Re: Oh my God!

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 4:07:39 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

>
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 21:41:39 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

>
The only other persons that I'm aware of was (1) dono, and his
assertions were clearly false, too, and (2) Athel, who criticized
where the paper was published and who wrote it rather than on the
content of the paper.
>
Your two criticisms were false.  In the first one you claimed
>
u > c^2/v cannot mean that a tachyon becomes undetectable because
all particles must be observable in a frame.

>
<snip>
>

Your second criticism was that that imaginary mass means that
tachyons have imaginary energy and momentum.

>
<snip>
>
======================================================================
>
You have a TERRIBLE memory. Those weren't my arguments AT ALL. And
your wording of the first criticism shows that you STILL misunderstand
what frames represent.
>
Here are a few conversations in which various group members whom I
admire (and whose knowledge of the subject exceed my own) ALL agree
that your thoughts on tachyons are nonsense.:

Wow, Prok!  You do indeed have a lo-o-o-ong memory :-)
All of these, I note, are from 2020-2021 time frame.  I admit that
there were errors in the viXra papers I wrote.  There are anomalies
in the LT when dealing with tachyons which I was trying to explain,
and not doing a great job of it, but I was learning.  Much of that
learning was because of responses from you and the others that you
referenced in your amazingly deep dive into the ancient past.
Finally, in 2021, I thought I had learned enough to try the real
world of physics (I hadn't).
I submitted my paper to American Journal of Physics in 2021 and it
was rejected because I didn't use Minkowski diagrams nor four-vectors
(and a reviewer thought my thinking was still fuzzy).  I improved and
resubmitted in 2022, but it was rejected because I claimed that energy
could not be negative.  The referees disagreed because the 4-momentum
says that it can).
Later in 2022, I proved that the 4-momentum incorrectly allows tachyon
energy to become negative and DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 was
published (not in AJP).  So all these issues raised by Al, Tom, etc.
are old news and don't apply to the published refereed paper.
If you wish to discuss why I "misunderstand what frames represent"
we can discuss that.  No referee said that in any of my journal
submissions.
[I'm leaving out all the 2020 references you posted, but all your
work in digging them up is still available in your post]
I'll just say about Tom and GR:  My work is strictly SR, but several
papers in the journals discuss tachyons in GR, so the jury is still
out on that.

======================================================================
>
In regard to your mis-understandings about what frames, coeal had a
good comment:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/rLiepB5Yjh8/m/NuzA_ofjAwAJ
>
| That statement reveals a very elementary misunderstanding. Remember
| that everything is "in" every frame all the time. We can describe
| phenomena in terms of any system of coordinates we like. It doesn't
| change what is physically happening. If you arrange for a
| superluminal signal to be transmitted and received, that process can
| be described in terms of infinitely many different systems of
| inertial coordinates. In terms of some of those systems the signal
| is going in the positive time direction and in terms of others it
| is going in the negative time direction. But that doesn't change
| what happens.
>
| In other words, it doesn't make sense to say the signal was
| successfully transmitted in one description of the events, but it
| was not successfully transmitted in another description of the very
| same events. Whether a signal is or is not successfully transmitted
| between two events is a coordinate-independent fact. But whether it
| went in the positive or negative time direction is coordinate
| dependent. Do you understand this?
>
======================================================================
>
Like other fringe posters, you believe that EVERYBODY who disagrees
with you is misguided.

Not at all.  I greatly respected all these criticisms from you and the
rest of the valiant crew on the relativity boards, and the published
paper has responded to all of them.  I wish you would take the time
to actually read and understand it.

In your defense, you DO have a certain degree of knowledge about SR,
and you certainly believe, as did Dono, that you are a defender of
SR against the crackpots.

Well, I DO :-)

But as with Dono, you have no knowledge of the limits of your
understanding.

Ah, but I AM woefully aware.  I had to do yeoman work to increase
my k&u to rebut the criticisms posed by everyone.  It was a long,
hard slog to DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 and I wish I had been
a bit more careful in some wording and explanations, but I think
it is very well reasoned and proves mathematically that tachyons,
if they exist, would not violate causality.
And, the beta decay experiments have not ruled out the possibility
that neutrinos are tachyons.