Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Oh my God!
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2024 20:53:41 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <38a724f9aa7028dc455f71fda36abdb8@www.novabbs.com>
References: <Ev7wMrtKlxguxDn1RDUke8-o3Zo@jntp> <vd0ojs$3l9ep$1@dont-email.me> <llkd25FlhobU6@mid.individual.net> <ZoXepwEI4CdYzUI6TGjcOT0vC0Q@jntp> <llpubiFgheaU8@mid.individual.net> <Zq1pHnYCgAwr5qC37tYAjjYmORY@jntp> <c343b16e27e0220d0b586aadaac601bb@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4054958"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="p+/k+WRPC4XqxRx3JUZcWF5fRnK/u/hzv6aL21GRPZM";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$N99kisSiuhx8jcYeuJ22s.cpqwRRvWl9iVmfCR2a.rHbS80OYhVCi
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6251
Lines: 107

On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 12:16:05 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 20:28:00 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
> >
> > Prok, reality does NOT change unless tachyons can move backward in
> > time for some observers.  The backward-in-time scenarios are caused
> > by (1 - uv/c^2) in the LT, but to get to t' < 0, u' must REACH
> > infinity (an impossibility) in order to get there.  Now, as to
> > spacetime diagrams ...
> >
> > The Minkowski diagram Figure 4 in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101
> > shows D sending a tachyon signal at t = vL/c^2 to C, but to C when?
> > It is usually presumed that D can send it infinitely fast to C at
> > t = 0 who can send it infinitely fast to B at t = 0.  If we assume
> > that B originated the message at t = vL/c^2 and passed it to D, then
> > B would have received the message before it was originated.
> >
> > The problem with that scenario is that you must jump frames to
> > presume that D can send it infinitely fast.  If you are required to
> > stay in the AB-stationary frame, C is NOT at t = 0 when D sends
> > the signal to C at t = vL/c^2 (hence the horizontal arrow), and
> > you are REQUIRED to perform all of your analysis is ONE frame (it
> > doesn't matter which one, as Figure 5 attests) by well-known
> > physicists such as David Morin, John Wheeler and Edwin Taylor
> > in their physics textbooks.  Recami also has proclaimed thus in
> > his papers.
> >
> > The MD has mesmerized many physicists into jumping frames without
> > realizing it when dealing with tachyon problems.  I went to lab
> > views to get away from that, but I managed to get to the point
> > where I could argue using MDs, so you are quoting past situations
> > when you claim that I don't understand them.
> >
> > Actually, you and many others failed to use them properly when
> > dealing with tachyons and it took a long time for me to wade
> > through the morass.
>
> (sigh)
>
> The LT serve to map events from one frame to another frame. They do
> not deal with momentum or energy.  They do not mention moving
> particles which may go faster or slower than the speed of light, etc.

SR is a holistic theory.  You rip it apart and deal with only one
aspect at your peril.

But even so,
> In your paper at DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, you write:
> | The Lorentz transform equations have been an excellent
> | model of reality (in the absence of significant gravitational
> | effects) for particles which travel slower or at the speed of
> | light, but they place time and space on an equal footing, which
> | presents problems when dealing with tachyons.
>
> What you have REALLY written here is that "The Lorentz transform
> equations do not apply to spacelike-separated events."
>
> In other words, "Special Relativity Is False".

That is an absurd exaggeration of my position, in effect, a straw
man argument.  I am saying that the LT has a limited domain of
applicability, which is very different from saying SR, or the LT
is false.

Clearly, I have claimed the LT does indeed apply to spacelike-
separated events since u < c^2/v falls within that region.

And the comment about time and space not being on an equal
footing is not MY claim.  Don't you bother to read references?

Vaccaro J. A., “Quantum asymmetry between time and
space,” Proc. Royal Soc. A, 472, pp. (not numbered),
2016. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2015.0670.

> If I were to redraw your Figure 6 for different observers adding a
> background of fixed events as I did in https://tinyurl.com/mrxyx3ek,
> I would see that the origin events would shift for the different
> observers, even as the receiving events shifted in my original
> scenario. Spacetime is still ripped to shreds.
>
> I've reattached my drawing. Study it and study your own Figure 6.

Your initial statement is that the S' frame is stationary and you
are going to move the lab frame.  Then you place two observers, C
and D, orthogonal because they are stationary in S'.  Then you
send a signal from D to C infinitely fast.

Now in the triptych, you move the lab frame S.  That's fine, but
S' is the STATIONARY frame: C and D should still be vertical.
So I must assume that you are actually switching to the S frame
and making IT stationary, right?

So you have done exactly what Morin, Taylor, Wheeler and Recami
say NOT to do.  You have switched horses (er, frames) in the
middle of the stream (er, problem setup).

So let's look at the figure on the right with v = 0.1c.  As viewed
from S, t1 = \gamma (0 + 0.1L) = 0.1gL.  At that time in S, the time
in C is not at t = 0.  This is relativity of simultaneity (RoS).
Prok, YOU are the one trying to rip SR to shreds by pretending you
can ignore RoS.  Figures 4 and 5 in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101
obey RoS, your figures do not.

Furthermore, let's remove the signal in the triptych.  Now, what
has changed in the three figures?  NOTHING AT ALL.  All the events
are still right where they were as observed by those stationary
in S.  It doesn't matter what the signal speed is, it changes
nothing.