Richard D. Gill wrote:
I have read carefully what you have written and I have discovered inconsistencies. I believe that what you write is impossible to understand.
You had over ten years of opportunities to understand my work but you have failed. What you have "discovered" are nothing but gaps in your education.
Richard D. Gill wrote:
But this is already obvious: there is a known mathematical theorem whose proof is completely correct.
There is no such theorem. In physics, there are no theorems. Theorems are for mathematicians. And to the extent that there is an argument by John S. Bell, I have extensively demonstrated what is wrong with it in this paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf (reading the abstract would be sufficient).
Richard D. Gill wrote:
You claim to have a counterexample. Hence your example must be wrong.
You claim to have a theorem. Hence your theorem must be wrong. More precisely, what you claim to be a "theorem" is not applicable to physics.
Richard D. Gill wrote:
Notice that my presentation of Gull’s proof of Bell’s theorem using Fourier analysis has now been published. It forms my response to a challenge made by you and Fred Diether. You are thanked in the acknowledgments.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00719
This paper of yours --- published in one of the MDPI journals whose reputation has been questioned in a paper published by Oxford Academics and of which you yourself are one of the editors --- is worthless gobbledygook. It is devoid of any physical content. As I said above, in physics there are no theorems.
.
[quote="Richard D. Gill"]
I have read carefully what you have written and I have discovered inconsistencies. I believe that what you write is impossible to understand.[/quote]
You had over ten years of opportunities to understand my work but you have failed. What you have "discovered" are nothing but gaps in your education.
[quote="Richard D. Gill"]
But this is already obvious: there is a known mathematical theorem whose proof is completely correct.[/quote]
There is no such theorem. In physics, there are no theorems. Theorems are for mathematicians. And to the extent that there is an argument by John S. Bell, I have extensively demonstrated what is wrong with it in this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf (reading the abstract would be sufficient).
[quote="Richard D. Gill"]
You claim to have a counterexample. Hence your example must be wrong.[/quote]
You claim to have a theorem. Hence your theorem must be wrong. More precisely, what you claim to be a "theorem" is not applicable to physics.
[quote="Richard D. Gill"]
Notice that my presentation of Gull’s proof of Bell’s theorem using Fourier analysis has now been published. It forms my response to a challenge made by you and Fred Diether. You are thanked in the acknowledgments. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00719 [/quote]
This paper of yours --- published in one of the MDPI journals whose reputation has been questioned in a paper published by Oxford Academics and of which you yourself are one of the editors --- is worthless gobbledygook. It is devoid of any physical content. As I said above, in physics there are no theorems.
.