloated and gassy and empty.” ― Rivers Solomon
Dono.
2021-06-01 15:17:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
No reviewer mentioned your delusional belief,
rather, they took issue with REAL flaws in my paper.
I agree, there are too many real issues with your "paper".
Since you haven't read it,
Wrong, Gary
I read all your imbecilities, Thanks for keeping up the entertainment,.
Gary Harnagel
2021-06-01 19:59:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
No reviewer mentioned your delusional belief,
rather, they took issue with REAL flaws in my paper.
I agree, there are too many real issues with your "paper".
Since you haven't read it, you are obviously making stuff up from your diseased brain.
Wrong, Gary
I read all your imbecilities,
You haven't read what I submitted to AJP, so your brain is still diseased.
Post by Dono.
Thanks for keeping up the entertainment,.
You are so boring that you can't even entertain a doubt. --- Anon.

You're so dense that light bends around you.
Dono.
2021-06-01 20:11:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
No reviewer mentioned your delusional belief,
rather, they took issue with REAL flaws in my paper.
I agree, there are too many real issues with your "paper".
Since you haven't read it, you are obviously making stuff up from your
diseased brain.
Wrong, Gary
I read all your imbecilities,
You haven't read what I submitted to AJP,
I read all your three cretinoid "papers" on vixra. I also followed abd debunked all your crank claims in the forum. Once again, thank you for your countinued entertainment.
Gary Harnagel
2021-06-01 20:53:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Dono.
I read all your imbecilities,
You haven't read what I submitted to AJP,
I read all your three cretinoid "papers" on vixra. I also followed abd debunked
all your crank claims in the forum. Once again, thank you for your countinued
entertainment.
What I submitted to AJP isn't the same as what's in my viXra papers. I explained
this to you before. Much of it is the same, of course, but many important parts
aren't. But you go ahead and pretend that you're omniscient since that provides
entertainment for rational folk.

I was recently apprised of this:

"The moral of the story is twofold: i) one should never mix together the descriptions
of one phenomenon yielded by different observers, otherwise--even in ordinary
physics--one would immediately meet contradictions"

E. Recami, "Classical Tachyons and Possible Applications," RIVISTA DEL NUOVO
CIMENTO VOL. 9, N. 6 (1986).

Which is, of course, what Morin's strategy is. Recami uses it to refute the tachyon
antitelephone paradox originally proposed in 1917 and still repeated in physics textbooks
and on the internet. By NOT mixing observations from different frames, the "paradox"
falls apart. Recami also uses it to demolish the hand-off method paradoxes, just as
I did in https://vixra.org/abs/2011.0076, without knowing about Morin's strategy or
Recami's. They are essentially what I was doing with the LABORATORY perspective.

It feels good to know that my hypothesis is validated and that the flawed representations
and false assertions still propagated throughout physics-hood was exposed 35 years ago.

One thing that doesn't seem to have been examined, however, is the frame dependence
of energy in the antitelephone thought experiment. Combined with the Morin/Recami
strategy, energy provides rigorous support for the confirmation that tachyons don't
violate causality. Hence my motto:

Tachyons don't violate causality, people do.
Dono.
2021-06-01 22:00:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What I submitted to AJP isn't the same as what's in my viXra papers. I explained
this to you before. Much of it is the same, of course, but many important parts
aren't.
The point is that what you have is clearly crank, hence the rejection. You need to come to grips with it.
Gary Harnagel
2021-06-02 00:39:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
What I submitted to AJP isn't the same as what's in my viXra papers. I explained
this to you before. Much of it is the same, of course, but many important parts
aren't.
The point is that what you have is clearly crank, hence the rejection.
You are wrong, pointy-head-breath. I gave you the reasons for the rejection, but you
continue to fantasize according to your bilge-filled delusions. You have a very sick
mind. You need to come to grips with it.

Meanwhile, three REAL physics perfessers agree with the Morin/Ecami/Schwartz
"strategy destroys the compromised assertions of the the Causality-Violating Tachyon
crowd.
Dono.
2021-06-02 03:00:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
I gave you the reasons for the rejection,
The reasons for the rejection is that your "paper" is crank.
Gary Harnagel
2021-06-02 12:55:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
I gave you the reasons for the rejection,
The reasons for the rejection is that your "paper" is crank.
You're dead wrong, as usual. Your diabolic denigration is proof that you
have a very sick mind.

Actually, one reviewer projected some positiveness:

"I would encourage the author to reformulate the presentation of these
ideas with Minkowski spacetime geometry."

So your asinine depredations are entirely due to your mental aberration.
You should get help. You are VERY sick.
Dono.
2021-06-02 13:59:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
"I would encourage the author to reformulate the presentation of these
ideas with Minkowski spacetime geometry."
But your idiocies become even more obvious when you try to use Minkowski diagrams. Besides, you have shown repeatedly that you are incapable of constructing even the simplest Minkowski diagram.
Gary Harnagel
2021-06-02 15:41:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
"I would encourage the author to reformulate the presentation of these
ideas with Minkowski spacetime geometry."
But your idiocies become even more obvious when you try to use Minkowski
diagrams. Besides, you have shown repeatedly that you are incapable of
constructing even the simplest Minkowski diagram.
Completely dishonest portrayal of reality. Exactly what a delusional bullying
buffoon like Dontknow would write.

“You are mean because inside you’re tiny. So tiny you cannot hold up the weight
of your own body. You must inflate your ego just to fill the skin. You float around
like a helium balloon. Blown up and bloated and gassy and empty.”
― Rivers Solomon
Dono.
2021-06-02 15:44:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
"I would encourage the author to reformulate the presentation of these
ideas with Minkowski spacetime geometry."
But your idiocies become even more obvious when you try to use Minkowski
diagrams. Besides, you have shown repeatedly that you are incapable of
constructing even the simplest Minkowski diagram.
Completely dishonest portrayal of reality.
Actually, we have had multiple samples of your imbecility when it comes to Minkowski diagrams, you can't do a correct one if your life depended on it. This is precisely why you avoided them in your crank "paper".
Gary Harnagel
2021-06-02 18:16:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Actually, we have had multiple samples of your imbecility when it comes
to Minkowski diagrams, you can't do a correct one if your life depended on it.
This is precisely why you avoided them in your crank "paper".
"We"? :-)) You're all alone, liar, so don't pretend there's anyone who would
agree with your prevarications. Why don't you try to be a decent human being
sometime before your sorry life is over?

“You are mean because inside you’re tiny. So tiny you cannot hold up the weight
of your own body. You must inflate your ego just to fill the skin. You float around
like a helium balloon. Blown up and bloated and gassy and empty.”
― Rivers Solomon
Albert Fullard
2021-06-02 18:29:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Actually, we have had multiple samples of your imbecility when it comes
to Minkowski diagrams, you can't do a correct one if your life depended on it.
This is precisely why you avoided them in your crank "paper".
"We"? ) You're all alone, liar, so don't pretend there's anyone who
would agree with your prevarications. Why don't you try to be a decent
human being sometime before your sorry life is over?
“You are mean because inside you’re tiny. So tiny you cannot hold up the
weight of your own body. You must inflate your ego just to fill the
skin. You float around like a helium balloon. Blown up and bloated and
gassy and empty.” ― Rivers Solomon
But you flagrantly are not addressing the ardent issue, that you are
incapable to manage the Monkowski, much less to reconciliate regarding
your fictitious ftl, whatever you want to call it, *arduino_tachyion*.

You simply still don't understand, *the_timing* is more important than
the component diagram in any arduino.
Wayde Dellano
2021-06-01 17:50:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Dono.
I agree, there are too many real issues with your "paper".
Since you haven't read it, you are obviously making stuff up from your
"As a practical matter, any signal reception requires at least some expenditure of energy,
hence it is not physically possible to detect a tachyon signal at infi
nite speed. Infi nite speed represents a barrier which cannot be
breached, even by a tachyon.
You so wrong I don't even know where to start. You can't possibly have
"infinite speeds", since speeds are defined as discrete.
Dono.
2021-06-01 06:19:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
The value of the squared mass of the electron antineutrino is subject to EXPERIMENTAL
determination. THAT'S what Mainz, Troitsk and KATRIN have MEASURED. So far, the
central value is about -1 eV² with the ongoing KATRIN. All three experiments were < 0.
Stubborn cretin: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mass+of+the+electron+antineutrino
Dono.
2021-05-31 05:39:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Gary Harnagel
But if w approaches -∞, then w' = (w - v)/(1 - wv/c²) approaches -c²/v.
That can't be right. In SR, if the speed in one frame exceeds c, then it
exceeds c in all frames. That is to say, events that are space-like
separated are space-like separated in all frames. Ditto events that are
time-like separated, and events that are light-like separated.
Sylvia.
Not so, Sylvia. If speed is c in one frame, it's c in all frames. Use the
relativistic velocity addition equation as I wrote above. Set it up in a
spreadsheet and see for yourself.
Utter imbecile,

Sylvia told you that "if the speed in one frame EXCEEDS c, then it
EXCEEDS c in all frames".
You are so dishonest that you get caught in your own imbecilities
J***@.
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
_Assuming_ that the speed of light is constant is useful for:

- Reliably defining the second, the meter, & the kilogram. &

- Exploring quantum mechanics using The Large Hadron Collider. &

- Developing a GPS system.

Gary Harnagel's _assumptions_, on the other hand,
would primarily benefit Hollywood ashrams.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-05-31 12:10:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It doesn't matter, however, as even the wildest monkey dance
of Giant Guru was unable to keep the consequences consistent
and his GR shit had to abandon this idiocy.
J***@.
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Gary Harnagel should lead with how _assuming_ that something moves
faster than the speed of light constant might benefit a _scientist_
( not a Hollywood producer and/or a pop "scientist" ).

_Assuming_ that the speed of light is constant is useful for:

- Reliably defining the meter & kilogram. &

- Exploring quantum mechanics using The Large Hadron Collider. &

- Developing a GPS system.
Lee Woo
2021-05-29 15:39:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
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??
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2021-05-29 00:23:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
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.
Post by Gary Harnagel
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
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-29 02:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Post by Gary Harnagel
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.
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Post by Gary Harnagel
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.
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
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.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2021-05-29 04:05:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
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?
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-29 04:57:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
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.
Dono.
2021-05-29 05:15:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
But the speed of the signal is dependent upon the relative speed between the
source and the RoTT.
Only in your crackpot mind.
Post by Gary Harnagel
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.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2021-05-29 05:56:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
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?
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-29 13:49:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Post by Gary Harnagel
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?
================
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
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.
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
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!
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2021-05-30 00:45:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
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.
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-30 03:03:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Post by Gary Harnagel
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?
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
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.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2021-05-30 03:23:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Post by Gary Harnagel
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?
Nope. You never did. You only want to CLAIM that you've thought
of everything. Pathetic.
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
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?
In a star within the quasar 3c273.
Moving at velocity ... what?
Look up 3c273. Its current redshift corresponds to 44,700 km/s.
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.
I gave you all necessary parameters. The velocity of the paddle wheels
exactly compensate for the recessional velocity of 3c273. If necessary,
they can be "fine-tuned" to any velocity that is needed to enable receipt
of the tachyonic signal.

Your entire thesis was bogus to begin with, and your attempts at
rescuing it are totally meaningless.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2021-05-30 11:54:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Post by Gary Harnagel
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?
Nope. You never did. You only want to CLAIM that you've thought
of everything. Pathetic.
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
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?
In a star within the quasar 3c273.
Moving at velocity ... what?
Look up 3c273. Its current redshift corresponds to 44,700 km/s.
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.
I gave you all necessary parameters. The velocity of the paddle wheels
exactly compensate for the recessional velocity of 3c273. If necessary,
they can be "fine-tuned" to any velocity that is needed to enable receipt
of the tachyonic signal.
Your entire thesis was bogus to begin with, and your attempts at
rescuing it are totally meaningless.
You wrote, "You must send the signal to the one on 3c273 at less than
c²/v so it will arrive with SOME energy", meaning that you have modified
your completely fanciful rules yet again from when we last engaged in
real debate. No matter. Stupid nonsensical rules are stupid nonsensical rules.

Those who are not privy to our previous discussions may be mystified what
my reference to "paddle wheels" is all about. Here is an illustration:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hef0WUaIdffOGLPTNHlyihqHCckwqY96/view?usp=sharing

Gary proposes that Starbase must send tachyonic messages to the Enterprise
with speeds less than c²/v for the Enterprise to receive signals with at least
SOME energy. A simple modification to the receivers, which are necessarily
strengthened with force-fields since ordinary materials cannot handle the
stress, allows the Enterprise to communicate with Starbase so long as it is
in ordinary space operating at slower-than-light speeds.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-05-30 11:58:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
You wrote, "You must send the signal to the one on 3c273 at less than
c²/v so it will arrive with SOME energy", meaning that you have modified
your completely fanciful rules yet again from when we last engaged in
real debate. No matter. Stupid nonsensical rules are stupid nonsensical rules.
They are. But you can announce that "common sense is a
collection of prejudices" and insist on them anyway.
Python
2021-05-30 12:02:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
You wrote, "You must send the signal to the one on 3c273 at less than
c²/v so it will arrive with SOME energy", meaning that you have modified
your completely fanciful rules yet again from when we last engaged in
real debate. No matter. Stupid nonsensical rules are stupid nonsensical rules.
They are. But you can announce that "common sense is a
collection of prejudices" and insist on them anyway.
You are particularly shitty today, Maciej. Bad night?
Maciej Wozniak
2021-05-30 12:06:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
You wrote, "You must send the signal to the one on 3c273 at less than
c²/v so it will arrive with SOME energy", meaning that you have modified
your completely fanciful rules yet again from when we last engaged in
real debate. No matter. Stupid nonsensical rules are stupid nonsensical rules.
They are. But you can announce that "common sense is a
collection of prejudices" and insist on them anyway.
You are particularly shitty today, Maciej. Bad night?
You, on the other hand, are as shitty as always.
Michael Moroney
2021-05-30 16:02:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
You wrote, "You must send the signal to the one on 3c273 at less than
c²/v so it will arrive with SOME energy", meaning that you have modified
your completely fanciful rules yet again from when we last engaged in
real debate. No matter. Stupid nonsensical rules are stupid
nonsensical rules.
They are. But you can announce that "common sense is a
collection of prejudices" and insist on them anyway.
You are particularly shitty today, Maciej. Bad night?
Maybe a bit of methanol or other nasty chemical in the home distilled
vodka he had for breakfast. His 10 liter bottle must be gone.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-05-31 06:05:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
You wrote, "You must send the signal to the one on 3c273 at less than
c²/v so it will arrive with SOME energy", meaning that you have modified
your completely fanciful rules yet again from when we last engaged in
real debate. No matter. Stupid nonsensical rules are stupid nonsensical rules.
They are. But you can announce that "common sense is a
collection of prejudices" and insist on them anyway.
You are particularly shitty today, Maciej. Bad night?
Maybe a bit of methanol or other nasty chemical in the home distilled
vodka he had for breakfast. His 10 liter bottle must be gone.
Or maybe poor religious crank Mike, having no arguments, can
only lie and slander.
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-30 14:14:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
You wrote, "You must send the signal to the one on 3c273 at less than
c²/v so it will arrive with SOME energy", meaning that you have modified
your completely fanciful rules yet again from when we last engaged in
real debate. No matter. Stupid nonsensical rules are stupid nonsensical rules.
Those who are not privy to our previous discussions may be mystified what
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hef0WUaIdffOGLPTNHlyihqHCckwqY96/view?usp=sharing
Gary proposes that Starbase must send tachyonic messages to the Enterprise
with speeds less than c²/v for the Enterprise to receive signals with at least
SOME energy. A simple modification to the receivers, which are necessarily
strengthened with force-fields since ordinary materials cannot handle the
stress, allows the Enterprise to communicate with Starbase so long as it is
in ordinary space operating at slower-than-light speeds.
This was addressed in "Tachyons for Interstellar Communication," published
Dec. 14, 2020: https://vixra.org/abs/2012.0108

Although this isn't quite the same as the above illustration, it has important
principles in common with it. As to that, we must note that we're not considering
the Enterprise moving at v >= c, that's outside the realm of out discussion, so we
have this graphic:

t = 0:
A ----> w __________________ R
C --> v ____________________ D --> v

A (on earth) sends a signal to D at velocity w = ∞ (or nearly so). Of course, D can't
direct this signal directly, but he has a paddle wheel with receivers mounted on it.
We posit that there is a receiver, R, at the top of the wheel whose tangential velocity
exactly offsets the velocity of D long enough to receive the signal. So R is momentarily
stationary in earth's frame.

The time on C's clock reads tC' = 0 when A launches the signal and it arrives at R
virtually instantaneously. The time on D's clock reads tD' = -γvL/c².

Now let's posit that the paddle wheel has transmitters to send messages back to A,
and D decides to take advantage of that immediately. So he sends the same message
he received:

t = 0:
A ___________________ u <---- R
C --> v ____________________ D --> v

So R sends it at u = -∞, and it gets back to A at t = 0 (zero-plus, actually since infinitely-
fast tachyons have no energy. It also gets back to C at tC' = 0, so it appears to travel
at u' = -c²/v.

So causality is conserved in both frames. Whether or not the roundtrip time according to
A can approach zero may have some proviso not considered here, but the relevant point
is that causality isn't violated by paddle wheels :-)

As I said in my previous post, this is RoS at work. And Morin's strategy, too.

Now, Prok, please stop these addlepated personal attacks. They're unwarranted and serve
solely to shut down communication. I had to let my blood pressure drop a few points
before I could think clearly enough to respond to this message. Is THIS the kind of
atmosphere YOU want to live in? Then don't do it to others.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2021-05-30 20:45:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
A ----> w __________________ R
C --> v ____________________ D --> v
A (on earth) sends a signal to D at velocity w = ∞ (or nearly so). Of course, D can't
direct this signal directly, but he has a paddle wheel with receivers mounted on it.
We posit that there is a receiver, R, at the top of the wheel whose tangential velocity
exactly offsets the velocity of D long enough to receive the signal. So R is momentarily
stationary in earth's frame.
The time on C's clock reads tC' = 0 when A launches the signal and it arrives at R
virtually instantaneously. The time on D's clock reads tD' = -γvL/c².
Now let's posit that the paddle wheel has transmitters to send messages back to A,
and D decides to take advantage of that immediately. So he sends the same message
A ___________________ u <---- R
C --> v ____________________ D --> v
So R sends it at u = -∞, and it gets back to A at t = 0 (zero-plus, actually since infinitely-
fast tachyons have no energy. It also gets back to C at tC' = 0, so it appears to travel
at u' = -c²/v.
You're getting your frames mixed up. C and D are mutually at rest and
have synchronized clocks. D transmits the signal near instantaneously
to C, which means that tC' = tD' = -γvL/c²
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-30 21:38:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Post by Gary Harnagel
A ----> w __________________ R
C --> v ____________________ D --> v
A (on earth) sends a signal to D at velocity w = ∞ (or nearly so). Of course, D can't
direct this signal directly, but he has a paddle wheel with receivers mounted on it.
We posit that there is a receiver, R, at the top of the wheel whose tangential velocity
exactly offsets the velocity of D long enough to receive the signal. So R is momentarily
stationary in earth's frame.
The time on C's clock reads tC' = 0 when A launches the signal and it arrives at R
virtually instantaneously. The time on D's clock reads tD' = -γvL/c².
Now let's posit that the paddle wheel has transmitters to send messages back to A,
and D decides to take advantage of that immediately. So he sends the same message
A ___________________ u <---- R
C --> v ____________________ D --> v
So R sends it at u = -∞, and it gets back to A at t = 0 (zero-plus, actually since infinitely-
fast tachyons have no energy. It also gets back to C at tC' = 0, so it appears to travel
at u' = -c²/v.
You're getting your frames mixed up. C and D are mutually at rest and
have synchronized clocks. D transmits the signal near instantaneously
to C, which means that tC' = tD' = -γvL/c²
Oh good grief, Prok! The signal travels in the EARTH frame, not in the CD frame. R is in
the EARTH frame. YOU are the one getting mixed up. It's RoS, Prok, simply Relativity 101.

u = -∞, u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c²) = -c²/v.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2021-05-31 01:02:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Post by Gary Harnagel
A ----> w __________________ R
C --> v ____________________ D --> v
A (on earth) sends a signal to D at velocity w = ∞ (or nearly so). Of course, D can't
direct this signal directly, but he has a paddle wheel with receivers mounted on it.
We posit that there is a receiver, R, at the top of the wheel whose tangential velocity
exactly offsets the velocity of D long enough to receive the signal. So R is momentarily
stationary in earth's frame.
The time on C's clock reads tC' = 0 when A launches the signal and it arrives at R
virtually instantaneously. The time on D's clock reads tD' = -γvL/c².
Now let's posit that the paddle wheel has transmitters to send messages back to A,
and D decides to take advantage of that immediately. So he sends the same message
A ___________________ u <---- R
C --> v ____________________ D --> v
So R sends it at u = -∞, and it gets back to A at t = 0 (zero-plus, actually since infinitely-
fast tachyons have no energy. It also gets back to C at tC' = 0, so it appears to travel
at u' = -c²/v.
You're getting your frames mixed up. C and D are mutually at rest and
have synchronized clocks. D transmits the signal near instantaneously
to C, which means that tC' = tD' = -γvL/c²
Oh good grief, Prok! The signal travels in the EARTH frame, not in the CD frame. R is in
the EARTH frame. YOU are the one getting mixed up. It's RoS, Prok, simply Relativity 101.
u = -∞, u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c²) = -c²/v.
The "good grief" is due to ***YOUR*** faulty analysis, Gary.

R is a proxy for B. A and B (R) are mutually at rest. Within the AB (R)
frame, (near-)instantaneous transmission between A and B (R)
should be possible, according to your theory.

C and D are mutually at rest. Within the CD frame, (near-)instantaneous
transmission between C and D should be possible, according to your
theory.

You get all discombobulated trying to analyze in terms of your
"flattened roadkill" diagrams. I'll bet that you haven't even noticed
that when the signal reaches C, A and C are not adjacent.

Or rather, you ***DID*** once notice that fact, and concluded that
the signal could never reach the "past" C because the "present"
C got in the way. You spent many posts pushing this totally bogus
assertion, when ***ANYBODY*** with the slightest understanding
of Minkowski diagrams and who studied what REALLY goes on
would understand why you were being foolish. Remember my
submarine analogy? See "The Enemy Below" between 44:00
and 46:15

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2021-05-31 01:09:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Post by Gary Harnagel
A ----> w __________________ R
C --> v ____________________ D --> v
A (on earth) sends a signal to D at velocity w = ∞ (or nearly so). Of course, D can't
direct this signal directly, but he has a paddle wheel with receivers mounted on it.
We posit that there is a receiver, R, at the top of the wheel whose tangential velocity
exactly offsets the velocity of D long enough to receive the signal. So R is momentarily
stationary in earth's frame.
The time on C's clock reads tC' = 0 when A launches the signal and it arrives at R
virtually instantaneously. The time on D's clock reads tD' = -γvL/c².
Now let's posit that the paddle wheel has transmitters to send messages back to A,
and D decides to take advantage of that immediately. So he sends the same message
A ___________________ u <---- R
C --> v ____________________ D --> v
So R sends it at u = -∞, and it gets back to A at t = 0 (zero-plus, actually since infinitely-
fast tachyons have no energy. It also gets back to C at tC' = 0, so it appears to travel
at u' = -c²/v.
You're getting your frames mixed up. C and D are mutually at rest and
have synchronized clocks. D transmits the signal near instantaneously
to C, which means that tC' = tD' = -γvL/c²
Oh good grief, Prok! The signal travels in the EARTH frame, not in the CD frame. R is in
the EARTH frame. YOU are the one getting mixed up. It's RoS, Prok, simply Relativity 101.
u = -∞, u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c²) = -c²/v.
The "good grief" is due to ***YOUR*** faulty analysis, Gary.
R is a proxy for B. A and B (R) are mutually at rest. Within the AB (R)
frame, (near-)instantaneous transmission between A and B (R)
should be possible, according to your theory.
C and D are mutually at rest. Within the CD frame, (near-)instantaneous
transmission between C and D should be possible, according to your
theory.
You get all discombobulated trying to analyze in terms of your
"flattened roadkill" diagrams. I'll bet that you haven't even noticed
that when the signal reaches C, A and C are not adjacent.
Or rather, you ***DID*** once notice that fact, and concluded that
the signal could never reach the "past" A because the "present"
A got in the way. You spent many posts pushing this totally bogus
assertion, when ***ANYBODY*** with the slightest understanding
of Minkowski diagrams and who studied what REALLY goes on
would understand why you were being foolish. Remember my
submarine analogy? See "The Enemy Below" between 44:00
and 46:15
http://youtu.be/ny6oZED1Hm8
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2021-05-31 01:19:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Post by Gary Harnagel
A ----> w __________________ R
C --> v ____________________ D --> v
A (on earth) sends a signal to D at velocity w = ∞ (or nearly so). Of course, D can't
direct this signal directly, but he has a paddle wheel with receivers mounted on it.
We posit that there is a receiver, R, at the top of the wheel whose tangential velocity
exactly offsets the velocity of D long enough to receive the signal. So R is momentarily
stationary in earth's frame.
The time on C's clock reads tC' = 0 when A launches the signal and it arrives at R
virtually instantaneously. The time on D's clock reads tD' = -γvL/c².
Now let's posit that the paddle wheel has transmitters to send messages back to A,
and D decides to take advantage of that immediately. So he sends the same message
A ___________________ u <---- R
C --> v ____________________ D --> v
So R sends it at u = -∞, and it gets back to A at t = 0 (zero-plus, actually since infinitely-
fast tachyons have no energy. It also gets back to C at tC' = 0, so it appears to travel
at u' = -c²/v.
You're getting your frames mixed up. C and D are mutually at rest and
have synchronized clocks. D transmits the signal near instantaneously
to C, which means that tC' = tD' = -γvL/c²
Oh good grief, Prok! The signal travels in the EARTH frame, not in the CD frame. R is in
the EARTH frame. YOU are the one getting mixed up. It's RoS, Prok, simply Relativity 101.
u = -∞, u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c²) = -c²/v.
The "good grief" is due to ***YOUR*** faulty analysis, Gary.

R is a proxy for B. A and B (R) are mutually at rest. Within the AB (R)
frame, (near-)instantaneous transmission between A and B (R)
should be possible, according to your theory.

C and D are mutually at rest. Within the CD frame, (near-)instantaneous
transmission between C and D should be possible, according to your
theory.

You get all discombobulated trying to analyze in terms of your
"flattened roadkill" diagrams. I'll bet that you haven't even noticed
that when the signal reaches C, A and C are not adjacent.

Or rather, you ***DID*** once notice that fact, and concluded that
the signal could never reach the "past" A because the "present"
A got in the way. You spent many posts pushing this totally bogus
assertion, when ***ANYBODY*** with the slightest understanding
of Minkowski diagrams and who studied what REALLY goes on
would understand why you were being foolish. Remember my
submarine analogy? See "The Enemy Below" between 44:00
and 46:15
http://youtu.be/ny6oZED1Hm8
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-31 04:49:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Big blah!
You insist on screwing up the whole problem. Of COURSE R is equivalent to B!
And R has the transmitter and A has the receiver.

All of a sudden now, you want to change the whole argument by pretending that D
and C have transmitters and receivers, too! That is SO dishonest of you to change
the rules in the middle of the problem!

You just changed it into the original problem without the paddle wheel. So why did
you bloviate about a PW in the first place. Pure obfuscation, apparently.

So now we're back at square one:

t = 0:
C --> v _____________ D --> v
____ A __________________ B
Figure 1a.

t = vL/c²:
____ C --> v _____________ D --> v
____ A __________________ B
Figure 1b.

A initiates a message at t = 0, sends it to B, B passes it to D at t = vL/c² and D sends it
to C. He can send it at u' = -c²/v or he can send it at u' = -∞. Either way, C can't pass it
back to A before he initiated it.

Your Figure 4-4 looks like this:

t = 0:
C --> v _____________ D --> v
A ______________________ B
Figure 2a.

t = vL/c²:
________ C --> v _________ D --> v
____ A __________________ B
Figure 2b.

If you put an observer at t = 0 so D can send it there, t' would equal γvL/c²,
not 0.


You're just going around in circles. You ASSume that tachyons in S' can cause
time to reverse in S and then prove that causality is violated when time goes
backward in S.

There is NOWHERE in Figure 1b or 2b where t' = 0 EXCEPT at D, It's not at C
and it's not anywhere to the LEFT of C either. Try it for yourself. Pick some
spot on the S' axis to the left of C, i.e., at x = d, where d < 0:

td' = γ(vL/c² - vd/c²)

It's simple Math 101 that td' > 0 if d < 0. DUH! So the ONLY way you can pretend
that D can send an infinitely fast signal to C from the perspective of S, is to violate
Morin's strategy and jump frames and then jump back again and pretend you did
something clever.

When you look at Figure 2 from the perspective of S':

t' = 0:
v <-- A ________________ v <-- B
____ C _____________________ D
Figure 3.

A initiates the message and sends it to B at w = c²/v. It leaves A at t = 0 and arrives at
B at t = vL/c². B passes it to D at t' = 0, D sends it to C at u' = -∞, so the message does
NOT get back to before it's initiated. Figure 2 says it gets back before it's initiated if
you jump frames during the analysis, or it says that no loop is formed if C gets it.

So the analysis from S' says the loop is completed with no causality violation while
analysis from S disagrees using either assumption. Thus contradictory results. A
definite no-no.

You would claim this proves tachyons can't exist, but I claim it proves that the configuration
is invalid. Figure 1 is proof of a Method II configuration that works and is consistent with
sending tachyons directly between relatively moving sources and receivers (A to D and D to
A); that is, Method I.

You STILL refuse to address the simplicity of Method I, preferring to twist and turn, go around
in circles and fantasize about Method II machinations.

We both agree that causality must not be violated, we just disagree on WHY it can't.
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-30 13:03:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Post by Gary Harnagel
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?
Nope. You never did. You only want to CLAIM that you've thought
of everything. Pathetic.
Well, Prok, you've completely reverted to your bad-tempered, adversarial stance, so we
seem to be approaching an inability to communicate like reasonable human beings.
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
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?
In a star within the quasar 3c273.
Moving at velocity ... what?
Look up 3c273. Its current redshift corresponds to 44,700 km/s.
More bad-tempered behavior, Prok. You have TWO friends, remember?
You aimed a 10^10 c beam at him, right?

That's two strikes against our ability to communicate.
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
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.
I gave you all necessary parameters.
No, you didn't. Why was it necessary to send a 10^10 c signal to your "closeby"
friend? Was he moving relative to you? Murkiness!
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
The velocity of the paddle wheels
exactly compensate for the recessional velocity of 3c273. If necessary,
they can be "fine-tuned" to any velocity that is needed to enable receipt
of the tachyonic signal.
Your entire thesis was bogus to begin with, and your attempts at
rescuing it are totally meaningless.
And that's the third strike. If you'd think at least to the level of your fabled
Relativity 101, you'd understand that RoS is involved in the analysis. It all
works out without violating causality, Prok. Your atrocious behavior is a
barrier to our communication to the point where such is impossible.

Neither of us need this kind of animosity.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2021-05-30 14:03:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Your atrocious behavior is a
barrier to our communication to the point where such is impossible.
Neither of us need this kind of animosity.
The harsh language is an attempt at applying the sort of "tough love"
that one needs to use on cult members that one cares about. In this
case, the cult is one of your own making. You have convinced yourself
that your unguided self-study has led you to deep insights about
relativity that have been missed in over a century of analysis of
relativity by everybody who has ever thought deeply about the subject,
including Einstein himself.

The language is an attempt to shock you into reassessing your
position. Absolutely nobody who knows anything about the subject
has offered you support for your theories. You need to ask yourself
why this may be the case. Are you really smarter than everybody else?
Are you really beyond all peer review?

You are in danger of turning into another Dono. You two have much
in common, although neither of you recognizes that fact.
Dono.
2021-05-30 14:11:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
You are in danger of turning into another Dono. You two have much
in common, although neither of you recognizes that fact.
Stupid old cunt


I was the first one to point out the errors in your boyfriend's "masterpiece".
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-30 14:54:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Your atrocious behavior is a barrier to our communication to the point where
such is impossible.
Neither of us need this kind of animosity.
The harsh language is an attempt at applying the sort of "tough love"
that one needs to use on cult members that one cares about. In this
case, the cult is one of your own making. You have convinced yourself
that your unguided self-study has led you to deep insights about
relativity that have been missed in over a century of analysis of
relativity by everybody who has ever thought deeply about the subject,
including Einstein himself.
The language is an attempt to shock you into reassessing your
position. Absolutely nobody who knows anything about the subject
has offered you support for your theories. You need to ask yourself
why this may be the case. Are you really smarter than everybody else?
Are you really beyond all peer review?
Not at all, Prok, but peers are people, too. One who reviewed my submission
believes that neutrinos are tachyons and that they don't violate causality.
He had other concerns about the completeness of my paper, and I agree
with him. So, no, I'm not beyond ALL peer review :-)

The other reviewer took issue with my assertion that "infi nite speed represents
a barrier which cannot be breached, even by a tachyon." And I agree with his
objection because I gave no justification for that. That was his only issue, but
he might have felt that was enough :-)
Post by Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
You are in danger of turning into another Dono. You two have much
in common, although neither of you recognizes that fact.
Oh, that's a devastating below-the-belt blow, Prok :-))

Tell me, Prok, has your "tough love" EVER worked? Has it worked on Dono?
You ARE familiar with this quote, eh?

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

Actually, I was convinced of my errors by Tom Roberts when I made some
rash pronouncements several years ago. I immediately reviewed my ideas
and did some rethinking. However, when he commented about c²/v in more
recent threads, I was sure he was wrong because it's basic to RoS. Just as
I'm pretty sure that your objections are misguided. I demonstrated this in
my previous post where I showed that the "paddle wheel" device doesn't
violate causality.

My understanding of these things is still increasing. My viXra papers are an
evolutionary path, and I think I almost grabbed the brass ring with the AJP
paper :-)
Dono.
2021-05-30 15:17:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
My understanding of these things is still increasing. My viXra papers are an
evolutionary path, and I think I almost grabbed the brass ring with the AJP
paper :-)
Never ending delusions, keep up the entertainment, cranko
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-30 16:08:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
My understanding of these things is still increasing. My viXra papers are an
evolutionary path, and I think I almost grabbed the brass ring with the AJP
paper :-)
Never ending delusions, keep up the entertainment, cranko
"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
Dono.
2021-05-30 16:25:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Dono.
My understanding of these things is still increasing. My viXra papers are an
evolutionary path, and I think I almost grabbed the brass ring with the AJP
paper :-)
Never ending delusions, keep up the entertainment, cranko
"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
But I pointed out your crank statements in you crank "papers" , Gary.
Problem is that , you, in the fashion of a true crank, pretend that no one has exposed your crankeries. Thus, you keep up the entertainment.
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-30 16:32:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Dono.
My understanding of these things is still increasing. My viXra papers are an
evolutionary path, and I think I almost grabbed the brass ring with the AJP
paper :-)
Never ending delusions, keep up the entertainment, cranko
"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
But I pointed out your crank statements in you crank "papers" , Gary.
No, you didn't. Rather, you did only in your fevered delusions.
Post by Dono.
Problem is that , you, in the fashion of a true crank, pretend that no one has exposed
your crankeries.
Actually, you pretend that your vacuous claims actually have meaning. That's TRUE
crankery.

Thus, YOU keep up the entertainment :-))
Dono.
2021-05-30 16:37:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Dono.
My understanding of these things is still increasing. My viXra papers are an
evolutionary path, and I think I almost grabbed the brass ring with the AJP
paper :-)
Never ending delusions, keep up the entertainment, cranko
"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
But I pointed out your crank statements in you crank "papers" , Gary.
No, you didn't. Rather, you did only in your fevered delusions.
Post by Dono.
Problem is that , you, in the fashion of a true crank, pretend that no one has exposed
your crankeries.
Actually, you pretend that your vacuous claims actually have meaning.
You need to stop lyung, Gary

I pointed out that your tying the speed of the tachyons to the relative speed of the frames is uber crank. Which it is.
I was also the first to point out that your "masterpiece" will be rejected. Which it was.
You need to restart taking your meds, your dementia is taking over.
Gary Harnagel
2021-05-30 18:31:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
Actually, you pretend that your vacuous claims actually have meaning.
You need to stop lyung, Gary
I pointed out that your tying the speed of the tachyons to the relative speed
of the frames is uber crank. Which it is.
Nope. It's physics 101: velocity is frame-dependent:

u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c²)

So this was an example of one of your vacuous assertions.
Post by Dono.
I was also the first to point out that your "masterpiece" will be rejected. Which it was.
Not for the reasons you predicted. So this was a meaningless crank assertion.
Post by Dono.
You need to restart taking your meds, your dementia is taking over.
I'm not the one that flunked Physics 101 :-))

Everyone has the right to be stupid but you’re abusing the priviledge. – Shiv Daddar

Diarrhea of the mouth; constipation of the ideas. --- Anon.
Dono.
2021-05-30 21:42:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
Actually, you pretend that your vacuous claims actually have meaning.
You need to stop lyung, Gary
I pointed out that your tying the speed of the tachyons to the relative speed
of the frames is uber crank. Which it is.
u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c²)
Dishonest imbecile,

It is your insistence on limiting the speed of the tachyons as a function of the relative speed of the frames or of limiting the relative speed of the frames as a function of the speed of the tachyons. This brazen and ignorant denial of PoR is what makes your "paper" a non-starter.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2021-05-30 20:20:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
My understanding of these things is still increasing.
Nope.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-05-30 18:50:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 9:23:09 PM UTC-6,
On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 6:45:28 PM UTC-6,
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?
Nope. You never did. You only want to CLAIM that you've thought> of
everything. Pathetic.
Well, Prok, you've completely reverted to your bad-tempered,
adversarial stance, so we
seem to be approaching an inability to communicate like reasonable human beings.
Are there any reasonable human beings in this group? I haven't detected
any. No; that's unfair, there are Sylvia and Dono. and a few others,
but "reasonable" is not a word that springs to mind when considering
the discussions here.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Dono.
2021-05-29 00:32:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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"
Helmut Wabnig
2021-05-29 18:30:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 28 May 2021 14:57:51 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
Post by Gary Harnagel
"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.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-05-30 07:54:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Experiments count.
(Aka measurements) s
Wabi, poor halfbrain, stop fucking. For 20 years GPS
is measuring t'=t with the precision of an acceptable
error and it doesn't impress your bunch of idiots a
slightest bit.
What really matters is your blind faith in the moronic
postulates of your idiot guru. That's all.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2021-06-07 10:25:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of light
"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.
What does the statement “Time is asymmetrical.” even *mean*?
Post by Gary Harnagel
I avoided Minkowski diagrams for that very reason, but that point needs to
be emphasized and expanded.
Good luck with that :-D


PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)
Gary Harnagel
2021-06-07 13:06:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by Gary Harnagel
I received a rejection to "Is communication faster than the speed of light
"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.
What does the statement “Time is asymmetrical.” even *mean*?
In the real world, time NEVER goes backward, hence we perceive time as being
asymmetrical. The LT treats it the same as distance, x.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by Gary Harnagel
I avoided Minkowski diagrams for that very reason, but that point needs to
be emphasized and expanded.
Good luck with that :-D
Yeah, I'm working on including MDs, but it's not the choice of diagrams that are
important but the word descriptions that are wrapped around them.
Dono.
2021-06-07 13:22:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Good luck with that :-D
Yeah, I'm working on including MDs, but it's not the choice of diagrams that are
important but the word descriptions that are wrapped around them.
You see , Gary, your problem is unsolvable:

1. If you do the Minkowski diagrams correctly, that contradict your crank claims that tachyon signalling doesn't produce causal loops

2. If you continue to do the Minkowski diagrams incorrectly, in order to support your crank claims that tachyon signalling doesn't produce causal loops then you will be called on it

Either way, you are fucked.
Gary Harnagel
2021-06-07 23:07:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Good luck with that :-D
Yeah, I'm working on including MDs, but it's not the choice of diagrams that are
important but the word descriptions that are wrapped around them.
1. If you do the Minkowski diagrams correctly, that contradict your crank claims
that tachyon signalling doesn't produce causal loops
Not so, Dontknow. it depends on the ASSUMPTIONS you make. If you ASSUME
tachyons go back in time, then you "prove" causality violation.
Post by Dono.
2. If you continue to do the Minkowski diagrams incorrectly, in order to support
your crank claims that tachyon signalling doesn't produce causal loops then you
will be called on it
I was doing them correctly right from the start. The evidence continues to mount
for that.
Dono.
2021-06-07 23:28:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Good luck with that :-D
Yeah, I'm working on including MDs, but it's not the choice of diagrams that are
important but the word descriptions that are wrapped around them.
1. If you do the Minkowski diagrams correctly, that contradict your crank claims
that tachyon signalling doesn't produce causal loops
it depends on the ASSUMPTIONS you make. If you ASSUME
tachyons go back in time, then you "prove" causality violation.
No, it doesn't have anything to do with your ASSumptions.
Post by Dono.
2. If you continue to do the Minkowski diagrams incorrectly, in order to support
your crank claims that tachyon signalling doesn't produce causal loops then you
will be called on it
I was doing them correctly right from the start.
No, you weren't. And you aren't. Because you are thoroughly dishonest.
Tom Roberts
2021-06-08 01:18:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
What does the statement “Time is asymmetrical.” even *mean*?
In the real world, time NEVER goes backward, hence we perceive time as being
asymmetrical. The LT treats it the same as distance, x.
SR is A LOT more than just the Lorentz transform, and GR is much more
than SR.

In both theories, all timelike objects, including humans and clocks,
follow future-directed timelike trajectories. It is not possible for any
physical process to "convert" such a trajectory into a past-directed
timelike trajectory. So for all humans and clocks, in SR and GR time
NEVER goes backward.

If such a basic and well-observed property of the world were not part of
SR or GR, they would have been rejected long ago.

BTW "asymmetrical" is not the correct word for this; "anisotropic" is
what you are thinking.

Tom Roberts
Gary Harnagel
2021-06-08 01:27:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
What does the statement “Time is asymmetrical.” even *mean*?
In the real world, time NEVER goes backward, hence we perceive time as being
asymmetrical. The LT treats it the same as distance, x.
SR is A LOT more than just the Lorentz transform, and GR is much more
than SR.
Yep.
Post by Tom Roberts
In both theories, all timelike objects, including humans and clocks,
follow future-directed timelike trajectories. It is not possible for any
physical process to "convert" such a trajectory into a past-directed
timelike trajectory. So for all humans and clocks, in SR and GR time
NEVER goes backward.
If such a basic and well-observed property of the world were not part of
SR or GR, they would have been rejected long ago.
BTW "asymmetrical" is not the correct word for this; "anisotropic" is
what you are thinking.
Tom Roberts
Thanks, Tom.

Loading...