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 ...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:11:47 AM UTC-6, Dono. dissembled:

...by evading the basic rules of calculus. It explains why you got a C in Advanced Calculus, bozo.

Dono, of course, doesn't understand what adv calc is about, even after I explained it to him :-))
His deceitfulness is evident because he jumps on one grade to the exclusion of the fact that
all others were A's. But that's all water under the bridge.

The energy changes sign ONLY in the 4-momentum transformation, not in the equation
from which it is derived: E' = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1).

Well, the 4-momentum formalism is universal and trumps your "derivation"

Dono is SO full of confidence when he makes this asinine claim :-))

“There is generally an inverse relationship between confidence and intelligence.” – Jean Campbell

“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin

that starts with a basic error as pointed out repeatedly. WolframAlpha exposes
you as an ignoramus when it comes with domain definitions.

Dono has NEVER "pointed out" ANY basic errors. The fact is that the 4-momentum formalism was invented in the context of bradyons, but tachyons don't necessarily
fall under the same criteria. The case must be investigated, by experiment if possible
(which it isn't at present) but at least mathematically. Mathematically it has a hiccup
at u = c^2/v.

BOTH the 4MF and the basic equations have problems there. The MMF because E' becomes negative but p' doesn't, the basic equations:
E' = mc^2 /sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1). p' = mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1)
because p' becomes negative but E' doesn't. This CLEARLY implies some kind of limit
at c^2/v .

Precisely. YOUR errors. Choke on it, stubborn crank.

Silly Dono! By the 4MF, p' = \gamma p - Ev/c^2 = \gamma m (u - v)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1).
Since u > c and v < c, p' > mc.

His assertion about momentum is transparently false: p' = \gamma m(u - v)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1),
according to 4-momentum, so p is very well behaved over the entire range c < u < \infty, and
does NOT change sign.

Err,

Says the math-incompetent wolf-crying Dono. He screams, "Error!" when there is no error.

p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1)
u' changes sign at u'=uv/c^2 .

No, it doesn't. The (1 - uv/c^2) terms (one in the numerator, one in the denominator) are
canceled out in the 4MF. Dono believes they shouldn't be cancelled because of the
anomaly in u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2), so that's proof that he is incorrect in asserting that "the
4-momentum formalism is universal" :-)

Math-incompetent Dono eats poop again.

OTOH, I believe the 4MF is invalid for u > c^2/v because the two (1 - uv/c^2) terms do
NOT cancel because the one in the numerator is sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2], not the same as
(1 - uv/c^2) for u > c^2/v.

One should always remember that Dono has proved his mathematical-incompetence dozens of times. Here are a few examples: -----------------------------------------------------------------
1. Dishonest DON'tknOw's lie:
"It is impossible to measure ANYTHING but the DIFFERENCES of the
neutrino square masses because the neutrino oscillates continuously
among its three flavors."

The truth:
The Mainz, Troitsk and KATRIN experiments measure the mass-squared
of the electron antineutrino, as categorically stated by the authors
of the papers. Dishonest DON'tknOw has finally admitted this by
default. He is too dishonest and unethical to make an overt admission. -----------------------------------------------------------------
2. Gary wrote:

p = mu/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)

Taking the limit as u approaches infinity, p = mc.

Dono wrote:

No, it doesn't. -----------------------------------------------------------------
3. Gary wrote:

Clearly, E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1) NEVER becomes negative for ANY real value of u'.

Dono wrote:

But the above is only ONE of the TWO valid expressions for E', The other valid expression is:

E'=\frac{m(c^2-uv}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} -----------------------------------------------------------------
4. Dono believes two expressions are valid which predict different results, later he claims only
the latter is valid, then he claims neither are valid for tachyons.

“A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” James 1:8

The truth is that DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 points out that both are wrong at u > c^2/v
for different reasons. The singularity in u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2) at uv = c^2 is the basic problem.
All are well-behaved up to that point, so any assertion that they're wrong for c < u < c^2/v, too,
is just arm-waving baloney by a math-challenged fool. -----------------------------------------------------------------
5. Dono wrote:

you cannot derive the velocity composition rule. Meaning that you cannot derive the transformation of energy momentum based on the velocity composition rule

I did. If Dono can't follow the derivation, that's a reflection on HIS math-incompetence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
6. Dono wrote:

I showed you that energy changes sign and that momentum jumps from +infinity to -infinity,

The energy changes sign ONLY in the 4-momentum transformation, not in the equation
from which it is derived: E' = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1). If the result disagrees with the
premise, then a mistake was made in arriving at the result.

His assertion about momentum is transparently false: p' = \gamma m(u - v)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1),
according to 4-momentum, so p is very well behaved over the entire range c < u < \infty, and
does NOT change sign. -----------------------------------------------------------------

These are a few of the very basic errors that Dumbo Dono has made. Because he keeps
repeating them while crying wolf about nonexistent errors made by others, he is also
fundamentally dishonest. 'Nuff said.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:56:43 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:11:47 AM UTC-6, Dono. dissembled:

...by evading the basic rules of calculus. It explains why you got a C in Advanced Calculus, bozo.
that starts with a basic error as pointed out repeatedly. WolframAlpha exposes
you as an ignoramus when it comes with domain definitions.

Well, you simply demonstrated that you do not understand function composition and domain determination. WolframAlpha flagged you as an idiot <shrug>

The energy changes sign ONLY in the 4-momentum transformation, not in the equation
from which it is derived: E' = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1).

Well, the 4-momentum formalism is universal and trumps your "derivation"

Once again, crank

4-momentum follows the 4-vector DEFINITION. There is no "derivation". You are showcasing your ignorance. Keep it up, dumbfuck!

“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin

Applies perfectly to you, Gary.

that starts with a basic error as pointed out repeatedly. WolframAlpha exposes
you as an ignoramus when it comes with domain definitions.

Dono has NEVER "pointed out" ANY basic errors.

WolframAlpha did. But you are too stupid. too deceptive and too thick-skinned to admit your gross errors.

The fact is that the 4-momentum
formalism was invented in the context of bradyons, but tachyons don't necessarily
fall under the same criteria. The case must be investigated, by experiment if possible
(which it isn't at present) but at least mathematically. Mathematically it has a hiccup
at u = c^2/v.

This is precious. You are back to denying the validity of the 4-vector formalism. This is the closest you'll ever come to admitting your utter stupidity.

BOTH the 4MF and the basic equations have problems there. The MMF because E' becomes negative but p' doesn't, the basic equations:
E' = mc^2 /sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1). p' = mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1)
because p' becomes negative but E' doesn't. This CLEARLY implies some kind of limit
at c^2/v .

Let's try this:

For "tachyons" only (bradyons are not subject to the following contradictions).
-the 4MF formalism shows change of sign in the energy and no change of sign in the momentum at u=c^2/v
-the standard QED definition shows no change of sign in the energy but shows change of sign in the momentum at u=c^2/v


The only reasonable conclusion is that "tachyons" do not exist.Choke on it, crank.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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?
The have never been measured to exist.
and by Gamma math they cannot exist.
By motion law there is no tachyon.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.
By motion law there is no tachyon.

""So certain are you."

“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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:56:43 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:11:47 AM UTC-6, Dono. dissembled:

...by evading the basic rules of calculus. It explains why you got a C
in Advanced Calculus, bozo.
that starts with a basic error as pointed out repeatedly. WolframAlpha exposes
you as an ignoramus when it comes with domain definitions.

Dishonest Dono wants to sweep my response under his rug:

"Dono, of course, doesn't understand what adv calc is about, even after I explained it to him :-))
His deceitfulness is evident because he jumps on one grade to the exclusion of the fact that
all others were A's. But that's all water under the bridge."

Well, you simply demonstrated that you do not understand function composition and domain

determination. WolframAlpha flagged you as an idiot <shrug>

Deceitful Dono lies again. Apparently he is relentlessly clueless about what limits are and how
to use them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_of_a_function

See the example at the top right: sin(x)/x. At x = 0 the function becomes 0/0, just as Dono's
naively believes. But as x approaches zero, the table shows that the function approaches 1.0!
This is BASIC to calculus and L'Hopital's Rule, of which Dono is completely ignorant. He
searches until he finds a tidbit which he naively believes trumps higher math and immediately
aggrandizing his new-found "knowledge.

"If to the young the simple truth we say,
the green ones find it no wise easy play"
[This is where Dono is now]

"But afterward, when years are over,
And they the truth through their own hide discover,
Then they conceive that they have found it out,
'The master was a fool, one hears them shout!'"
-- Goethe, Faust

And that's where Dono will be when he FINALLY gets it through his amazingly thick skull
(in about 50 years).

So does sin(x)/x = 0/0? Wolfram alpha is incomplete, but someone who slept through
calculus class is clueless.

The energy changes sign ONLY in the 4-momentum transformation, not in the equation
from which it is derived: E' = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1).

Well, the 4-momentum formalism is universal and trumps your "derivation"

Once again, crank

4-momentum follows the 4-vector DEFINITION.

which is valid for bradyons. Insisting on validity in a new domain is reckless.
It must be carefully investigated and, if necessary, limited or reconstructed.

There is no "derivation".

Says the green one who is math-challenged :-)

Dono showcases his ignorance AGAIN!

“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin

Applies perfectly to you, Gary.

"Fraid not, Greenie.

that starts with a basic error as pointed out repeatedly. WolframAlpha exposes
you as an ignoramus when it comes with domain definitions.

Dono has NEVER "pointed out" ANY basic errors.

WolframAlpha did.

Nope. Dono is riding another dead horse, but he refuses to dismount.

Dono is too ignorant to understand calculus. He has described himself perfectly:
too deceptive and too thick-skinned to admit his gross errors.

The fact is that the 4-momentum formalism was invented in the context of bradyons,
but tachyons don't necessarily fall under the same criteria. The case must be
investigated, by experiment if possible (which it isn't at present) but at least
mathematically. Mathematically it has a hiccup at u = c^2/v.

This is precious.

Yes. Dono's precious :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om8iSXUAKh0

You are back to denying the validity of the 4-vector formalism.

It's in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
"The four-momentum matrix, (6), is invalid for tachyons!"

How come Dono is deceptively trying to deny that?

This is NOT the closest Dono has ever come to displaying his utter stupidity.

BOTH the 4MF and the basic equations have problems there. The MMF because E'
becomes negative but p' doesn't, the basic equations:
E' = mc^2 /sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1). p' = mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1)
because p' becomes negative but E' doesn't. This CLEARLY implies some kind of limit
at c^2/v .

Let's try this:

For "tachyons" only (bradyons are not subject to the following contradictions).
-the 4MF formalism shows change of sign in the energy and no change of sign in the
momentum at u=c^2/v
-the standard QED definition shows no change of sign in the energy but shows change
of sign in the momentum at u=c^2/v

What "QED definition"? If Dono doesn't back up his assertions, it's just arm-waving.

The only reasonable conclusion is that "tachyons" do not exist.

Who expects "reasonable" from math-incompetent Dono? So both the 4MF and E' = f(u')
predict E = 0 and p = mc as u' --> \infty, that is as u --> c^2/v. They both go wonky beyond
c^2/v, so it is truly reasonable to limit the domain for that particular v. Furthermore, both
methods recover meaningful energy and momentum when v is changed by moving the receiver toward the source. This solution then allows the domain to be extended to the
full c < u < \infty range. It's all in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101

Choke on it, naive dunce.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 9:18:41 PM UTC-6, Demented Dono. wrote:

On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:46:23 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

So Dishonest Dono tries to erase what I wrote so he has room to prevaricate.

Well, you simply demonstrated that you do not understand function composition and domain
determination. WolframAlpha flagged you as an idiot <shrug>

WolframAlpha is an AI bot, and not a very good one as it turns out.

See the example at the top right: sin(x)/x. At x = 0 the function becomes 0/0,

Dumbestfuck,

"But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

The issue has nothing to do with Hospital,

Oh, Desperate Dono doesn't even know how to spell L'Hopital, let alone understand
his Rule, nor what it means to calculus :-))

it has to do with the domain of definition of the composition of two functions.

Dono tosses around mathematical terms without understanding them. And he
still refuses to understand the concept of limits which is fundamental to calculus.
IOW, he doesn't understand calculus.

You are a disgusting crook.

Dono is projecting again, and with a foaming mouth :-))

4-momentum follows the 4-vector DEFINITION.

which is valid for bradyons. Insisting on validity in a new domain is reckless.
It must be carefully investigated and, if necessary, limited or reconstructed.

You keep trying to wiggle out of your imbecility by trying to restrict the domain
of definition of energy-momentum for tachyons.

An imbecile would be one who refused to read what I wrote:
"both methods recover meaningful energy and momentum when v is changed by moving the receiver toward the source. This solution then allows the domain to be
extended to the full c < u < \infty range. It's all in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101"

“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.”
– Mark Twain

It's transparently obvious why Desperate Deceitful Dono would try to sweep that under his hairpiece: so he could carry on the practice of his dishonest yammering.

You are a digusting crook, Gary.

I may be "digusting" but I'm not a crook. Dono is projecting again.

that starts with a basic error as pointed out repeatedly. WolframAlpha exposes
you as an ignoramus when it comes with domain definitions.

Dono has NEVER "pointed out" ANY basic errors.

Dumbfuck,

"But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

WolframAlpha shows clearly that your 1/1/(x-a) has a singularity at x=a.

Dono keeps mistaking a "singularity" with something not in a domain. He still has no
math competency.

I graciously presented Dono with an Advanced Calculus kind of proof that the limit of
1/1/(x - a) as x --> a is x - a (which is zero), but again, he refused to understand.

You keep getting egg on your face,

Well, it goes MOSTLY in my mouth :-))

disgusting crook. An old man and so shameless and stupid in your lying.

Desperate Dono is projecting again :-))

The fact is that the 4-momentum formalism was invented in the context of bradyons,
but tachyons don't necessarily fall under the same criteria. The case must be
investigated, by experiment if possible (which it isn't at present) but at least
mathematically. Mathematically it has a hiccup at u = c^2/v.

There is no such thing as "hiccup" in science,

Oh, that is SO country bumpkin!

disgusting crook. You are sinking into a web of lies deeper and deeper.

:-)

You are back to denying the validity of the 4-vector formalism.

It's in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
"The four-momentum matrix, (6), is invalid for tachyons!"

AAAhhh,

You published an even crappier "paper" under the sam predatory publisher.

I have one, and only one, paper published by hrpub. Nor do I have one with
sam the predatory publisher :-))

Congratulations, deceptive piece of shit.

Dono is projecting again :-))

You whipped it rather quickly,

The only thing I'm whipping is Dono's derriere :-)

so your way of squirming out is that 4-vector formalism doesn't apply to "tachyons".

It can still apply, as explained in my one and only hrpub paper:
"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."

As I explained in this thread, that completely demolishes Dono's vacuous assertion
that the domain is limited to c^2/v. It's too bad that Dono refuses to read.

“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.”
– Mark Twain

Let's try this:

For "tachyons" only (bradyons are not subject to the following contradictions).
-the 4MF formalism shows change of sign in the energy and no change of sign in the
momentum at u=c^2/v
-the standard QED definition shows no change of sign in the energy but shows change
of sign in the momentum at u=c^2/v

What "QED definition"?

Ignorant piece of shit,

Total energy and relativistic momentum definitions come from QED.

No, they don't. Special relativity with energy and momentum definitions existed
BEFORE QED was even invented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics:
"it appeared that a fundamental incompatibility existed between special relativity and
quantum mechanics."

Dono fabricates another new lie :-))

The irony is that educating you results into more crap papers that you publish under the
SAME predatory publisher. You are making a name for yourself, Harnagel. The name is one
of a crank.

Dono continues to foam at the mouth while screaming slanderous lies. And then he has to
foam some more in an additional post. :-)) Dono's credibility has sunk to new lows. Negative,
in fact. He sucks up credibility from the scientific community.

"He is not only dull himself; he is the cause of dullness in others."
-- Samuel Johnson

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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? Science has to use positive material.
But that does not work...

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.
It is science's imagination instead.
No atoms reaching light speed..

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?

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.
Zero math is a certain win.

“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.
Feynman shot himself down...

“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

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 7:52:37 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I have one, and only one, crappy paper published by hrpub.

Yes, one monumental piece of shit by the monumental crackpot Gary Harnagel.

so your way of squirming out is that 4-vector formalism doesn't apply to "tachyons".

It can still apply, as explained in my one and only crap paper:
"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."

Nothing to do with any "receiver", stubborn crank.

For "tachyons" only (bradyons are not subject to the following contradictions).
-the 4MF formalism shows change of sign in the energy and no change of sign in the
momentum at u=c^2/v
-the standard QED definition shows no change of sign in the energy but shows change
of sign in the momentum at u=c^2/v

What "QED definition"?

Ignorant piece of shit,

Total energy and relativistic momentum definitions come from QED.

No, they don't.

You are showing your crass ignorance once again, crank Gary.




Special relativity with energy and momentum definitions existed

BEFORE QED was even invented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics:
"it appeared that a fundamental incompatibility existed between special relativity and
quantum mechanics."

LOL, you are showcasing your imbecility once again.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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:

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

Kookfight

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 3:51:33 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 7:52:37 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Dishonest Dono monkeys with posts that don'r belong to him:

I have one, and only one, crappy paper published by hrpub.

THIS is the infantile behavior characteristic of a crank

Yes, one monumental piece of shit by the monumental crackpot Gary Harnagel.

At least Deceitful Dono back-handedly admits that he lied about a second paper :-))

so your way of squirming out is that 4-vector formalism doesn't apply to "tachyons".

It can still apply, as explained in my one and only [Dono's bathroom language deleted]
paper:
"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."

Nothing to do with any "receiver",

Of course it has to do with a receiver.

stubborn crank.

Stubborn liar. Dishonest Dono makes stuff up and pretends it's true. Remember:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. Dishonest DON'tknOw's lie:
"It is impossible to measure ANYTHING but the DIFFERENCES of the
neutrino square masses because the neutrino oscillates continuously
among its three flavors."

The truth:
The Mainz, Troitsk and KATRIN experiments measure the mass-squared
of the electron antineutrino, as categorically stated by the authors
of the papers. Dishonest DON'tknOw has finally admitted this by
default. He is too dishonest and unethical to make an overt admission. -----------------------------------------------------------------
2. Gary wrote:

p = mu/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)

Taking the limit as u approaches infinity, p = mc.

Dono wrote:

No, it doesn't. -----------------------------------------------------------------
3. Gary wrote:

Clearly, E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1) NEVER becomes negative for ANY real value of u'.

Dono wrote:

But the above is only ONE of the TWO valid expressions for E', The other valid expression is:

E'=\frac{m(c^2-uv}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} -----------------------------------------------------------------
4. Dono believes two expressions are valid which predict different results, later he claims only
the latter is valid, then he claims neither are valid for tachyons.

“A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” James 1:8

The truth is that DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 points out that both are wrong at u > c^2/v
for different reasons. The singularity in u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2) at uv = c^2 is the basic problem.
All are well-behaved up to that point, so any assertion that they're wrong for c < u < c^2/v, too,
is just arm-waving baloney by a math-challenged fool. -----------------------------------------------------------------
5. Dono wrote:

you cannot derive the velocity composition rule. Meaning that you cannot derive the transformation of energy momentum based on the velocity composition rule

I did. If Dono can't follow the derivation, that's a reflection on HIS math-incompetence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
6. Dono wrote:

I showed you that energy changes sign and that momentum jumps from +infinity to -infinity,

The energy changes sign ONLY in the 4-momentum transformation, not in the equation
from which it is derived: E' = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1). If the result disagrees with the
premise, then a mistake was made in arriving at the result.

His assertion about momentum is transparently false: p' = \gamma m(u - v)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1),
according to 4-momentum, so p is very well behaved over the entire range c < u < \infty, and
does NOT change sign. -----------------------------------------------------------------

For "tachyons" only (bradyons are not subject to the following contradictions).
-the 4MF formalism shows change of sign in the energy and no change of sign in the
momentum at u=c^2/v
-the standard QED definition shows no change of sign in the energy but shows change
of sign in the momentum at u=c^2/v

What "QED definition"?

Ignorant piece of shit,

Total energy and relativistic momentum definitions come from QED.

No, they don't.

You are showing your crass ignorance once again, crank Gary.

Actually, Dono sinks even lower in negative credibility because:

Special relativity with energy and momentum definitions existed
BEFORE QED was even invented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics:
"it appeared that a fundamental incompatibility existed between special relativity and
quantum mechanics."

LOL, you are showcasing your imbecility once again.

Yeah, right :-)) Says the mathematical ignoramus who wallows in his ignorance while trying
to change the past. It should be clear to any honest person that Dono is a deceitful yammer
head. The hilarity of it is that he believes his transparent lies are convincing anyone at all.

It really sad to see someone's mind in such disrepair. It's time to close the curtain and let
sink to his final rest.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:12:28 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 7:52:37 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I have one, and only one, crappy paper published by hrpub.

You sure do.

Yes, one monumental piece of shit by the monumental crackpot Gary Harnagel.

Absolutely

"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."

Nothing to do with any "receiver",

Of course it has to do with a receiver.

Nope, your shit paper is full of this misconception repeated ad nauseaum

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 doesn't go thru your thick skull

No, it doesn't. -----------------------------------------------------------------
3. Gary wrote:

1. Clearly, E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1) NEVER becomes negative for ANY real value of u'.

Dono wrote:

But the above is only ONE of the TWO valid expressions for E', The other valid expression is:

2. E'=\frac{m(c^2-uv}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} -----------------------------------------------------------------

Precisely, imbecile.
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,

The truth is that my crap paper published in the predatory journal points out that both are wrong at u > c^2/v
for different reasons.

LOL

Your "paper" is full crap

The singularity in u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2) at uv = c^2 is the basic problem.

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 exists.

All are well-behaved up to that point, so any assertion that they're wrong for c < u < c^2/v, too,
is just arm-waving baloney by a math-challenged fool. -----------------------------------------------------------------

You are outright lying, crank

I pointed out that the unphysical behavior happens for uv>c^2. You are eating shit.

I showed you that energy changes sign and that momentum jumps from +infinity to
-infinity,

The energy changes sign ONLY in the 4-momentum transformation, not in the equation
from which it is derived: E' = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1). If the result disagrees with the
premise, then a mistake was made in arriving at the result.

Nope, the mistake is inside your demented brain. "Tachyons" are unphysical.

His assertion about momentum is transparently false: p' = \gamma m(u - v)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1),
according to 4-momentum, so p is very well behaved over the entire range c < u < \infty, and
does NOT change sign. -----------------------------------------------------------------

You are lying again, piece of shit

I pointed out that p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1) changes sign. Google keeps records of your despicable lies.

You are showing your crass ignorance once again, crank Gary.

Actually, Dono sinks even lower in negative credibility because:

Special relativity with energy and momentum definitions existed
BEFORE QED was even invented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics:
"it appeared that a fundamental incompatibility existed between special relativity and
quantum mechanics."

LOL, you are showcasing your imbecility once again.

Yeah, right :-))

Right. You are just a crank frothing at the mouth.

It really sad to see someone's mind in such disrepair.

Not at all, you are fodder for entertainment , Gary. Keep it up, dumbfuck!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

Nope, your shit paper is full of this misconception repeated ad nauseaum

Dono repeats this lie. He completely ignores ALL the literature concerning COMMUNICATION with tachyons published in textbooks, online and in this
very group. DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 is about communication, thus
it is completely insane to yammer that it's not about receivers (or transmitters).
Once again, he just makes stuff up and pretends it's true, just like the cranks.

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.

Because Dono is math-impaired, he only knows buzzwords. The electron antineutrino mass-squared measured by the tritium experiments is one FLAVOR
of neutrino. It isn't a "sum of the flavors" -- 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.

"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

The adjective "effective" is not defined in the paper, so Dono makes up his own "definition" of what it means. Dono gets a kick in the pants for that.

[infantile rewriting of history deleted]

-----------------------------------------------------------------
3. Gary wrote:

1. Clearly, E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1) NEVER becomes negative for ANY real value of u'.

Dono wrote:

But the above is only ONE of the TWO valid expressions for E', The other valid expression is:

2. E'=\frac{m(c^2-uv}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} -----------------------------------------------------------------

Precisely, imbecile.

"But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

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,

Dono continues to make stuff up. 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
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 by moving the receiver toward the transmitter and Lo and
Behold, the math (both approaches) work again.

[More dishonest infantile rewriting of history deleted]

The singularity in u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2) at uv = c^2 is the basic problem.

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 exists.

Again, Dono is SO SURE that the math is ABSOLUTELY correct :-))

“as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as
far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality” -- Albert Einstein

So once again Dono's assertion is non sequitur. He gets another kick in the pants.

All are well-behaved up to that point, so any assertion that they're wrong for c < u < c^2/v, too,
is just arm-waving baloney by a math-challenged fool. -----------------------------------------------------------------

You are outright lying, crank

"But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

I pointed out that the unphysical behavior happens for uv>c^2. You are eating shit.

Dono is the one ingesting poop, again and again and again and again. All he has to
do is get on a live horse and admit that

“as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as
far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality” -- Albert Einstein

I showed you that energy changes sign and that momentum jumps from +infinity to
-infinity,

The energy changes sign ONLY in the 4-momentum transformation, not in the equation
from which it is derived: E' = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1). If the result disagrees with the
premise, then a mistake was made in arriving at the result.

Nope, the mistake is inside your demented brain.

The mistake is not applying PEMDAS. Math-challenged Dono gets another boot.

"Tachyons" are unphysical.

Dono is SO certain :-))

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” -- Albert Einstein

His assertion about momentum is transparently false: p' = \gamma m(u - v)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1),
according to 4-momentum, so p is very well behaved over the entire range c < u < \infty, and
does NOT change sign. -----------------------------------------------------------------

You are lying again, piece of shit

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. Dono gets another kick in his pants
for lying.

Math-deficient Dono comes up empty-handed every time he posts his asinine assertions.
He claims he's entertained by getting kicked in the pants :-))

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:01:05 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

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.

My crap paper is about communication,

Yet, "communication" has nothing to do with "tachyons" energy going negative. It goes negative independent of any "communication", pathetic crank.




thus

it is completely insane to yammer that it's not about receivers (or transmitters).
Once again, he just makes stuff up and pretends it's true, just like the cranks.

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, so you are simply eating shit.

"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. Way to go, cranko!

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 crap paper by moving the receiver toward the transmitter and Lo and

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. Keep eating , lying piece of shit.

"Tachyons" are unphysical.

Dono is SO certain :-))

The physics points that way. Choke on it, stubborn crank.

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

You are eating shit. A lot of it.Keep it up, dumbfuck! The Sunday comics coming from crank Gary Harnagel.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:01:05 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

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.

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. Thus Dono's assertion is false.

It goes negative independent of any "communication",

It "goes negative" in only one of two expressions for tachyon energy, 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

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,
while (2) leads to E' > 0 and p' < 0 when PEMDAS us followed. So we
cannot say from (1) and (2) what is correct.

We need a third option. Moving the receiver toward the transmitter, this changes the energy that the signal has wrt the receiver. Thus the signal
can be detected and passed to the observer who is moving away from the transmitter.

thus

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.

1. ad hominem — Latin for “to the man,” attacking the arguer and not the
argument

But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

And Dono failed to logically argue his case.

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,

Dono "pointed out" his usual muddy and incorrect nonsense. As I correctly stated,
the electron, mu and tau neutrinos are FLAVORS, the electron neutrino is a mix of the three EIGENSTATES m_1, m_2 and m_3, not m_e, m_mu and m_tau. This goes right over Dono's toupee.

"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.

Dono doesn't know what "effective" means, so he just makes up his own definition
out of vaporous bias. One can go to the KATRIN paper and actually SEE what it 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).

Dono hasn't gotten any of his assertions right so far.

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,

Says the math-challenged dunce.

the problem is your dishonesty, utter crank.

1. ad hominem — Latin for “to the man,” attacking the arguer and not the argument

But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

And Dono has NEVER logically argued his case.

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

Says the math-incompetent baloney-spewer :-))
The math cannot be correct when two valid expressions give different answers.

the problem is your dishonesty, utter crank.

1. ad hominem — Latin for “to the man,” attacking the arguer and not the argument

But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

You are outright lying, crank

"But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace

But you ARE lying.

No, I'm not. The fact that Dono can't sense truth is the problem. He's been caught telling lie after lie. This indicates serious mental problems: "Sociopath: a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and a lack of conscience."

The mistake is not applying PEMDAS.

"PEDMAS" does not enter in the DEFINITION of 4-vectors.

Says the math-incompetent sociopath.

"Tachyons" are unphysical.

Dono is SO certain :-))

The physics points that way.

It's math, really. Too bad Dono isn't competent to make a valid claim in that arena.

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

1. ad hominem — Latin for “to the man,” attacking the arguer and not the argument

But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

u' changes sign at u=c^2/v

Yes, it does. That, of course, limits its domain of applicability, as I indicated
in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.

Therefore p' changes sign at u=c^2/v

In the 4MF: No, it doesnt, as anyone with mathematical sense knows.
Dono DON'tknOw.

In the E' PEMDAS-friendly expression, it does (but E' doesn't); hence, a valid claim
about u > c^2/v cannot be made with either expression by themselves.

[Dono's foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe deleted for sanitary reasons]

The Bible has something to say about sociopaths today:
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron"
-- I Timothy 4:1-2.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:55:10 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

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 Keep it up , dumbfuck!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:55:10 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

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!

We need a third option.

We only need to do what I just done: expose you as a crank.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:55:10 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

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. You, being a crank, cite mainstream material that contradicts your claims. Keep it up, dumbfuck!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:55:10 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

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.
Choke on it, crank.

.

The Bible has something to say about sociopaths today:

LOL, now you are thumping the bible, demented old fart.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 11:01:38 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

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 don't. "Negative energy" is an artifact of ignoring PEMDAS. Dono doesn't understand PEMDAS because he is mathematically incompetent.

they cannot be used for communication, a well known fact, documented
in mainstream literature.

Since they would have positive energy for c < u < c^2/v, they could be used
for communication. Dono's assertion violates basic logic.

So , "tachyons" do not exist.

Needle pinned on baloney detection meter.
11. non sequitur — Latin for “It doesn’t follow” https://www.themarginalian.org/2012/03/16/baloney-detection-kit/

Keep it up, dumbfuck!

Needle pinned on baloney detection meter.
1. ad hominem — Latin for “to the man,” attacking the arguer and not the argument

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

Dono conveniently forgot to include the rest of the paragraph:

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

as well as:

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.

So Dono lied again. I did NOT "forget" about p' changing sign. Dono conveniently forgot that p' does NOT go negative at all in the 4MF (1):

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 (which Dono claims is incorrect). He pegs the baloney detection meter again:
7. Observational selection
18. straw man — caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack

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'

Dono is trying to muddy the waters so he can ply his dishonest trade. The definition of 4MF is P = [E/c, p]. P' = \eta P is an operation, and \eta is incorrect
for tachyons because of PEMDAS.

and no "PEDMAS" in the DEFINITION of p'. Keep it up, crook!

Dono muddies the waters again. 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. Dono is being deceitful because the transform isn't included in the definition.

Anyway, definitions are just assertions that seem to be true. Some are and some
aren't. Regardless that Lea Thompson defines himself as a woman, he still has a Y
chromosome. His definition is false, so he is just a big bully. It's just like Dono
trying to define himself as honest when he doesn't have the DNA for it.

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.

Dono makes this up out of vapor while deceitfully ignoring what the authors themselves
wrote, which he dishonestly deleted in his attempt to misinform. His lie is because he
omitted this:

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).

So, the m_effective in tritium experiments is NOT a "sum of the flavors of the neutrino
multiplied by the Fermi-Pontecorvo matrix coefficients." It's the sum of the eigenstates
etc.

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.

Needle pinned on baloney detection meter.
11. non sequitur — Latin for “It doesn’t follow”
The correct conclusion is that is there is no evidence that tachyons do not exist,
and there is some slight evidence that they do. All of Dono's lies cannot change that.

The Bible has something to say about sociopaths today:

LOL, now you are thumping the bible, demented old fart.

Dono is twisting and turning in his useless attempt to avoid coming to terms with
his anti-social and unprincipled behavior. He needs to face his flaws like a man
instead of a weasel. So here is the timeless message again:

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron"
-- I Timothy 4:1-2.

Dono is a congenital liar and a hypocrite. If he had a conscience, he would feel
some shame for his repeated lies and slanders.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

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

Once again.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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:

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

Kookfight

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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:

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.

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

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 9:02:02 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

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

Disingenuous Dono forgets that this works ONLY because of PEMDAS,
which he claims, "There is no "PEDMAS" in the DEFINITION of 4-momentum."

Dono only has half his brain in gear, the other half is compromised
by his shameless dishonesty.

WolgramAlpha proves Gary Harnagel to be an idiot.

Actually, Dono's reliance on an AI bot proves that he can't think for himself. Once again.

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,

Dono has no concept of mathematics. He gets his tidbit from an AI bot and thinks
that gives him a PhD in math :-))

deceptive crank.

But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

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),

Unfortunately for Desperate Dono, p' is ALWAYS > 0 for c < u < \infty for this expression of p' because u > c and v < c. Once again, hapless math-incompetent Dono fails to logically argue his case.

He illogically invoked the PEMDAS case to "prove" that p' did change sign, sweeping
under his toupee the fact that he claimed PEMDAS wasn't involved in the 4MF. It's
NOT involved, and that's why the 4MF predicts p' doesn't change sign (and is wrong).
Silly compromised, logically-inconsistent Dono! :-))

“Oh, what a tangled web [Dono] weave[s] when first [he] practice[s] to deceive” -- Macbeth

And it gets more and more tangled the nth time Dono dissembles.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:45:37 PM UTC-7, Tanislao De santis wrote:

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.

How do you know what is real?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:09:57 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

WolgramAlpha proves Gary Harnagel to be an idiot.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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:

Neutrino speed is not a tachyon... there's why you have no answer...

Ah, but I do :-)

Kookfight

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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 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. Dono's problem is that he's a hypocritical hand wringer.

produced by the imbecile Gary Harnagel who got only a C-grade in calculus.

Well, imbeciles don't even get C's in calculus :-))
Dono's lying again. All my math grades were A's except for ADVANCED calculus, and I had little patience with fussy hand-wringing. This is another of Dono's straw man baloney mud-slinging, and that's why he is fundamentally dishonest.

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.

Dono's foaming at the mouth again :-))

I wonder which WolframAlpha site he's referring to. As always, his off-hand comments are as clear as mud, which he slings viciously. Anyway, the sites
to which he posted links are NOT calculus, they're algebra. So Dono is lying again!

I'm not a hand-wringer, so I don't worry about "points" excluded from a domain. Anybody who knows calculus doesn't worry about f(x) = 1/1/x because they know that the limit of f(x) as x --> 0 is zero. And that sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2] goes up in
the numerator without a bit of hand-wringing:

E' = \gamma mc^2/sqrt[(u - v)^2 /(1 - uv/c^2)^2]
E' = \gamma mc^2 sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)

Of course, for u > c^2/v, E' doesn't go negative because (1 - uv/c^2)^2 is always
positive. But the stupendous irony here is that DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 postulates that, 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. So it has agreed
with Dono's diatribes all along. He's been told this before, and he immediately
claimed that a new paper had been quickly written to cover up a "goof." Dono is
so dishonest that he projects his dishonesty on others.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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:

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

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

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.

Repeating the same cretinisms over and over doesn't make them true, it just makes you a bigger cretin, Gary. Keep it up, dumbfuck! The entertainment, that iis.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 8:23:41 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

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,

I have a BS in Math, a BS in engineering, an MS in physics with a minor in mathematical
physics, so Dono is waving his dishonest arms again.

Gary, you are just a crank desperate to deceive.

I've deceived no one. Dono is projecting his dishonesty again.

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.

Says the math dropout.

Deceptive as well.

Dono just can't stop projecting.

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.

Says the math-incompetent liar :-) Dono's assertions have taken
one drubbing after another and he's completely clueless that it's
even happened :-))

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

I found it and dismissed it long ago. It's ALGEBRA, not CALCULUS, as Dunce Dono
claimed. He is a completely clueless country bumpkin about math. He doesn't have
a horse of his own, so he has to borrow from others. Unfortunately, he can't understand
that he's on a dead horse.

"when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy
is to dismount." -- Dakota Indians tribal wisdom

Dono is so clueless, he needs to be told that this is analogy. Hint: Horse = BRAIN.

Infantile Dono plays his silly games by changing what I wrote. That's stupid and
indicates a case of arrested development. He certainly ain't no scientist :-))

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and
remove all doubt.” -- Abraham Lincoln

Oops. it's too late for Dono :-))

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

Mitchell Raemsch

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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).

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.
By motion law there is no tachyon.

""So certain are you."
“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

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..

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

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.

Ah, but I already explained that. You have forgotten. The are created moving FTL.
just like photons are created moving at c. Remember?

Acceleration obeys the speed limit.

They are not "acelerated" :-))

By Gamma tachyons are an anti form.

No, they're an imaginary "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..

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” -- Albert Einstein

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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?

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.

Ah, but I already explained that. You have forgotten. The are created moving FTL.

Where are they measured with any proof?

just like photons are created moving at c. Remember?

What speed exactly above the speed of light? what Gamma math time energy is that for them?
What Gamma negative from QM creates them?
What is their Higgs?
If Higgs has an exception it might not apply at all.
If it donates it is left empty. How did we measure
an energy less boson?

Acceleration obeys the speed limit.

They are not "acelerated" :-))

What does gravity do to them?
if the are FTL they are negative time and energy forms.
They would be coming from the future.

By Gamma tachyons are an anti form.

No, they're an imaginary "form."

That math has never had a solution. And it is name rightly.
Your tachyons are just in your imagination alone.
Nothing breaks Gamma for the speed limit.
FTL speed is what has never existed..
never will...

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..

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” -- Albert Einstein

You are just a hypocrite quoting Einstein instead...
Einstein won the argument over QM in history.
You won't be able to change that.

Mitchell Raemsch

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:05:44 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

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 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.

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?

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:18:44 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 5:08:40 PM UTC-6, Dono. dissembled:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 3:08:15 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Let's go back to

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

f(x) = (x - 3)/{(1 - 3x)sqrt[(x - 3)^2/(1 - 3x)^2 - 1]}
f(x) = (x - 3)/{(1 - 3x)sqrt[(x^2 - 6x + 9 - 1 + 6x - 9x^2)/(1 - 3x)^2]} f(x) = (x - 3)/{(1 - 3x)sqrt[(8 - 8x^2)/(1 - 3x)^2]}
and we slip that ol' sqrt[(1 - 3x)^2] up into the numerator:
f(x) = (x - 3)sqrt[(1 - 3x)^2]/[(1 - 3x)sqrt[(8 - 8x^2)]

Bzzt, this is exactly the step where you fuck up, ignoramus.

Reduced you to frothing at the mouth.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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:

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.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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 their
opinion be believed?

No experimental evidence for neutrinos? Are you living under a pile of rocks? :-))

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 Dyer

“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.

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.

[Sophomoric demands exceeded boorish limits]

Mitchell Raemsch

Gamma is why there is no FTL.

Mitchell Raemsch

By that reasoning, light can't exist, either :-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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:

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?

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.

“The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about” – Wayne Dyer

“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?

Is that Higgs? How does Higgs give to the negative?

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.

There is no measurement.

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.

And what is that? They are the negative form.

[Sophomoric demands exceeded boorish limits]

Mitchell Raemsch

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 10:43:24 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

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 Raemsch

Certainty is absurd.

“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.
But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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:

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.

That is no proof still. You are just in theory and FTL is what does not exist.

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."

Uncertainty is QM science central principle. Measurement can never go accurate and how would you know?

"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)

Tachyon would be programing Gamma for the anti world
that does not exist.

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.

What is your source for negative time and energy?

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 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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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:

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 .

You never leaned what m^2 represents, so you persist in your crankery

Keep it up, dumbfuck! It is Sunday, time for the "Gary Harnagel Cartoons".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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 theory

There 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 accurate
and how would you know?

Science is not about "knowing." It's about constructing theories and testing them.

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.

Sinking lower and lower into the absurd abyss of certainty :-)

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.

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

So, have you read it?

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.

Have you 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...

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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,

Dono is wrong again! Dono didn't understand what was being measured
in the tritium experiments. He asserted it was the difference between
the mass-squared flavors (electron, muon and tauon neutrinos), which is flat-out wrong. Right from the beginning, I believed it was the mass-
squared of the electron antineutrino, which is correct.

I didn't understand that the electron neutrino is a mixture of the eigenstates (m1, m2 and m3, which are NOT the flavors). Dono still doesn't understand this, apparently.

so you persist in your crankery

:-) So Dono persists in his delusions that I'm confused when he doesn't comprehend the physics of KATRIN and the earlier experiments.

But the REAL misunderstanding is that neutrino physics has little to do with DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 (Tachyons, the Four-Momentum Formalism
and Simultaneity) because that paper shows that tachyons would NOT violate causality (Conclusion #5), whether neutrinos are tachyons or not. There are four other conclusions in the paper, leading up to the main one, that also have some importance to the tachyon discussion.

Dono has failed to elucidate a valid rebuttal to any of them. Neither has anyone
else. Only invalid ones that amount to baloney (as defined by Sagan's baloney detection kit).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 4:52:30 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

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).

....and that is the "effective mass". Not the mass of the electron neutrino. Get it, crank? Still no?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:42:23 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

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

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 from your crap paper. This will never get thru your thick crank skull. Keep it up, dumbfuck!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:56:51 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

I fully debunked your crap paper in this thread.

Dono is delusional. His beliefs don't fit the facts.

Each paragraph and each of your crank conclusions have been debunked.

Totally delusional :-)))

I also debunked your idiotic attempts at deception by your incorrect manipulations
of the speed composition, relativistic momentum and relativistic energy formulas.

Nurse, call a medic.

I also debunked your imbecillic claims that four-momentum formalism somehow does not apply to tachyons.

Never mind, nurse, call for a strait-jacket. Dono is hallucinating about his imaginary
prowess. Every one of his "debunks" has been roundly refuted.

"incorrect manipulations of the speed composition"? Baloney!

Deception in the relativistic momentum and relativistic energy formulas"? Complete balderdash!

"imbecillic claims that four-momentum formalism somehow does not apply to
tachyons."? 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. This is all laid out in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.

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.

There is no difference.

The mass of the neutrino can never be measured by virtue of the fact that
the neutrino oscillates among its three flavors,

Irrelevant because the neutrino is created as an electron antineutrino in beta decay. That's the ONLY referent for the mass measurement since the actual measurement is of the characteristics of the electron emission and the neutrino characteristics are INFERRED from that. Dono doesn't understand that oscillation
requires the passage of time, and there is NONE at the neutrino creation event.

all that the experiments can measure is "effective mass".

Dono is still trying to tell the KATRIN authors what they mean :-))
Here's what they actually wrote:

"The mass measured in beta decay or electron capture, often called "m(nue)",
is the neutrino mass m_nu ~ m_i" -- arXiv:1909.06048v1 (K1)

"The best fit to the spectral data yields m_nu^2 = (0:26  0:34) eV2=c4" arXiv:2105.08533v1 (K2)

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."

"The mixing of the neutrino states" ARE the flavors. The "neutrino
states" refer to the eigenstates, not the flavors. He needs to do a great
deal more studying before he can understand what's really going on.
The fact is that Dono defines "effective" to mean what HE wants it to
mean, not what the authors intend.

At least you took out your crank claims about the neutrino having an imaginary
mass

I referenced the possibility that neutrinos may be tachyons (which means they would have imaginary mass). I didn't quote KATRIN data since it took a BIG jump toward the positive (but still has significant probability of a negative result) and remains fluid with the continuation of the experiment. But the main
reason for limiting the possibility of tachyonic neutrinos, as I said, that
is irrelevant to the conclusions of DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.

And bothing's been changed in that paper, contrary to Dono's ridiculous accusation that I rewrote the paper and slipped in different stuff somehow :-)

Dono gauges other people's behavior by what is in his own heart, thus he is constrained to think the worst of them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 2:50:38 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Nurse, call a medic. Patient Gary Harnagel has crapped his pampers again

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 2:50:38 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

although the 4MF is a "definition," its transformation is not.

Good, so after you got enough kicks in your rear, you finally came to grips that 4mf FORMALISM is a DEFINITION. As such, there is no "transformation" . You are mixing up with the transformation of momentum and energy. Keep it up, dumbestfuck.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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. Keep it up, dumbfuck!

This is all laid out in my crap paper published in the predatory journal

Riiight. Keep it up , dumbfuck!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 2:50:38 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

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. Congratulations, you have just reached a new low, dumbfuck!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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:

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.

Here's the part that Dono "conveniently" left out:

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.
This is a simple truth that math-incompetent Dono completely fails to comprehend. He is obviously too inept to understand algebra, let alone relativity.

Dono, in his crass ignorance, is SO certain that he is the source of all truth and knowledge, just like Mitch, Richard Hertz, Wozniak, etc.

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” -- Albert Einstein

"certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire

Riiight. Keep it up , dumbfuck!

Dono fails again to logically argue his case. Maybe he should take some remedial math and logic classes. Or is he an old dog that can't learn new tricks? Seems like it. He just keeps repeating the same tired old inanities, pretending that they have some sagacity. They don't.

And he also fails at parsing English sentences :-))

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,

:-)) He STILL can't understand that quote from the KATRIN authors. And
it has nothing to do with neutrino oscillation, either.

imbecile

Once again, Dono uses personal attack while failing to logically argue his case. He is way out of his league.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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, it makes you a stubborn crank.

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, crank? 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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7:23:33 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

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 ,

Funny how Dono states something we agree on and then screams:

crank. Because 4-momentum is a definition, as explained countless times.

And it's just as much a definition that P' = [E'/c,p']. This fundamental concept of relativity seems to escapes Dono's chromedome. He doesn't
seem capable of comprehending either mathematics or physics.

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?

Nope, because the MATH and the PHYSICS says so. Too bad Dono is
enfeebled in both.

Repeating the same imbecility doesn't make it true,

(1) It's not an "imbecility" to pose correct math and physics.
(2) Correct principles don't need to be "made true."
(3) Repeating correct principles are necessary when trying to
teach math and physics to stubborn fools.

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,

Dono wants with all his heart for something to use for his vituperation, but he lacks the ability to logically argue his case. Physicists understand that ALL rules have limited domains. Dono's snide remark backfires by simply noting that E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) is incorrect for v = c. Does that mean that it's
incorrect for v < c? Of course not!

The normal conclusion is that "tachyons" do not exist.

Whether or not tachyons exist cannot be based on a capricious assertion, which is what Dono is doing. "Normal" means "ordinary" or "traditional" or "conventional."
No one discovers something extraordinary by adhering to such boxes.

"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way
 past them into the impossible." -- Arthur C. Clarke

“The most absurd and reckless aspirations have sometimes led to extraordinary success.” -- Luc de Clapiers

“If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.” -- Albert Einstein

"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,

He STILL can't understand that quote from the KATRIN authors. And
it has nothing to do with neutrino oscillation, either. At the risk of repeating myself AGAIN, the electron antineutrino IS a mix of the three eigenstates (but mostly m_1). Dono's skull is 5 inches too thick to
comprehend this inconvenient fact. He's still hung up on the word
"effective" the definition of which he tries to steal for himself.

Maybe he should try to understand what "effective" REALLY means:
"fulfilling a specified function in fact, though not formally acknowledged
as such: similar, virtual, practical, essential, theoretical"

crank Gary Harnagel.

Again, Dono fails to logically argue his case, so he devolves into slander.
Oh, he TRIES to, but he's just not up to the challenge, just like he wasn't
up to rebutting the five conclusions in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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:

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

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

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?

Science is not about "knowing." It's about constructing theories and testing them.

Gamma shows FTL is wrong. No negative forms exist.

Now you've sunk back into certainty again :-)

FTL does not happen. Laws are certain.

You have no evidence for them.

22%

Tachyon would be programing Gamma for the anti world
that does not exist.

Sinking lower and lower into the absurd abyss of certainty :-)

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.

They are the negative form. Why would you believe in them but not
their negative Gamma math?

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

So, have you read it?

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.

Have you read it?

There is a universal speed limit with nothing above
only at light speed and below.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

“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

Don't want to consider the possibility of a more comprehensive theory?
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 Raemsch

No, 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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 12:17:11 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

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.

“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

Don't want to consider the possibility of a more comprehensive theory?
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 Raemsch

No, I don't, Mitch. I use it when appropriate. You, OTOH, want to use it like a hammer.

Only its truth gary. And you don't have that.

" "If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail." -- Abraham Maslow

There is a speed limit.

Mitchell Raemsch

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)