Now this will be completely lost on the D.I.D. system but,
the point here isn't whether or not anyone agrees with an
idea, it was to discuss the idea itself.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1105024124554227
It's a discussion on how things might work, if the idea
is correct, and NOT a discussion on whether or not the
idea is correct.
-a-a-a-a ...neil degrasse tyson actually has to pull that
guy AWAY from the "True/Not true" argument, lead him
back to the topic...
See, it's very easy to reject an idea. But if you haven't
fully aired the idea, explored how it would work, it's
implications, what are you dismissing?
I'll tell you what you're dismissing:-a Anything that
challenges the status quo.
In your case there's another level... we'll call it
"Insanity," for lack of a better word, where you don't
seem to be able to recall much less apply knowledge
from one sentence to the next. But I'm not going to
mention this fact. Not I. Well. Yes I am. In fact, I
just did.
You seem to be aware that time and even space does not
appear to exist for the photon, that it is effectively
everywhere it can potentially be, and you even seem to
grasp that the same is not true for humans. But then
you turn around and dismiss the fact that BECAUSE our
rules are so dramatically different from that of the
photon, we perceive not at all subtle differences in
time.
Yes, believe it or not, because our concept of time
does not exist for a photon, things don't happen the
same way for us and the photon...
Nope. You can't grasp this. You can't apply what you
know elsewhere to this more narrow example.
It's gone.
And you also can't grasp that if tachyons exist then
we can send messages backwards through time. Instead
you just dogmatically ignore evidence and pretend
that it's all settled, tachyons don't exist.
Well it's not settled. And if they exist we can send
messages backwards through time.
Please stop trying to have multiple conversations with me, okay?!
As I have already told you, tachyons are not part of the Standard Model.
On 11/10/25 4:46 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Please stop trying to have multiple conversations with me, okay?!
It's the same conversation, approached differently to try and
avoid that brick wall in your head.
As I have already told you, tachyons are not part of the Standard Model.
#1.-a You also told me that you're not an expert, so stop saying things predicated on the notion that you are.
#2.-a The subject was tachyons and the implications of same. I don't care what you misunderstand any models to be saying. Even for someone as
brain damaged as you it should be obvious that if tachyons exist then
sending information backwards in time is possible.
#3.-a There is evidence consistent with the existence of tachyons. You
can claim that the evidence is less than compelling but you can't say
they are excluded, because they are not.
Yes, as of today, they are excluded!
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: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 14:03:25 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,733 |
| Posted today: | 1 |