Sci.Physics.Foundations

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 2:46 am Here is updated Mathematica code for the update. I missed a cross product term in r0 but it didn't affect the results. I put r1 and r2 back into the code because it is more faithful to Joy's analytical formula.

Cloud File.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... alc-joy.nb

Direct Files.

sims/newCS-51-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-joy.pdf
sims/newCS-51-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-joy.nb


Blue is the data, magenta is the negative cosine curve for an exact match.

Enjoy this as it destroys Bell's junk physics theory!

Dang it! I still didn't have the Mathematica code correct using r1 and r2. Here is the correct code.

Cloud File.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... alc-joy.nb

Direct files.

sims/newCS-52-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-joy.pdf
sims/newCS-52-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-joy.nb
.

Happy new year, Fred! Goodbye!

Here’s the link to Joy’s talk at AGACSE 2021
https://youtu.be/4h29G5yGzaI

Here’s Lasenby’s talk
https://youtu.be/73NJHqJ-WxI

Enjoy!

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 4:59 am Happy new year, Fred! Goodbye!

Here’s the link to Joy’s talk at AGACSE 2021
https://youtu.be/4h29G5yGzaI

Here’s Lasenby’s talk
https://youtu.be/73NJHqJ-WxI

Blue is the correlation data, magenta is the negative cosine curve for an exact match.
.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 4:59 am Happy new year, Fred! Goodbye!

Here’s the link to Joy’s talk at AGACSE 2021
https://youtu.be/4h29G5yGzaI

Here’s Lasenby’s talk
https://youtu.be/73NJHqJ-WxI

If you carefully listen to and understand the first part of Lasenby's presentation you will understand what is wrong with Joy's arguments about sign changes. Then listen to Joy's refutation of this. I couldn't find anything understandable in it.

jreed wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 10:08 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 4:59 am Happy new year, Fred! Goodbye!

Here’s the link to Joy’s talk at AGACSE 2021
https://youtu.be/4h29G5yGzaI

Here’s Lasenby’s talk
https://youtu.be/73NJHqJ-WxI

If you carefully listen to and understand the first part of Lasenby's presentation you will understand what is wrong with Joy's arguments about sign changes. Then listen to Joy's refutation of this. I couldn't find anything understandable in it.

What a load of nonsense! There is nothing wrong with my argument. Lasenby is making the same stupid mistake that Gill has been making for years because Lasenby has simply copied Gill's mistake without thinking it through. Lasenby acknowledges in his paper that he has copied the mistakes from Gill verbatim. In my talk and in an upcoming paper, I completely demolish Lasenby's argument.

Lasenby was one of the reviewers of my IEEE Access paper and he made the same arguments there, which were overruled by the editors of IEEE Access.

PS: I have also refuted Gill-Lasenby argument in extensive detail in my published reply to Gill: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 10:42 am

jreed wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 10:08 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 4:59 am Happy new year, Fred! Goodbye!

Here’s the link to Joy’s talk at AGACSE 2021
https://youtu.be/4h29G5yGzaI

Here’s Lasenby’s talk
https://youtu.be/73NJHqJ-WxI

If you carefully listen to and understand the first part of Lasenby's presentation you will understand what is wrong with Joy's arguments about sign changes. Then listen to Joy's refutation of this. I couldn't find anything understandable in it.

What a load of nonsense! There is nothing wrong with my argument. Lasenby is making the same stupid mistake that Gill has been making for years because Lasenby has simply copied Gill's mistake without thinking it through. Lasenby acknowledges in his paper that he has copied the mistakes from Gill verbatim. In my talk and in an upcoming paper, I completely demolish Lasenby's argument.

Lasenby was one of the reviewers of my IEEE Access paper and he made the same arguments there, which were overruled by the editors of IEEE Access.

PS: I have also refuted Gill-Lasenby argument in extensive detail in my published reply to Gill: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997.

What? Did you expect something other than nonsense from a Bell fanatic? Your updated argument is even better but they have absolutely nothing to say about it so far. Do you have a link to Lasenby's paper? I don't think I ever saw it.
.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:01 am
What? Did you expect something other than nonsense from a Bell fanatic? Your updated argument is even better but they have absolutely nothing to say about it so far. Do you have a link to Lasenby's paper? I don't think I ever saw it.

Here is the link to Lasenby's AACA paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 020-1046-0.

Here is my response to it: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32002.09929/1.

The argument made by Lasenby in his talk is not published anywhere, but he made the same argument as a reviewer and it was overruled by editors.

Just look at equation (2) in Lasenby's slides and you will immediately understand his mistake. It is the same mistake that Gill had made back in 2012.

It is also worth noting that in the updated version of this thread the orientation lambda plays no role so Lasenby's entire argument goes to the dustbin.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:26 am ...
It is also worth noting that in the updated version of this thread the orientation lambda plays no role so Lasenby's entire argument goes to the dustbin.

Also in the dustbin is Gill's claim about your A and B functions always giving -1 for AB. With the full detector polarization, the A and B functions give +/-1 for AB. So, that is why the Bell fanatics haven't said anything other than nonsense about the updated model. It is because they can't! 'tis a mystery why they just don't admit that Bell's junk physics theory is in the dustbin also.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:26 am ...
Just look at equation (2) in Lasenby's slides and you will immediately understand his mistake. It is the same mistake that Gill had made back in 2012. ...

I just looked that up in the slides finally. It is at around 15:42 for those that are interested. Whoa! How does a GA guy make a blatant mistake like that? It is like Lockyer all over again.
.

Joy Christian and Anthony Lasenby’s AGACSE talks in Brno, 2021, are on YouTube. Links from here:
http://agacse2021.fme.vutbr.cz/photos.php

https://youtu.be/73NJHqJ-WxI Lasenby
https://youtu.be/4h29G5yGzaI Christian

They are separating the Lasenby-Christian debate from the main part of the conference.

Meanwhile, Bryan Sanctuary’s bet is live.
https://gill1109.com/2022/01/02/the-big-bell-bet/
If you want to deal a devastating blow to all quantum mysterians, you will want to support Bryan Sanctuary.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 7:30 pm ...
Meanwhile, Bryan Sanctuary’s bet is live.
https://gill1109.com/2022/01/02/the-big-bell-bet/
If you want to deal a devastating blow to all quantum mysterians, you will want to support Bryan Sanctuary.

Where is his model? Last time I looked, his model didn't work. Besides, you are finished as a Bell fanatics so not sure why you are doing this junky bet.
.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 7:49 pm

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 7:30 pm ...
Meanwhile, Bryan Sanctuary’s bet is live.
https://gill1109.com/2022/01/02/the-big-bell-bet/
If you want to deal a devastating blow to all quantum mysterians, you will want to support Bryan Sanctuary.

Where is his model? Last time I looked, his model didn't work. Besides, you are finished as a Bell fanatics so not sure why you are doing this junky bet.
.

Bryan is not a Bell fanatic! He agrees with you that Bell was wrong. He claims that he is now going to do what so far Joy failed to do: convince the majority of physicists that there is no weirdness, spookiness, or non-locality in QM. He believes that his results will lead to people like Zeilinger and Gisin withdrawing their famous papers. I suggest you get in touch. Bryan could probably do with your help.

Chantal Roth used to write programs for both Joy and Bryan.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 12:11 pm

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:26 am ...
It is also worth noting that in the updated version of this thread the orientation lambda plays no role so Lasenby's entire argument goes to the dustbin.

Also in the dustbin is Gill's claim about your A and B functions always giving -1 for AB. With the full detector polarization, the A and B functions give +/-1 for AB. So, that is why the Bell fanatics haven't said anything other than nonsense about the updated model. It is because they can't! 'tis a mystery why they just don't admit that Bell's junk physics theory is in the dustbin also.

Notice how Gill is engaged in all sorts of deflection tactics instead of admitting what he should have admitted at least ten years ago. What a loser!
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 12:08 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 12:11 pm

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:26 am ...
It is also worth noting that in the updated version of this thread the orientation lambda plays no role so Lasenby's entire argument goes to the dustbin.

Also in the dustbin is Gill's claim about your A and B functions always giving -1 for AB. With the full detector polarization, the A and B functions give +/-1 for AB. So, that is why the Bell fanatics haven't said anything other than nonsense about the updated model. It is because they can't! 'tis a mystery why they just don't admit that Bell's junk physics theory is in the dustbin also.

Notice how Gill is engaged in all sorts of deflection tactics instead of admitting what he should have admitted at least ten years ago. What a loser!

Joy, I have nothing to lose. You're the guy who can never admit that you've made a mistake.

Fred: your latest "model" isn't Joy's model. Though it must be admitted, Joy's model is a moving target. Christian 1.0, Christian 2.0, Christian 3.0. Talk about moving the goalposts! Lasenby's criticism of an important part of two of Joy's recent papers is spot-on. I'm talking about Lasenby's formulas (1) and (2) in his slides. I'm looking forward to shooting down Christian 4.0. It sure is taking a long time coming... You two really could better spend your time on quantum gravity. Forget the Bell distraction.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 3:12 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 12:08 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 12:11 pm
Also in the dustbin is Gill's claim about your A and B functions always giving -1 for AB. With the full detector polarization, the A and B functions give +/-1 for AB. So, that is why the Bell fanatics haven't said anything other than nonsense about the updated model. It is because they can't! 'tis a mystery why they just don't admit that Bell's junk physics theory is in the dustbin also.

Notice how Gill is engaged in all sorts of deflection tactics instead of admitting what he should have admitted at least ten years ago. What a loser!

Joy, I have nothing to lose. You're the guy who can never admit that you've made a mistake.

Fred: your latest "model" isn't Joy's model. Though it must be admitted, Joy's model is a moving target. Christian 1.0, Christian 2.0, Christian 3.0. Talk about moving the goalposts! Lasenby's criticism of an important part of two of Joy's recent papers is spot-on. I'm talking about Lasenby's formulas (1) and (2) in his slides. I'm looking forward to shooting down Christian 4.0. It sure is taking a long time coming... You two really could better spend your time on quantum gravity. Forget the Bell distraction.

Lasenby's formulas (1) and (2) contain the same stupid mistake you made in 2012 in your first preprint --- see your unnumbered equation (2). You have a very bad habit of not numbering your equations. Your unnumbered second equation, with extra lambda inserted in the middle by you, by hand, is a straw man equation and you know it. It is not my equation at all. Lasenby has simply copypasted your mistakes. He is going to regret that sooner or later.

In Subsection IV-D of my paper published in IEEE Access, I have refuted Lasenby's equations (1) and (2): https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997.

Note also that the so-called theorem of Bell has been discredited. His paper should never have been published because it contains many conceptual mistakes. I have explained these mistakes in Subsections III-A to III-D of my forthcoming paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24054.11847.
.

Here's what I got out of Lasenby's presentation:
Straightforward geometric algebra, right hand frame
vectors: e1, e2, e3,
pseudoscaler I = e1 e2 e3
bivectors: B1 = I e1, B2 = I e2, B3 = I e3

For a left hand frame, reverse signs of e1, e2, e3: e1' =-e1, e2' = -e2, e3' = -e3,
for the pseudoscaler we have I' = -I
and for the bivectors, B1' = I' e1' = B1, similarly, B2' = B2, B3' = B3
There's no left hand frame for the bivectors, they are identical to the vectors.
The use of lambda in the following equations in Joy's paper is incorrect.

This is all straightforward geometric algebra and easy to understand.

jreed wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:48 am Here's what I got out of Lasenby's presentation:
Straightforward geometric algebra, right hand frame
vectors: e1, e2, e3,
pseudoscaler I = e1 e2 e3
bivectors: B1 = I e1, B2 = I e2, B3 = I e3

For a left hand frame, reverse signs of e1, e2, e3: e1' =-e1, e2' = -e2, e3' = -e3,
for the pseudoscaler we have I' = -I
and for the bivectors, B1' = I' e1' = B1, similarly, B2' = B2, B3' = B3
There's no left hand frame for the bivectors, they are identical to the vectors.
The use of lambda in the following equations in Joy's paper is incorrect.

This is all straightforward geometric algebra and easy to understand.

Good. Rejoice. Be happy. And while you are at it, don't forget to divide by zero. After all, that is one of your expertise.
.

jreed wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:48 am ...
The use of lambda in the following equations in Joy's paper is incorrect. ...

There is no lambda in the updated model. What the heck are you going to do now? You ought to just admit that Bell's junk physics theory belongs in the dustbin.
.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:27 am

jreed wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:48 am ...
The use of lambda in the following equations in Joy's paper is incorrect. ...

There is no lambda in the updated model. What the heck are you going to do now? You ought to just admit that Bell's junk physics theory belongs in the dustbin.

There is no updated model. There is Fred endlessly writing and rewriting Mathematica spaghetti code in order to draw noisy approximations to negative cosines in the most obscure way possible. There is Joy playing with meaningless formulas, doing algebra and calculus and probability theory with his own private pre-modern rules, and no regard for logic.

jreed wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:48 am Here's what I got out of Lasenby's presentation:
Straightforward geometric algebra, right hand frame
vectors: e1, e2, e3,
pseudoscaler I = e1 e2 e3
bivectors: B1 = I e1, B2 = I e2, B3 = I e3

For a left hand frame, reverse signs of e1, e2, e3: e1' =-e1, e2' = -e2, e3' = -e3,
for the pseudoscaler we have I' = -I
and for the bivectors, B1' = I' e1' = B1, similarly, B2' = B2, B3' = B3
There's no left hand frame for the bivectors, they are identical to the vectors.
The use of lambda in the following equations in Joy's paper is incorrect.

This is all straightforward geometric algebra and easy to understand.

Yes. Exactly. And all this has been known since 2007. All that has happened over the years is that the packaging has got fancier and fancier, and finally some suckers began to fall for it.