Re: Oh my God!

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 17:00:08 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

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"

======================================================================
Your arguments really haven't changed over the years. You have merely
glossed over your points by arguing about instrumental detectability.
So no, it really hasn't been necessary to spend more than a few
minutes finding where you have denied the validity of LT and special
relativity.
Looking at https://vixra.org/pdf/2011.0076v1.pdf, I see that after
dissing a few Minkowski diagrams at the beginning, you revert to your
so-called "laboratory frame" diagrams that allow you to freely
set up absurdities without the absurdities being readily apparent.
======================================================================

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:

======================================================================
Reality does not change due to the motions of the observer.
======================================================================

"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.

======================================================================
Your arguments here offer no improvement over the vixra articles.
======================================================================

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?

======================================================================
Absolutely not. You still insist that reality changes as a result of
observer motion. One cannot make excuses on the basis of factors
supposedly affecting instrumental performance.
======================================================================