On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:18:41 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:

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

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

determination. WolframAlpha flagged you as an idiot <shrug>

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

Dumbestfuck,

The issue has nothing to do with Hospital, it has to do with the domain of definition of the composition of two functions. You are a disgusting crook.

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. You are a digusting crook, 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.

Dumbfuck,

WolframAlpha shows clearly that your 1/1/(x-a) has a singularity at x=a. You keep getting egg on your face, disgusting crook. An old man and so shameless and stupid in your lying.

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, 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. Congratulations, deceptive piece of shit. You whipped it rather quickly, so your way of squirming out is that 4-vector formalism doesn't apply to "tachyons".

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. 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.


Correction,

It is the same piece of garbage. You are simply making new crank claims, you cannot argue any longer that the 4-momentum formalism contradicts the existence of "tachyons", so you change tack, claiming that 4-momentum is "invalid" relative to "tachyons".
You are just pathetic, Harnagel. A pathetic old fart lying your way thru your teeth.

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

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

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

determination. WolframAlpha flagged you as an idiot <shrug>

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

Dumbestfuck,

The issue has nothing to do with Hospital, it has to do with the domain of definition of the composition of two functions. You are a disgusting crook.

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. You are a digusting crook, 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.

Dumbfuck,

WolframAlpha shows clearly that your 1/1/(x-a) has a singularity at x=a. You keep getting egg on your face, disgusting crook. An old man and so shameless and stupid in your lying.

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, 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. Congratulations, deceptive piece of shit. You whipped it rather quickly, so your way of squirming out is that 4-vector formalism doesn't apply to "tachyons".

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. 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.

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