Re: A discussion of 'Tachyons, the 4-momentum ...'

Le 05/10/2024 à 20:57, Richard Hachel  a écrit :

Le 05/10/2024 à 20:35, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

This scenario is described as Method II, which demonstrates
that RoS limits the ability to complete a closed message
loop that violates causality.  There are some that still
can't understand the logic, so let's look at Method I.
 Method I shows that E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^ - 1) for tachyons,
where the tachyon mass is im and u is the tachyon velocity
in frame S.  The valid range of u is split: -\infty < u < -c
and c < u < \infty.  It is VERY important to note that
E NEVER becomes negative for ANY valid value of u.
 By the Principle of Relativity, the tachyon velocity in frame
S' is E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1), where u' has the same
range as in S.  E' may be derived from the E equation by the
relativistic velocity composition equation (RVCE):
 u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
 This is just as valid as the Lorentz tranformation equations.
Applying this,
 E = mc^2 sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
 Conventional physicists have made an error at this point which
isn't wrong unless 1 - uv/c^2 < 0.  When they do this, they
proclaim that E becomes negative, which E NEVER does throughout
the whole valid range for u, as demonstrated above!
 This should alert any thoughtful physicist that the RCVE has
a limited domain of applicability.  This must mean that the
LT also has the same limitation.
 Those that assert that Method II can violate causality do so
by working in the region where 1 - uv/c^2 is negative, which
is outside of the applicability range of the LT.  They have
no foundation for their assertions.

 We should start by understanding the theory of relativity.
I have been denouncing the problem for 40 years. "YOU do not understand the words you pronounce, and you stupidly apply equations whose meaning you do not understand".
 When I pose v=x/t, I understand what I am saying.
 When I say x=(1/2)at² I understand what I am saying.
 I visualize my mathematical thought in a physical thought.
 I understand things.
 Physicists, too, obviously. They are not thugs, or bandits.
 But if I ask them to visualize in their minds the Lorentz transformations, or To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax),
they are incapable of "thinking of something physical", and there are only formulas learned by heart, but without any idea in the mind of what it represents in the real universe.
 We should start by putting words to the ideas, and if possible, to clear ideas.
 Dilation of internal chonotropies: Richard Hachel understands.
 Dilation of times by change of reference frame: I do not understand.
 "If two mobiles, one in Galilean motion, the other in uniformly accelerated motion starting at rest, travel in the same observable time an identical distance, their proper times will be equal": Richard Hachel confirms.
 The proper times will differ: false and of no interest, I do not understand.
 There are many things I do not understand in RR, but rest assured, friends, it is not because I lack practical intelligence.
 An infinite intelligence would not understand any more.
 R.H.

Abstract: On old fart who used to be an M.D. is demented, egomaniac and pretend
to reinvent physics.
Anyway he's never convinced anyone (Wozniak's style) and produce more and more
b.s. every year.
So what? *yawn*