Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get

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