Re: Oh my God!

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 18:36:22 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

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

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

>

======================================================================

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.

But the instrumental detectibility demolishes Al's argument (and
you're agreement with him).  SO it is MUCH more than a "glossed
over" point.

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.
======================================================================

You're still not dealing with DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 which
uses Minkowski diagrams.

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.
======================================================================

And, of course, it doesn't in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
The problem with the conventional viewpoint of tachyons which
presumes they can move backwards in time for some observers is
that spacetime IS "ripped to shreds" as you say.

"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.
======================================================================

Au contraire, Prok, as I pointed out above.  But it's not just
THAT point that is in the published paper.

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.
======================================================================

Prok, reality does NOT change unless tachyons can move backward in
time for some observers.  The backward-in-time scenarios are caused
by (1 - uv/c^2) in the LT, but to get to t' < 0, u' must REACH infinity
(an impossibility) in order to get there.  Now, as to spacetime
diagrams ...
The Minkowski diagram Figure 4 in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101
shows D sending a tachyon signal at t = vL/c^2 to C, but to C when?
It is usually presumed that D can send it infinitely fast to C at
t = 0 who can send it infinitely fast to B at t = 0.  If we assume
that B originated the message at t = vL/c^2 and passed it to D, then
B would have received the message before it was originated.
The problem with that scenario is that you must jump frames to
presume that D can send it infinitely fast.  If you are required to
stay in the AB-stationary frame, C is NOT at t = 0 when D sends
the signal to C at t = vL/c^2 (hence the horizontal arrow), and
you are REQUIRED to perform all of your analysis is ONE frame (it
doesn't matter which one, as Figure 5 attests) by well-known
physicists such as David Morin, John Wheeler and Edwin Taylor
in their physics textbooks.  Recami also has proclaimed thus in
his papers.
The MD has mesmerized many physicists into jumping frames without
realizing it when dealing with tachyon problems.  I went to lab
views to get away from that, but I managed to get to the point
where I could argue using MDs, so you are quoting past situations
when you claim that I don't understand them.
Actually, you and many others failed to use them properly when
dealing with tachyons and it took a long time for me to wade
through the morass.