On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 7:20:14 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:21:11 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Would traveling at c not give infinite kinetic energy?
> >
> > That's what theory says and what experiment confirms.
>
> Then why does it not happen?
> Every photon would have it.
> But clearly they do not.

E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4.

m = 0 for photons so E = pc. m > 0 for normal particles and
p = mv/(1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5, so particles where m <> 0 can't
travel at c.

> Only a finite energy manifests as real gary...
> How does an atom absorb infinite energy?

Infinity is an indication either the mathematics has exceeded its
usefulness or the condition never happens in reality.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com
>> > > Would traveling at c not give infinite kinetic energy?
>> >
>> > That's what theory says and what experiment confirms.
>>
>> Then why does it not happen? Every photon would have it.
>> But clearly they do not.
>
> E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4.
> m = 0 for photons so E = pc. m > 0 for normal particles and p = mv/(1 -
> v^2/c^2)^0.5, so particles where m <> 0 can't travel at c.

nonsense. Dr. Mitchel is correct again. A particle with ZERO mass is
absurd. Even photons have mass. A particle with zero mass would imply
existence 𝗼𝗳_𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀, which is absurd. Think again.

𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮'𝘀_𝗧𝗼𝗽_𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗸𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄_𝗛𝗼𝘀𝘁,_𝗝𝗲𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝗦𝗼𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘃_𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝘀_𝗚𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗪𝗵𝗼_𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/S874WW8JtP4w/

On 10/30/2023 3:20 PM, Derick Belohvostikov wrote:
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
>> On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com
>>>>> Would traveling at c not give infinite kinetic energy?
>>>>
>>>> That's what theory says and what experiment confirms.
>>>
>>> Then why does it not happen? Every photon would have it.
>>> But clearly they do not.
>>
>> E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4.
>> m = 0 for photons so E = pc. m > 0 for normal particles and p = mv/(1 -
>> v^2/c^2)^0.5, so particles where m <> 0 can't travel at c.
>
> nonsense. Dr. Mitchel is correct again. A particle with ZERO mass is
> absurd. Even photons have mass.

Are you sure about photons having mass?

A particle with zero mass would imply
> existence 𝗼𝗳_𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀, which is absurd. Think again.
>
> 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮'𝘀_𝗧𝗼𝗽_𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗸𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄_𝗛𝗼𝘀𝘁,_𝗝𝗲𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝗦𝗼𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘃_𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝘀_𝗚𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗪𝗵𝗼_𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹
> https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/S874WW8JtP4w/

On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 4:44:54 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
> On 10/30/2023 3:20 PM, Derick Belohvostikov wrote:
> >
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4.
> > > m = 0 for photons so E = pc. m > 0 for normal particles and p = mv/(1 -
> > > v^2/c^2)^0.5, so particles where m <> 0 can't travel at c.
> >
> > nonsense. Dr. Mitchel is correct again. A particle with ZERO mass is
> > absurd. Even photons have mass.
>
> Are you sure about photons having mass?

Of course he's sure :-)

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

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

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
-- Bertrand Russell

> > A particle with zero mass would imply
> > existence 𝗼𝗳_𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀, which is absurd. Think again.

The existence of a particle with zero mass does NOT imply the existence
of particles with negative mass.

I thought. You didn't.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> > nonsense. Dr. Mitchel is correct again. A particle with ZERO mass is
>> > absurd. Even photons have mass.
>> Are you sure about photons having mass?
> Of course he's sure
> “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
> so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
> -- Bertrand Russell
>
>> > A particle with zero mass would imply existence 𝗼𝗳_𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀,
>> > which is absurd. Think again.
>
> The existence of a particle with zero mass does NOT imply the existence
> of particles with negative mass.

you don't undrestand the relationship because you are an 𝘂𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱
𝘂𝗻𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗼𝘁. Moreover, you can't even assign energy to a particle with
zero mass. A true scientist would know that the photon has a𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹
𝗻𝗼𝗻_𝘇𝗲𝗿𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀.

Highlights
Mathematically the rest mass of photons is complex number when comes
in contact with the surface of matter.
Mass depends upon scalar curvature of the surface of matter and
wavelength of the photon.
Photon itself reveals illusion posing with mass on the surface of
matter because of wave-particle duality.

On October 30, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > Are you sure about photons having mass?
>
> Of course he's sure :-)
>
> “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
> so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
> -- Bertrand Russell

Is Mr. Russell sure about that?

--
Rich

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:47:08 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:
>
> On October 30, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > Are you sure about photons having mass?
> >
> > Of course he's sure :-)
> >
> > “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
> > so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
> > -- Bertrand Russell
>
> Is Mr. Russell sure about that?
>
> --
> Rich

Good point!

“‎When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often a moment of
judgement. We point our fingers when we want to scold someone, point
out what they have done wrong. But each time we point, we simultaneously
point three fingers back at ourselves.” – Christopher Pike

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:44:01 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> On 2023-10-26 16:01:21 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
>
> > I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic
> > communication and the limitations thereof.
> The most important limitations are that there is no known way to create
> tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there
> is no good idea about where to look for such methods.

Indeed.

A few moments of thought would show that for a tachyon, with imaginary
mass, to be emitted by a particle of ordinary matter with real mass, the
tachyon cannot be emitted singly, but rather as one of a pair of tachyons
with opposite imaginary sign, otherwise the emitting particle would be left
with complex valued mass, which quite frankly, gives me a headache to
try to imagine what properties it might have.

However, in beta emission, neutrinos are emitted singly. Therefore,
neutrinos are not tachyons. Neutrino masses must be real-valued.

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 4:50:38 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:44:01 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-10-26 16:01:21 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
> > >
> > > I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic
> > > communication and the limitations thereof.
> >
> > The most important limitations are that there is no known way to create
> > tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there
> > is no good idea about where to look for such methods.
>
> Indeed.
>
> A few moments of thought would show that for a tachyon, with imaginary
> mass, to be emitted by a particle of ordinary matter with real mass, the
> tachyon cannot be emitted singly, but rather as one of a pair of tachyons
> with opposite imaginary sign, otherwise the emitting particle would be left
> with complex valued mass, which quite frankly, gives me a headache to
> try to imagine what properties it might have.
>
> However, in beta emission, neutrinos are emitted singly. Therefore,
> neutrinos are not tachyons. Neutrino masses must be real-valued.

Hi PCH, I'm glad you decided to contributed to the discussion.

In physics, it seems to me that energy is the quantity that is important, not mass.
This was pounded into my head during my Orals and, of course, I've never
forgotten it. Conservation laws are the sine qua non of physics, and I can't think
of any conservation law that would apply to mass since it is equivalent to energy.
Can you?

As a contrary example, two particles which have m > 0 (bradyons) can interact
and create two particles which have m = 0 (luxons). It's energy and spin that's
conserved, not type of mass.

Got any more misgivings?

“I never learned from a man that agreed with me.” – Robert A. Heinlein

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 9:11:35 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 4:50:38 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:44:01 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2023-10-26 16:01:21 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
> > > >
> > > > I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic
> > > > communication and the limitations thereof.
> > >
> > > The most important limitations are that there is no known way to create
> > > tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there
> > > is no good idea about where to look for such methods.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > A few moments of thought would show that for a tachyon, with imaginary
> > mass, to be emitted by a particle of ordinary matter with real mass, the
> > tachyon cannot be emitted singly, but rather as one of a pair of tachyons
> > with opposite imaginary sign, otherwise the emitting particle would be left
> > with complex valued mass, which quite frankly, gives me a headache to
> > try to imagine what properties it might have.
> >
> > However, in beta emission, neutrinos are emitted singly. Therefore,
> > neutrinos are not tachyons. Neutrino masses must be real-valued.
> Hi PCH, I'm glad you decided to contributed to the discussion.
>
> In physics, it seems to me that energy is the quantity that is important, not mass.
> This was pounded into my head during my Orals and, of course, I've never
> forgotten it. Conservation laws are the sine qua non of physics, and I can't think
> of any conservation law that would apply to mass since it is equivalent to energy.
> Can you?
>
> As a contrary example, two particles which have m > 0 (bradyons) can interact
> and create two particles which have m = 0 (luxons). It's energy and spin that's
> conserved, not type of mass.
>
> Got any more misgivings?

Other than the fact that you COMPLETELY IGNORED what I had to say.
How can a single neutrino of supposedly complex mass be emitted in
beta decay rather than a neutrino antineutrino pair? As you state,
mass-energy needs to be conserved, and is is true even if mass is complex.

It's also rather interesting if you draw a spacetime diagram illustrating
how an FTL particle and a normal particle might interact. I'm sure that
Mikko on this thread would know what I am getting at, in addition to an
unknown number of lurkers.

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 11:39:51 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 9:11:35 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 4:50:38 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > >
> > > A few moments of thought would show that for a tachyon, with imaginary
> > > mass, to be emitted by a particle of ordinary matter with real mass, the
> > > tachyon cannot be emitted singly, but rather as one of a pair of tachyons
> > > with opposite imaginary sign, otherwise the emitting particle would be left
> > > with complex valued mass, which quite frankly, gives me a headache to
> > > try to imagine what properties it might have.
> > >
> > > However, in beta emission, neutrinos are emitted singly. Therefore,
> > > neutrinos are not tachyons. Neutrino masses must be real-valued.
> >
> > Hi PCH, I'm glad you decided to contributed to the discussion.
> >
> > In physics, it seems to me that energy is the quantity that is important, not mass.
> > This was pounded into my head during my Orals and, of course, I've never
> > forgotten it. Conservation laws are the sine qua non of physics, and I can't think
> > of any conservation law that would apply to mass since it is equivalent to energy.
> > Can you?
> >
> > As a contrary example, two particles which have m > 0 (bradyons) can interact
> > and create two particles which have m = 0 (luxons). It's energy and spin that's
> > conserved, not type of mass.
> >
> > Got any more misgivings?
>
> Other than the fact that you COMPLETELY IGNORED what I had to say.

Ummm, I think I answered your objection rather well, so I don't understand how
I have ignored your words.
> How can a single neutrino of supposedly complex mass be emitted in
> beta decay rather than a neutrino antineutrino pair? As you state,
> mass-energy needs to be conserved, and is is true even if mass is complex..

Yes, mass-energy needs to be conserved, not mass by itself and not energy
by itself. IOW, E"2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4. For the three purported classes of
matter, bradyons have m^2 > 0, luxons have m^2 = 0 and for tachyonshave
m^2 < 0. To what conservation law are you appealing that requires your claim
to be valid?

> It's also rather interesting if you draw a spacetime diagram illustrating
> how an FTL particle and a normal particle might interact. I'm sure that
> Mikko on this thread would know what I am getting at, in addition to an
> unknown number of lurkers.

Well, I don't know what you're getting at, PCH. People have drawn such
diagrams ad infinitim without any apparent difficulty (other than ignoring
the fact that any given such diagram is from the perspective of that frame,
and coming to false conclusions because of the relativity of simultaneity).
Perhaps you could enlighten me with more detail?

On Wednesday, 1 November 2023 at 13:18:36 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 11:39:51 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 9:11:35 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 4:50:38 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A few moments of thought would show that for a tachyon, with imaginary
> > > > mass, to be emitted by a particle of ordinary matter with real mass, the
> > > > tachyon cannot be emitted singly, but rather as one of a pair of tachyons
> > > > with opposite imaginary sign, otherwise the emitting particle would be left
> > > > with complex valued mass, which quite frankly, gives me a headache to
> > > > try to imagine what properties it might have.
> > > >
> > > > However, in beta emission, neutrinos are emitted singly. Therefore,
> > > > neutrinos are not tachyons. Neutrino masses must be real-valued.
> > >
> > > Hi PCH, I'm glad you decided to contributed to the discussion.
> > >
> > > In physics, it seems to me that energy is the quantity that is important, not mass.
> > > This was pounded into my head during my Orals and, of course, I've never
> > > forgotten it. Conservation laws are the sine qua non of physics, and I can't think
> > > of any conservation law that would apply to mass since it is equivalent to energy.
> > > Can you?
> > >
> > > As a contrary example, two particles which have m > 0 (bradyons) can interact
> > > and create two particles which have m = 0 (luxons). It's energy and spin that's
> > > conserved, not type of mass.
> > >
> > > Got any more misgivings?
> >
> > Other than the fact that you COMPLETELY IGNORED what I had to say.
> Ummm, I think I answered your objection rather well, so I don't understand how
> I have ignored your words.

Maybe he COMPLETELY IGNORED what you had to say.
Relativistic idiots always do.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> > “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
>> > always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
>> > -- Bertrand Russell
>>
>> Is Mr. Russell sure about that? -- Rich
>
> Good point!
> “‎When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often a moment of
> judgement. We point our fingers when we want to scold someone, point out
> what they have done wrong. But each time we point, we simultaneously
> point three fingers back at ourselves.” – Christopher Pike

you see too many movies. What kind of fucking mathematician are you, not
undrestanding 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 and 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗺 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀. What a disgrace.

On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:00:17 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail..com wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 7:20:14 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:21:11 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Would traveling at c not give infinite kinetic energy?
> > >
> > > That's what theory says and what experiment confirms.
> >
> > Then why does it not happen?
> > Every photon would have it.
> > But clearly they do not.
> E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4.

You are an EGG gary... How does that prove infinite energy can exist?

> m = 0 for photons so E = pc. m > 0 for normal particles and
> p = mv/(1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5, so particles where m <> 0 can't
> travel at c.
> > Only a finite energy manifests as real gary...
> > How does an atom absorb infinite energy?
> Infinity is an indication either the mathematics has exceeded its
> usefulness or the condition never happens in reality.

There is no manifestation of infinite energy of light or particle...
Time has never stopped either. never will...

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 9:05:46 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail..com wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:00:17 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Then why does it not happen?
> > > Every photon would have it.
> > > But clearly they do not.
> >
> > E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4.
/ > You are an EGG gary... How does that prove infinite energy can exist?

You seem to be the only one claiming that :-)

> > m = 0 for photons so E = pc. m > 0 for normal particles and
> > p = mv/(1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5, so particles where m <> 0 can't
> > travel at c.
> >
> > > Only a finite energy manifests as real gary...
> > > How does an atom absorb infinite energy?
> >
> > Infinity is an indication either the mathematics has exceeded its
> > usefulness or the condition never happens in reality.
>
> There is no manifestation of infinite energy of light or particle...

And now you're making more sense.

> Time has never stopped either. never will...

Unless you're a photon :-))

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 5:58:59 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 9:05:46 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:00:17 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Then why does it not happen?
> > > > Every photon would have it.
> > > > But clearly they do not.
> > >
> > > E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4.
> /
> > You are an EGG gary... How does that prove infinite energy can exist?
> You seem to be the only one claiming that :-)

How is your equation showing it gary?

> > > m = 0 for photons so E = pc. m > 0 for normal particles and
> > > p = mv/(1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5, so particles where m <> 0 can't
> > > travel at c.
> > >
> > > > Only a finite energy manifests as real gary...
> > > > How does an atom absorb infinite energy?
> > >
> > > Infinity is an indication either the mathematics has exceeded its
> > > usefulness or the condition never happens in reality.

Infinite energy math shows it does not exist.

> >
> > There is no manifestation of infinite energy of light or particle...
> And now you're making more sense.
> > Time has never stopped either. never will...
> Unless you're a photon :-))

How much kinetic energy does it have?

Light waves and moves in time.
Nothing has still time.

Mitchell Raemsch

On October 31, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> Of course he's sure :-)
>>> “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
>>> so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
>>> -- Bertrand Russell
>
>> Is Mr. Russell sure about that?
>
> Good point!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EQBbYoJXCU

When it comes to philosophy, I'll take Moe, Larry and Curly over Bertie any day -

--
Rich

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:18:36 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 11:39:51 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> > Other than the fact that you COMPLETELY IGNORED what I had to say.
> Ummm, I think I answered your objection rather well, so I don't understand how
> I have ignored your words.

You failed to think things through.

> > How can a single neutrino of supposedly complex mass be emitted in
> > beta decay rather than a neutrino antineutrino pair? As you state,
> > mass-energy needs to be conserved, and is is true even if mass is complex.
> Yes, mass-energy needs to be conserved, not mass by itself and not energy
> by itself. IOW, E"2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4. For the three purported classes of
> matter, bradyons have m^2 > 0, luxons have m^2 = 0 and for tachyonshave
> m^2 < 0. To what conservation law are you appealing that requires your claim
> to be valid?
> > It's also rather interesting if you draw a spacetime diagram illustrating
> > how an FTL particle and a normal particle might interact. I'm sure that
> > Mikko on this thread would know what I am getting at, in addition to an
> > unknown number of lurkers.
> Well, I don't know what you're getting at, PCH. People have drawn such
> diagrams ad infinitim without any apparent difficulty (other than ignoring
> the fact that any given such diagram is from the perspective of that frame,
> and coming to false conclusions because of the relativity of simultaneity).
> Perhaps you could enlighten me with more detail?

Consider my Figure 3-12a section in "Energy_and_momentum_conservation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Energy_and_momentum_conservation
I drew this in the rest frame of the negative pion. The pion decays into a muon,
emitting an antineutrino. To conserve momentum, the muon has an equal and
opposite momentum as that of the antineutrino. If, as you suppose, the
antineutrino were a tachyon, its momentum would be imaginary. Therefore the
muon's momentum would also be imaginary, which doesn't make any sense.
Muons are not tachyons.

If you explore spacetime diagrams further, you would see that a general
implication of the hypothesis that tachyons could be absorbed or emitted by
matter would be that tachyons trigger matter instability. I'll leave you to work
out why this must be so.

*Scattering* of tachyons without absorption remains a possibility, as would
decay of matter into tachyon *pairs". But since the tachyons would be
undetectable, decay of a particle into a tachyon pair would mean that so far
as our instruments could tell, a particle of matter would have winked out of
existence.

On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 8:43:25 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:18:36 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 11:39:51 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> > > Other than the fact that you COMPLETELY IGNORED what I had to say.
> >
> > Ummm, I think I answered your objection rather well, so I don't understand how
> > I have ignored your words.
>
> You failed to think things through.

Au contraire.

> > > How can a single neutrino of supposedly complex mass be emitted in
> > > beta decay rather than a neutrino antineutrino pair? As you state,
> > > mass-energy needs to be conserved, and is is true even if mass is complex.
> >
> > Yes, mass-energy needs to be conserved, not mass by itself and not energy
> > by itself. IOW, E"2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4. For the three purported classes of
> > matter, bradyons have m^2 > 0, luxons have m^2 = 0 and for tachyonshave
> > m^2 < 0. To what conservation law are you appealing that requires your claim
> > to be valid?

None?

> > > It's also rather interesting if you draw a spacetime diagram illustrating
> > > how an FTL particle and a normal particle might interact. I'm sure that
> > > Mikko on this thread would know what I am getting at, in addition to an
> > > unknown number of lurkers.
> >
> > Well, I don't know what you're getting at, PCH. People have drawn such
> > diagrams ad infinitim without any apparent difficulty (other than ignoring
> > the fact that any given such diagram is from the perspective of that frame,
> > and coming to false conclusions because of the relativity of simultaneity).
> > Perhaps you could enlighten me with more detail?
>
> Consider my Figure 3-12a section in "Energy_and_momentum_conservation"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Energy_and_momentum_conservation
> I drew this in the rest frame of the negative pion. The pion decays into a muon,
> emitting an antineutrino. To conserve momentum, the muon has an equal and
> opposite momentum as that of the antineutrino. If, as you suppose, the
> antineutrino were a tachyon, its momentum would be imaginary. Therefore the
> muon's momentum would also be imaginary, which doesn't make any sense.
> Muons are not tachyons.

Not so, Prok. Certainly, tachyon mass is imaginary, and p = mv/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
However, since v > c, the denominator is also imaginary, which cancels out the
imaginary in the numerator. Thus tachyon momentum is real, not imaginary.

This was discussed by Bilaniuk et al in their seminal paper over 60 years ago.

> If you explore spacetime diagrams further, you would see that a general
> implication of the hypothesis that tachyons could be absorbed or emitted by
> matter would be that tachyons trigger matter instability. I'll leave you to work
> out why this must be so.

Scattering and absorption is a matter of energy and momentum. Tachyons
have real energy and real momentum.

> *Scattering* of tachyons without absorption remains a possibility, as would
> decay of matter into tachyon *pairs". But since the tachyons would be
> undetectable, decay of a particle into a tachyon pair would mean that so far
> as our instruments could tell, a particle of matter would have winked out of
> existence.

I thought we had settled the issue of "invisible" tachyons with your last post.
Even if their velocity is beyond the c^2/v limit, they can still be detected.

The method is to move the receiver toward the tachyon source, of course. Then the
tachyons will have real, positive energy with respect to the receiver. The observer
can then interrogate the receiver and find that nothing has "winked out of existence."
It's analogous to the case where a beta decay in tritium occurs, wherein a neutron
decays creating a proton and an electron -- but the conservation of energy and
momentum demands the existence of a third "invisible" particle to balance conservation
requirements. We don't have the means to detect that third particle, but that doesn't
mean that particle is nonexistent. If we had the proper instrumentation, we would detect
it.

Gary

Le 19/12/2023 à 01:08, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
> On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 8:43:25 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:18:36 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 11:39:51 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase
>> Homolog wrote:
>>
>> > > Other than the fact that you COMPLETELY IGNORED what I had to say.
>> >
>> > Ummm, I think I answered your objection rather well, so I don't understand how
>> > I have ignored your words.
>>
>> You failed to think things through.
>
> Au contraire.
>
>> > > How can a single neutrino of supposedly complex mass be emitted in
>> > > beta decay rather than a neutrino antineutrino pair? As you state,
>> > > mass-energy needs to be conserved, and is is true even if mass is complex.
>> >
>> > Yes, mass-energy needs to be conserved, not mass by itself and not energy
>> > by itself. IOW, E"2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4. For the three purported classes of
>> > matter, bradyons have m^2 > 0, luxons have m^2 = 0 and for tachyonshave
>> > m^2 < 0. To what conservation law are you appealing that requires your claim
>> > to be valid?
>
> None?
>
>> > > It's also rather interesting if you draw a spacetime diagram illustrating
>> > > how an FTL particle and a normal particle might interact. I'm sure that
>> > > Mikko on this thread would know what I am getting at, in addition to an
>> > > unknown number of lurkers.
>> >
>> > Well, I don't know what you're getting at, PCH. People have drawn such
>> > diagrams ad infinitim without any apparent difficulty (other than ignoring
>> > the fact that any given such diagram is from the perspective of that frame,
>> > and coming to false conclusions because of the relativity of simultaneity).
>> > Perhaps you could enlighten me with more detail?
>>
>> Consider my Figure 3-12a section in "Energy_and_momentum_conservation"
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Energy_and_momentum_conservation
>> I drew this in the rest frame of the negative pion. The pion decays into a muon,
>> emitting an antineutrino. To conserve momentum, the muon has an equal and
>> opposite momentum as that of the antineutrino. If, as you suppose, the
>> antineutrino were a tachyon, its momentum would be imaginary. Therefore the
>> muon's momentum would also be imaginary, which doesn't make any sense.
>> Muons are not tachyons.
>
> Not so, Prok. Certainly, tachyon mass is imaginary, and p = mv/sqrt(1 -
> v^2/c^2).
> However, since v > c, the denominator is also imaginary, which cancels out the
> imaginary in the numerator. Thus tachyon momentum is real, not imaginary.
>
> This was discussed by Bilaniuk et al in their seminal paper over 60 years ago.
>
>> If you explore spacetime diagrams further, you would see that a general
>> implication of the hypothesis that tachyons could be absorbed or emitted by
>> matter would be that tachyons trigger matter instability. I'll leave you to work
>> out why this must be so.
>
> Scattering and absorption is a matter of energy and momentum. Tachyons
> have real energy and real momentum.
>
>> *Scattering* of tachyons without absorption remains a possibility, as would
>> decay of matter into tachyon *pairs". But since the tachyons would be
>> undetectable, decay of a particle into a tachyon pair would mean that so far
>> as our instruments could tell, a particle of matter would have winked out of
>> existence.
>
> I thought we had settled the issue of "invisible" tachyons with your last post.
> Even if their velocity is beyond the c^2/v limit, they can still be detected.
>
> The method is to move the receiver toward the tachyon source, of course. Then
> the
> tachyons will have real, positive energy with respect to the receiver. The
> observer
> can then interrogate the receiver and find that nothing has "winked out of
> existence."
> It's analogous to the case where a beta decay in tritium occurs, wherein a
> neutron
> decays creating a proton and an electron -- but the conservation of energy and
> momentum demands the existence of a third "invisible" particle to balance
> conservation
> requirements. We don't have the means to detect that third particle, but that
> doesn't
> mean that particle is nonexistent. If we had the proper instrumentation, we
> would detect
> it.
>
> Gary

Tachyons does not exist.

C'est une absurdité.

Ceux qui pense que cela peut exister n'ont absolument rien compris à la
théorie de la relativité.

Ce sont des idiots.

Et parmi eux, des scientifiques de renom qui feraient mieux d'ouvrir un
petit commerce de campagne dans le Nevada.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Tachyons do[es] not exist.

Peut etre.

> C'est une absurdité.

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

“In order to attain the impossible, one must attempt the absurd.” – Miguel de Cervantes

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

“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible,
he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he
is very probably wrong.” -- Arthur C. Clarke

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

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

“Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible. I think it's
in my basement... let me go upstairs and check.” – M. C. Escher

“I’m right and you’re wrong.” – Everyone on the internet

Ceux qui pense que cela peut exister n'ont absolument rien compris à la
théorie de la relativité.

Ce sont des idiots.

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd.” -- Bertrand Russell

What is absurd is that, in a universe extending over billions of lightyears,
it take over billions of years to traverse it.

Et parmi eux, des scientifiques de renom qui feraient mieux d'ouvrir un
petit commerce de campagne dans le Nevada.

R.H.

Speak for yourself, Doctor Hachel :-))

Consider the neutrino. Its mass is not zero, but it's many orders of magnitude
less than the next particle with mass. And its interaction cross section is
orders of magnitude less than any other particle.

C'est deux absurdités, oui? Deux absurdités, pourquoi pas trois?

Le 19/12/2023 à 14:42, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:

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

> Speak for yourself, Doctor Hachel :-))

There are two kinds of absurdities, certain absurdities, and apparent
absurdities.

Saying “there are tachyons”, “there are round squares”, “There
is a number between 8 and 9”, these are certain absurdities.

To say as Hachel says: "Sometimes the whole can be less than the sum of
the parts", is only an apparent absurdity.

If I take for example all the small segments of proper time during an
accelerated trip to Tau Ceti (x=12ly, a=1.025ly/y²) and add them up, I
get the total proper time of the trip. But on the other hand, if I take
all the small improper time segments (terrestrial time), I notice with
amazement that the sum of the time segments is greater than the totality
of the measured time.

This seems absolutely absurd, and I am absolutely certain that physicists
around the world would give up if I spoke to them like that.

Yet this absurdity is only apparent.

Doctor Hachel is right.

The problem then becomes human: "Other people don't think like me.
THEREFORE he's a moron."

Where is the rule for judging?

Theoretical beauty, theoretical precision, clear explanations,
experimental proofs? I have all that, more than them.

This story of tachyons is physically absurd, and the abstract idea that we
have of it, and that we believe we can impose, shows that we are in
complete ignorance.

R.H.

R. Hachel wrote:
>
> There are two kinds of absurdities, certain absurdities, and apparent
> absurdities.
>
> Saying “there are tachyons”, “there are round squares”, “There is a
> number between 8 and 9”, these are certain absurdities.

The only (possibly) "certain" absurdity you assert is that “there are
> round squares”

There ARE an infinity of numbers between 8 and 9, so that is only an
apparent absurdity. As for tachyons, "absence of proof is not proof
of absence."

> To say as Hachel says: "Sometimes the whole can be less than the sum of
> the parts", is only an apparent absurdity.
>
> If I take for example all the small segments of proper time during an
> accelerated trip to Tau Ceti (x=12ly, a=1.025ly/y²) and add them up, I
> get the total proper time of the trip. But on the other hand, if I take
> all the small improper time segments (terrestrial time), I notice with
> amazement that the sum of the time segments is greater than the totality
> of the measured time.
> This seems absolutely absurd, and I am absolutely certain that physicists
> around the world would give up if I spoke to them like that.
>
> Yet this absurdity is only apparent.
> Doctor Hachel is right.

Nope. This is a THIRD kind of absurdity. This kind happens when the purveyor
is either confused or devious.

> The problem then becomes human: "Other people don't think like me.
> THEREFORE he's a moron."
>
> Where is the rule for judging?

Why should you judge at all when the vision is unclear?

> Theoretical beauty, theoretical precision, clear explanations,
> experimental proofs? I have all that, more than them.

I see no beauty in your argument, nor precision, nor proof.
Ya got nuttin', Doc.

> This story of tachyons is physically absurd,

An unsubstantiated assertion. You have provided no proof.

> and the abstract idea that we have of it, and that we believe
> we can impose, shows that we are in complete ignorance.
>
> R.H.

Apparently, YOU are in complete ignorance of the arguments for
the existence of tachyons. First, read

Bilaniuk O. M. P., Deshpande V. K., Sudarshan E. C. G. ,
“’Meta’ Relativity,” American Journal of Physics, 30, pp.
718-723, 1962. DOI: 10.1119/1.1941773.

Then, to really get into it, try

Ehrlich, R., “Tachyonic neutrinos and the neutrino masses,”
Astropart. Phys., 41, pp. 1-6, 2013.
DOI:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.09.009.

Ehrlich, R., “Six observations consistent with the electron
neutrino being a tachyon with mass: m^2_νe = −0.11 ± 0.016 eV^2,”
Astropart. Phys., 66, pp. 11-17, 2015.
DOI: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.12.011.

Schwartz, C., “Tachyon dynamics— for neutrinos?” Int. J. of
Modern Phys. A, 33, pp. 1-23, 2018.
DOI:10.1142/S0217751X18500562.

Schwartz, C., “Revised theory of tachyons in general relativity.”
Modern Physics Letters A, 32, pp. 1750126(1-6), 2017.
DOI: 10.1142/S0217732317501267

These were some of the references referred to in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, which refuted some of the claims
that tachyons cannot exist. So, Dr. H, you are late, very late,
to the party.

Le 19/12/2023 à 20:59, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

> So, Dr. H, you are late, very late to the party.

Les tachyons ne peuvent pas exister.

C'est ce que disiant beaucoup de physiciens des temsp modernes, et c'est
ce que le docteur Hachel aussi a toujours dit.

Ce n'est pas un problème de technologie, ou de preuve expérimentale.

C'est un problème de logique pure.

Comme c'est une évidence de logique pure que de dire que les carrés
ronds n'existent pas, qu'une eau déshydratée est une absurdité, ou
qu'une teinte blanche écarlate est un non sens.

Toutes ces choses ne sont que des abstractions et créations mentales
ridicules.

Si vous ne comprenez pas pourquoi les tachions ne peuvent pas exister,
c'est que vous n'avez pas compris correctement, VOUS, la théorie de la
relativité.

Personnellement, je l'ai étudié pendant quarante ans et pendant des
milliers d'heures, cherchant à comprendre pourquoi il s'y trouvait des
paradoxes, voire des absurdités, et la centaines d'équations que j'ai
trouvées, ou retrouvées, me donnent le droit de parler de ce que je
comprends parfaitement et beaucoup mieux que vous.

R.H.

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 7:20:14 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:>
> On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:21:11 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Would traveling at c not give infinite kinetic energy?
>
> That's what theory says and what experiment confirms.
>
> > Then why does it not happen?
> > Every photon would have it.
> > But clearly they do not.
> > Only a finite energy manifests as real gary...
> > How does an atom absorb infinite energy?
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch

Photons have no mass, Mitch, so they never have infinite
energy, even at speed c. Atoms have mass, so they can
never be accelerated to c.