Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get

On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 18:29:01 -0600, Dawn Flood
<[email protected]> 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.