Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get

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".