Repeating the same imbecility doesn't make it true,(1) It's not an "imbecility" to pose correct math and physics.
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,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,
But your crap paper published in the predatory journal is a collection of imbecilities.
Crank,
you are building fallacies on top of other fallacies.
Typical crank approach.
Whether or not tachyons exist cannot be based on a capricious assertion,
It is based on the ridiculous contradictions
I exposed in your crap paper and in your posts attempting to defend your crap paper.
See above.
Keep it up,
dumbfuck!
A typical crank refuses to believe straightforward mathematical proofs,
such as deriving E' = \gamma mc^2 sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) from E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1) and u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2),
Conclusion #1 in my crap paper published in the predatory journal :
"The four-momentum formalism is incorrect for tachyons since it predicts the possibility of negative energies, which is impossible by the Principle of Relativity."
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 11:59:32 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
A typical crank refuses to believe straightforward mathematical proofs, such as deriving E' = \gamma mc^2 sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1) from E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1) and u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2),
YOUR basic error in the above has been exposed multiple times in this thread.
Your tactic resembles the tactic of your fellow crank, Richard Hertz, wait for a
while hoping that everyone else forgot about the imbecility you posted and... post it again.
The correct derivation is:E'= \gamma mc^2(1 - uv/c^2)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
giving a change of sign at u=c^2/v. You are desperately trying to cover up this
problem with "tachyon" energy but it keeps dodging you,
stubborn crank.
Conclusion #1 in my crap paper published in the predatory journal :
"The four-momentum formalism is incorrect for tachyons since it predicts the
possibility of negative energies, which is impossible by the Principle of Relativity."
Well, this is the conclusion drawn by the hardened crank Gary Harnagel.
Live with it,
dumbfuck!
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 1:11:38 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
YOUR basic error in the above has been exposed multiple times in this thread.
The CORRECT derivation
is E'= \gamma mc^2 sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1), as I have shown in this
in my crap paper . It is incorrect mathematics to
evaluate Exponents before Parentheses! Remember: PEMDAS?
u > c^2/v was
discussed in my crap paper as a limitation of the domain of
applicability of the E' equation, meaning signals with such speeds wrt the receiver
cannot be detected.
"The four-momentum formalism is incorrect for tachyons since it predicts the
possibility of negative energies, which is impossible by the Principle of Relativity."
Well, this is the conclusion drawn by the hardened crank Gary Harnagel.I follow the rules of mathematics and physics.
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:14:04 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 1:11:38 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
YOUR basic error in the above has been exposed multiple times in this thread.
The CORRECT derivation
is E'= \gamma mc^2 sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1), as I have shown in this
in my [inspite of Dono's crap] paper . It is incorrect mathematics to evaluate
Exponents before Parentheses! Remember: PEMDAS?
WolframAlpha shows that you are a stubborn crank , Gary:
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
u > c^2/v was discussed in my [so much to Dono's dismay that he filled his pants
with crap] paper as a limitation of the domain of applicability of the E' equation,
meaning signals with such speeds wrt the receiver cannot be detected.
You are now trying to cover up your imbecilities by arbitrarily restricting the domain
of "tachyons" speed , v.
Typical crank approach.
"The four-momentum formalism is incorrect for tachyons since it predicts the
possibility of negative energies, which is impossible by the Principle of Relativity."
Well, this is the conclusion drawn by the hardened crank Gary Harnagel.
I follow the rules of mathematics and physics.
No, you are not, you are piling up crankery on top of crankery
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 9:39:46 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:<< Since E' goes to zero at u = c^2/v, there is no
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:14:04 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
justification for expecting it to do anything else for u > c^2/v.
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 9:39:46 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:14:04 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 1:11:38 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
YOUR basic error in the above has been exposed multiple times in this thread.
The CORRECT derivation
is E'= \gamma mc^2 sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1), as I have shown in this
in my [inspite of Dono's crap] paper . It is incorrect mathematics to evaluate
Exponents before Parentheses! Remember: PEMDAS?
WolframAlpha shows that you are a stubborn crank , Gary:The term in Wolfram
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
that is analogous to our argument is (3x - 1)^2 under the sqrt sign. Anyone with
normal eyesight can see that it is NEVER taken out from under the sqrt. Had Wolfram
done so, the (3x - 1) term outside the sqrt would have canceled the one inside, BUT
WOLFRAM NEVER DID THAT!
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 11:30:35 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 9:39:46 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:14:04 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
The CORRECT derivation is
E'= \gamma mc^2 sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1), as I have shown in my [inspite of Dono's crap] paper . It is incorrect mathematics to evaluate
Exponents before Parentheses! Remember: PEMDAS?
WolframAlpha shows that you are a stubborn crank , Gary: 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
The term in Wolfram
that is analogous to our argument is (3x - 1)^2 under the sqrt sign. Anyone with
normal eyesight can see that it is NEVER taken out from under the sqrt. Had Wolfram
done so, the (3x - 1) term outside the sqrt would have canceled the one inside, BUT
WOLFRAM NEVER DID THAT!
Imbecile
In order to plot the function Wolfram had to take all the intermediate steps. See the
negative arm of the ? Still no? You are sinking lower and lower.
Your imbecility combines with your dishonesty in a very toxic way.
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 12:53:33 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 11:30:35 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 9:39:46 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:14:04 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
The CORRECT derivation is
E'= \gamma mc^2 sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1), as I have shown
in my [inspite of Dono's crap] paper . It is incorrect mathematics to evaluate
Exponents before Parentheses! Remember: PEMDAS?
WolframAlpha shows that you are a stubborn crank , Gary: 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
The term in Wolfram
that is analogous to our argument is (3x - 1)^2 under the sqrt sign. Anyone with
normal eyesight can see that it is NEVER taken out from under the sqrt. Had Wolfram
done so, the (3x - 1) term outside the sqrt would have canceled the one inside, BUT
WOLFRAM NEVER DID THAT!
In order to plot the function Wolfram had to take all the intermediate steps. See theSee the (1 - 3x) term in the denominator and the ((x - 3) term in the numerator
negative arm of the ? Still no? You are sinking lower and lower.
because u > c^2/v is cut off by the singularity in u' :-))
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 1:09:30 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 12:53:33 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 11:30:35 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 9:39:46 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:14:04 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
The CORRECT derivation is
E'= \gamma mc^2 sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1), as I have shown
in my [inspite of Dono's crap] paper . It is incorrect mathematics to evaluate
Exponents before Parentheses! Remember: PEMDAS?
WolframAlpha shows that you are a stubborn crank , Gary: 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
The term in Wolfram
that is analogous to our argument is (3x - 1)^2 under the sqrt sign. Anyone with
normal eyesight can see that it is NEVER taken out from under the sqrt. Had Wolfram
done so, the (3x - 1) term outside the sqrt would have canceled the one inside, BUT
WOLFRAM NEVER DID THAT!
Wolfram, as opposed to crank Gary Harnagel, knows what it is doing.
In order to plot the function Wolfram had to take all the intermediate steps. See the
negative arm of the ? Still no? You are sinking lower and lower.
See the (1 - 3x) term in the denominator and the ((x - 3) term in the numerator
....which explains why the function changes sign AND has a singularity point,
thus contradicting your earlier pathetic denials.
You are digging yourself deeper and deeper in your morass of deception and imbecilities
because u > c^2/v is cut off by the singularity in u' :-))
Singularities do not cut off domains of definition,
you are insane.
No wonder you got only a C in your class.
Seriously, you are digging yourself deeper with every post. Your dishonesty is
absolutely repulsive but it is fodder for entertainment, so, keep it up,
dumbfuck!
See the (1 - 3x) term in the denominator and the (x - 3) term in the numerator
....which explains why the function changes sign AND has a singularity point,That (1 - uv/c^2) term should be sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2].
which NEVER goes
negative, even for u > c^2/v, whereas (1 - uv/c^2) does. The Wolfram expression
evaluates the terms under the sqrt properly for the entire range of x, which P' = \eta P
does NOT do for u ?c^2/v.
Perhaps we should consider the ACTUAL expression under discussion
Wolfram analogy. It's E' = mc^2/(u'^2/c^2 - 1), where u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
Singularities do not cut off domains of definition,
The singularity at u = c cuts off the domain of tachyons from luxons.
No wonder you got only a C in your class.I should never have mentioned that.
Seriously, though, I misspoke when I divided c < u < \infty into two regions and
called them domains.
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 7:39:07 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
That (1 - uv/c^2) term should be sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2].
Wolfram contradicts your pathetic attempt at cover up: 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
which NEVER goes
negative, even for u > c^2/v, whereas (1 - uv/c^2) does. The Wolfram expression
evaluates the terms under the sqrt properly for the entire range of x, which P' = \eta P
does NOT do for u ?c^2/v.
But the Wolfram expression is the expression that DOES NOT model the Lorentz transform
of the total energy E'=mc^2/sqrt (u'^2/c^2-1) but the DEFINITION of the four momentum,
So , it does not model inserting u'=(u-v)/(1-uv/c^2) into the expression of E'=mc^2/sqrt (u'^2/c^2-1) in order to get E
but the four-momentum DEFINITION of E as E=\gamma{v)(E'-p'v)
E=\gamma(v)m(c^2-uv)/sqrt(u*2/c^2-1)
Perhaps we should consider the ACTUAL expression under discussion
E['] = \gamma(v)m(c^2-uv)/sqrt(u*2/c^2-1) is the expression under discussion.
Because it changes sign at c^2=uv it shows that "tachyons" are non-existent.
The same problem occurs with p'=\gamma(v) mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2/1) Lorentz transformation as illustrated by the same Wolfram example.
Wolfram analogy. It's E' = mc^2/(u'^2/c^2 - 1), where u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
Errn no, the Wolfram analogy on which you are choking is
p'=\gamma(v) mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2/1) where u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2).
The analogy for energy is the DEFINITION of four energy E=\gamma(v)m(c^2-uv)/sqrt(u*2/c^2-1)
Keep on squirming , crank.
Singularities do not cut off domains of definition,
The singularity at u = c cuts off the domain of tachyons from luxons.
Nice try , crank
You are claiming that the domain u>c^2/v simply does not exist for "tachyons".
No wonder you got only a C in your class.
I should never have mentioned that.
C was too generous given your crass ineptitude.
Seriously, though, I misspoke when I divided c < u < \infty into two regions and
called them domains.
You did more than that: you deny the domain u>c^2/v because it makes total energy negative,
very inconvenient for the existence of "tachyons".
That's not the "definition" of E. E is mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) for bradyons.
That's because \eta is incorrect in the FTL domain.
Because it changes sign at c^2=uv it shows that "tachyons" are non-existent.
It shows that \eta is incorrect in the FTL domain.
The same problem occurs with p'=\gamma(v) mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2/1) Lorentz transformation as illustrated by the same Wolfram example.Wrong. There is no such thing as "four energy": energy only has ONE dimension.
the Wolfram analogy on which you are choking is
p'=\gamma(v) mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2/1) where u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2).
The analogy for energy is the DEFINITION of four energy E=\gamma(v)m(c^2-uv)/sqrt(u*2/c^2-1)
You are claiming that the domain u>c^2/v simply does not exist for "tachyons".
Crap paper published in predatory journal claims that:
"Conclusion Number 1: The four-momentum formalism is incorrect for
tachyons since it predicts the possibility of negative energies, which is impossible by the Principle of Relativity."
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:56:16 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
That's not the "definition" of E. E is mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) for bradyons.
You are lying again, Gary here is the transformation of four energy momentum once again that shows the correct expressions for both E' and p': http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/vec4.html#c2
I don't mind the fact that you are an imbecile . I do mind that you are a lying
imbecile.
That's because \eta is incorrect in the FTL domain.
You keep trying to use this ridiculous lie time and again
Because it changes sign at c^2=uv it shows that "tachyons" are non-existent.
It shows that \eta is incorrect in the FTL domain.
You keep trying to use this ridiculous lie time and again
The same problem occurs with p'=\gamma(v) mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2/1) Lorentz transformation as illustrated by the same Wolfram example.
the Wolfram analogy on which you are choking is
p'=\gamma(v) mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2/1) where u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2).
The analogy for energy is the DEFINITION of four energy E=\gamma(v)m(c^2-uv)/sqrt(u*2/c^2-1)
Wrong. There is no such thing as "four energy": energy only has ONE dimension.
Hahahahaha
Just when I thought that you could not sink any lower : http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/vec4.html#c2.
There is a momentum component and an energy component.
The energy component for "tachyons" would be E=\gamma(v)m(c^2-uv)/sqrt(u*2/c^2-1)
and that component goes negative for "tachyon" speeds u>c^2/v
making you choke on your web of lies.
You are claiming that the domain u>c^2/v simply does not exist for "tachyons".
Google keeps a record of your squirming imbecilities
"Conclusion Number 1: The four-momentum formalism is incorrect for tachyons since it predicts the possibility of negative energies, which is impossible by the Principle of Relativity."
Here, you repeat the same crankery. In reality, 4 - momentum formalism is universal, it cannot be incorrect.
What IS incorrect is your insane crap paper, Gary. Choke on it.
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:38:49 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:56:16 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
That's not the "definition" of E. E is mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) for bradyons.
You are lying again, Gary here is the transformation of four energy momentumThat link says it "CAN be expressed in matrix form." The whole concept of 4MF
once again that shows the correct expressions for both E' and p': http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/vec4.html#c2
was developed with bradyons and luxons in mind.
E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^ -1), which NEVER
becomes negative over the ranges of applicability -infinity < u' < -c and
c < u + infinity.
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:38:49 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
The energy component for "tachyons" would be E=\gamma(v)m(c^2-uv)/sqrt(u*2/c^2-1)It WOULD be if 4MF translated to tachyons. It doesn't because a more BASIC expression is E' = \gamma m sqrt[(c^2 - u'v)^2]/(u^2/c^2 - 1), which contradicts
the P' = \eta P transformation. Obviously, \eta is incorrect (because it was developed for the -c < u < c domain.
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 2:33:25 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:38:49 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:56:16 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
That's not the "definition" of E. E is mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) for bradyons.
You are lying again, Gary here is the transformation of four energy momentum
once again that shows the correct expressions for both E' and p': http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/vec4.html#c2
That link says it "CAN be expressed in matrix form." The whole concept of 4MF
was developed with bradyons and luxons in mind.
You are getting desperate , crank Harnagel
The formalism is universal,
so your denying it shows how low you would stoop.
I don't mind your imbecility, you were born this way but your dishonesty makes
you repulsive.
The energy component for "tachyons" would be E=\gamma(v)m(c^2-uv)/sqrt(u*2/c^2-1)
It WOULD be if 4MF translated to tachyons. It doesn't because a more BASIC expression is E' = \gamma m sqrt[(c^2 - u'v)^2]/(u^2/c^2 - 1), which contradicts
the P' = \eta P transformation. Obviously, \eta is incorrect (because it was
developed for the -c < u < c domain.
Well, one can make the same exact argument (even stronger) against using E=mc*2/sqrt(u%2/c^2=1) for "tachyons".
But an even stronger argument against your nuttiness is that I already showed you that the problem of sign changing persists for the momentum p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1)
when you try to get p via the substitution u'=(u-v)/(1-uv/c^2).
WolframAlpha showed why you are a c-grade student, remember crank Harnagel?
??? Dono is frantically trying to post three times for my one
E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - u^2/c^2 - 1) historically came before the
4MF; infact, the 4MF USES E in it's definition: P = [E/c. p].
But an even stronger argument against your nuttiness is that I already showed
you that the problem of sign changing persists for the momentum p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1)
when you try to get p via the substitution u'=(u-v)/(1-uv/c^2).
(1) p' = \gamma m(u - v)sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/[(1 - uv/c^2)sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)]
The 4MF version makes sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/[(1 - uv/c^2) = 1, leaving
p' = \gamma m(u - v)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1), so p' doesn't reverse for u > c^2/v.
It's also important to point out that the expression for p' in (1) DOES reverse
for u > c^2/v, indicating that IT'S wrong for tachyons. In summary, for u > c^2/v
Term .. Method .... sign for u > c^2/v
p' ....... 4MF ......... No Reverse
p' ....... u' subst, ..... Reverses
E' ....... 4MF ......... .. Reverses
E' ....... u' subst, .... No Reverse
The only logical conclusion is that both methods fail for u > c^2/v, and that the
singularity in u' is responsible for it.
This has the gobsmacking import that
some other method must be employed to access such tachyons and, fortunately there is one, as pointed out in this insane thread thread and in my crap paper published by the predatory journal
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:47:06 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
??? Dono is frantically trying to post three times for my one
It is one post for each one of your imbecilities. Since there were three imbecilities in your post.....
Imbecility no.1
E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - u^2/c^2 - 1) historically came before the
4MF; infact, the 4MF USES E in it's definition: P = [E/c. p].
Lying piece of shit, I clearly said that the argument can be made
against E = mc^2/sqrt (u^2/c^2 - 1)
Imbecility 2
But an even stronger argument against your nuttiness is that I
already showed you that the problem of sign changing persists
for the momentum p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1) when you try to get p
via the substitution u'=(u-v)/(1-uv/c^2).
(1) p' = \gamma m(u - v)sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/[(1 - uv/c^2)sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)]
WolframAlpha contradicts your calculation.
I have rubbed your nose in your shit several times, you must enjoy it: 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
Imbecility, lie no 3
The 4MF version makes sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/[(1 - uv/c^2) = 1, leaving
p' = \gamma m(u - v)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1), so p' doesn't reverse for u > c^2/v.
I pointed out to you several times that for "tachyons" that four momentum produces negative energy
and the Lorentz transform produces negative momentum.
Any sane person (not Gary Harnagel) would conclude that "tachyons" do not exist
due their schizo behavior.
It's also important to point out that the expression for p' in (1) DOES reverse
for u > c^2/v, indicating that IT'S wrong for tachyons. In summary, for u > c^2/v
Term .. Method .... sign for u > c^2/v
p' ....... 4MF ......... No Reverse
p' ....... u' subst, ..... Reverses
E' ....... 4MF ......... .. Reverses
E' ....... u' subst, .... No Reverse
Conclusion: tachyons do not exist.
Imbecility no.4
The only logical conclusion is that both methods fail for u > c^2/v, and that the
singularity in u' is responsible for it.
Any rational person (not crank Gary Harnagel) would conclude that tachyons cannot exist due to their schizo behavior.
Imbecility no.5
This has the gobsmacking import that some other method must be employed
to access such tachyons and, fortunately there is one
So, 5 imbecilities in one post by crank Gary Harnagel.
I wrote, "It WOULD be if 4MF translated to tachyons. It doesn't because
a more BASIC expression is E' = \gamma m sqrt[(c^2 - u'v)^2]/(u^2/c^2 - 1), which contradicts the P' = \eta P transformation. Obviously, \eta is incorrect (because it was developed for the -c < u < c domain."
Dono is pretending E can be defined
from P, which is baloney.
Imbecility 2
But an even stronger argument against your nuttiness is that I
already showed you that the problem of sign changing persists
for the momentum p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1) when you try to get p
via the substitution u'=(u-v)/(1-uv/c^2).
(1) p' = \gamma m(u - v)sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/[(1 - uv/c^2)sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)]
WolframAlpha contradicts your calculation. I have rubbed your nose in your shit several times, you must enjoy it: 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 pointed out in detail that Wolfram obeys PEMDAS, and that
4MF applied to tachyons doesn't.
Imbecility, lie no 3
The 4MF version makes sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/[(1 - uv/c^2) = 1, leaving
p' = \gamma m(u - v)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1), so p' doesn't reverse for u > c^2/v.
I pointed out to you several times that for "tachyons" that four momentum produces negative energyAlthough the 4MF yields negative E' for u > c^2/v, Dono didn't "point it out" to me.
It's in my crap paper. Previous to that, it was used by an AJP
reviewer against my claim that E' didn't become negative. Before that, I knew
that 4MF predicted it and believed it be incorrect.
and the Lorentz transform produces negative momentum.).
Any sane person (not Gary Harnagel) would conclude that "tachyons" do not exist
due their schizo behavior.
Term .. Method .... sign for u > c^2/v
p' ....... 4MF ......... No Reverse
p' ....... u' subst, ..... Reverses
E' ....... 4MF ......... .. Reverses
E' ....... u' subst, .... No Reverse
Conclusion: tachyons do not exist.
.When mathematical expressions for the
same phenomenon disagree, and neither of them yield sensible predictions, one looks for a better physical description. Failure of the math can't be used
for denying physics because mathematics has no physical content.
The sole purpose of my crap paper published in the predatory journal
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 favor of my crankiness
If the math is right, then my crap paper proves that tachyons don't exist
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
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 me floating crackpot assertions.
[Infantile and intellectually-dishonest yammerings deleted]
Dono has claimed that the 4MF is correct over the whole range of
-\infty < u < +\infty
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:52:41 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Dono has claimed that the 4MF is correct over the whole range of
-\infty < u < +\infty
First off, -\infty is crank's Gary Harnagel imbecility.
The formalism is correct.
Just that "tachyons" exhibit violations,
as seen for the case of total energy.
"Tachyons" violate even the basic Lorentz transforms,
as seen for the case of momentum.
Therefore "tachyons" do not exist.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 307 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 73:27:27 |
Calls: | 6,915 |
Files: | 12,382 |
Messages: | 5,432,368 |