• Crank Gary Harnagel gets it up the ass once again

    From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Tue Apr 18 08:32:22 2023
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 8:27:30 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    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


    Unfortunately, you turned into a full-fledged crank, Gary.
    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.


    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
    I found it and dismissed it long ago.


    Because it contradicts your crank posts. Look at the graph, deceptive crank. See the function going negative? Look at the "range" . See it going negative? Choke on it, deceptive crank.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Dono. on Tue Apr 18 14:34:33 2023
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:32:24 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 8:27:30 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

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

    Unfortunately, you turned into a full-fledged crank, Gary.

    Dono's definition of a crank is anyone who disagrees with him :-))

    Gary, you are just a crank desperate to deceive.

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

    And that's the truth.

    Well, after your "performance" in this forum, you clearly qualify as an imbecile.

    Pot, kettle, black. Dono has such poor performance, he rates dunce.

    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.

    Because it contradicts your crank posts.

    A lie. It has nothing to do with DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 or anything discussed here.
    Tsk, tsk! Dono still doesn't get it. He rejects the application of calculus in both places because
    he doesn't understand the very basis of calculus. That makes HIM the crank, which is the way
    he's been behaving.

    Look at the graph, deceptive crank. See the function going negative? Look at the "range" .
    See it going negative? Choke on it, deceptive crank.

    Straw man argument and non sequitur. If zero is approached from positive x, the function
    approaches +1. If zero is approached from negative x, the function approaches -1. It's a discontinuous function. So what?
    This has nothing to do with E' = \gamma mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) or p' = etc.

    Choke on it, deceptive crank.

    Dono is too clueless to know what he's yammering about.

    Once upon a time, I attributed Dono's behavior to maliciousness, but now ...

    "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity."
    -- Robert A. Heinlein

    And Dono blaming me for villainy is also because of his stupidity :-))

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Tue Apr 18 17:32:17 2023
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:34:35 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:


    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.

    Because it contradicts your crank posts.
    A lie. It has nothing to do with my crap paper or anything discussed here.


    Actually, it does, hardened crank, it shows hoe p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1) changes sign.


    Look at the graph, deceptive crank. See the function going negative? Look at the "range" .
    See it going negative? Choke on it, deceptive crank.

    This has nothing to do with E' = \gamma mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) or p' = etc.

    Actually it represents p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1), demented old fart.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Dono. on Wed Apr 19 10:25:52 2023
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:32:19 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:34:35 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    It has nothing to do with DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 or anything discussed here.
    Tsk, tsk! Dono still doesn't get it. He rejects the application of calculus in both places
    because he doesn't understand the very basis of calculus. That makes HIM the crank,
    which is the way he's been behaving.

    Actually, it does, hardened crank, it shows hoe p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1) changes sign.

    Which is exactly what I've been saying:

    p' = \gamma m(u -v)sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/[(1 - uv/c^2)sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)] ... EQ. (1)

    The sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2] in the numerator does NOT become negative for u > c^2/v because
    of PEMDAS, thus the (1 - uv/c^2) term in the denominator reverses the sign of p'.

    If Dono had any mathematical smarts at all, he could follow the derivation in 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 and see that
    it obeys PEMDAS. The problem, as pointed out in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, is that
    the 4MF does NOT reverse the sign of p':

    p' = \gamma m(u - v)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) ... EQ. (2)

    it cancels sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2] in the numerator with (1 - uv/c^2) in the denominator. EXACTLY as
    I've been saying all along. I thank Dono for proving my point. Hail to the "WolframAlpha gold
    standard." :-))

    Look at the graph, deceptive crank. See the function going negative? Look at the "range" .
    See it going negative? Choke on it, deceptive crank.

    This has nothing to do with E' = \gamma mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) or p' = etc.

    Actually it represents p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1), demented old fart.

    Actually, it shows that the "WolframAlpha gold standard" follows PEMDAS, whereas the 4MF
    fails to do so. As I've been saying here all along, BOTH EQ. (2) and EQ. (1) are unphysical for
    u > c^2/v. DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 correctly restricts the validity to c < u < c^2/v,
    justifying that signals traveling at u > c^2/v cannot be detected without a moving receiver.

    Even though Dono is clueless that he proved my point once again, he deserves an honorable
    mention. Shall I include him in the acknowledgments of my next paper?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Wed Apr 19 11:40:38 2023
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 10:25:54 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    p' = \gamma m(u - v)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) ... EQ. (2)

    it cancels sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2] in the numerator with (1 - uv/c^2) in the denominator. EXACTLY as
    I've been saying all along.

    WolframAlpha shows that there is no "cancellation", ignoramus. This is why there is a the negative branch of p'. You are failing basic math by MISSapplying "PEDMAS"

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Wed Apr 19 11:44:03 2023
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 10:25:54 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    Actually, it shows that the "WolframAlpha gold standard" follows PEMDAS, whereas the 4MF
    fails to do so.

    There is no "PEDMAS" in the 4-momentum DEFINITION. Because , contrary to your crank ideas, 4mf is not "derived", it is defined. So, there is no "failure" in 4mf. The only failure is in your brain, deceptive crank Gary Harnagel.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Apr 30 19:14:37 2023
    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 .

    Dono persists in denying statistics.

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

    As usual, Dono fails to logically argue his case.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Dono. on Mon May 1 12:42:21 2023
    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

    The fact that Dono has to engage in infantile doctoring of my words proves my point:

    Here's what I really wrote:

    "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)."

    And that still stands. Furthermore, Dono STILL doesn't understand that
    the electron antineutrino IS a mixture of the eigenstates, not the flavors,
    nor does he understand that said mixture is mostly eigemstate m1.

    He has given up trying to post even half-sensible arguments, rather relying
    on subterfuge and sophomoric hoaxes. This is manifest even in his claim
    that "effective" means something different from what the authors of the
    KATRIN papers meant. 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.

    He now displays his dishonesty in such a conspicuous manner.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 5 07:44:43 2023
    On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:26:56 AM UTC-6, Dono. frothed cretinisms:

    [Dono denied physics and math again]

    Math is the language of physics

    The only true claim in Dono's unhinged diatribe ... but he doesn't
    understand what it means. Only the math that has been confirmed
    by experiment has content. Any other math is hypothesis at best.
    It will be confirmed or refuted by experiment ... sometime.

    Tachyon physics is in that latter category. The sole purpose of my
    paper DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 is to prove that arguments
    against the existence of tachyons based on causality violation are
    incorrect. So the inconsistency of the math is a point in my favor
    because using it, as all the "perfessers" do to claim tachyons violate causality, are wrong. Once again, Dono's gyrations inadvertently
    support my conclusion :-)

    If the math is right, then DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 proves
    that tachyons don't violate causality, and if the math is wrong, it
    can't be used to prove that they do.

    And isn't it SO ironic that all the "perfessers" conclude that tachyons
    are nonexistent because they violate causality, not because the 4MF
    is wrong, as math-impaired Dono does :-)

    Dono, Dono, Dono! You can't win this argument. This is obvious to
    any onlookers. They can see you becoming the crank that you so
    despise, and they appreciate the irony. Admit that your onslaughts are
    because of personal biases against me, not based on any intellectual
    or logical rationale. They lack candor and substance.

    Tachyons may or may not exist, but the decision will be determined
    by experiment, or perhaps by appeal to experimental evidence in other
    areas of research, but not by someone floating crackpot assertions.

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