• Re: Math-challenged crank Gary Harnagel pretends he understands physics

    From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Tue May 2 08:38:10 2023
    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 8:27:02 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    Repeating the same imbecility doesn't make it true,
    (1) It's not an "imbecility" to pose correct math and physics.

    But your crap paper published in the predatory journal is a collection of imbecilities.

    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!

    Crank, you are building fallacies on top of other fallacies. Typical crank approach.


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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Dono. on Tue May 2 11:59:30 2023
    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 9:38:12 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

    But your crap paper published in the predatory journal is a collection of imbecilities.

    Says the math-impaired flunky whose purpose in life seems to be trying to prove me wrong rather than trying to find out what's right.

    Crank,

    "Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
    And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
    But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
    Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

    you are building fallacies on top of other fallacies.

    About which Dono has failed to prove even ONE "fallacy" :-))

    Typical crank approach.

    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),
    and scientific principles such as the Principle of Relativity. Dono fits
    those criteria perfectly. Cranks are also so CERTAIN of their opinions, so Dono gets three strikes and he's out! Dono always seems to be the statue :-))

    "Some days you're the pigeon, and some days you're the statue." -- Anon.

    But this pigeon wouldn't do THAT even to Dono :-)

    Whether or not tachyons exist cannot be based on a capricious assertion,

    It is based on the ridiculous contradictions

    Dono's brain is full of contradictions. He claims to know all about relativity but
    refuses to apply PoR, preferring to spin fantasies.

    I exposed in your crap paper and in your posts attempting to defend your crap paper.

    :-))) Dono's hallucinations are getting worse.

    See above.

    Nothing but smoke and mirrors.

    Keep it up,

    Dono really doesn't want me to. He wants to "win" rather than know.

    “If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught
    and shot now.” -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

    He'll get what he's asking for, not what he wants :-)

    dumbfuck!

    What goes around comes around.

    "If a man speak or act with an evil thought, suffering follows him as the
    wheel follows the hoof of the beast that draws the wagon" -- Buddha

    Dono's crass deprecation cannot augment an argument. It's sheer avoidance
    of a valid argument. He knows in his heart that his rebuttal is SO weak that he has to take his attack to the man rather than to the message.

    The subject under "discussion" (I discuss and Dono dissembles) has been Conclusion #1 in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101:

    "The four-momentum formalism is incorrect for tachyons since it predicts the possibility of negative energies, which is impossible by the Principle of Relativity."

    The defense of this has been laid out clearly here and in the paper. The ONLY dissension has come from someone whose mathematical training is glaringly deficient. Even more obvious is his fanaticism against someone who opposes
    his opinions, typical of cranks.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Tue May 2 12:11:36 2023
    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!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Dono. on Wed May 3 08:14:02 2023
    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 1:11:38 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

    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.

    Delusional Dono makes basic errors in claiming basic errors :-))

    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.

    Actually, Crank Dono mirrors Hertz's modus operandi: Scream deprecations and ignore mathematics :-)

    The correct derivation is:E'= \gamma mc^2(1 - uv/c^2)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)

    And this is why Dummkopf Dono is a mathematical crank. 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
    thread and in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. It is incorrect mathematics to evaluate Exponents before Parentheses! Remember: PEMDAS? It's possible to get away with that IF the argument, (1 - uv/c^2), is positive, but you'll get the wrong
    answer if it's negative. This is CLEAR:Y exposed by examining the starting equation:
    E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1). For ANY value of u', E' is NEVER negative. This is
    understood by anyone who didn't flunk algebra.

    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,

    Dono is the one trying to cover up his math deficiencies by yammering about math
    that he doesn't understand. And he conveniently "forgets" that u > c^2/v was discussed in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 as a limitation of the domain of applicability of the E' equation, meaning signals with such speeds wrt the receiver
    cannot be detected.

    stubborn crank.

    Dono keeps projecting his own crankiness and ignorance on others :-))

    Conclusion #1 in my crap paper published in the predatory journal :

    Immature Dono plays childish games with posts :-))

    "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. Dono doesn't. That makes HIM the
    crank, and a hardened one at that :-))

    Live with it,

    I am, and enjoying every minute of it :-)

    dumbfuck!

    "Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
    And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
    But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
    Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

    Once again, Desperate Dono has failed to logically argue his case, so he resorts to childish argumentum ad hominem. A sign of abject failure.

    So Conlusion #1 stands unbowed. So the next one is,

    "Conclusion Number 2: Using the Principle of Relativity, it has been demonstrated that there is no valid argument leading to violation of
    causality for direct tachyon communication in a loop between
    transmitters and receivers in relative motion (Method I). On the contrary,
    it is adduced that this Method I will obey causality."

    This follows by applying #1 to communication between transmitters and
    receivers in relative motion. We can discuss this, unless Dono can't get himself untangled from his false mathematical hangups.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Wed May 3 08:39:44 2023
    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 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 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 3 08:45:05 2023
    Faced with his imbecilities crank Gary Harnagel cranks himself up and:

    1. Contradicts WolframAlpha in terms of order of operations
    2. When he fails argument 1 he tries to restrict the domain of definition of "tachyons" speeds, v.
    3. When argument 2 fails, crank Harnagel claims that the four-momentum formalism doesn't apply to "tachyons"

    Here is an insight into the brain of hardened crank

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Dono. on Wed May 3 11:30:33 2023
    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:
    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

    Oh, this is just HILARIOUS! :-)) Dono's eyesight must be failing. Either that, or his
    mathematical incompetency is worse that anyone can imagine. 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! Good grief! WolframAlpha obeys PEMDAS. Desperate Dono inadvertently proves I'm right again!

    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.

    There's nothing arbitrary about it. E' approaches zero as u approaches c^2/v, and u'
    approaches infinity. Dono has agreed that singularities are a problem, as I have expressed
    in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. Since E' goes to zero at u = c^2/v, there is no
    justification for expecting it to do anything else for u > c^2/v.

    Typical crank approach.

    The "typical crank approach" is not being able to parse a simple algebraic expression
    correctly and then claiming it says just the opposite of what it actually does :-))

    "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

    Screams the guy who can't do algebra, then piles one false assertion on top of another,
    while immaturely playing childish games with posts Typical crank behavior.:-))

    Besides, DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 shows how the "restriction on v" that Dono
    is wailing about is removed by causing the receiver to move toward the transmitter
    (at the end of Section 2, for those with poor eyesight like Dono). This was addressed in
    the previous thread when PCH made a similar charge (that the signal could be observed
    only in some frames but not in others. depending on v). After I explained that all one
    needed was an instrument which contained a moving receiving element, he hasn't posted
    since. A really intelligent guy, unlike a certain one who makes charge A, gets rebutted,
    makes charge B, gets rebutted, makes charge C, gets rebutted, then makes charge A
    again, just like the cranks who frequent this group.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Wed May 3 11:59:52 2023
    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:
    << Since E' goes to zero at u = c^2/v, there is no
    justification for expecting it to do anything else for u > c^2/v.



    This takes the prize for crankery, you have outdone yourself , Gary. Have you heard of functions changing sign when they cross zero? Your imbecility combines with your dishonesty in a very toxic way.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Wed May 3 11:53:31 2023
    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:

    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
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Dono. on Wed May 3 13:09:28 2023
    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!

    Imbecile

    Argumentum ad hominem spewer.

    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, both
    OUTSIDE the sqrt? THOSE are controlling the sign of the equation, not anything under
    the sqrt. Once again, Dono unwittingly proves PEMDAS.

    Your imbecility combines with your dishonesty in a very toxic way.

    And dazed Dono takes a victory lap for his latest asininity :-))
    I guess he's defining himself as intelligent, like one of the witless "woke" It's time for Dono and the "woke" to WAKE UP! That is, if he's somnolent.
    If he's actually awake, then HE is dishonest.

    The irony of all this garbage from Dono is that it doesn't matter to the REAL argument
    because u > c^2/v is cut off by the singularity in u' :-))

    “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” -- Matthew 23:24

    "strain at a gnat: To exaggerate or put too much focus on a minor issue and make it
    seem like a major one."

    Dono does that SO well :-))

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Wed May 3 15:00:39 2023
    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!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Dono. on Thu May 4 07:39:05 2023
    On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 4:00:41 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

    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.

    Dono is fantasizing again. Wolfram DOES know what it's doing and it proves Dono's assertion
    (and \eta for u > c^2/v in the 4MF) false.

    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,

    Exactly what I said' i.e., it's NOT caused by anything in the sqrt argument.

    thus contradicting your earlier pathetic denials.

    I'm afraid that Dono is obfuscating here, trying to cover up that he claimed that
    E' = \gamma mc^2 (1 - uv/c^2)/(u^2/c^2 - 1), a result from P' = \eta P, is correct for
    tachyons. 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 rather than a Wolfram analogy. It's E' = mc^2/(u'^2/c^2 - 1), where u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2), yielding
    E'= \gamma mc^2 sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1). Whys doesn't put that expression into excel, plot some points and draw a graph to prove to himself that E'
    never goes negative (unless PEMDAS is violated)? Excel does it right, just like Wolfram
    does.

    You are digging yourself deeper and deeper in your morass of deception and imbecilities

    Dono is hallucinating again. He makes up fantasies and pretends they're true :-)

    because u > c^2/v is cut off by the singularity in u' :-))

    Singularities do not cut off domains of definition,

    Sure they do. The singularity at v = c cuts off the domain of bradyons from luxons.
    The singularity at u = c cuts off the domain of tachyons from luxons.

    you are insane.

    Pot, kettle, black :-))

    No wonder you got only a C in your class.

    I should never have mentioned that. I didn't think that Dono would exhibit such a
    degree of dishonesty to exaggerate it all out of proportion :-)

    Seriously, you are digging yourself deeper with every post. Your dishonesty is
    absolutely repulsive but it is fodder for entertainment, so, keep it up,

    I'm afraid that Dono is projecting again. He should take a whiff of his armpits.
    Now THAT'S repulsive :-))

    Seriously, though, I misspoke when I divided c < u < \infty into two regions and
    called them domains. Any observer can access tachyons in either region with
    an instrument containing a moving receiver element. So there is only one domain for tachyons.

    dumbfuck!

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

    So Dono comes up empty-handed after trying and trying and trying and ...
    never making a valid point against the five conclusions in
    DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. And he keeps trying and trying and ...!
    Now THAT'S insane:

    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

    It;s also delusional because he fantasizes success :-))

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu May 4 08:35:41 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 7:39:07 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    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].

    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, deceptive crank. 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) i.e. 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".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Dono. on Thu May 4 09:56:15 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:35:43 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

    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

    No, Wolfram doesn't contradict anything I've said, but it DOES contradict Dono's assertions.
    Dono is displaying his incompetence at math again. The "pathetic attempts" are all Dono's.

    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,

    Dono is dissembling again. HE is the one that brought up Wolfram in the first place when we
    were discussing relativity and now he's saying it doesn't model it. He is twisting and turning
    like a typical crank. Even more crankish, he's now going back like a dog to its vomit to the
    disproven assertion that:

    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)

    That's not the "definition" of E. E is mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) for bradyons. By
    analogy, the definition of E for tachyons is E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1), where m is the absolute value of the tachyon mass.

    i.e.

    E=\gamma(v)m(c^2-uv)/sqrt(u*2/c^2-1)

    And that's just more gobbledegook.

    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.

    Nope, that's just something you're trying to use to deflect from the fact that you've lost the argument . It's already been shown that it's wrong because DERIVING the CORRECT expression from BASICS using PEMDAS doesn't
    agree with P' = \eta P. 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.

    You are wrong, illogical-breath. 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.

    But Dono said the Wolfram example wasn't applicable. He is getting more and more irrational.

    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).

    Dono is now crankishly switching gears to confuse and obfuscate. Troll alert!

    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. The "definition" is about FOUR-MOMENTUM, and that is P = [E,p].

    Keep on squirming , crank.

    :-)) Dono needs to learn some REAL math and physics, and he needs to do it SOON.

    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".

    Mental patient alert! Dono is hallucinating again.

    No wonder you got only a C in your class.

    I should never have mentioned that.

    C was too generous given your crass ineptitude.

    Says the guy who flunked logic, algebra and arithmetic classes :-)) Now he's hallucinating that he's an upper-division math professor.

    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,

    Dono is flat-out lying again. Either his dishonesty knows no bounds, or his Alzheimer,s is kicking up again.

    DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101

    "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."

    And I've never said anything different.

    very inconvenient for the existence of "tachyons".

    Dono tells very convenient lies.

    And DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 shows how tachyon signals with
    u > c^2/v wrt an observer can still be detected. Dono's mind has slipped
    over the edge and is heading for oblivion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu May 4 10:38:46 2023
    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




    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."


    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Dono. on Thu May 4 14:33:24 2023
    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. Dono is the one lying.

    I don't mind the fact that you are an imbecile . I do mind that you are a lying
    imbecile.

    Dono is lying again. "Imbeciles" can't prove Dono wrong time after time.

    That's because \eta is incorrect in the FTL domain.

    You keep trying to use this ridiculous lie time and again

    Because Dono keeps lying about it time after time.

    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

    Because Dono keeps lying about it time after time.

    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

    "I quickly laugh at everything for fear of having to cry." -- Pierre Beaumarchais

    "He who_laughes first, cries last."

    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.

    And the energy COMPONENT (E) is ONE, NOT FOUR. Dono is dissembling again. Rather than using the correct term (four-momentum), Dono tries to claim there was such a thing as a four-energy definition.

    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. Dono's false assertion is that P' = \eta P
    is a "definition." That's baloney dreamed up by an arithmetic-challenged Dono who denies PEMDAS.

    By ignoring PEMDAS, E' = \gamma m sqrt[(c^2 - u'v)^2]/(u^2/c^2 - 1) becomes the incorrect E=\gamma(v)m(c^2-uv)/sqrt(u*2/c^2-1) that Dono so craves is true in his
    dishonest heart of hearts. Too bad, he loses again.

    and that component goes negative for "tachyon" speeds u>c^2/v

    which proves it incorrect for tachyons.

    making you choke on your web of lies.

    Dono denigrates appeal to mathematical principles as "a 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

    Dono makes up lies and pretends they're true, like typical cranks. Dono is always
    making assertions that have no support whatever, like cranks.

    "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.

    :-)) Dono's repetitious nonsense is characteristic of the autistic cranks that infest this board. "I'm right and everyone else is wrong!"

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

    His dishonest assertion is wrecked by E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^ -1), which NEVER becomes negative over the ranges of applicability -infinity < u' < -c and
    c < u + infinity. By the Principle of Relativity, if E = mc^2/sqrt(u^/c^ - 1), then
    E' = mc^2/sqrt(h'^2/c^2 - 1), too.

    What IS incorrect is your insane crap paper, Gary. Choke on it.

    Says the mathematically-challenged liar who doesn't understand PoR, either.
    He has agreed that E = mc^2/sqrt(u^/c^ - 1) is correct for tachyons, but chokes on applying PoR to it. How's the gnat swarm, Dono?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu May 4 15:49:14 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu May 4 16:04:35 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 2:33:25 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^ -1), which NEVER
    becomes negative over the ranges of applicability -infinity < u' < -c and
    c < u + infinity.

    But p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^ -1) DOES change sign. Checkmate.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu May 4 16:01:16 2023
    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:

    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? 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 Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Dono. on Thu May 4 18:47:04 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 4:49:16 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

    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

    Now Dono claims telling the truth is "desperation" :-)

    The formalism is universal,

    Says the fool who makes up lies and pretends they're true. This is merely Dono's
    fantasy that he wishes to be true in his dishonest heart of hearts.

    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.

    Dono's projecting again. The repulsiveness is wafting up from his armpits.

    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".

    ??? Dono is frantically trying to post three times for my one and making more asinine assertions. 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).

    It might help as a reminder for Alzheimer's Dono that p' in P' = \eta P is

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

    I already pointed this out to Dono. He's so befuddled he now tries to present it as
    his revolutionary idea :-)) This is so sophomoric that it hardly needs mentioning.
    p'=mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2-1) only changes sign when u' changes sign, EXACTLY as any physicist would expect for a particle moving in the opposite direction. Dono just
    flunked Physics 101.

    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. This is an important reason why the "reinterpretation" procedure is wrong.

    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 thread and DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101

    WolframAlpha showed why you are a c-grade student, remember crank Harnagel?

    Crank Dono is hallucinating again :-)) And he doubles down on it in a third post. Does
    he get two F's now?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu May 4 19:41:55 2023
    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)
    You are so frantic to cover up your imbecilities you pile up fresh ones on top of the old ones.

    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, as pointed out in this insane thread thread and in my crap paper published by the predatory journal


    So, 5 imbecilities in one post by crank Gary Harnagel. I should have split the answer in 5 posts . Enjoy the thrashing, utter crank!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Dono. on Fri May 5 05:23:46 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:41:57 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

    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.....

    Says the math-challenged refugee from remedial math classes

    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)

    Wrong. Dono wrote, "The energy component for "tachyons" would be E=\gamma(v)m(c^2-uv)/sqrt(u*2/c^2-1)"

    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 wrote, "Well, one can make the same exact argument (even stronger)
    against using E=mc*2/sqrt(u%2/c^2=1) for "tachyons".

    And then I wrote the above, "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]."

    So Dono dishonestly removes parts of the discussion that he finds
    inconvenient for his lies. P = [E/c, p] is the definition for 4MF, and E from earlier relativity is incorporated into it. Dono is pretending E can be defined
    from P, which is baloney. The supposed "imbecility" is in Dono's feverish brain.

    He is so frantic to cover up his imbecilities that his brain is exploding..

    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.

    This is a total lie. I pointed out in detail that Wolfram obeys PEMDAS, and that
    4MF applied to tachyons doesn't. Dono is math-incompetent and, like the cranks,
    returns to this demolished monomania like a dog to its vomit. The supposed imbecility" is in Dono's feverish brain.

    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

    Dono repeats this cranky nonsense because he identifies failure as success.

    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

    Although the 4MF yields negative E' for u > c^2/v, Dono didn't "point it out" to me.
    It's in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. 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. So Dono is trying to puff himself up by making himself appear more knowledgeable than he is.

    and the Lorentz transform produces negative momentum.

    And this is false, proving that Dono is math-incompetent. He also has Alzheimer's
    because I rubbed his nose in this before. The 4MF for p' applied to tachyons is
    p' = \gamma m(u - v)/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1). As anyone competent in high school algebra
    can see, given that u is always > c and v is always < c, p' NEVER changes sign wrt p.

    Any sane person (not Gary Harnagel) would conclude that "tachyons" do not exist
    due their schizo behavior.

    Clearly, the schizo behavior is in Dono's frenzied brain. Because he's mathematically
    incompetent, he faithfully believes he can ride a dead horse.

    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.

    Dono hastily plies his frantic agenda. 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.

    Once again, Dono is perpetrating the imbecility.

    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.

    Dono is responsible for this imbecility, too, because there IS a better physical
    description: simply moving the receiving element toward the tachyon source. This has been explained in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, and it has been explained to Dono several times, so there's no excuse for his Imbecility no. 4, except for his Alzheimer's and his dishonesty.

    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.

    Actually five imbecilities in one post by math-challenged, physics-denying, dishonest,
    delusional, demented Dono. Plus his infantile attempt to straw-man my post proves
    that he fails the Baloney Detection test. His frenzied brain must be ready to explode
    and split in two.

    ‘’E's chawin’ up the ground,
    An’ ’e’s kickin’ all around"
    -- Kipling

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Fri May 5 06:26:54 2023
    On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 5:23:47 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:


    Cretinism no. 1
    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."

    Cretinism no. 2

    Dono is pretending E can be defined
    from P, which is baloney.


    This is how four momentum is defined , lying piece of shit. Choke on this:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/vec4.html#c2






    Cretinism no. 3
    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.

    Meaning that "tachyons", are behaving schizo, just like crank Harnagel





    Cretinism no.4

    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
    Although 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.


    Cretinism no. 5
    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.

    Math is the language of physics, crank Harnagel. The reason the mathematical disagree is that the "tachyon" is an impossible proposition, crank Harnagel. Choke on it.

    Five cretinisms (at least) in one post by hardened crank Gary Harnagel.




    .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Fri May 5 08:07:08 2023
    On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 7:44:45 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    Only the math that has been confirmed
    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.

    Actually, YOUR arguments presented in your crap paper published in a predatory journal are incorrect.

    So the inconsistency of the math is a point in favor of my crankiness

    Absolutely. Keep it up, dumbfuck!





    If the math is right, then my crap paper proves that tachyons don't exist

    You managed to proved yourself wrong. Multiple times, Repeatedly. Keep it up, dumbfuck!





    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

    BOTH arguments against your nuttiness are valid. Choke on it, crank Harnagel!


    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.

    Yep, keep it up, dumbfuck! Keep them Sunday comics coming.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sat May 6 06:52:40 2023
    On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 9:07:10 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

    [Infantile and intellectually-dishonest yammerings deleted]

    Dono's dishonesty is legendary. Or maybe he truly believes
    he's telling the truth, but that's hard to believe when he asserts
    that communication is "not about receivers (or transmitters)."
    Dono often just makes stuff up and pretends it's true.

    Dono has sunk to the lowest level of debate, as explained in https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

    Dono consistently uses #1: argumentum ad hominem, attacking
    the arguer rather than the argument. This is closely associated
    with #18: straw man, caricaturing a position to make it easier to
    attack. Calling the arguer a "crank" (and worse) is ad hominem,
    but it is a straw man because it besmirches the position of the arguer.

    Dono has claimed that the 4MF is correct over the whole range of
    -\infty < u < +\infty and has also claimed it doesn't cover u > c
    because u' has a singularity at u = c^2/v. This is #10: Inconsistency.

    His arguments are also laced with non sequitur (#11), false
    dichotomy (#14), half-truths (#19) and weasel words (#20).

    IOW, his posts are replete with the baloney Sagan admonishes
    against. His negativity is excessive and is likely a detriment
    to his long-term health.

    https://www.webmd.com/balance/features/give-your-body-boost-with-laughter

    "When you stop laughing, that’s when the trouble begins." -- Buddhist Monk

    Dono takes himself (and his assertions) much too seriously. His "laughter"
    is always at the expense of others.

    https://www.trackinghappiness.com/laugh-at-yourself/

    “Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is.” -- Richard P. Feynman

    Love and laugh at yourself. Good medicine.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sat May 6 08:06:06 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sat May 6 12:31:28 2023
    On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 9:06:08 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

    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.

    So math-incompetent Dono doesn't understand the range of u? What
    does he think it is? He doesn't say, of course, just screams, "inbecility,"
    as if that's an explanation. As I said, he's a baloney-spewer.

    The formalism is correct.

    He's either incompetent or a liar, neither of which is anything to be proud
    of (and ego is all Dono has to hang onto). The 4MF, like ALL mathematical expressions in physics, have a domain of applicability. E = \gamma mc^2
    it's -c < v < c. That's the domain of bradyons. There's the domain of luxons which have just c and -c, for which E = |p|c. In neither case does E ever become
    less than zero. The 4MF is considered to be a "definition" but definitions, like all mathematical expressions of physical reality, must agree with reality, or their domain of applicability must be limited to the range where they do agree.

    The 4MF, P = [E/c, p] and its transformation, P' = \eta P, was developed with reference to bradyons and luxons, so its efficacy in a different domain would need to be tested. Dono's assertion that it's correct without such examination is not logical.

    Just that "tachyons" exhibit violations,

    So Dono blames the message (the tachyon signal) rather than a failure of the mathematical function. Is that some kind of twisted logic? This violates Sagan's
    BDK for actions that SHOULD be taken:

    #4, Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of
    all the different ways in which it could be explained."

    Rather than considering even the possibility that the theory may have some kind of limitation in a new domain, Dono unfairly concludes that tachyons are the problem, not the mathematical function, and ignores other possibilities.

    Dono asserts without proof that P' = \eta P is included in the definition P = [E/c, p].
    This requires more than naked assertion. Basic relativity laws must be brought into play. The 4MF for non-luxons, E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - u^2/c^2). This is typically
    extended to tachyons (which have imaginary mass) to E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2), where m = |m_T)| for u > c. We've not considered that THIS might be the problem.
    So we have TWO hypotheses already: (1) P' = \eta P is incorrect for tachyons and
    (2) the expression for E (and p) is wrong. These must be investigated.

    as seen for the case of total energy.

    Dono fails to explain what he means by that. Apparently, he is referring to the fact
    that the transformation of P in the 4MF predicts that E' < 0 for u > c^2/v. The case
    must be investigated before hastily drawing inaccurate conclusions. Using the Principle of Relativity, if E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2) is correct in one inertial reference
    frame, then E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2) is correct in any other.

    Using u; = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2), E' can be DERIVED, rather than blithely going with
    P' = \eta P. When this is done correctly, it is found that E' NEVER goes negative:
    eta fails as the proper transformation for u > c^2/v. So Dono's hasty assertion is
    incorrect.

    "Tachyons" violate even the basic Lorentz transforms,

    It merely means that the LT has limitations. That's not surprising when they're
    extended to a new domain. Dono's hastiness to choose one possibility over another indicates his biased mindset.

    as seen for the case of momentum.

    Once again, Dono fails to explain what he means. Apparently he is referring to the fact that p' reverses sign wrt p for the derivation using p' = mu'/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1)
    and u' = u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2). Dono is being dishonest here (or he's expressing his
    mathematical incompetency, or both), because in P' = \eta P the signs of p' and p
    do NOT change.

    Therefore "tachyons" do not exist.

    BDK: #11, non sequitur. More than one explanation is possible, and the other one
    takes precedent since Dono's "4MF is absolutely correct and E' < 0" assertion is
    proved to be false. All of this is clearly explained in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101,
    but because of Dono's momomania, math-incompetence and recalcitrance he is incapable of recognizing the logical conclusion: tachyons, if they exist, would not
    violate causality (Conclusion #5).

    Dono's atrocious behavior alone is sufficient to discredit him, but his factitious
    yammering sinks him lower than low. There is NO excuse for either.

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