On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 7:38:28 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:12:28 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Of course it has to do with a receiver.
[Dono's deceitful modification of my post deleted]
Yet, "communication" has nothing to do with "tachyons" energy going
negative.
It goes negative independent of any "communication",
it is completely insane to yammer that it's not about receivers (or transmitters). Once again, Dono just makes stuff up and pretends it's true, just like the cranks.
pathetic crank.
The truth:
The Mainz, Troitsk and KATRIN experiments measure the mass-squared
of the electron antineutrino,
The EFFECTIVE mass, crank. Which is the sum of the flavors of the neutrino
multiplied by the Fermi-Pontecorvo matrix coefficients.
it's a mixture of the eigenstates (m_1, m_2, m_3) which are not observed. As it turns out, the electron anti-neutrino mass-squared is about 80% m_1^2.
...meaning that it is the MIX I pointed out,
"in this paper we report a measurement of the effective electron anti-neutrino
mass defined as m_nu^2 = sum_i j |Ueij|^2 m^2i where Uei are elements of the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) matrix, which describes the mixing of the neutrino states." -- arXiv:2105.08533v1
So, the sentence you cite from the paper contradicts your imbecillic lies.
other two. NONE of those are "flavors" (electron, mu or tau neutrinos).
So, there is a contradiction between the Feinberg definition (1) and the 4-vector
definition (2.). The same problem arises in the case of momentum. p'. Meaning
that "tachyons" cannot exist,
That the two approaches don't work beyond u = c^2/v is a > > problem with the math,
not a problem with tachyons. I have presented a work-around in my [Dono's dishonest
monkeying with history deleted] paper by moving the receiver toward the transmitter
and Lo and behold,
Math is not the problem,
the problem is your dishonesty, utter crank.
The singularity is ONE of the problems, the bigger problem is that both E' and p'
jump from positive to negative. An unphysical behavior that points out that
"tachyons" do not exist.
Again, Dono is SO SURE that the math is ABSOLUTELY correct :-))
The math is correct, the math is not the problem
the problem is your dishonesty, utter crank.
You are outright lying, crank
"But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
But you ARE lying.
The mistake is not applying PEMDAS.
"PEDMAS" does not enter in the DEFINITION of 4-vectors.
"Tachyons" are unphysical.
Dono is SO certain :-))
The physics points that way.
I pointed out that p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1) changes sign. Google keeps records
of your despicable lies.
Only a math-challenged baloney-spewer would make such a stupid assertion. Simple
inspection shows that p' NEVER changes sign over the range c < u' < \infty.
Imbecile
u' changes sign at u=c^2/v
Therefore p' changes sign at u=c^2/v
[Dono's foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe deleted for sanitary reasons]
In order to communicate, a receiver must gain some energy from the signal. If the signal energy is less than some E_min, where E_min is determined by the sensitivity of the receiver, communication cannot occur.
It "goes negative" in only one of two expressions for tachyon energy, thus
It is incombent upon honest debaters to consider BOTH expressions for E': (1) 4MF: E' = \gamma (E - pv) = \gamma mc^2 (1 - uv/c^2)'sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) (2) E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1):
E' = mc^2 [(1 - uv/c^2)^2]^0.5 /[(1 - uv/c^2)(u^2/c^2 - 1)]^0.5
For u > c^2/v, (1) leads to E' < 0 and p' > 0 because PEMDAS is ignored,
We need a third option.
Dono doesn't know what "effective" means, so he just makes up his own definition
out of vaporous bias.
The math cannot be correct when two valid expressions give different answers.
The Bible has something to say about sociopaths today:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:55:10 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
In order to communicate, a receiver must gain some energy from the signal. If the signal energy is less than some E_min, where E_min is determined by the sensitivity of the receiver, communication cannot occur.
Since "tachyons" would exhibit negative total energy,
they cannot be used for communication, a well known fact, documented
in mainstream literature.
So , "tachyons" do not exist.
Keep it up, dumbfuck!
It "goes negative" in only one of two expressions for tachyon energy, thus
You conveniently "forgot" that the momentum, p', also changes sign at u=c^2/v
thus Dono is cherry-picking the mathematical evidence. See https://www3.nd.edu/~ghaeffel/Baloney.pdf
7. observational selection
18. straw man — caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack
For u > c^2/v, (1) leads to E' < 0 and p' > 0 because PEMDAS is ignored, while (2) leads to E' > 0 and p' < 0 when PEMDAS is followed. So we
cannot say from (1) and (2) what is correct.
It is incombent upon honest debaters to consider BOTH expressions for E': (1) 4MF: E' = \gamma (E - pv) = \gamma mc^2 (1 - uv/c^2)'sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) (2) E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1):
E' = mc^2 [(1 - uv/c^2)^2]^0.5 /[(1 - uv/c^2)(u^2/c^2 - 1)]^0.5
For u > c^2/v, (1) leads to E' < 0 and p' > 0 because PEMDAS is ignored,
There isn't any "PEDMAS" in the 4-momentum DEFINITION of E'
and no "PEDMAS" in the DEFINITION of p'. Keep it up, crook!
Dono doesn't know what "effective" means, so he just makes up his own definition
out of vaporous bias.
The definition is straight out of mainstream literature.
One can go to the KATRIN paper and actually SEE what it [effective] means: It means
m_nu^2 = Sum |U_ei|^2 m_i^2, which is 80% m_1^2 and 20% the other two. NONE of
those are "flavors" (electron, mu or tau neutrinos).
The math cannot be correct when two valid expressions give different answers.
The correct conclusion is that , "tachyons" , as defined by Feinberg, do not exist.
The Bible has something to say about sociopaths today:
LOL, now you are thumping the bible, demented old fart.
p' = \gamma (p - Ev/c^2) = \gamma m(u - v)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
Since u > c and v < c, it's intuitively obvious that p' > 0.
p' only changes sign in (2) when PEMDAS is followed
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:56:41 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 11:37:46 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:02:32 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:49:24 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
How are negative atoms being made from positive?
Mitchell Raemsch
This has nothing to do with tachyons (which would have IMAGINARY mass).
To answer your question, energy can be converted into matter, but when that
happens it is equal parts normal matter and antimatter (or nearly equal). When
a normal particle is accelerated to high energy and interacts with another
particle, energy is released, and so ...
What creates a tachyon from the future?
Tachyons don't come from the future. They would be created in the past or present
(if they existed).
So what would create them?If neutrinos are created in certain nuclear reactions. If neutrinos are tachyons, then
there's your answer.
Science has to use positive material.Scientists also use antimatter.
But that does not work...Sure it does.
The have never been measured to exist.
"So certain are you. Always with you it cannot be done. Hear you nothing that I say?"
-- Yoda
If they have never been measured you don't have anything at all.If they've no t been proven not to exist, then you have nothing at all.
It is science's imagination instead.“Imagination is more important than knowledge.” -- Albert Einstein
No atoms reaching light speed..Irrelevant. Photons do.
Even after I've told you that present measurements of m_mu^2 allow a 22% probability
that neutrinos are tachyons? Tsk, tsk.
How would you know probability if it is not exact?Um ... probability is a measure of inexactness.
and by Gamma math they cannot exist.
By motion law there is no tachyon.
""So certain are you."
I like to show science is not certain.Then don't make adamant assertions.
Zero math is a certain win.Ooh, and you just did it again! :-))
“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” – Charles Darwin
“There is generally an inverse relationship between confidence and intelligence.” – Jean Campbell
“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible,
he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he
is very probably wrong.” -- Arthur C. Clarke
"What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth." -- Richard Feynman
That is Quantum mechanics... that is its central principle.It applies to MUCH more than QM.
Feynman shot himself down...
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are
the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman
“I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb.” -- Richard P. Feynman
“stop trying to fill your head with science—for to fill your heart with love is enough.”
-- Richard P. Feynman
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
-- Bertrand Russell
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:56:41 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 11:37:46 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:02:32 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:49:24 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
How are negative atoms being made from positive?
Mitchell Raemsch
This has nothing to do with tachyons (which would have IMAGINARY mass).
To answer your question, energy can be converted into matter, but when that
happens it is equal parts normal matter and antimatter (or nearly equal). When
a normal particle is accelerated to high energy and interacts with another
particle, energy is released, and so ...
What creates a tachyon from the future?
Tachyons don't come from the future. They would be created in the past or present
(if they existed).
So what would create them?If neutrinos are created in certain nuclear reactions. If neutrinos are tachyons, then
there's your answer.
Science has to use positive material.Scientists also use antimatter.
But that does not work...Sure it does.
The have never been measured to exist.
"So certain are you. Always with you it cannot be done. Hear you nothing that I say?"
-- Yoda
If they have never been measured you don't have anything at all.If they've no t been proven not to exist, then you have nothing at all.
It is science's imagination instead.“Imagination is more important than knowledge.” -- Albert Einstein
No atoms reaching light speed..Irrelevant. Photons do.
Even after I've told you that present measurements of m_mu^2 allow a 22% probability
that neutrinos are tachyons? Tsk, tsk.
How would you know probability if it is not exact?Um ... probability is a measure of inexactness.
and by Gamma math they cannot exist.
By motion law there is no tachyon.
""So certain are you."
I like to show science is not certain.Then don't make adamant assertions.
Zero math is a certain win.Ooh, and you just did it again! :-))
“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” – Charles Darwin
“There is generally an inverse relationship between confidence and intelligence.” – Jean Campbell
“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible,
he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he
is very probably wrong.” -- Arthur C. Clarke
"What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth." -- Richard Feynman
That is Quantum mechanics... that is its central principle.It applies to MUCH more than QM.
Feynman shot himself down...
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are
the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman
“I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb.” -- Richard P. Feynman
“stop trying to fill your head with science—for to fill your heart with love is enough.”
-- Richard P. Feynman
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
-- Bertrand Russell
I don't need doubt. Only mediocre minds do... only the judges by authority do it...
Einstein said science would fail. And that is not based on doubt...
Mitchell Raemsch"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Richard P. Feynman
"Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress." -- Mahatma Ghandi
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:35:03 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
p' = \gamma (p - Ev/c^2) = \gamma m(u - v)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
Since u > c and v < c, it's intuitively obvious that p' > 0.
p' only changes sign in (2) when PEMDAS is followed
p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1)
u'=(u-v)/(1-uv/c^2) changes sign at u=vc^2/v
Therefore p' changes sign
WolgramAlpha proves Gary Harnagel to be an idiot.
The definition of p' is p' = mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1),
and the definition of p is p = mu/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1). There is only one way to
connect the two, and that is with u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2), and PEMDAS definitely
is in that.
This is not what I said,
deceptive crank.
What I said is that " PEDMAS" is not involved in the 4-momentum DEFINITION,
i.e. in p' =\gamma(v)m (u-v)/ sqrt(u^2/c^2-1),
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
If neutrinos are created in certain nuclear reactions. If neutrinos are >> tachyons, then there's your answer.
Neutrino's move close to the speed of light below not above light speed. Neutrino speed is not a tachyon... there's why you have no answer...neutrinos are fake.
WolgramAlpha proves Gary Harnagel to be an idiot.Actually, Dono's reliance on an AI bot proves that he can't think for himself.
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:56:41 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
So what would create them?
neutrinos are created in certain nuclear reactions. If neutrinos are tachyons, then
there's your answer.
Neutrino's move close to the speed of light below not above light speed.
Neutrino speed is not a tachyon... there's why you have no answer...
Mitchell Raemsch
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:10:28 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Neutrino speed is not a tachyon... there's why you have no answer...Ah, but I do :-)
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:09:57 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Actually, Dono's reliance on an AI bot proves that he can't think for himself.
WolframAlpha is the gold standard for math applications, as such it produces the correct result as opposed to the incorrect result
produced by the imbecile Gary Harnagel who got only a C-grade in calculus.
Anybody following this thread could figure that I produced the correct result (change of sign at u=c^2/v), confirmed by the gold standard of calculus (WolframAlpha) while deceptive crank Gary Harnagel produced yet another one of his pathetic imbecilities.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 4:14:40 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:09:57 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Actually, Dono's reliance on an AI bot proves that he can't think for himself.
WolframAlpha is the gold standard for math applications, as such it producesAI bots are only as good as their programmers, and they can have the same biases. A fussy theoretical mathematician my well be wringing his hands about
the correct result as opposed to the incorrect result
the domain of 1/1/x, but more practical mathematicians, like L'Hopital and Newton,
find ways around the problem and forge ahead.
produced by the imbecile Gary Harnagel who got only a C-grade in calculus.Well, imbeciles don't even get C's in calculus :-))
All my math grades were A's except for ADVANCED calculus,
and I had little patience with fussy hand-wringing.
Anybody following this thread could figure that I produced the correct result
(change of sign at u=c^2/v), confirmed by the gold standard of calculus (WolframAlpha) while deceptive crank Gary Harnagel produced yet another one
of his pathetic imbecilities.
I wonder which WolframAlpha site he's referring to.
But the stupendous irony here is that my crap paper
postulates the utter idiocy that E' doesn't change sign , since E' approaches zero as u approaches c^2/v, the tachyon
signal can't be received, it can't be received beyond c^2/v either.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:57:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 4:14:40 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
WolframAlpha is the gold standard for math applications, as such it produces
the correct result as opposed to the incorrect result
AI bots are only as good as their programmers, and they can have the same biases. A fussy theoretical mathematician my well be wringing his hands about
the domain of 1/1/x, but more practical mathematicians, like L'Hopital and Newton,
find ways around the problem and forge ahead.
But you are not a mathematician,
Gary, you are just a crank desperate to deceive.
produced by the imbecile Gary Harnagel who got only a C-grade in calculus.
Well, imbeciles don't even get C's in calculus :-))
Well, after your "performance" in this forum, you clearly qualify as an imbecile.
Deceptive as well.
All my math grades were A's except for ADVANCED calculus,
and I had little patience with fussy hand-wringing.
It did show , given the imbecilities you posted in this forum.
Anybody following this thread could figure that I produced the correct result
(change of sign at u=c^2/v), confirmed by the gold standard of calculus (WolframAlpha) while deceptive crank Gary Harnagel produced yet another one
of his pathetic imbecilities.
I wonder which WolframAlpha site he's referring to.
The one that I posted , here is the link once again. Choke on it, lying piece of shit:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28x-3%29%2F%281-3x%29%2Fsqrt%28%28x-3%29%5E2%2F%281-3x%29%5E2-1%29
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:10:28 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:56:41 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: So what would create them?
neutrinos are created in certain nuclear reactions. If neutrinos are tachyons, then
there's your answer.
Neutrino's move close to the speed of light below not above light speed.All measurements of neutrino speed are of high-energy neutrinos. Thus they are
traveling so close to the speed of light that it can't be determined whether they're
going faster or slower than c.
Neutrino speed is not a tachyon... there's why you have no answer...Ah, but I do :-)
Mitchell Raemsch
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 11:37:46 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:02:32 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:49:24 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
How are negative atoms being made from positive?
Mitchell Raemsch
This has nothing to do with tachyons (which would have IMAGINARY mass). To answer your question, energy can be converted into matter, but when that
happens it is equal parts normal matter and antimatter (or nearly equal). When
a normal particle is accelerated to high energy and interacts with another
particle, energy is released, and so ...
What creates a tachyon from the future?Tachyons don't come from the future. They would be created in the past or present
(if they existed).
The have never been measured to exist."So certain are you. Always with you it cannot be done. Hear you nothing that I say?"
-- Yoda
Even after I've told you that present measurements of m_mu^2 allow a 22% probability
that neutrinos are tachyons? Tsk, tsk.
and by Gamma math they cannot exist.""So certain are you."
By motion law there is no tachyon.
“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin
“There is generally an inverse relationship between confidence and intelligence.” – Jean Campbell
“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible,
he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he
is very probably wrong.” -- Arthur C. Clarke
"What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth." -- Richard Feynman
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
-- Bertrand Russell
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:15:23 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:10:28 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:56:41 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
So what would create them?
neutrinos are created in certain nuclear reactions. If neutrinos are tachyons, then
there's your answer.
Neutrino's move close to the speed of light below not above light speed.
All measurements of neutrino speed are of high-energy neutrinos. Thus they are
traveling so close to the speed of light that it can't be determined whether they're
going faster or slower than c.
Neutrino speed is not a tachyon... there's why you have no answer...Ah, but I do :-)
Then what accelerated them?
You still don't have an answer.
Acceleration obeys the speed limit.
By Gamma tachyons are an anti form.
In time and energy...
Tachyon's math demonstrates that they don't exist.
If science has a universal speed limit it cannot go both ways.
Yes to below c movement but no to above FTL..
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:22:49 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:15:23 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:10:28 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:56:41 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
So what would create them?
neutrinos are created in certain nuclear reactions. If neutrinos are tachyons, then
there's your answer.
Where are they measured with any proof?Neutrino's move close to the speed of light below not above light speed.
All measurements of neutrino speed are of high-energy neutrinos. Thus they are
traveling so close to the speed of light that it can't be determined whether they're
going faster or slower than c.
Neutrino speed is not a tachyon... there's why you have no answer...Ah, but I do :-)
Then what accelerated them?Ah, but I already explained that. You have forgotten. The are created moving FTL.
You still don't have an answer.
just like photons are created moving at c. Remember?
What does gravity do to them?Acceleration obeys the speed limit.They are not "acelerated" :-))
That math has never had a solution. And it is name rightly.By Gamma tachyons are an anti form.No, they're an imaginary "form."
In time and energy...“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
Tachyon's math demonstrates that they don't exist.
If science has a universal speed limit it cannot go both ways.
Yes to below c movement but no to above FTL..
is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” -- Albert Einstein
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:41:56 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:22:49 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:15:23 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:10:28 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:56:41 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
So what would create them?
neutrinos are created in certain nuclear reactions. If neutrinos are tachyons, then
there's your answer.
How do you know where neutrinos are created?
That is just your theory. What in your theory
gives them FTL speed?
gravity would slow all speed down for whatever form.
Can you disprove what gravity does to a frame leaving it?
if a neutrino obeys escape velocity it does what the atom does and slow down under gravity.
Even light is supposed to.
Why not the tachyon negative form
from the future with gamma negative
time and energy?
Where are they measured with any proof?
just like photons are created moving at c. Remember?
What speed exactly above the speed of light?
[Sophomoric demands exceeded boorish limits]
Mitchell Raemsch
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:05:44 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:If their is no experimental proof why would their
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:41:56 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:22:49 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:15:23 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:10:28 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:55:20 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:56:41 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
So what would create them?
neutrinos are created in certain nuclear reactions. If neutrinos are tachyons, then
there's your answer.
How do you know where neutrinos are created?I read what experts say. Apparently, you don't.
“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.” – Mark TwainThat is Gamma math.
That is just your theory. What in your theoryIt's not MY theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurements_of_neutrino_speed
gives them FTL speed?
"This was in agreement with the speed of light within the measurement accuracy
(95% confidence level)"
gravity would slow all speed down for whatever form.All particles lose energy when leaving a gravitational field. Tachyons speed up
Can you disprove what gravity does to a frame leaving it?
when they lose energy.
That is no proof. That is your conjecture.if a neutrino obeys escape velocity it does what the atom does and slow downYes, IF it's not a tachyon.
under gravity.
Even light is supposed to.I can't understand what you;re trying to say. Tachyons aren't a "negative form"
Why not the tachyon negative form
from the future with gamma negative
time and energy?
and they don't "come from the future" and gamma only applies to bradyons
and time never goes backward and negative energy is meaningless for all three types of particles.
Where are they measured with any proof?see above.
just like photons are created moving at c. Remember?
What speed exactly above the speed of light?What "exactly" below c do electrons travel? Makes no sense unless
we know their energy and their mass.
[Sophomoric demands exceeded boorish limits]
Mitchell Raemsch
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 3:29:54 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:05:44 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you know where neutrinos are created?
I read what experts say. Apparently, you don't.
If their is no experimental proof why would their
opinion be believed?
How do you know they are right?
I don't believe everything I read..
“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.”
– Mark Twain
That is just your theory. What in your theory
gives them FTL speed?
It's not MY theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurements_of_neutrino_speed
"This was in agreement with the speed of light within the measurement accuracy
(95% confidence level)"
gravity would slow all speed down for whatever form.
Can you disprove what gravity does to a frame leaving it?
All particles lose energy when leaving a gravitational field. Tachyons speed up
when they lose energy.
That is Gamma math.
But what gave them energy?
How is Higgs for the anti form?
if a neutrino obeys escape velocity it does what the atom does and slow down
under gravity.
Yes, IF it's not a tachyon.
Even light is supposed to.
Why not the tachyon negative form
from the future with gamma negative
time and energy?
I can't understand what you;re trying to say. Tachyons aren't a "negative form"
and they don't "come from the future" and gamma only applies to bradyons and time never goes backward and negative energy is meaningless for all three types of particles.
Where are they measured with any proof?
see above.
just like photons are created moving at c. Remember?
That is no proof. That is your conjecture.
If their is no measurement of the r4eal thing how do you know that it applies?
What speed exactly above the speed of light?
What "exactly" below c do electrons travel? Makes no sense unless
we know their energy and their mass.
[Sophomoric demands exceeded boorish limits]
Mitchell Raemsch
Gamma is why there is no FTL.
Mitchell Raemsch
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:44:08 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 3:29:54 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:05:44 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you know where neutrinos are created?
I read what experts say. Apparently, you don't.
If their is no experimental proof why would theirNo experimental evidence for neutrinos? Are you living under a pile of rocks? :-))
opinion be believed?
How do you know they are right?"Any fool can know. The point is to understand." ―Albert Einstein
You seem to have some kind of need for certainty.
"What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth." -- Richard Feynman
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire
I don't believe everything I read..Good for you. But don't reject something because of your own biases.
“The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about” – Wayne DyerIs that Higgs? How does Higgs give to the negative?
“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.”
– Mark Twain
That is just your theory. What in your theory
gives them FTL speed?
It's not MY theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurements_of_neutrino_speed
"This was in agreement with the speed of light within the measurement accuracy
(95% confidence level)"
gravity would slow all speed down for whatever form.
Can you disprove what gravity does to a frame leaving it?
All particles lose energy when leaving a gravitational field. Tachyons speed up
when they lose energy.
That is Gamma math.No, it's not. It's tachyon math: E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
But what gave them energy?The same thing that gives anything else energy. How do electrons gain (or lose)
energy? Or photons?
How is Higgs for the anti form?Non sequitur?
if a neutrino obeys escape velocity it does what the atom does and slow down
under gravity.
Yes, IF it's not a tachyon.
Even light is supposed to.
Why not the tachyon negative form
from the future with gamma negative
time and energy?
I can't understand what you;re trying to say. Tachyons aren't a "negative form"
and they don't "come from the future" and gamma only applies to bradyons and time never goes backward and negative energy is meaningless for all three types of particles.
Where are they measured with any proof?
see above.
And what is that? They are the negative form.just like photons are created moving at c. Remember?
That is no proof. That is your conjecture.Nope:
https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~gsudama/pub/1962_006.pdf https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-known-about-tachy/
If their is no measurement of the r4eal thing how do you know that it applies?But I don't "know." That's what hypothesis is all about.
What speed exactly above the speed of light?
What "exactly" below c do electrons travel? Makes no sense unless
we know their energy and their mass.
No. Light obeys Gamma.[Sophomoric demands exceeded boorish limits]
Mitchell Raemsch
Gamma is why there is no FTL.
Mitchell RaemschBy that reasoning, light can't exist, either :-)
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 6:29:51 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:44:08 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
If their is no experimental proof why would their
opinion be believed?
No experimental evidence for neutrinos? Are you living under a pile of rocks? :-))
Not proof. That is the difference. What is the evidence they are faster than light?
How do you know they are right?
"Any fool can know. The point is to understand." ―Albert Einstein
You seem to have some kind of need for certainty.
Science's central principle is for QM uncertainty.
"What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth." -- Richard Feynman
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire
I don't believe everything I read..
Good for you. But don't reject something because of your own biases.
Gamma shows FTL is wrong. No negative forms exist.
You have no evidence for them.
That is Gamma math.
No, it's not. It's tachyon math: E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
But what gave them energy?
The same thing that gives anything else energy. How do electrons gain (or lose)
energy? Or photons?
Is that Higgs? How does Higgs give to the negative?
There is no measurement.
That is no proof. That is your conjecture.Nope:
https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~gsudama/pub/1962_006.pdf https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-known-about-tachy/
If their is no measurement of the r4eal thing how do you know that it applies?
But I don't "know." That's what hypothesis is all about.
What speed exactly above the speed of light?
What "exactly" below c do electrons travel? Makes no sense unless
we know their energy and their mass.
And what is that? They are the negative form.
Gamma is why there is no FTL.
Mitchell Raemsch
By that reasoning, light can't exist, either :-)
No. Light obeys Gamma.
FTL does not.
There is a universal speed limit with nothing above
only at light speed and below.
Mitchell Raemsch
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 10:43:24 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Not proof. That is the difference. What is the evidence they are faster than light?I have presented this before, Mitch:
(2) Neutrino mass measurements allow the probability (22%) that m^2 < 0.
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 10:43:24 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:That is no proof still. You are just in theory and FTL is what does not exist.
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 6:29:51 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 12:44:08 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
If their is no experimental proof why would their
opinion be believed?
No experimental evidence for neutrinos? Are you living under a pile of rocks? :-))
Not proof. That is the difference. What is the evidence they are faster than light?I have presented this before, Mitch:
(1) FTL particles would have imaginary mass (i.e.,: m^2 < 0)
(2) Neutrino mass measurements allow the probability (22%) that m^2 < 0.
How do you know they are right?
"Any fool can know. The point is to understand." ―Albert Einstein
You seem to have some kind of need for certainty.
Science's central principle is for QM uncertainty.Heisenberg went for a drive and got stopped by a traffic cop. The cop asked, "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replied, "No, but I know where I am."
"What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth." -- Richard Feynman
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire
I don't believe everything I read..
Good for you. But don't reject something because of your own biases.
Gamma shows FTL is wrong. No negative forms exist.Now you've sunk back into certainty again :-)
You have no evidence for them.22%
That is Gamma math.
No, it's not. It's tachyon math: E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
But what gave them energy?
The same thing that gives anything else energy. How do electrons gain (or lose)
energy? Or photons?
Is that Higgs? How does Higgs give to the negative?Higgs isn't the answer to everything. Energy is conserved but it's transmitted between
particles by collisions, absorption, emission.
There is no measurement.
22% is a measurement, n'est-ce pas?
That is no proof. That is your conjecture.Nope:
https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~gsudama/pub/1962_006.pdf https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-known-about-tachy/
If their is no measurement of the r4eal thing how do you know that it applies?
But I don't "know." That's what hypothesis is all about.
What speed exactly above the speed of light?
What "exactly" below c do electrons travel? Makes no sense unless
we know their energy and their mass.
And what is that? They are the negative form.The energy of tachyons would be real, as defined in the seminal paper by Bilaniuk, Deshpande and Sudardshan, "Meta Relativity," Am. J. Phys. 30:10 pp/718-723 (1962). DOI:10.1119/1.1941773
Gamma is why there is no FTL.
Mitchell Raemsch
By that reasoning, light can't exist, either :-)
No. Light obeys Gamma.There is no "gamma" in light speed.
FTL does not.
Your infatuation with "gamma" is modified in FTL
Look at Equations (2) and (3) and in the Meta Relativity paper and READ it.
There is a universal speed limit with nothing above
only at light speed and below.
Mitchell RaemschCertainty is absurd.
“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.
But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:51:57 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 5:21:48 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 10:43:24 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Not proof. That is the difference. What is the evidence they are faster than light?I have presented this before, Mitch:
(2) Neutrino mass measurements allow the probability (22%) that m^2 < 0.
You persist in the same imbecility .
Keep it up, dumbfuck! It is Sunday, time for the "Gary Harnagel Cartoons".
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 5:21:48 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 10:43:24 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Not proof. That is the difference. What is the evidence they are faster than light?
I have presented this before, Mitch:
(1) FTL particles would have imaginary mass (i.e.,: m^2 < 0)
(2) Neutrino mass measurements allow the probability (22%) that m^2 < 0.
That is no proof still. You are just in theory
and FTL is what does not exist.
Science's central principle is for QM uncertainty.
Heisenberg went for a drive and got stopped by a traffic cop. The cop asked,
"Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replied, "No, but I know where I am."
Uncertainty is QM science central principle. Measurement can never go accurate
and how would you know?
Gamma shows FTL is wrong. No negative forms exist.
Now you've sunk back into certainty again :-)
You have no evidence for them.
22%
Tachyon would be programing Gamma for the anti world
that does not exist.
Is that Higgs? How does Higgs give to the negative?
Higgs isn't the answer to everything. Energy is conserved but it's transmitted between
particles by collisions, absorption, emission.
What is your source for negative time and energy?
There is no measurement.
22% is a measurement, n'est-ce pas?
And what is that? They are the negative form.
The energy of tachyons would be real, as defined in the seminal paper by Bilaniuk, Deshpande and Sudardshan, "Meta Relativity," Am. J. Phys. 30:10 pp/718-723 (1962). DOI:10.1119/1.1941773
No. Light obeys Gamma.
There is no "gamma" in light speed.
FTL does not.
Your infatuation with "gamma" is modified in FTL
Look at Equations (2) and (3) and in the Meta Relativity paper and READ it.
There is a universal speed limit with nothing above
only at light speed and below.
Mitchell Raemsch
Certainty is absurd.
But some things are.. no FTL in math...
“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.
But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 7:14:38 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:51:57 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
You persist in the same imbecility .
Dono persists in denying statistics.
You never leaned what m^2 represents,
so you persist in your crankery
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:41:34 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 7:14:38 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:51:57 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
You persist in the same imbecility .
Dono persists in denying statistics.
You never leaned what m^2 represents,
I didn't understand that the electron neutrino is a mixture of the eigenstates
(m1, m2 and m3, which are NOT the flavors).
But the REAL misunderstanding is that neutrino physics has little to do with my crap paper published in the predatory journal (Tachyons, the Four-Momentum Formalism
and Simultaneity) because that paper shows that tachyons violate
causality There are
four other conclusions in the paper, all shown to be pure crankery
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 7:35:16 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 4:52:30 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
But the REAL misunderstanding is that neutrino physics has little to do with
my crap paper published in the predatory journal (Tachyons, the Four- Momentum Formalism and Simultaneity) because that paper shows that tachyons violate causality There are four other conclusions in the paper,
all shown to be pure crankery
Agreed
It is obvious that when the neutrino is created in
tritium decay that it is created as an electron antineutrino, a mixture of eigenstates m1, m2 and m3, but mostly m1.
I fully debunked your crap paper in this thread.
Each paragraph and each of your crank conclusions have been debunked.
I also debunked your idiotic attempts at deception by your incorrect manipulations
of the speed composition, relativistic momentum and relativistic energy formulas.
I also debunked your imbecillic claims that four-momentum formalism somehow does not apply to tachyons.
It is obvious that when the neutrino is created in
tritium decay that it is created as an electron antineutrino, a mixture of eigenstates m1, m2 and m3, but mostly m1.
Irrelevant: m^2 represents the "effective mass", not the neutrino mass.
The mass of the neutrino can never be measured by virtue of the fact that
the neutrino oscillates among its three flavors,
all that the experiments can measure is "effective mass".
At least you took out your crank claims about the neutrino having an imaginary
mass
Nurse, call a medic. Patient Gary Harnagel has crapped his pampers again
although the 4MF is a "definition," its transformation is not.
The problem is not that P =[E/c,p],
This is all laid out in my crap paper published in the predatory journal
Note that they didn't use the word "effective" in the abstract of K2.
"In this paper we report a measurement of the effective electron anti- neutrino mass defined as m_nu^2 = SUM |U_ei^2| m_i^2 where Uei are
elements of the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) matrix,
which describes the mixing of the neutrino states."
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 2:50:38 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
The problem is not that P =[E/c,p],
But the above is just the DEFINITION of the four-momentum formalism.
You just accepted it as correct in the previous sentence.
Dono just doesn't want to accept the fact that, although the 4MF is a "definition," its transformation is not. The problem is not that
P =[E/c,p], but that P' does not necessarily equal \eta P for tachyons.
Riiight. Keep it up , dumbfuck!
Note that they didn't use the word "effective" in the abstract of K2.
"In this paper we report a measurement of the effective electron anti- neutrino mass defined as m_nu^2 = SUM |U_ei^2| m_i^2 where Uei are
elements of the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) matrix,
which describes the mixing of the neutrino states."
Your own quote contradicts your claim,
imbecile
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 4:49:40 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 2:50:38 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Dono just doesn't want to accept the fact that, although the 4MF is a "definition," its transformation is not.
The problem is not that
P =[E/c,p], but that P' does not necessarily equal \eta P for tachyons.
The Principle of Relativity requires that P' = [E'/c,p']. THAT is a definition,
too. Therefore, E'/c = mc/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 -1). Just like u^2/c^2 > 1, u'^2 > 1,
too. Therefore E' is NEVER less than zero. Since the 4MF (P = [E/c,p]) when transformed by \eta gives E' < 0, \eta is incorrect for tachyons when u > c^2/v.
"In this paper we report a measurement of the effective electron anti- neutrino mass defined as m_nu^2 = SUM |U_ei^2| m_i^2 where Uei are elements of the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) matrix,
which describes the mixing of the neutrino states."
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 5:25:10 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 4:49:40 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 2:50:38 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Dono just doesn't want to accept the fact that, although the 4MF is a "definition," its transformation is not.
There is no "transformation" of the 4-momentum principle ,
crank. Because 4-momentum is a definition, as explained countless times.
The problem is not that P =[E/c,p], but that P' does not necessarily
equal \eta P for tachyons.
Because crank Gary Harnagel said so?
Repeating the same imbecility doesn't make it true,
The Principle of Relativity requires that P' = [E'/c,p']. THAT is a definition,
too. Therefore, E'/c = mc/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 -1). Just like u^2/c^2 > 1, u'^2 > 1,
too. Therefore E' is NEVER less than zero. Since the 4MF (P = [E/c,p]) when
transformed by \eta gives E' < 0, \eta is incorrect for tachyons when u > c^2/v.
Inconvenient contradiction, isn't it,
The normal conclusion is that "tachyons" do not exist.
"In this paper we report a measurement of the effective electron anti- neutrino mass defined as m_nu^2 = SUM |U_ei^2| m_i^2 where Uei are elements of the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) matrix,
which describes the mixing of the neutrino states."
Your own quote contradicts your claim,
crank Gary Harnagel.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:53:28 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 5:21:48 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 10:43:24 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Not proof. That is the difference. What is the evidence they are faster than light?
I have presented this before, Mitch:
(1) FTL particles would have imaginary mass (i.e.,: m^2 < 0)
(2) Neutrino mass measurements allow the probability (22%) that m^2 < 0.
That is no proof still. You are just in theoryThere is no "proof" in science, Mitch. At best, there's confirmation because the next
experiment may suggest something new.
and FTL is what does not exist.“There could be no fairer destiny for any physical theory than that
It should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which
It lives on as a limiting case.” -- Albert Einstein
Science's central principle is for QM uncertainty.
Heisenberg went for a drive and got stopped by a traffic cop. The cop asked,
"Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replied, "No, but I know
where I am."
Uncertainty is QM science central principle. Measurement can never go accurateScience is not about "knowing." It's about constructing theories and testing them.
and how would you know?
Gamma shows FTL is wrong. No negative forms exist.
Now you've sunk back into certainty again :-)
You have no evidence for them.
22%
Tachyon would be programing Gamma for the anti worldSinking lower and lower into the absurd abyss of certainty :-)
that does not exist.
Is that Higgs? How does Higgs give to the negative?
Higgs isn't the answer to everything. Energy is conserved but it's transmitted between
particles by collisions, absorption, emission.
What is your source for negative time and energy?I don't believe in negative time or energy. This sure came out of left field.
Are you certain of that gary?There is no measurement.
22% is a measurement, n'est-ce pas?
And what is that? They are the negative form.
So, have you read it?The energy of tachyons would be real, as defined in the seminal paper by Bilaniuk, Deshpande and Sudardshan, "Meta Relativity," Am. J. Phys. 30:10
pp/718-723 (1962). DOI:10.1119/1.1941773
No. Light obeys Gamma.
There is no "gamma" in light speed.
FTL does not.
Have you read it?Your infatuation with "gamma" is modified in FTL
Look at Equations (2) and (3) and in the Meta Relativity paper and READ it.
There is a universal speed limit with nothing above
only at light speed and below.
Mitchell Raemsch
Certainty is absurd.
Gamma is your bias not mine. I don't rule it out. You do.But some things are.. no FTL in math...In MATH, there is the possibility of FTL, but math is NOT reality.
Math may lead us to new realities. Most humans tend to resist
anything new:
https://www.lyrics.com/lyric/25124594/Hank+Jones/Give+Me+That+Old+Time+Religion
FTL is at the math stage now (tachyons, wormholes, warp metrics,
statistics, but hasn't been confirmed by experiment.
Have you learned anything new today, or are you just repeating your“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.
But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama
biases?
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 7:38:19 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:53:28 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 5:21:48 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
(1) FTL particles would have imaginary mass (i.e.,: m^2 < 0)
(2) Neutrino mass measurements allow the probability (22%) that m^2 < 0.
That is no proof still. You are just in theory
There is no "proof" in science, Mitch. At best, there's confirmation because the next
experiment may suggest something new.
But neutrinos don't confirm FTL.
Like you said that is only a could be...
and FTL is what does not exist.
“There could be no fairer destiny for any physical theory than that
It should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which
It lives on as a limiting case.” -- Albert Einstein
Uncertainty is QM science central principle. Measurement can never
go accurate and how would you know?
Science is not about "knowing." It's about constructing theories and testing them.
FTL does not happen. Laws are certain.
What is your source for negative time and energy?
I don't believe in negative time or energy. This sure came out of left field.
They are the negative form. Why would you believe in them but not
their negative Gamma math?
Certainty is absurd.
Are you certain of that gary?
But some things are.. no FTL in math...
In MATH, there is the possibility of FTL, but math is NOT reality.
Math may lead us to new realities. Most humans tend to resist
anything new:
https://www.lyrics.com/lyric/25124594/Hank+Jones/Give+Me+That+Old+Time+Religion
FTL is at the math stage now (tachyons, wormholes, warp metrics, statistics, but hasn't been confirmed by experiment.
“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.
But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama
Have you learned anything new today, or are you just repeating your biases?
Gamma is your bias not mine. I don't rule it out. You do.
Mitchell Raemsch
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 10:09:25 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 7:38:19 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:53:28 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 5:21:48 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
(1) FTL particles would have imaginary mass (i.e.,: m^2 < 0)
(2) Neutrino mass measurements allow the probability (22%) that m^2 < 0.
That is no proof still. You are just in theory
There is no "proof" in science, Mitch. At best, there's confirmation because the next
experiment may suggest something new.
But neutrinos don't confirm FTL.They don't refute it, either.
Like you said that is only a could be...And neutrinos could be either bradyons or tachyons (luxons are ruled out).
and FTL is what does not exist.
Don't want to consider the possibility of a more comprehensive theory?“There could be no fairer destiny for any physical theory than that
It should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which
It lives on as a limiting case.” -- Albert Einstein
Fine, but don't deny others the right.
Uncertainty is QM science central principle. Measurement can never
go accurate and how would you know?
Science is not about "knowing." It's about constructing theories and testing them.
FTL does not happen. Laws are certain.Are they, now? Are you CERTAIN? :-)) Is Newton's law of gravity "certain'? You're
sounding like Joey the mechanical boy.
https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/superhumanity/179228/joey-the-mechanical-boy-revisited/
What is your source for negative time and energy?
I don't believe in negative time or energy. This sure came out of left field.
They are the negative form. Why would you believe in them but not???
their negative Gamma math?
Certainty is absurd.
Are you certain of that gary?Of course not :-)
But some things are.. no FTL in math...
In MATH, there is the possibility of FTL, but math is NOT reality.
Math may lead us to new realities. Most humans tend to resist
anything new:
https://www.lyrics.com/lyric/25124594/Hank+Jones/Give+Me+That+Old+Time+Religion
FTL is at the math stage now (tachyons, wormholes, warp metrics, statistics, but hasn't been confirmed by experiment.
“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.
But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama
Have you learned anything new today, or are you just repeating your biases?
Gamma is your bias not mine. I don't rule it out. You do.
Mitchell RaemschNo, I don't, Mitch. I use it when appropriate. You, OTOH, want to use it like a hammer.
" "If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail." -- Abraham Maslow
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 312 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 16:02:44 |
Calls: | 6,983 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,416 |
Messages: | 5,452,221 |
Posted today: | 1 |