Re: Oh my God!

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 14:18:08 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

>
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 13:29:36 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

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

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.

>
======================================================================
It didn't take me more than a few minutes looking at your paper to
understand that you are STILL ripping spacetime to shreds:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mZJcqaV2KieXFNU5iWHCsVtDK21HOLWE/view?usp=sharing

Only "a few minutes"?  Then you haven't understood that there is no
"ripping spacetime to shreds"
The objection that Al made (and you reiterated) that all objects
should appear in all frames is laid to rest in my DOI, and I also
explained it to you in a previous post:
"Of course, an observer must use instruments to observe particles,
so a method of observing particles which have u > c^2/v was
described in the very paper that you were criticizing:
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
And using instruments, one can detect tachyons in the u > c^2/v
region:
"the tachyon source sending a signal at u = ∞, the observer can’t
receive the signal directly, but the observer could allow the
receiver to move toward the source at speed, v. Thus the speed of
the tachyon relative to the receiver could be nearly infinite and
its energy, relative to the receiver, would be greater than zero."
Thus A's criticism is avoided, so does that satisfy your concern
about shredding spacetime, or do you mean something else?

You don't understand spacetime diagrams. They provide a direct
graphical representation of the Lorentz transformation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Graphical_representation_of_the_Lorentz_transformation
>
The above section is at least 95% unchanged from when I originally
added the section on 11 November 2018 https://tinyurl.com/4a388w7x
In August 2020, "UKER" objected to the way that I worded the last
paragraph, so we reached a compromise. https://tinyurl.com/57a29nne

Yes, the diagrams are an accurate representation of the LT, BUT the
LT has a problem with tachyons.  The velocity composition equation
is a direct consequence of the LT:
u' = \gamma (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
and u = c^2/v is unphysical since infinities indicate a limitation
on the domain of applicability of the LT.  This is further seen in
the energy equation:
E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1)
when u' is substituted with the above composition equation.

In the past, you have consistently avoided using spacetime diagrams
because they don't express your ideas in the way that you would prefer
to express them.

I did in the viXra papers because I considered the problem from a
laboratory perspective.  Observers don't see diagrams, they see
measurements.  I came to recognize that my lab diagrams were merely
rotated 90 degrees from a MD with the time axis rotated into the paper.
Anyway, my experience with reviewers forced me to present everything
in MDs and also to deal with 4-vectors.

Your deprecation of spacetime diagrams essentially
amounts to dissing the LT.

Well, as I demonstrated in the UJPA paper (and above), the LT cannot
be a valid description of the region u > c^2/v.
As an aside, don't you find it interesting that the LT has no
problem with u < -c^2/v, and it turns out there is no infinity
in that region?  That was one of the reasons I felt that all the
arguments against tachyons may be faulty very early on.
The proof took a long time, but I finally did it, thanks to the
mountainous waves of criticism I received :-)