On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 21:41:39 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 14:33:39 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
LOTS of people dissed your paper from different standpoints, not
just me.
>
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.
>
Like too many others, you seem unable to comprehend legitimate
criticism of your pet notions to which you have devoted years of
your life.
>
Pot, kettle, black Prok.
>
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.:
(Ufonaut, Al Coe/coeal, Tom Roberts, Python)
Gary's "Solution" to the Issue of Causality Violation as a Result of
Tachyonic Signaling Is Not Viable
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/dmNEa6PBVXY/m/HyX8bqaFAwAJ(Al Coe/coeal, Tom Roberts)
Tachyons versus the Minkowski Diagram
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/rLiepB5Yjh8/m/1C4vZoNCCgAJ(Tom Roberts)
FTL and Tachyon Dynamics
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/pqCORfYsUB8/m/exgTfNIKCQAJThe LT, FTL Travel and Causality
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/Ap-Y4EKUiIQ/m/cC71-MdYLRgJ(Thomas Lahn)
On "Why the Speed of Light is not constant.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/dhdrA910TLI/m/cHIC1NDqAAAJManuscript submission
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/xcudXdZvAkI/m/xd3GwsjNAgAJ(Tom Roberts)
Tom Robert's Tachyon Disproof
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/RvXqEgJlMv4/m/nHhN3pvWCQAJ(Al Coe/coeal, Tom Roberts, Shuba)
Why hasn't Figure 4-4 Been Corrected?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/pqCORfYsUB8/m/yRohiWVmBQAJ======================================================================
Tom Roberts has had some interesting things to say about tachyons and
general relativity.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/pqCORfYsUB8/m/yRohiWVmBQAJ| The problem comes in General Relativity: if tachyons are able to
| transfer energy faster than light, they imply that the manifold
| cannot be globally hyperbolic, which means there is no assurance
| that the field equations of GR have solutions.
| While "no assurance of a solution" may sound like a
| rather weak objection, in practice it is straightforward
| to construct counterexamples in which the field equations
| either have no solution or give wildly unphysical results.
| So to consider tachyons, one is left with two unappealing
| alternatives:
| 1. tachyons cannot transfer energy faster than light.
| IOW: they are completely unobservable.
| 2. General Relativity is wrong [#].
| [#] Or at least does not apply when tachyons are present.
| (Which amounts to either GR is wrong, or tachyons don't
| exist.)"
Fours years ago, I didn't understand Tom's comment. But I since have
finished D'Inverno and have almost completed my second reading. This
doesn't give me enough mastery of the subject to truly understand the
subject, but I have a pretty decent idea of what he is talking about.
======================================================================
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.
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.
But as with Dono, you have no knowledge of the limits of your
understanding.
Oh my God!
Re: Oh my God!