Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #894517 > unrolled thread

Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 13:11 -0500
    Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 15:46 -0600
      Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 18:01 -0500
        Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 12:45 -0600
          Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 14:35 -0500
            Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 18:29 -0600
              Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 20:40 -0700
              Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> - 2025-11-11 20:55 -0800
                Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 23:35 -0600
              Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 00:44 -0500
                Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get "Henderson" <henderson@e.mail> - 2025-11-12 14:05 +0000
            Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get Nathan Smith <nathansmith@posteo.com> - 2025-11-11 19:44 -0700
              Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 00:35 -0500
                Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get Nathan Smith <nathansmith@posteo.com> - 2025-11-12 01:42 -0700
                  Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 11:27 -0500
                Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get "Henderson" <henderson@e.mail> - 2025-11-12 14:04 +0000
            Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get "Henderson" <henderson@e.mail> - 2025-11-12 16:42 +0000

#894517 — Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get

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.

      ...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:  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.







-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#894518

On 11/10/2025 12:11 PM, JTEM wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
>       ...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:  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. 
  Why?  Because, they don't exist (the simplest explanation), and even 
if they are someday discovered, as with isolating quarks (which do 
exist), it may be physically impossible to manipulate them.

Simple, right?  And, now, please stop posting your same crap over & over!!

Dawn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894519

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.  You also told me that you're not an expert, so stop saying things
predicated on the notion that you are.

#2.  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.  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.




-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894520

On 11/10/2025 5:01 PM, JTEM wrote:
> 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.  You also told me that you're not an expert, so stop saying things
> predicated on the notion that you are.
> 
> #2.  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.  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!  Here are the 17 particles that 
compromise the Standard Model:

Fermions (Matter Particles)

  Quarks:
    Up (u)
    Down (d)
    Charm (c)
    Strange (s)
    Top (t)
    Bottom (b)

  Leptons:

    Electron (\(e^{-}\))
    Muon (\(\mu ^{-}\))
    Tau (\(\tau ^{-}\))
    Electron neutrino (\(\nu _{e}\))
    Muon neutrino (\(\nu _{\mu }\))
    Tau neutrino (\(\nu _{\tau }\))

Bosons (Force Carriers and Higgs)

  Gauge Bosons:
    Photon (\(\gamma \))
    Gluon (\(g\))
    W boson (\(W^{\pm }\))
    Z boson (\(Z^{0}\))

  Scalar Boson:
    Higgs boson (H)

As you & anyone else whatsoever can see for themselves, tachyons are not 
listed!!  (Hee, hee.)

Dawn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894521

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.



-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894522

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?  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.
> 

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".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894527

Dawn Flood 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?  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.
>>
> 
> 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".


hahahaHHAHAHAHHAAH , WHAT A FK'IN LOADOF BULLSHIT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894529

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?  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.
>> 
>
>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.    

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894530

On 11/11/2025 10:55 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> 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?  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.
>>>
>>
>> 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.

Yeah, and if only such were in pill form!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894532

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.


-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894535

JTEM wrote:

> 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.


LOL!

> 
> > 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894526

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:

> 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.

People on the spectrum being too rigid? You should see how rigid
neurotypicals are. They DEMAND their social norms rain supremacy and
will put anyone who doesn't wish to follow social norms through absolute
hell. Neurotypical women use to eat tape worms to stay thin to fit in
and can't say much has changed since then either. Neurotypicals are the
problem and should go fuck themselves.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894531

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!



-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894533

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:

> 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!

I am in no way a professional but maybe you are on the spectrum. Ever
thought about getting your head checked out? What you are describing is
pretty close to how you act. Pointing it out and denying also engaging
in it is common among people on the spectrum who are completely
unaware. It is hard to get thrown through bullshit and not become a
asshole. On the bright side still better than being a dumbass
neurotypical who will make someones life hell for not giving the correct
amount of eye contact. The correct amount is not documented anywhere and
asking is rude and doesn't get answers yet we are somehow excepted to
know? If being rigid is the alternative to whatever the fuck is up with
neurotypicals so be it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894536

On 11/12/25 3:42 AM, Nathan Smith wrote:

> I am in no way a professional

If you were, you'd probably realize that your repeatedly
switching handles, hitting reply, ignore topics and
squeezing out yet another of your emotional dumps sure
looks more like a symptom -- a cry for help -- than any
attempt at discourse.

Odd that I keep getting these reactions from "Different"
people who can't see themselves and what they're doing...

Really odd.

Really, really odd.



-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894534

JTEM wrote:

> 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!


LOL!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894537

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?  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.


LOL!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web