gharnagel 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.
>> > 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.

once again, there is no "zero" in this universe, me friend. You too are
extremely hard to convince. Here we go.

𝗨𝗦_𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗯𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘁
Colorado judges claimed the former president committed “insurrection”
https://r%74.com/news/589354-trump-colorado-ballot-ban/

Welcome to democracy US style. Make an allegation and get rid of your
major contender.

Another proof that USA is a dictatorship and a Banana Republic.... Not a
surprise.

𝗡𝗢_𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗥𝗬_𝗙𝗢𝗥_𝗢𝗟𝗗_𝗠𝗘𝗡
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/t3r0nb3y5iFy

𝗙𝗟𝗢𝗢𝗗_𝗢𝗙_𝗡𝗔𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗚_𝗜𝗡_𝗧𝗛𝗘_𝗖𝗜𝗧𝗬_𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗖𝗜𝗟_𝗢𝗙_𝗦𝗔𝗖𝗥𝗔𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗢
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/DlRrcqrrBHZT

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:38:48 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because
> > their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20%
> > probability that the mass is imaginary.
>
> Dono wrote:
>
> Repeating your same misconceptions about the KATRIN experiments doesn't
> make them true, it makes you a hardened crank.

They're not just "my misconceptions." I'm merely the messenger of what
others have claimed. Dono is too focused on labeling me a "crank" rather
than expanding his own hermetically-closed mind to let in some uncertainty.

"What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth."
-- Richard Feynman

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

> Unlike you, the mainstream physicists at KATRIN never claimed the mass
> being imaginary.

Of course they wouldn't! The Gran Sasso physicists got a black eye for
publishing their paper on neutrinos from CERN traveling faster-than-light
when it turned out to be a bad connector. They lost credibility, just as
any other experimentalist would who claimed something similar.

Theorists, OTOH, have more latitude, a fact that Dono tries to bury in
his attacks.

> > to prove that if they DO exist, they still cannot violate causality.
> > That's an important point because a conventional view held by most
> > physicists is that they cannot exist because they DO violate causality.

Unlike you crank misconceptions, mainstream physicists know better.

Mainstream experimental physicists dare not repeat the Gran Sasso fiasco.
Theoretical physicists such as Charles Schwartz, Alan Chodos, Erasmo
Recami, Robert Ehrlich, and others still investigate the possibility.
A recent special issue of Symmetry was dedicated to the subject:

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/symmetry/special_issues/tachyons_fundamental_symmetries

My paper, DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, casts very serious doubt on
some assertions about tachyons, particularly the use of flawed mathematics
to "prove" their nonexistence.
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd.” -- Bertrand Russell

"Prokaryotic Capace Homolog" wrote complete nonsense in his "rebuttal"
to 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. I corrected him a few messages back, but
he hasn't come forward and admitted his assertions about tachyons are
wildly misinformed. I usually find his posts useful and informative,
but not in this case. Everyone makes a gaff once in a while.

On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 8:16:53 AM UTC-6, gharnagel wrote:

> My paper, DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, casts very serious doubt on
> some assertions about tachyons, particularly the use of flawed mathematics
> to "prove" their nonexistence.
> “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
> that it is not utterly absurd.” -- Bertrand Russell
> "Prokaryotic Capace Homolog" wrote complete nonsense in his "rebuttal"
> to 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. I corrected him a few messages back, but
> he hasn't come forward and admitted his assertions about tachyons are
> wildly misinformed. I usually find his posts useful and informative,
> but not in this case. Everyone makes a gaff once in a while.

(facepalm)
Many of us have pointed out to you the elementary mistakes
that you have committed in your "papers", without you being
able to comprehend our arguments. As you age, you have
adopted the arrogant attitude of the typical crackpot. I took
a quick glance at your latest publication and you have not
learned a thing. Instead of wasting time in this madhouse, I
have been spending time on more productive projects . For
example, see my latest contribution to Wikipedia, on the
anthropic principle in relationship with the Gaia hypothesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis#Anthropic_principle

gharnagel wrote:

> They're not just "my misconceptions." I'm merely the messenger of what
> others have claimed. Dono is too focused on labeling me a "crank"
> rather than expanding his own hermetically-closed mind to let in some
> uncertainty.
>
> "What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth."
> -- Richard Feynman
>
> "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire

why are you so certain, then, wasting your seed??

𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻_𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁_𝗱𝗼𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘀_–_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗮𝗶𝗱𝗲
Men who fled abroad should have their residence permits revoked if they
evade service at home, Mikhail Podoliak has said
https://r%74.com/ru%73%73ia/589536-foreign-nations-sanction-ukrainian-draft-dodgers/

the 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀 of ukurina killed already everybody, now they need new
souls to kill. Unbelievable the impertinence. These criminals are just as
guilty like those doing 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗲.

The Ukrainian slavers are running short of victims.

This guy needs a good beating all the way to the front!

No they should be awarded medals for being sane and not wanting to die for
a bunch of Nazi's and their Western handlers.

Prokaryotic Capase H - Fri, 22 Dec 2023 09:44 wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
> > My paper, DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, casts very serious doubt on
> > some assertions about tachyons, particularly the use of flawed mathematics
> > to "prove" their nonexistence.
> > “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
> > that it is not utterly absurd.” -- Bertrand Russell
> > "Prokaryotic Capace Homolog" wrote complete nonsense in his "rebuttal"
> > to 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. I corrected him a few messages back, but
> > he hasn't come forward and admitted his assertions about tachyons are
> > wildly misinformed. I usually find his posts useful and informative,
> > but not in this case. Everyone makes a gaff once in a while.
>
> (facepalm)
> Many of us have pointed out to you the elementary mistakes
> that you have committed in your "papers", without you being
> able to comprehend our arguments.

(double facepalm)
Doubling down on your simplistic mistakes is not an encouraging sign, Prok.
It demonstrates that YOUR comprehension level is very low.
Mistake #1:
"> > > 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."

Answer:
Yes, mass-energy must be conserved, and it is conserved since tachyon energy
is real, not imaginary. You made the serious blunder of not understanding
the basic argument laid down in 1962 by Bilaniuk, Deshpande and Sudarshan:
that in order for energy to be real, mass must be imaginary for speeds greater
than c.
Mistake #2:
"> 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."

Answer:
Momentum, like energy is REAL for tachyons. p = mu/sqrt(1 - u^2/c^2), so when
|u| > c, the denominator is imaginary. Surely you know enough mathematics to
realize that i/i = 1.

Mistake #3:
"> 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."

Answer:
You brought up the "undetectabilty" argument right after the paper was published
(DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101). It's another of your canards, and I thought
we had settled the issue of "invisible" tachyons then because you went away and
never responded to my response. The answer is simple: 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. This was explained in the paper,
which, apparently, you never really tried to understand.

> As you age, you have adopted the arrogant attitude of the typical crackpot.

My, Prok, you're sounding more and more like Despicable Dono. I'm appalled!

> I took a quick glance at your latest publication

That should be a lesson to you not to make snap judgments.

> and you have not learned a thing.

Case of the pot calling the kettle black, Prok. I can understand that you
feel you have better things to do with your time, but you could have done
that with a bit of tact. It was totally unnecessary for you to make these
false accusations. Now you owe me a BIG apology, and you must now truly
read and understand DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 because you have impugned
not just me, but every tenured physicist who has advocated studying tachyons,
from Bilaniuk, Deshpande and Sudarshan through Chodos, Recami, Ehrlich and
Schwartz with many more in between. I expected better from you, Prok.

On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 6:16:53 AM UTC-8, gharnagel wrote:
> On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:38:48 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because
> > > their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20%
> > > probability that the mass is imaginary.
> >
> > Dono wrote:
> >
> > Repeating your same misconceptions about the KATRIN experiments doesn't
> > make them true, it makes you a hardened crank.
>
> They're not just "my misconceptions."

Sure they are , hardened crank. Now that the forum is closing, you are trying one last battempt to defend your crankeries.

> My crap paper, DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, casts very serious doubt on my sanity

Yep, it sure does.

> > Dono wrote:
> >
> > Repeating your same misconceptions about the KATRIN experiments doesn't
> > make them true, it makes you a hardened crank.
>
> They're not just "my misconceptions."

>
Sure they are ,

You're just wrapped up in your delusions, as usual. A previous post of mine
proves your dishonesty:

Apparently, YOU are conveniently in complete ignorance of the arguments for
the existence of tachyons:

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.

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

So, Dono's depiction of me is an attack on all those authors. Anyone
with nominal intelligence would agree.

> hardened crank.

Only in sophomoric Dono's fantasies.

> Now that the forum is closing,

google groups has degenerated over the years, allowing spamming
from philistines like Dono and recently unable to prevent all
kinds of spam. One of their "solutions" involved an "I'm not
a robot" screen which had no way to continue. I sent multitudes
of feedback messages to google for more than a month. I notice
it has, apparently, finally been fixed, but it's too little too
late. They seem to have been discouraging posting before they
made the announcement to shut down.

I was able to circumvent the problem be posting to novabbs that
has sci.physics.relativity board that connects with the google
group. My first act was to respond to Prok's uneducated comments
on DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. It was almost as bad as Dono's
malicious sideswipes which seldom have any clarification and are
wrong when they do.

> you are trying one last battempt

A "battempt"? Is Dono saying that I'm Batman?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman#/media/File:Keaton_as_Batman.jpg

> to defend your crankeries.

There is no need to defend DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 from
knowledgeable, intelligent and honest researchers. That
removes Dono from consideration on three counts.
> [Modifying quotes to cast aspersions proves Dono's dishonesty.]

Yep, it sure does. As for what I wrote:
"The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because
their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20%
probability that the mass is imaginary."

And Dono's assertion, "Repeating your same misconceptions about the
KATRIN experiments"

is laughable because Dono has proven by his previous posts that HE
fails to understand the beta decay experiments like KATRIN. Does
he believe that no measured data point had a negative m^2 result?
Perhaps he would present a proof of that?

But I have come to the conclusion that negative m^2 values do not
indicate the mass of a purported tachyon. Perhaps someone would
like to take a whack at explaining why they don't, even given that
tachyons actually exist.

On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 8:16:57 PM UTC-8, gharnagel wrote:
>As for the imbecility I wrote:
> "The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because
> their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20%
> probability that the mass is imaginary."
Simply put, you do not understand what m^2 means in Standard Model Extension. Being a hardened crank looking for support for your crackpot ideas, you will never learn.

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 9:01:24 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> (8) u' becomes asymptotic as u approaches c^2/v. Going beyond that
> is mathematically inappropriate.
>

Nature doesn't care about crank Gary Harnagel statements.

> (9) Tachyons with u > c^2/v can be detected by moving the receiver
> toward the tachyon source such that u' < c^2/v, which converts the
> situation to Method II.
>

Well, their ("tachyons") energy jumps from +infinity to -infinity. This is unphysical .

> (10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching
> frames in the middle of solving the problem.

No, these claims are based of pointing glaring errors in your Minkowski diagrams.

> Mannerly discussion requested.

One cannot have a mannerly discussion with a hardened crank (you)

> No response will be made to pejorative posts.
>
Yet, you keep answering. So, you have been lying all along.

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 3:50:38 PM UTC-7, 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.

1. According to some fringe physicists (Recami, Schwartz, Bilaniuk) that Gary likes to quote, tachyons MUST have imaginary mass.

2. No mainstream physicist claims that neutrino has imaginary mass, it is crank Gary Harnagel who keeps making this claim based on his personal oft repeated misinterpretation of KATRIN experiments and of the SME.

3. From 1 and 2 it follows that neutrino is not a tachyon.

On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 9:16:01 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 8:16:57 PM UTC-8, gharnagel wrote:
> >
> As for the imbecility I wrote:

Says Dono.

> > "The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because
> > their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20%
> > probability that the mass is imaginary."
>
> Simply put, you do not understand what m^2 means in Standard Model Extension.

Dono's modus operandi is to throw out a buzz word and pretend it somehow applies
to the discussion at hand, but gives no explanation of how it does so.. For example,
the SME is about Lorentz violation, e.g.,:

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9809521

Nothing about tachyons there, which is what this thread is all about.

> Being a hardened crank looking for support for your crackpot ideas, you will never learn.

Dono will never learn that bluster and buzz words do not a rebuttal make.

> > 8) u' becomes asymptotic as u approaches c^2/v. Going beyond that
> > is mathematically inappropriate.
>
> Nature doesn't care about crank Gary Harnagel statements.

Is Dono asserting that 1/(1 - uv/c^2) at the limit of u --> c^2/v is "natural"? One can never
tell what Dono means because he is always excessively and compulsively imprecise.

> > (9) Tachyons with u > c^2/v can be detected by moving the receiver
> > toward the tachyon source such that u' < c^2/v, which converts the
> > situation to Method II.
>
> Well, their ("tachyons") energy jumps from +infinity to -infinity.

This is an example of Dono being wrong when he tries to get "precise."
Neither E'/c = gamma*(E/c - vp/c), from the 4-momentum formalism,nor
E' = mc^/sqrt(1 - u'^2/c^2), from Lagrangian mechanics have discontinuities
in energy at the u = c^2/v point (we're talking about tachyons where u > c
and m is imaginary). E' moves smoothly through zero as u moves
through the c^2/v poini in the 4MF, and the other E' has an inflection at
E' = 0.

> This is unphysical .

I agree, and so does DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, but not by Dono's
reasoning. I explained that in my paper and Dono even referenced it:

"8) u' becomes asymptotic as u approaches c^2/v."

THAT is what's unphysical: u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2) for tachyons. Tachyons
must always travel in the same direction for all inertial observers, just like
light does, but the relativistic velocity composition equation reverses at
u = c^2/v.

So the domain of applicability of the RVC equation doesn't extend to regions
where u' goes to infinity.
> > (10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching
> > frames in the middle of solving the problem.
>
> No, these claims are based of pointing glaring errors in your Minkowski diagrams.

So Dono is claiming that David Morin and Erasmo Recami are wrong?

"An extremely important strategy in solving relativity problems is to plant
yourself in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts running through your head
should be what you observe. That is, don’t try to use reasoning along the lines
of, 'Well, the person I’m looking at in this other frame sees such-and-such.'
This will almost certainly cause an error somewhere along the way, because you
will inevitably end up writing down an equation that combines quantities that
are measured in different frames, which is a no-no. -- David Morin, "Introduction
to Classical Mechanics," p. 522.

"one should never mix together the descriptions of one phenomenon
yielded by different observers, otherwise--even in ordinary physics--
one would immediately meet contradictions" -- E. Recami
"Classical Tachyons and Possible Applications," Rivista Del Nuovo
Cimento, 9:6 (1986), p. 66.

These point have nothing to do with Minkowski diagrams except for the fact
that dilettantes manage to unknowingly switch frames and draw incorrect
conclusions. So it's telling that Dono goes all in for frame-switching by
claiming "glaring errors" in Minkowski diagrams :-)) -- without explaining
what they are. If they're so glaring, why has no one specified them?
This just more of Dono's bluster and dishonesty. Every "point" has made in
THREE posts are wrong and demonstrates that he is desperate to discredit
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 to the point of making up false allegations.

That isn't going to work for him or anyone else unless they understand
tachyon physics first. The evidence shows that neither Dono nor Prok have
taken the tome no made the effort to do that.

On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 9:51:26 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> 1. According to some fringe physicists (Recami, Schwartz, Bilaniuk)

and Chodos and Sudarshan and Deshpande and Ehrlich and Nicasio
and Jentschura and Roldan and Ciborowski and Pavsic and Ibison
and Olkhovsky and Goldoni and Cox and Medvedev and Hill and
Grushka and Mantegna and Faroughy and Chashchina and Silagadze
and Joshi and Vieira, to name a few :-)

Most of these are tenured physicists with many published papers in
respected peer-reviewed publications. Calling them "fringe" is
ridiculous and dishonest. Dono labels them so he can pretend they
don't exist.

> that Gary likes to quote, tachyons MUST have imaginary mass.

This comes from the watershed paper by Bilaniuk, Deshpande and
Sudarshan. Since gamma becomes imaginary, they posited that
tachyons must have real energy and momentum, therefore imaginary
mass. Most if not all subsequent papers on tachyons follow that
hypothesis.

> 2. No mainstream physicist claims that neutrino has imaginary mass,

Dono must have a very narrow acceptance angle of what "mainstream"
means :-). I suppose he's just selective about the reality he accepts.

“It’s not denial. I’m just selective about the reality I accept.”
– Bill Watterson

“Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you tell
yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme

It seems that Dono believes that science is determined by counting votes,
and he only counts the votes that agrees with his view of reality.

> Gary Harnagel who keeps making this claim based on his personal oft
> repeated misinterpretation of KATRIN experiments and of the SME.

Dono seems to claim that m_nu^2 means something other than
m_nu = sqrt(m_nu^2). He is very confused about what the beta decay
experiments measure.

> 3. From 1 and 2 it follows that neutrino is not a tachyon.

So, a vote of physicists shows that at a certain point in time, relativity
is wrong. This is the kind of logic Dono uses. So much for #1.
#2 is just the same argument dressed up in a thin disguise.

It doesn't really matter whether neutrinos are tachyons for the paper,
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, to stand. Its main point is that IF
tachyons exist, they CANNOT violate causality. This is a very strong
proof and escapes the comprehension of the unversed.

But whether or not neutrinos are tachyons is a separate issue and
has neither been confirmed nor refuted.

> > No response will be made to pejorative posts.
>
> Yet, you keep answering. So, you have been lying all along.

So according to Dono, once one has said something, he cannot change
his mind? Perhaps I should quote a few of Dono's revisions ...

On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 3:38:41 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 9:51:26 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > 1. According to some fringe physicists (Recami, Schwartz, Bilaniuk)
> and Chodos and Sudarshan and Deshpande and Ehrlich and Nicasio
> and Jentschura and Roldan and Ciborowski and Pavsic and Ibison
> and Olkhovsky and Goldoni and Cox and Medvedev and Hill and
> Grushka and Mantegna and Faroughy and Chashchina and Silagadze
> and Joshi and Vieira, to name a few :-)
>
> Most of these are tenured physicists with many published papers in
> respected peer-reviewed publications. Calling them "fringe" is
> ridiculous and dishonest.

They are fringe. You are beyond fringe, you are a hardened crank.

> > 2. No mainstream physicist claims that neutrino has imaginary mass,
> Dono must have a very narrow acceptance angle of what "mainstream"
> means :-). I suppose he's just selective about the reality he accepts.
>

You are definitely not a physicist, you are just a hardened crank masquerading as a physicist, Gary.

> > Gary Harnagel who keeps making this claim based on his personal oft
> > repeated misinterpretation of KATRIN experiments and of the SME.
> Dono seems to claim that m_nu^2 means something other than
> m_nu = sqrt(m_nu^2). He is very confused about what the beta decay
> experiments measure.

It does. It was explained to you multiple times but you, being a hardened crank cannot and would not learn.

> > 3. From 1 and 2 it follows that neutrino is not a tachyon.
> So, a vote of physicists shows that at a certain point in time, relativity
> is wrong.

Relativity is not wrong. You are a crank that claims it is wrong. You don't count.

> It doesn't really matter whether neutrinos are tachyons for my crap paper, published in a predatory journal
> DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, to stand. Its main point is that IF
> tachyons exist, they CANNOT violate causality.

The point is that your crap paper is riddled with mistakes.

On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 2:16:43 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 9:16:01 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 8:16:57 PM UTC-8, gharnagel wrote:
> > >
> > As for the imbecility I wrote:
> Says Dono.
> > > "The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because
> > > their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20%
> > > probability that the mass is imaginary."
> >
> > Simply put, you do not understand what m^2 means in Standard Model Extension.
> Dono's modus operandi is to throw out a buzz word and pretend it somehow applies
> to the discussion at hand, but gives no explanation of how it does so.. For example,
> the SME is about Lorentz violation, e.g.,:
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9809521
>
SME is about a lot more, amongst which is about elementary particles properties. As such, it dedicates a large chapter to the meaning of m^2 (effective mass) a concept that you. in your hardened crank attitude, demonstrated that you cannot and would not learn.

> > Being a hardened crank looking for support for your crackpot ideas, you will never learn.
> Dono will never learn that bluster and buzz words do not a rebuttal make.
> > > 8) u' becomes asymptotic as u approaches c^2/v. Going beyond that
> > > is mathematically inappropriate.
> >
> > Nature doesn't care about crank Gary Harnagel statements.
> Is Dono asserting that 1/(1 - uv/c^2) at the limit of u --> c^2/v is "natural"?

Quite the opposite, I have been pointing out to you that it leads to unphysical situation. You, being a hardened crank, keep trying to weasel out from this predicament.

> > Well, their ("tachyons") energy jumps from +infinity to -infinity.
> This is an example of Dono being wrong when he tries to get "precise."
> Neither E'/c = gamma*(E/c - vp/c), from the 4-momentum formalism,nor
> E' = mc^/sqrt(1 - u'^2/c^2), from Lagrangian mechanics have discontinuities
> in energy at the u = c^2/v point (we're talking about tachyons where u > c
> and m is imaginary). E' moves smoothly through zero as u moves
> through the c^2/v poini in the 4MF, and the other E' has an inflection at
> E' = 0.

Not true, hardened crank. We have been over this multiple times, the four momentum formalism when applied to tachyons exposes the fact that energy jumps from +infinity to -infinity.

>
> > This is unphysical .
>
> I agree, and so does DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, but not by Dono's
> reasoning. I explained that in my paper and Dono even referenced it:
> "8) u' becomes asymptotic as u approaches c^2/v."

....which is yet another issue that exposes the fact that tachyons are unphysical.

> THAT is what's unphysical: u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2) for tachyons.

So, special relativity does not apply to tachyons. Brilliant, Crank Harnagel.

> So the domain of applicability of the RVC equation doesn't extend to regions
> where u' goes to infinity.

Duh, because it exposes a major flaw in YOUR thinking. Figures.

> > > (10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching
> > > frames in the middle of solving the problem.
> >
> > No, these claims are based of pointing glaring errors in your Minkowski diagrams.
> So Dono is claiming that David Morin and Erasmo Recami are wrong?
>

No, I am simply claiming that in your crap paper I have pointed out that there are glaring, basic errors in your Minkowski diagrams.

> These point have nothing to do with Minkowski diagrams except for the fact
> that dilettantes manage to unknowingly switch frames and draw incorrect
> conclusions.

When you say dilettantes, you mean yourself.

>So it's telling that Dono goes all in for frame-switching by
> claiming "glaring errors" in Minkowski diagrams :-)) -- without explaining
> what they are. If they're so glaring, why has no one specified them?

I have specified them multiple times, you love having your nose rubbed in your own shit.

Il giorno domenica 24 dicembre 2023 alle -0800 (PST) Dono.
<eggy20011951@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 9:01:24 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> (9) Tachyons with u > c^2/v can be detected by moving the receiver
>> toward the tachyon source such that u' < c^2/v, which converts the
>> situation to Method II.
>>
> Well, their ("tachyons") energy jumps from +infinity to -infinity. This
> is unphysical .

you both, unbelievable wrong. There is no -infinity in physics, in this
universe, but only infinity. You guys from capitalist america, are totally
unprepared and unqualified. I just got depressed.

𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗿_𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹_𝗶𝗻_𝗦𝘆𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗸𝗲
“The barbaric Zionist regime will pay” for the death of Seyed Razi
Mousavi, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have said
https://r%74.com/news/589674-israel-airstrike-syria-iran-general/

the 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀 of polakia are going to suck large dicks, they miscall it
for 𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗺.

Those 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀 don't realize fully that Iran can hit israel whenever it
wants from its own territory. I am afraid the 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆_𝗼𝗳_𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗮 have to
prepare a new exodus, as losing the war against Hamas wants to escalate
into the whole region. The Samson option.

American imperialism lies in Israel. Once Israel is gone then America will
just become like a fat, shouty, inadequate version of Canada.

On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 4:46:07 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 3:38:41 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 9:51:26 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. According to some fringe physicists (Recami, Schwartz, Bilaniuk)
> > and Chodos and Sudarshan and Deshpande and Ehrlich and Nicasio
> > and Jentschura and Roldan and Ciborowski and Pavsic and Ibison
> > and Olkhovsky and Goldoni and Cox and Medvedev and Hill and
> > Grushka and Mantegna and Faroughy and Chashchina and Silagadze
> > and Joshi and Vieira, to name a few :-)
> >
> > Most of these are tenured physicists with many published papers in
> > respected peer-reviewed publications. Calling them "fringe" is
> > ridiculous and dishonest.
>
> They are fringe. You are beyond fringe, you are a hardened crank.

By your criterion, YOU are fringe. They have peer-review published papers
and you don't even have that. You are an intellectual pauper.

> > > 2. No mainstream physicist claims that neutrino has imaginary mass,
> >
> > Dono must have a very narrow acceptance angle of what "mainstream"
> > means :-). I suppose he's just selective about the reality he accepts.
>
> You are definitely not a physicist,

I have a diploma, peer-reviewed papers and work experience proving you wrong.
You, OTOH, are the one who's not a physicist.

> you are just a hardened crank masquerading as a physicist, Gary.

My biographical profile proves you're doing what you usually do: Lie through your
teeth:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gary-Harnagel

Let's see yours, if you're so smart. Don't have anything close, do you? You're just a
militant bigot who rejects imagination.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge.” -- Albert Einstein

Obviously, Dono is falling back on character assassination because he can't refute
my rebuttals to his unconfirmed assertions:

Dono wrote:
"Gary Harnagel who keeps making this claim based on his personal oft
repeated misinterpretation of KATRIN experiments and of the SME.
I wrote:
"Dono seems to claim that m_nu^2 means something other than
m_nu = sqrt(m_nu^2). He is very confused about what the beta decay
experiments measure."

Dono wrote:
"Gary Harnagel who keeps making this claim based on his personal oft
repeated misinterpretation of KATRIN experiments and of the SME."

I wrote:
> > Dono seems to claim that m_nu^2 means something other than
> > m_nu = sqrt(m_nu^2). He is very confused about what the beta decay
> > experiments measure.
>
> It does. It was explained to you multiple times

This another lie of Dono. He doesn't understand that the three flavors of
neutrinos (electron, muon and tauon) are mixtures of the three neutrino
eigenstates (m1, m2 and m3). The effective electron neutrino mass-
squared = sum(|Uei|^2*mi^2) where i = 1 through 3 of the eigenstates.
The masses of the three eigenstates are very close together:

m12^2 -m1^2 =0.000075 eV^2 and m3^2 - m2^2 = 0.00232 eV^2, so the
mass-squared electron neutrino ~ (0.54 + 0.21 + 0.25)*m1^2 ~ m1^2.

He also doesn't understand that this has nothing to do with neutrino
oscillations, which occur after propagation over km of distance:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.01059.pdf

Beta decay experiments infer m_nu^2 from the properties of the emitted
electron, so the mass they infer IS that of the electron antineutrino, not a
mixture of the other flavors. Dono's "multiple explanations" are dead wrong.

but Dono, being a hardened ignoramus will not put in the effort to learn.
Rather, he will repeat that he "explained this multiple times" ad infinitum..
> > > 3. From 1 and 2 it follows that neutrino is not a tachyon.
> >
> > So, a vote of physicists shows that at a certain point in time, relativity
> > is wrong.
>
> Relativity is not wrong. You are a crank that claims it is wrong. You don't count.

Actually, votes don't count. At one time, many physicists claimed relativity was
wrong and the vote was against it. Relativity is confirmed by experiment, not
votes, which is the point of my statement. This, of course, went right through
Dono's head like a neutrino :-)

> > [Dishonest Dono's attempt to pervert my point deleted]

> The point is that your crap paper is riddled with mistakes.

Another invalid claim which proves that Dono is reduced to lies and innuendo.
When he is cornered and has to get specific, his "explanations" are dead wrong.
He has not aired even one actual mistake. The mistakes are all his.

> SME is about a lot more, amongst which is about elementary particles properties.
> As such, it dedicates a large chapter to the meaning of m^2 (effective mass) a
> concept that you. in your hardened crank attitude, demonstrated that you cannot
> and would not learn.

Another one of Dono's misunderstandings which he doubles down on because
he falls back on character assassination because he can't refute the my rebuttals
to his baseless assertions. "Effective mass is defined in this paper:

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2020/listings/rpp2020-list-neutrino-prop.pdf

"The quantity m^2(eff)νe = sum(|Uei|^2*m^2vi" which I used previously in this post.

Dono is quite confused. Furthermore, he never seems to learn beyond his initial
misunderstandings, so he appears doomed to travel though life raving and frothing
unconvincingly.

> > > > > Gary Harnagel who keeps making this claim based on his personal oft
> > > > > repeated misinterpretation of KATRIN experiments and of the SME.
> > > > >
> > > > > 8) u' becomes asymptotic as u approaches c^2/v. Going beyond that
> > > > > is mathematically inappropriate.
> > >
> > > Nature doesn't care about crank Gary Harnagel statements.
> >
> > Is Dono asserting that 1/(1 - uv/c^2) at the limit of u --> c^2/v is "natural"?
> > One can never tell what Dono means because he is always excessively
> > and compulsively imprecise.
> > Is Dono asserting that 1/(1 - uv/c^2) at the limit of u --> c^2/v is "natural"?
>
> Quite the opposite, I have been pointing out to you that it leads to unphysical situation.

Just as I pointed out in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. Dono is trying to appropriate
a conclusion in my paper to himself. That would be ... plagiarism.

> You, being a hardened crank, keep trying to weasel out from this predicament.

As DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 points out, the "predicament" is not real.. It's an
artifact of the mathematics, and a way around it was described. So Dono is just
frothing at the mouth again.

> > > Well, their ("tachyons") energy jumps from +infinity to -infinity.
> >
> > This is an example of Dono being wrong when he tries to get "precise."
> > Neither E'/c = gamma*(E/c - vp/c), from the 4-momentum formalism,nor
> > E' = mc^/sqrt(1 - u'^2/c^2), from Lagrangian mechanics have discontinuities
> > in energy at the u = c^2/v point (we're talking about tachyons where u > c
> > and m is imaginary). E' moves smoothly through zero as u moves through
> > the c^2/v poini in the 4MF, and the other E' has an inflection at E' = 0.

Not true, hardened crank.

See? Dono never admits his faults even when it's glaringly obvious. No real
physicist would be this stupidly adamant.

> We have been over this multiple times, the four momentum formalism when applied
> to tachyons exposes the fact that energy jumps from +infinity to -infinity.

:-))) Dono looks at E' = gamma(E - vp) = gamma*m*c^2*(1 - uv/c^2)/(u^2/c^2 - 1),
which approaches zero as u --> c^2/v and ignorantly and arrogantly claims the
above.

“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

“I'd far rather be happy than right any day.”
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

> THAT is what's unphysical: u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2) for tachyons.

So, special relativity does not apply to tachyons. Brilliant, Crank Harnagel.

Disgustingly dishonest Dono lies by omission. The whole quote is:

> > Tachyons must always travel in the same direction for all inertial observers,
> > just like light does, but the relativistic velocity composition equation reverses
> > at u = c^2/v.

That represents the limit to the domain of applicability for the RVC,as explained
to puerile Dono many time as well as in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. Lots
of physics equations have limited domains of applicability, but this doesn't limit
their usage within the domains. Dono commits the sin of violating logical
argumentation:

On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 8:58:48 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > You are definitely not a physicist,
> I have a diploma, peer-reviewed papers and work experience proving you wrong.

Yet, you turned into a sad sack crank. This is what you are currently.
As to your crap paper published in the predatory crap journal, this proves that you are just that, a sad sack crank. .

:
> Dono wrote:
> "Gary Harnagel who keeps making this claim based on his personal oft
> repeated misinterpretation of KATRIN experiments and of the SME.
> I wrote:
> "Dono seems to claim that m_nu^2 means something other than
> m_nu = sqrt(m_nu^2).

Precisely. That is the part that doesn't get thru your thick skull. So, the fact that m_nu^2<0 does not mean that the neutrino has imaginary mass.

> Dono wrote:
> "Gary Harnagel who keeps making this claim based on his personal oft
> repeated misinterpretation of KATRIN experiments and of the SME."
> I wrote:
> > > Dono seems to claim that m_nu^2 means something other than
> > > m_nu = sqrt(m_nu^2).

Precisely. That is the part that doesn't get thru your thick skull.So, the fact that m_nu^2<0 does not mean that the neutrino has imaginary mass.

> >
> > It does. It was explained to you multiple times
> This another lie of Dono. He doesn't understand that the three flavors of
> neutrinos (electron, muon and tauon) are mixtures of the three neutrino
> eigenstates (m1, m2 and m3). The effective electron neutrino mass-
> squared = sum(|Uei|^2*mi^2) where i = 1 through 3 of the eigenstates.

The part that doesn't go thru your hardened crank skull is that the mass of the neutrino is NOT sqrt (m_nu^2).So, the fact that m_nu^2<0 does not mean that the neutrino has imaginary mass.

> >
> > Relativity is not wrong. You are a crank that claims it is wrong. You don't count.
> Actually, votes don't count.

Actually, they do count, especially when your nose has been rubbed in your shit paper multiple times.

> He has not aired even one actual mistake.

Actually, you are lying, I (and several others) have rubbed your nose in your mistakes. Multiple times. You are a glutton for punishment, Gary.

> "Effective mass is defined in this paper:
>
> https://pdg.lbl.gov/2020/listings/rpp2020-list-neutrino-prop.pdf
>
> "The quantity m^2(eff)νe = sum(|Uei|^2*m^2vi" which I used previously in this post.
>

The issue is not the definition of effective mass (which I gave you multiple times), The issue is that m_neutrino is not equal to sqrt (m_nu^2). But you are too of a gardened crank to learn that. So, the fact that m_nu^2<0 does not mean that the neutrino has imaginary mass.

> > > Is Dono asserting that 1/(1 - uv/c^2) at the limit of u --> c^2/v is "natural"?
> >
> > Quite the opposite, I have been pointing out to you that it leads to unphysical situation.
> Just as I pointed out in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. Dono is trying to appropriate
> a conclusion in my paper to himself. That would be ... plagiarism.

I rubbed your nose in this issue when your crap paper was just apiece of shit on vixra.So, if anyone is plagiarizing, that would be ....you.

> > You, being a hardened crank, keep trying to weasel out from this predicament.
> As DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 points out, the "predicament" is not real. It's an
> artifact of the mathematics, and a way around it was described.

The "predicament" is that tachyons do not exist. It is the tachyons that are not real.

> Not true, hardened crank.
> See? Dono never admits his faults even when it's glaringly obvious. No real
> physicist would be this stupidly adamant.
> > We have been over this multiple times, the four momentum formalism when applied
> > to tachyons exposes the fact that energy jumps from +infinity to -infinity.
>
> :-))) Dono looks at E' = gamma(E - vp) = gamma*m*c^2*(1 - uv/c^2)/(u^2/c^2 - 1),
> which approaches zero as u --> c^2/v and ignorantly and arrogantly claims the
> above.
>

No, it doesn't "approach zero", crank. It has an asymptote from plus to minus infinity.

> That represents the limit to the domain of applicability for the RVC,

Crank,

You keep trying to patch up your insanities by restricting the domain of relative speed between inertial frames as a function of tachyon speed. That was the first and very glaring crankery I rubbed your nose in.

> > > So the domain of applicability of the RVC equation doesn't extend to regions
> > > where u' goes to infinity.
> >
> > Duh, because it exposes a major flaw in YOUR thinking. Figures.

Crank,

You keep trying to patch up your insanities by restricting the domain of relative speed between inertial frames as a function of tachyon speed. That was the first and very glaring crankery I rubbed your nose in.

> I'm just ranting and raving and frothing at the mouth.

I agree with you on this one.

On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:12:37 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 8:58:48 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Dono wrote:
> > >
> > > You are definitely not a physicist,
> >
> > I have a diploma, peer-reviewed papers and work experience proving you wrong.
>
> Yet, you turned into a sad sack crank. This is what you are currently.
Only in Dono's demented and prejudiced mind :-))

> As to your crap paper published in the predatory crap journal, this proves
> that you are just that, a sad sack crank.

DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 (contrary to Dono's assertions prejudiced by
his incompetence at understanding physics and logical reasoning), presents a
well-reasoned proof that tachyons, if they exist, cannot violate causality.

Dono disparages anything that disagrees with his prejudices. This is not the
path to enlightenment. It leads only to darkness and decay.
> > Dono wrote:
> > "Gary Harnagel who keeps making this claim based on his personal oft
> > repeated misinterpretation of KATRIN experiments and of the SME.
> > I wrote:
> > "Dono seems to claim that m_nu^2 means something other than
> > m_nu = sqrt(m_nu^2).
>
> Precisely.

So what does Dr. Dono believe that m_nu^2 means? He never says, he just
makes vacuous assertions with nothing to back them up.

> That is the part that doesn't get thru your thick skull. So, the fact
> that m_nu^2 < 0 does not mean that the neutrino has imaginary mass.

What gets through my "thick skull" is that Dono denies that what KATRIN
and all the other beta decay experiments measure is the square of the
electron antineutrino mass, which is contrary to the authors of all
the peer-reviewed papers published in respectable journals.

He has taken upon himself to misinterprete "effective electron anti-neutrino
mass defined as m_nu^2 = Sum(|U_ei|^2 * m_i^2)" in the KATRIN papers to
mean "not the neutrino mass" which the actual physicists doing the work
clearly disavow. And what they measure is the energy of the electron
created in the decay (E_e) and the energy produced by the decay E_0).
The difference is the energy carried away by the neutrino (E_nu, and since
they only measure the electrons which have E_e ~ E_0, E_nu ~ |m_nu|c^2.
They actually measure E_e^2 and plot the frequency distribution of E_e
> > repeated misinterpretation of KATRIN experiments and of the SME."
> > I wrote:
> > > > Dono seems to claim that m_nu^2 means something other than
> > > > m_nu = sqrt(m_nu^2).
>
> Precisely. That is the part that doesn't get thru your thick skull.
> So, the fact that m_nu^2<0 does not mean that the neutrino has imaginary mass.

Many physicists have actually claimed that, so Dono is sinking into
deep water over his head again:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.2804, "Six observations consistent with the
electron neutrino being a tachyon with mass: m^2νe=−0.11 ± 0.016 eV2"
R. Ehrlich, DOI: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.12.011

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Ehrlich
citations: 511

"Are muon neurtinos faster-than-light particles?" Gianneto, Maccarrone,
Mignan and Recami

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Erasmo-Recami
citations: 7114

Ciboroski and Rembielinski, "Tritium Decay and the Hypothesis of Tachyonic
Neutrinos," The European Physical Journal C - Particles and Fields,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s100529901062
Ciboroski citations: 21189, Rembielinski citations: 1911

C. Schwartz, "Tachyon dymacs - for neutrinos?" Int. J. Mod. Phys A 33,
1850056 (2018). arxiv 1710.09904.

So these are tenured physicists with thousands of citations, proving that
Dono is dissembling again.

> > Dono doesn't understand that the three flavors of neutrinos (electron,
> > muon and tauon) are mixtures of the three neutrino eigenstates (m1, m2
> > and m3). The effective electron neutrino mass-squared = sum(|Uei|^2*mi^2)
> > where i = 1 through 3 of the eigenstates.
>
> The part that doesn't go thru your hardened crank skull is that the mass
> of the neutrino is NOT sqrt (m_nu^2).So, the fact that m_nu^2<0 does not
> mean that the neutrino has imaginary mass.

Repeating bool poop doesn't make it true.

> > > Relativity is not wrong. You are a crank that claims it is wrong. You
> > > don't count.
> >
> > Actually, votes don't count.
>
> Actually, they do count,

Dissembling Dono shoots the bool again.

> especially when your nose has been rubbed in your shit paper multiple times.

Dono's nose is the one buried in lies and bool poop.

> > He has not aired even one actual mistake.
>
> Actually, you are lying, I (and several others) have rubbed your nose in your
> mistakes. Multiple times. You are a glutton for punishment, Gary.

Dissembling Dono knows all about lies and misinformation since he does it all
the time. And I have never lied on this forum. Dono makes unsubstantiated
assertions and deludes himself that he has "proved" something.

> > "Effective mass is defined in this paper:
> >
> > https://pdg.lbl.gov/2020/listings/rpp2020-list-neutrino-prop.pdf
> >
> > "The quantity m^2(eff)νe = sum(|Uei|^2*m^2vi" which I used previously
> > in this post.
>
> The issue is not the definition of effective mass (which I gave you multiple
> times),

Dono's "definition" was wrong :-))

> The issue is that m_neutrino is not equal to sqrt (m_nu^2).

See? He never admits his errors, even such a gross one as this.

> But you are too of a gardened crank to learn that.

Dono NEVER learns anything, particularly when he misunderstands physics.

> So, the fact that m_nu^2<0 does not mean that the neutrino has imaginary
> mass.

Dono seems to be failing high school algebra here. He must have been
wearing the dunce cap through math class.

But I have said I agree that negative m_nu^2 in the the beta decay experiments
don't imply that m_nu is imaginary, but Dono keeps beating the same disinformation
that I am saying that. It's many tenured physicists with beaucoup citations that
have said this. I've asked Dono to explain why that's so and he has avoided that
challenge like a plague. C'mon, Dono, man up!

> > > > Is Dono asserting that 1/(1 - uv/c^2) at the limit of u --> c^2/v is
> > > > "natural"?
> > >
> > > Quite the opposite, I have been pointing out to you that it leads to
> > > unphysical situation.
> >
> > Just as I pointed out in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. Dono is trying to
> > appropriate a conclusion in my paper to himself. That would be ... plagiarism.
>
> I rubbed your nose in this issue when your crap paper was just apiece of shit
> on vixra. So, if anyone is plagiarizing, that would be ....you.

Nope. The first time you did it was after DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 was
published. You just make vacuous assertions with no proof. I, OTOH, provide
links and more to my claims.

> > > You, being a hardened crank, keep trying to weasel out from this predicament.
> >
> > As DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 points out, the "predicament" is not real.
> > It's an artifact of the mathematics, and a way around it was described.
>
> The "predicament" is that tachyons do not exist.
> It is the tachyons that are not real.

Dono doesn't know that. Another assertion with no evidence.

"Lack of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

> > > We have been over this multiple times, the four momentum formalism when applied
> > > to tachyons exposes the fact that energy jumps from +infinity to -infinity.
> >
> > :-))) Dono looks at E' = gamma(E - vp) = gamma*m*c^2*(1 - uv/c^2)/(u^2/c^2 - 1)^0.5,
> > which approaches zero as u --> c^2/v and ignorantly and arrogantly claims the
> > above.
>
> No, it doesn't "approach zero", crank. It has an asymptote from plus to minus
> infinity.

Dono doubles down again on his mathematical incompetence. The fool can't even
analyze a simple algebraic equation. The fool doesn't even bother to graph it
before he posts this baloney after being warned multiple times.

> > That represents the limit to the domain of applicability for the RVC,
>
> Crank,

Nope. It's simple physics and math, which Dono has proven to be completely
incompetent at both.

> You keep trying to patch up your insanities by restricting the domain of
> relative speed between inertial frames as a function of tachyon speed.
> That was the first and very glaring crankery I rubbed your nose in.

Delusional Dono goes hyperballistic again :-))

> > > > So the domain of applicability of the RVC equation doesn't extend to regions
> > > > where u' goes to infinity.
> > >
> > > Duh, because it exposes a major flaw in YOUR thinking. Figures.
>
> You keep trying to patch up your insanities by restricting the domain of relative
> speed between inertial frames as a function of tachyon speed. That was the first
> and very glaring crankery I rubbed your nose in.

On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 7:42:18 AM UTC-8, ubercrank gharnagel wrote:
> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:12:37 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 8:58:48 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Dono wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You are definitely not a physicist,
> > >
> > > I have a diploma, peer-reviewed papers and work experience proving you wrong.
> >

You should forfeit your diploma, you are a full blown crank.

> > As to your crap paper published in the predatory crap journal, this proves
> > that you are just that, a sad sack crank.
>pile of crap DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101presents a collection of imbecilities and crankeries

Yep

> > > Dono wrote:
> > > "Gary Harnagel who keeps making this claim based on his personal oft
> > > repeated misinterpretation of KATRIN experiments and of the SME.
> > > I wrote:
> > > "Dono seems to claim that m_nu^2 means something other than
> > > m_nu = sqrt(m_nu^2).
> >
> > Precisely.
> So what does Dr. Dono believe that m_nu^2 means? He never says,

You are lying again, crank Gary
I gave you the explanation multiple times. But you are trying to weasel out, this is not about what m_nu^2 means, this is about your insane belief that the mass of the neutrino is sqrt(m_nu^2) and the even more insane claim that m_nu^2<0 implies that neutrino has imaginary mass.

> >
> > Actually, you are lying, I (and several others) have rubbed your nose in your
> > mistakes. Multiple times. You are a glutton for punishment, Gary.
> And I have never lied on this forum.

You lie in every post, crank Gary. And with each post you sink deeper.

> > So, the fact that m_nu^2<0 does not mean that the neutrino has imaginary
> > mass.
> Dono seems to be failing high school algebra here.

Crank

The mass of the neutrino is not sqrt(m_nu^2).

> > I rubbed your nose in this issue when your crap paper was just apiece of shit
> > on vixra. So, if anyone is plagiarizing, that would be ....you.
>
> Nope.

You are lying once again. I pointed out your idiocies as soon as you started crowing about your crap paper being uploaded on the crank vixra site.

On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 7:42:18 AM UTC-8, gharnagel wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:12:37 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> pile of crap DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 presents a collection
> of imbecilities and crankeries

Yet Dono is unable to point to one single example. Previously, he
claimed Figures 1 and 2 were wrong, which is abysmally stupid because
those were examples taken from physics textbooks and papers "proving"
that tachyons would violate causality :-)

> > So what does Dr. Dono believe that m_nu^2 means? He never says,
>
> You are lying again, crank Gary
I gave you the explanation multiple times. But you are trying to weasel
> out, this is not about what m_nu^2 means, this is about your insane
> belief that the mass of the neutrino is sqrt(m_nu^2) and the even more
> insane claim that m_nu^2<0 implies that neutrino has imaginary mass.

Once again, Dono never says what he believes m_nu^2 means, which proves
that I'm not the liar here. He has repeated a bunch of garbage about
neutrino oscillation, but that has nothing to do with the beta decay
experiments. So will Dobo come clean and repeat this garbage or will he
just weasel out and bluster that he "gave the explanation multiple times"?

> > And I have never lied on this forum.
>
> You lie in every post, crank Gary.

Dono is projecting hi own modus operandi.

> > > So, the fact that m_nu^2<0 does not mean that the neutrino has
> > > imaginary mass.
> >
> > Dono seems to be failing high school algebra here.
>
> Crank

Name-calling is not a valid argument: Sagan, #1 Ad hominem.

> The mass of the neutrino is not sqrt(m_nu^2).

So what is it then? Dono won't say. He just repeats an unsubstantiated
banality.

The point is that beta decay experiments come up with negative values
for m_nuw^2. Simple mathematics says that the square root of a negative
number is imaginary. Man up, Dono. What is m_nue^2?

> You are lying once again. I pointed out your idiocies as soon as you
> started crowing about your crap paper being uploaded on the crank vixra
> site.

Dono never supplies proof of his assertions. He won't do so in this case
either, so it's obvious who is lying.

Dono is no physicist, nor a mathematician, nor is he an honest person. Has
he admitted that E' does not go from +infinity to -infinity as u passes c^2/v?
Nope. I asked him to graph the equation and see for himself. Has he done it?
No-o-o. He makes incorrect assertions and claims he pointed out this and that
but never supplies a link to support them. He just blathers on and on and on.

Meanwhile, DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, in a peer-reviewed journal, is still
standing unyielding and triumphant over all specious attacks.

On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 12:22:26 PM UTC-8, gharnagel wrote:
> > On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:12:37 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > pile of crap DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 presents a collection
> > of imbecilities and crankeries
>
> Yet Dono is unable to point to one single example. Previously, he
> claimed Figures 1 and 2 were wrong,

...which is true. You like having your nose rubbed into your own shit.
> > You are lying again, crank Gary
> I gave you the explanation multiple times. But you are trying to weasel
> > out, this is not about what m_nu^2 means, this is about your insane
> > belief that the mass of the neutrino is sqrt(m_nu^2) and the even more
> > insane claim that m_nu^2<0 implies that neutrino has imaginary mass.
> Once again, Dono never says what he believes m_nu^2 means,

I told you long ago. After a lot of kicks in your backside, you learn how to parrot what it means. But this is not the point, the point is your idiotic claim that m_nu^2<0 implies that neutrino has imaginary mass.
> > You lie in every post, crank Gary.

> > The mass of the neutrino is not sqrt(m_nu^2).
> So what is it then? The literature I linked for your education is very clear on the subject: due to the neutrino oscillation, its mass cannot be measured. I am done educating you, I am only ridiculing you.

> > You are lying once again. I pointed out your idiocies as soon as you
> > started crowing about your crap paper being uploaded on the crank vixra
> > site.
> Dono never supplies proof of his assertions.
Anyone can go back thru the multitude of threads you opened (in true crank fashion) on the subject and find your errors pointed out to you. Every time you get exposed, you abandon the thread, wait for a while in the hope that people have forgotten and open a fresh thread (with the same crankeries).

>
>
> Has
> he admitted that E' does not go from +infinity to -infinity as u passes c^2/v?

Sure it does, you are just too much of a hardened crank to admit this obvious problem.

> Meanwhile, the crap DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, in a predatory journal, is still
> ridiculed in this forum.

For good reason

On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 12:22:26 PM UTC-8, gharnagel wrote:

Dono refuses again and again to engage in an honest discussion, preferring to
prevaricate, bluster and denigrate. Consequently, his posts are meaningless
drivel. Meanwhile, DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 stands unrefuted and
unsoiled by pernicious and spiteful attacks.

It's well past time for Dono and Prok to man up and take responsibility for
their gross mistakes.

No response from Dono. Perhaps he's rethinking his mathematical
blunders:

Donoblunder #1: He claims that 1/u approaches infinity as u
approaches infinity :-))

Donoblunder #2: sqrt(a^2) does not equal a, or -a, or apparently
anything else.

Donoblunder #3: m_enu isn't the mass of the electron neutrino,
which every respectable physicist affirms that it is. Dono
gives no explanation for his assertion, which is his common
behavior. It is also his common behavior to combine his
blunders with scurrilous personal attacks.

These are just a few of the blunders Dono has made over the
years.

Prokblunder #1: Claimed that u > c^2/v cannot mean that a
tachyon becomes undetectable because all particles must be
observable in a frame. Of course, an observer must use
instruments to observe particles, so a method of observing
particles which have u > c^2/v was described in the very
paper that Prok was criticizing: DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101

Prokblunder #2: Claimed that imaginary mass means that tachyons
have imaginary energy and momentum, when discerning physicists
know that imaginary mass of tachyons was hypothesized to counter
an imaginary sqrt(1 - u^2/c^2) in the denominator of equations
for energy and momentum when u > c.

Neither of these "gentlemen" have recanted these false allegations
that they combined with defamatory personal attacks. As I said,
it's time for them to face up to there spurious assertions and
inappropriate behavior.

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

> Mitchell Raemsch

There's an example of a question from a great physicist: assume infinite
energy in a photon and then ask why an atom can have infinite energy.

I'm amazed at the lack of interest in the subject of this thread (see the o.p.)
I've been reading some papers by Charles Schwartz:

"A Consistent Theory of Tachyons with Interesting Physics for Neutrinos,"
(2022). doi.org/10.3390/sym14061172

"Tachyon Interactions," Symmetry 2023, 15, 209. doi.org/10.3390/sym15010209

"Two Proposed Experiments for the Tachyon-Neutrino Theory of Dark Matter,"
doi: 10.20944/preprints202312.0775.v1.

I was thinking about coming up with a Dirac equation for tachyons and Schwartz
has done it! He's also done significant work on the causality problem.

https://physics.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/charles-schwartz

gharnagel wrote:

> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 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
>
> There's an example of a question from a great physicist: assume
> infinite energy in a photon and then ask why an atom can have infinite
> energy. I'm amazed at the lack of interest in the subject of this thread
> (see the o.p.) I've been reading some papers by Charles Schwartz:

capitalist america, like a fart smelling eggs or kraut, but you never ate
eggs and kraut.

𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗨𝗦_𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗵𝗶𝘁_𝗯𝘆_𝗮_𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗹_(𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗢)
A cargo vessel damaged the supports of a bridge over the Arkansas River
less than a week after a deadly incident in Baltimore
https://www.%72t.com/news/595176-ship-hits-arkansas-river-bridge/

They'll print the money in no time

The U.S. will say “Russia did it”.

Before driving across a bridge, check if any ship or others in the water
nearby.

I had a guy on fbibook say bridges get hit all the time & I replied
something like. One thousands train derailments in usa_fascistland,...on
average! Man, they are a pretend first world country.

they were just testing if this bridge could withstand

Hilarious that the estimate on the Baltimore bridge reconstruction is 4-5
years. Were it a bridge in China they’d have thousands of workers and
engineers already crawling over the site and traffic with cargo would be
flying out of Baltimore along a better bridge in 4-5 months. Correct, if
not quicker.

One less place for the homeless.

Complete and utter incompetence. Signs of collapsing shithole