Re: Another concept for Dawn Davenport to not get

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

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