Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
On 2024-04-04 02:42:01 +0000, gharnagel said:
>
Irrelevant baloney, but Wozzie-boy's religion is the moronic one.
>
And yours? The other day you criticized me for referring to "Dr" Hachel's most obvious lies rather than addressing his statements about physics. If I know he's lying about he claims to have seen on television, why should I believe what he says about physics?
So the criticism hurt? Sorry about that, but you criticized my paper,
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, based solely on irrelevant "facts."
(1) The fact that you had many more citations than I did and (2) four
out of more than 30 of hrpub's journals were cited for "abuse" of one
sort or another (but not UJPA). So (2) is "guilt by association" and
(1) is snobbishness, I guess.
As for "Dr" Hachel, sometimes he sounds almost reasonable, and that
gives me hope that he's reachable, but then he dashes hope with his
usual assertions.
You and he have something in common: neither of you have degrees in
physics but both of you feel free to denigrate those who do. The
difference is Hachel comes up with his own crazy theories and tries
to defend them by attacking those who disagree with him while you
try to "shoot the messenger" rather than criticizing the message,
apparently which is outside your field of expertise.
If you're really interested in learning about the tachyon debate, I
would encourage you to read some recent papers by Charles Schwartz:
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/PhysicsPapers/65_Symmetry_14_1172.pdfhttps://physics.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/schwartz.pdfhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2209.10520You don't have to understand everything to get the gist of what he's
saying and develop your own feeling about its correctness. That is
what you should have done with my paper, too, and mine's a LOT easier
to understand than Schwartz's. After all, most people read a paper's
abstract and conclusions first. If it seems of more than passing
interest, they'll read the introduction and then, if more interest is
generated, they'll really dig in.
Does this approach seem familiar to you?
I had respect for a few people who have posted on these discussion
groups: Tom Roberts, PCH (the aliased one) and you, among them. I
lost a lot of respect for PCH when he invented incorrect "reasons" for
criticizing my paper. He obviously doesn't understand the first thing
about the case for tachyons.
My own paper had one major goal, which I believe was attained: If
tachyons were found to exist, they would not violate causality. It
took four years to get there and it involved overcoming many objections. The conclusions section actually lists five conclusions, which wreck
some "beliefs" about tachyons held by the scientific community (negative
energy, causality violation and the reinterpretation principle).
I hope your interest in what you criticized will lead you to trying to
understand the issues rather than shooting blindly :-))
…