Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 05:23:46 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: SpaceTime
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <6249F967.3B4A@ix.netcom.com> <lbqi8uF7r8kU3@mid.individual.net> <SZCcnfMeCMTTzMT7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <46358f5157687acd0539d6848f6b626c@www.novabbs.com> <lc2g63FdkjpU3@mid.individual.net> <a36c62011f40ea648ffe8d884ce5eebd@www.novabbs.com> <17d537553944a2de$5$422432$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <51a50934574cfb09144c2a6c26eceb74@www.novabbs.com> <udidndQOHOqpNcH7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> <5dba54ad373d3e9a50644c063f71a5b1@www.novabbs.com> <LkiaDz8Otko5Q-u5wJLOx98bx6k@jntp> <c1c87b515e8d35ea861b9ce9c93806a4@www.novabbs.com> <QuGdnWLN2ex2k8D7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <5a03b3defc4af4304b84f5d6059306b0@www.novabbs.com> <g5CcnfmPtY1ytsD7nZ2dnZfqn_YAAAAA@giganews.com>
Content-Language: pl
From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
In-Reply-To: <g5CcnfmPtY1ytsD7nZ2dnZfqn_YAAAAA@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 50
Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!s1-2.netnews.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 03:23:45 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 2746
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17d56094d25dcf6e$5$424441$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 3085

W dniu 03.06.2024 o 04:35, Ross Finlayson pisze:
> On 06/02/2024 07:12 PM, gharnagel wrote:
>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/02/2024 04:22 PM, gharnagel wrote:
>>> >
>>> > More invalid analogies.
>>
>>> Yeah, if you assume causality, then tachyons can't be fantastical,
>>> they're only the result of something that is or did.
>>>
>>> The neutrino physics are mostly about supersymmetry.
>>
>> Nope.  Neutrinos are firmly ensconced in the Standard model of
>> particle physics, while supersymmetric particles are not.
>>
>>> If you assume lack of causality it's pretty easy to arrive at
>>> itself.
>>
>> That's the problem with the conventional view of FTL phenomena.
>> It comes from the Lorentz transform:
>>
>> (1) dx' = gamma(dx - v dt)
>> (2) dt' = gamma(dt - v dx/c^2)
>>
>>  From that comes
>>
>> dx'/dt' = u' = (dx - v dt)/(dt - v dx/c^2)
>>
>> u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
>>
>> u' becomes infinite when u = c^2/v, and infinity is a red flag
>> in physics.  It means that the math becomes useless at and beyond
>> that point.  Physicists, who should know better, have persisted
>> into that real and come up with all kinds of frivolous assertions
>> like time going backwards, negative energy, causality violation
>> and a "reinterpretation principle."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathematics really owes physics more and better
> mathematics

And the most important  contribution is
announcing the oldest, very important
and successful part false, as it didn't
want to fit some symmetrical delusions
of an insane crazie.