Pretending Subquarks actually exist!

They considered the findings as "unphysical".

They dismissed the clear proof of the muon neutrino being a tachyon.

A fact discovered and acknowledged by other top scientists who were dismayed at how the result was simply negated.

It's not the first time it happened.

Experiments with tritium beta spectrum also revealed negative/imaginary masses for neutrinos, again these results were dismissed.

This is why you do not have the tachyon the wikipedia list of particles that have been discovered.

They did no such thing.

You simply don't understand how to read that paper.

If there was clear proof of tachyons it would have been shouted from the rooftops. They WANT to find tachyons. They didn't.

I'm sorry that upsets you, but it's the truth.

Actual scientists are a far more trustworthy source than a random guy on the internet.

As it stands today, according to Dr. Ehrlich, the foremost expert in the field of FTL particles, Tachyons looked for but not yet found and their existence is unknown.

The muon neutrino/tritium beta spectrum experiments run in parallel with KATRIN, and are independent of other research carried out by tachyon scientists such as Dr. Robert Ehrlich.

Here is the absolute proof of the existence of the tachyon:



You are deliberately misrepresenting the paper by selectively quoting it. 

No, you numskull.

I already stated that the result was dismissed by the very scientists who did carry out this experiment.

Yes, and you cut out the REASON they dismissed it, because that's simply how that experiment works.

That is what is dishonest, you are acting like they just threw out all the results when what they were doing was more complex. Experiments looking for a lower bound can be negative, it doesn't mean the value is negative. When a value is known to be close to zero, getting a negative result is expected when trying to zero in on the precise figure.

You design experiments in that way, yo bracket a range.  That's what they did here.  There was no disregarding of anything, they took it all into account, as intended.

As it stands today, according to Dr. Ehrlich, the foremost expert in the field of FTL particles, Tachyons looked for but not yet found and their existence is unknown.

The muon neutrino/tritium beta spectrum experiments run in parallel with KATRIN, and are independent of other research carried out by tachyon scientists such as Dr. Robert Ehrlich.

Here is the absolute proof of the exist

Regarding the CERN experiment you reference:

James Gillies — head of communications and spokesman for CERN — about the team's results.

"It's important to make clear that nobody is claiming a discovery, or any contradiction with relativity," explained Gillies. "The OPERA experiment has a measurement they can't account for, so they're opening it up for further scrutiny, and hopefully an independent measurement from another lab."

That was in 2011.

Subsequent to which they have not been able to replicate the anomaly which was caused, in part, by a loose GPS cable (See Dr.Ehrlich's powerpoint.)

Also, keep in mind CERN Time-of-flight measurements from CERN to LNGS in Italy require extremely precise calculations that include distance of the tau neutrino through a globe earth as they can detect the exact angle of neutrino flight paths. Neutrino detection being currently outstanding evidence for a spherical earth.

Yes, and you cut out the REASON they dismissed it, because that's simply how that experiment works.

They arbitrarily dismissed the result since they REFUSED to accept it.

They gave no other reason.

Since the mass was "imaginary", they threw out the result.

This is no longer science.

That is what is dishonest, you are acting like they just threw out all the results when what they were doing was more complex. Experiments looking for a lower bound can be negative, it doesn't mean the value is negative.

Now, you are an expert on neutrino detection experiments?

Listen to the experts in the field who were DISMAYED at what those scientists did.

Here is another paper from CERN which now says those scientists did detect tachyons, and had no right to dismiss the result.

https://cds.cern.ch/record/476759/files/0011087.pdf

Dr. Tsao Chang
Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomy Research
University of Alabama in Huntsville

Moreover, the muon neutrino also exhibits a negative mass-square [7].

[7] K. Assamagan et al., Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 6065.

Papers published by Dr. Chang:

https://inspirehep.net/authors/1014042


Regarding the CERN experiment you reference:

I referenced no such experiment.

You must be dreaming.

The papers cited have nothing to do with the 2011 experiment.

Yes, and you cut out the REASON they dismissed it, because that's simply how that experiment works.

They arbitrarily dismissed the result since they REFUSED to accept it.

They gave no other reason.

Since the mass was "imaginary", they threw out the result.

This is no longer science.

No, this is exactly how science works.  You don't understand the paper.  Read the whole thing.

It's only your opinion that they are wrong. They on the other hand have been published, peer-reviewed and found to be correct.

You are simply wrong.

If there was even a hint of the existence of a tachyon it would be huge news.  You keep completely misunderstanding how science and scientists work, and it shows. It makes your claim here that they found incredible discoveries and chose to hide them. That's just insane. That's the complete opposite of how a normal person would act.

Cut the crap.

The imaginary mass neutrino was thrown out subjectively.

Dr. Tsao Chang agrees with me, a paper also published by CERN.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/476759/files/0011087.pdf

Dr. Tsao Chang
Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomy Research
University of Alabama in Huntsville

Moreover, the muon neutrino also exhibits a negative mass-square [7].

[7] K. Assamagan et al., Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 6065.


How in the world would you know how science works? You seem to pretend to know better than anyone who disagrees with you.


Do you know the concept of Berry's phase? Yes, it has been measured for muon neutrinos.

But the Berry phase IS NONLOCAL!

Which means one still requires superluminal speeds for the muon neutrino.

Here is another paper from CERN which now says those scientists did detect tachyons, and had no right to dismiss the result.

https://cds.cern.ch/record/476759/files/0011087.pdf

Dr. Tsao Chang
Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomy Research
University of Alabama in Huntsville

I'm not sure where you get, "Here is another paper from CERN which now says those scientists did detect tachyons, and had no right to dismiss the result." This is what the paper concludes:

"In this paper, The hypothesis that neutrinos might be tachyonic fermions is further investigated...More measurements on the cosmic ray at the spectrum knee and more accurate tritium beta decay experiments are needed to further test the above theory."

Keywords: 'Hypothesis', 'further investigated', 'experiments needed to test further the theory'

No where does it prove the existence of anything.

Regarding the CERN experiment you reference:

I referenced no such experiment.

You must be dreaming.

The papers cited have nothing to do with the 2011 experiment.

So far none of the authors of the papers agree with you. None have been able to observe FTL's with any certainty. That's why these scientists are still experimenting. You have no part in these experiments, nor any input. So as to why you think you know better than the CERN and KATRIN physicists is the real unknown here.

Sandokhan, why don't you try to get in contact with some scientist. You will amaze him and you will cause scientific revolution. I have seen multiple people (conspiracy theorists) get in contact with scientist via E-Mial

Cut the crap.

The imaginary mass neutrino was thrown out subjectively.

Dr. Tsao Chang agrees with me, a paper also published by CERN.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/476759/files/0011087.pdf

Dr. Tsao Chang
Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomy Research
University of Alabama in Huntsville

Moreover, the muon neutrino also exhibits a negative mass-square [7].

[7] K. Assamagan et al., Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 6065.

He says no such thing, re-read the paper and stop quote mining bits and pieces.

Show me a quote from that paper where he says they threw out that number 'subjectively'.

It simply doesn't say that, and also is talking about hypothetical theories... not reality.

Not everything you read is real. Tachyons and magic dragons are not discovered, proven real things.

So far none of the authors of the papers agree with you. None have been able to observe FTL's with any certainty.

Cut the crap.



https://books.google.ro/books?id=rbnnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=recami+causality+and+locality+in+modern+physics&source=bl&ots=SBg7aSPPIm&sig=ACfU3U1tigeNMq4GT_hDHRW3mfONQYHIBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzdDLscjqAhWDtIsKHVFxB0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=recami%20causality%20and%20locality%20in%20modern%20physics&f=false

Dr. Erasmo Recami:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/160441

Classical tachyons and possible applications : a review

So far none of the authors of the papers agree with you. None have been able to observe FTL's with any certainty.

Cut the crap.



https://books.google.ro/books?id=rbnnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=recami+causality+and+locality+in+modern+physics&source=bl&ots=SBg7aSPPIm&sig=ACfU3U1tigeNMq4GT_hDHRW3mfONQYHIBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzdDLscjqAhWDtIsKHVFxB0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=recami%20causality%20and%20locality%20in%20modern%20physics&f=false

Dr. Erasmo Recami:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/160441

Classical tachyons and possible applications : a review

You cut the crap.

One of those is a mass-market book.

The other is a theoretical exploration of possible tachyons.

Neither are evidence of them existing, they are both talking THEORETICALLY.

You can't use either of those as proof that they exist.

And the one is from 1984 with no evidence uncovered since then to validate it.  It doesn't look like it was ever published in a journal either.

"Tachyons may..."

"For future research..."

"...to be further studied."

It's all just hypotheticals.

If you think this is PROOF that tachyons exist, you need to understand what HYPOTHETICAL means.

I have the references which spell out that muon neutrinos have negative mass.

Not just any references, but two of the best known neutrino detection physicists.

You got crap, and a big mouth.

I have the references which spell out that muon neutrinos have negative mass.

Not just any references, but two of the best known neutrino detection physicists.

You got crap, and a big mouth.

What are those references? So far all seems hypothetical/theoretical. And you do realize that neutrino detection relies on the known parameters of a spherical earth, right?

Quote from: sandokhan on July 12, 2020, 12:47:18 PM

I have the references which spell out that muon neutrinos have negative mass.

Not just any references, but two of the best known neutrino detection physicists.

You got crap, and a big mouth.

What are those references? So far all seems hypothetical/theoretical. And you do realize that neutrino detection relies on the known parameters of a spherical earth, right?

LOL. It is here: https://i.ibb.co/ZfWH3VX/muon2.jpg

Quote from: Stash on July 12, 2020, 01:29:22 PM

Quote from: sandokhan on July 12, 2020, 12:47:18 PM

I have the references which spell out that muon neutrinos have negative mass.

Not just any references, but two of the best known neutrino detection physicists.

You got crap, and a big mouth.

What are those references? So far all seems hypothetical/theoretical. And you do realize that neutrino detection relies on the known parameters of a spherical earth, right?

LOL. It is here: https://i.ibb.co/ZfWH3VX/muon2.jpg

So what does that tell us? There are lots of meaningless published on the Web - a few words with not even a source given is worthless, especially as just a cut-and-paste picture!
I know that there are a number serious tachyon experiment's in progress but there's nothing to indicate that even refers to one of them.

Quote from: Stash on July 12, 2020, 01:29:22 PM

Quote from: sandokhan on July 12, 2020, 12:47:18 PM

I have the references which spell out that muon neutrinos have negative mass.

Not just any references, but two of the best known neutrino detection physicists.

You got crap, and a big mouth.

What are those references? So far all seems hypothetical/theoretical. And you do realize that neutrino detection relies on the known parameters of a spherical earth, right?

LOL. It is here: https://i.ibb.co/ZfWH3VX/muon2.jpg

LOL. "With a low statistical significance" and "this may be interpreted..." = hypothetical/theoretical

Not to mention that the physicists of the last decade are still not certain of the existence of FTL particles.

And also not to mention that neutrino detection relies on the known parameters of a spherical earth, i.e., not a flat earth.

Quote from: Stash on July 12, 2020, 01:29:22 PM

Quote from: sandokhan on July 12, 2020, 12:47:18 PM

I have the references which spell out that muon neutrinos have negative mass.

Not just any references, but two of the best known neutrino detection physicists.

You got crap, and a big mouth.

What are those references? So far all seems hypothetical/theoretical. And you do realize that neutrino detection relies on the known parameters of a spherical earth, right?

LOL. It is here: https://i.ibb.co/ZfWH3VX/muon2.jpg

Uh, no.

They are claiming it COULD be inferred.  That's a hypothetical reference. It's not actual evidence, it's not even complete, it's just an image with some text. Without seeing the rest of the paper we have no idea who wrote it, how accurate it is, or the context.

If we are proving things now with quotes in pictures, here is mine.

Sorry, the Enterprise is not going to be shooting subspace ruptures with anti-tachyon beams any time soon.

Why does all of you except snadokhan deny tachyons? It won't prove Aether or Flat Earth. What is wrong with agreeing with sandokhan?

Because he is just spouting BS without valid justification.
Why should we agree with him?
And if we do, why stop there?
Why not just agree with all his nonsense?

Abd yes, electrons have subcomponents

First of all, don't bother linking to news articles, they are just as pointless as his spam.

Secondly, these electrons are not being split. They are combining to form quasiparticles, that is very different.

LOL. It is here:

An image is not a reference. It does not show the origin, it does not show what has been dishonestly cut away.

Faster than light particles already have been discovered, see quantum entanglement, Maxwell's original superluminal e/m set of equations.

So you have nothing.
Quantum entanglement does not use superluminal velocities nor negative mass particles. A set of equations does not magically make things real.

You fail to understand the difference between negative and imaginary mass.

And it seems you have been caught lying yet again.

They dismissed the clear proof of the muon neutrino being a tachyon.

Stop lying.
They dismissed one of 2 possible mathematical solutions to an equation.
The fact that the second possibly (which you dismiss without cause) exists, shows that this is not clear proof of any tachyon and is just further proof of your dishonesty.

Moreover, the muon neutrino also exhibits a negative mass-square

And more dishonest cherry picking.

That quote was simply stating a model, not his agreement with that model.

Did you even bother reading the summary?

Generally speaking, the above spin- 1/2 tachyonic quantum theory provides a theoretical framework to study the hypothesis that neutrinos are tachyonic fermions.

They are not agreeing with you.

I have the references which spell out that muon neutrinos have negative mass.

Not just any references, but two of the best known neutrino detection physicists.

You got crap, and a big mouth.

Is there no end to your bullshit? Why do you constantly misrepresent science?

The information on all subatomic particles is freely available, it’s not as if you yourself have any way of studying them. You too have to rely on the discoveries of scientists like everyone else. So why make things up?

Here is sourse for my last message: https://books.google.ro/books?id=rbnnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=recami+causality+and+locality+in+modern+physics&source=bl&ots=SBg7aSPPIm&sig=ACfU3U1tigeNMq4GT_hDHRW3mfONQYHIBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzdDLscjqAhWDtIsKHVFxB0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=recami%20causality%20and%20locality%20in%20modern%20physics&f=false

Here is sourse for my last message: https://books.google.ro/books?id=rbnnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=recami+causality+and+locality+in+modern+physics&source=bl&ots=SBg7aSPPIm&sig=ACfU3U1tigeNMq4GT_hDHRW3mfONQYHIBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzdDLscjqAhWDtIsKHVFxB0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=recami%20causality%20and%20locality%20in%20modern%20physics&f=false

So?

What if I were to produce such a paper (published in the best journals) describing an experiment carried out by the best experts in the field, which does actually prove the existence of particles with negative mass (tachyons)?

Feel free . . .

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 12:38:52 AM

Here is sourse for my last message: https://books.google.ro/books?id=rbnnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=recami+causality+and+locality+in+modern+physics&source=bl&ots=SBg7aSPPIm&sig=ACfU3U1tigeNMq4GT_hDHRW3mfONQYHIBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzdDLscjqAhWDtIsKHVFxB0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=recami%20causality%20and%20locality%20in%20modern%20physics&f=false

So?

It isn't out of context anymore

Quote from: rabinoz on July 13, 2020, 12:49:51 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 12:38:52 AM

Here is sourse for my last message: https://books.google.ro/books?id=rbnnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=recami+causality+and+locality+in+modern+physics&source=bl&ots=SBg7aSPPIm&sig=ACfU3U1tigeNMq4GT_hDHRW3mfONQYHIBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzdDLscjqAhWDtIsKHVFxB0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=recami%20causality%20and%20locality%20in%20modern%20physics&f=false

So?

It isn't out of context anymore

You should include more context when quoting, it can be hard to remember what you were talking about with just posting a link or a comment with no context.

Regardless, the text you produced wasn't a scientific paper, it was a mass market book. It's also just discussing the possibility of tachyons, and theoretical ideas.  Even in the part quoted it says it MAY suggest.

Most scientists don't accept that interpretation.

It certainly is not proof that tachyons exist.  It's just talking about what if they did, what might they be like.  Using that to claim they are real and exist and proven is just simply wrong.

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 02:54:18 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 13, 2020, 12:49:51 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 12:38:52 AM

Here is sourse for my last message: https://books.google.ro/books?id=rbnnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=recami+causality+and+locality+in+modern+physics&source=bl&ots=SBg7aSPPIm&sig=ACfU3U1tigeNMq4GT_hDHRW3mfONQYHIBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzdDLscjqAhWDtIsKHVFxB0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=recami%20causality%20and%20locality%20in%20modern%20physics&f=false

So?

It isn't out of context anymore

You should include more context when quoting, it can be hard to remember what you were talking about with just posting a link or a comment with no context.

Regardless, the text you produced wasn't a scientific paper, it was a mass market book. It's also just discussing the possibility of tachyons, and theoretical ideas.  Even in the part quoted it says it MAY suggest.

Most scientists don't accept that interpretation.

It certainly is not proof that tachyons exist.  It's just talking about what if they did, what might they be like.  Using that to claim they are real and exist and proven is just simply wrong.

Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters

Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters

Well, if he does he's wrong! It's "imaginary mass" that matters.

Quote from: JJA on July 13, 2020, 04:36:56 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 02:54:18 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 13, 2020, 12:49:51 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 12:38:52 AM

Here is sourse for my last message: https://books.google.ro/books?id=rbnnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=recami+causality+and+locality+in+modern+physics&source=bl&ots=SBg7aSPPIm&sig=ACfU3U1tigeNMq4GT_hDHRW3mfONQYHIBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzdDLscjqAhWDtIsKHVFxB0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=recami%20causality%20and%20locality%20in%20modern%20physics&f=false

So?

It isn't out of context anymore

You should include more context when quoting, it can be hard to remember what you were talking about with just posting a link or a comment with no context.

Regardless, the text you produced wasn't a scientific paper, it was a mass market book. It's also just discussing the possibility of tachyons, and theoretical ideas.  Even in the part quoted it says it MAY suggest.

Most scientists don't accept that interpretation.

It certainly is not proof that tachyons exist.  It's just talking about what if they did, what might they be like.  Using that to claim they are real and exist and proven is just simply wrong.

Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters

Sandokhan says a lot of things. His misunderstanding of what those numbers represent don't really count as proof either. Those results say the mass

Tacyons are no more real and proven than magic talking dragons. We have not seen any evidence of either. Sandokhan can quote mine random books, and so can I.  Here is my source.

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 05:04:21 AM

Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters

Well, if he does he's wrong! It's "imaginary mass" that matters.

Book said so. Do i need to make red srcle pointing where?

Quote from: rabinoz on July 13, 2020, 05:57:08 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 05:04:21 AM

Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters

Well, if he does he's wrong! It's "imaginary mass" that matters.

Book said so. Do i need to make red srcle pointing where?

Dragons are real too.  Book said so.

Just because someone says something in a book does not make it real, especially when the book didn't even say that.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 13, 2020, 05:57:08 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 13, 2020, 05:04:21 AM

Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters

Well, if he does he's wrong! It's "imaginary mass" that matters.

Book said so. Do i need to make red srcle pointing where?

Do I need to point out in a red circle where it says:

"With a low statistical significance" and "this may be interpreted..." = hypothetical/theoretical