On 11/11/25 1:45 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Yes, as of today, they are excluded!
No. Are you on the spectrum or something?-a You have a VERY rigid
way of thinking, excessively limited. Here, for instance, you
reveal that you believe anything not accepted as fact by the
mainstream is excluded. But "Excluded" means that the evidence
rules it out, and that's not the case at all here. There is
actually some supporting evidence FOR their existence, albeit
not compelling.
-a-a-a-a ...and then you do a Copy & Paste dump of random info
hoping to bullshit people into thinking you're not an idiot.
On 11/11/25 1:45 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Yes, as of today, they are excluded!
No. Are you on the spectrum or something? You have a VERY rigid
way of thinking, excessively limited.
On 11/11/2025 1:35 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 11/11/25 1:45 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Yes, as of today, they are excluded!
No. Are you on the spectrum or something?-a You have a VERY rigid
way of thinking, excessively limited. Here, for instance, you
reveal that you believe anything not accepted as fact by the
mainstream is excluded. But "Excluded" means that the evidence
rules it out, and that's not the case at all here. There is
actually some supporting evidence FOR their existence, albeit
not compelling.
-a-a-a-a-a ...and then you do a Copy & Paste dump of random info
hoping to bullshit people into thinking you're not an idiot.
My undergraduate degree is in computer science, and I have a MBA from
the University of Iowa.
As with so many things, one cannot, at least on empirical grounds,
"prove a negative". and so, it will likely be impossible to ever prove
the nonexistence of tachyons.-a Having said that, by the principle of parsimony ("Occam's Razor"), we are free to say that such superluminal particles do not exist.
You are, of course, "free to believe" in whatever!-a Regardless,
physicists have not yet included tachyons in the Standard Model,
relegating them instead to the realm of the "hypothetical".
On 11/11/2025 1:35 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 11/11/25 1:45 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Yes, as of today, they are excluded!
No. Are you on the spectrum or something?a You have a VERY rigid
way of thinking, excessively limited. Here, for instance, you
reveal that you believe anything not accepted as fact by the
mainstream is excluded. But "Excluded" means that the evidence
rules it out, and that's not the case at all here. There is
actually some supporting evidence FOR their existence, albeit
not compelling.
aaaa ...and then you do a Copy & Paste dump of random info
hoping to bullshit people into thinking you're not an idiot.
My undergraduate degree is in computer science, and I have a MBA from
the University of Iowa.
As with so many things, one cannot, at least on empirical grounds,
"prove a negative". and so, it will likely be impossible to ever prove
the nonexistence of tachyons. Having said that, by the principle of >parsimony ("Occam's Razor"), we are free to say that such superluminal >particles do not exist.
You are, of course, "free to believe" in whatever! Regardless,
physicists have not yet included tachyons in the Standard Model,
relegating them instead to the realm of the "hypothetical".
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 18:29:01 -0600, Dawn Flood
<Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/11/2025 1:35 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 11/11/25 1:45 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Yes, as of today, they are excluded!
No. Are you on the spectrum or something?-a You have a VERY rigid
way of thinking, excessively limited. Here, for instance, you
reveal that you believe anything not accepted as fact by the
mainstream is excluded. But "Excluded" means that the evidence
rules it out, and that's not the case at all here. There is
actually some supporting evidence FOR their existence, albeit
not compelling.
-a-a-a-a ...and then you do a Copy & Paste dump of random info
hoping to bullshit people into thinking you're not an idiot.
My undergraduate degree is in computer science, and I have a MBA from
the University of Iowa.
As with so many things, one cannot, at least on empirical grounds,
"prove a negative". and so, it will likely be impossible to ever prove
the nonexistence of tachyons. Having said that, by the principle of
parsimony ("Occam's Razor"), we are free to say that such superluminal
particles do not exist.
You are, of course, "free to believe" in whatever! Regardless,
physicists have not yet included tachyons in the Standard Model,
relegating them instead to the realm of the "hypothetical".
Their imaginary mass might rule out their existence from a theoretical perspective.
People on the spectrum being too rigid?
My undergraduate degree
As with so many things, one cannot, at least on empirical grounds,
"prove a negative".
On 11/11/25 9:44 PM, Nathan Smith wrote:
People on the spectrum being too rigid?
Absolutely. They tend to be binary -- yes or no, right or
wrong, *This* means *That*. Very little nuance and by very
little I mean none at all. Sarcasm is lost on them, because
you're stating [A] but meaning [B] and [B] always means
[B].
Why this is so horrible is that they know this. You can
sit down someone on the spectrum and spell it all out to
them, and they can absorb every word then turn around and
never so much as doubt their over rigid, black & white
world because it "Feels" right.
THAT is what makes it annoying!
Someone doesn't "Get" sarcasm? Who cares. But even if you
explain the sarcasm to them they'll reject it because that's
not what it means!
On 11/11/25 9:44 PM, Nathan Smith wrote:
People on the spectrum being too rigid?
Absolutely. They tend to be binary -- yes or no, right or
wrong, This means That. Very little nuance and by very
little I mean none at all. Sarcasm is lost on them, because
you're stating [A] but meaning [B] and [B] always means
[B].
Why this is so horrible is that they know this. You can
sit down someone on the spectrum and spell it all out to
them, and they can absorb every word then turn around and
never so much as doubt their over rigid, black & white
world because it "Feels" right.
THAT is what makes it annoying!
Someone doesn't "Get" sarcasm? Who cares. But even if you
explain the sarcasm to them they'll reject it because that's
not what it means!
On 11/11/25 7:29 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
My undergraduate degree
Higher ed is already facing a lot of heat right now. They
don't need you dragging it through the mud.
As with so many things, one cannot, at least on empirical grounds,
"prove a negative".
We don't have to. Retrocausality is the inescapable conclusion
here. It must exist. Information must travel backwards in time,
and does.
According to Einstein, we don't just perceive a movement
backwards in time, our perception is reality. It's a different
reality than that of the photon but the photon's reality is
also correct. For it. Just not us.
I'm guessing that it's your inability to wrap your little
disordered mind around this one fact that is preventing you
from moving forward.
On 11/11/25 1:45 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Yes, as of today, they are excluded!
No. Are you on the spectrum or something? You have a VERY rigid
way of thinking, excessively limited. Here, for instance, you
reveal that you believe anything not accepted as fact by the
mainstream is excluded. But "Excluded" means that the evidence
rules it out, and that's not the case at all here. There is
actually some supporting evidence FOR their existence, albeit
not compelling.
...and then you do a Copy & Paste dump of random info
hoping to bullshit people into thinking you're not an idiot.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 50:30:47 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,868 |