Re: Coming Soon!

[FrediFizzx]

Update: 5 million trials; zero matches!

[gill1109]

@gill1109 More typical misdirection so deleted your post. Ask a question about something specific in the junk theories. You can explain the more broader questions you asked if you wish. I don't have time for this nonsense actually. Working on the GRF essay.

That was not misdirection. You claim that you have demolished mathematical claims and/or scientific claims by myself and by Bell. So I asked you if you could tell us, in your own words, what you think those claims are. In science, when we say that some work by someone else is wrong, we explain what it is that we think is wrong. Anybody can go around shouting that so-and-so's scientific results are wrong, but nobody will listen to them if they don't explain what they think is wrong.

And then you simply delete my post calling it "misdirection"! No wonder *nobody* hangs out on this forum anymore. You killed it!

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 More typical misdirection so deleted your post. Ask a question about something specific in the junk theories. You can explain the more broader questions you asked if you wish. I don't have time for this nonsense actually. Working on the GRF essay.

That was not misdirection. You claim that you have demolished mathematical claims and/or scientific claims by myself and by Bell. So I asked you if you could tell us, in your own words, what you think those claims are. In science, when we say that some work by someone else is wrong, we explain what it is that we think is wrong. Anybody can go around shouting that so-and-so's scientific results are wrong, but nobody will listen to them if they don't explain what they think is wrong.

And then you simply delete my post calling it "misdirection"! No wonder *nobody* hangs out on this forum anymore. You killed it!

LOL! People get tired of discussing Bell's junk physics theory from time to time. Does this look like a face that cares? Less discussion less junk I have to read thru less work for me. Besides, I'm busy on a gravity project right now.

"Ask a question about something specific in the junk theories." is my request. Your request above is too general and not really a question so yes, more misdirection. You're lucky I didn't just delete your post. But my guess is that you can't think of a question to ask that I can't answer.
.

[jreed]

Here is an update to the quaternion matching version that incorporates Joy's updated 3-Sphere model. It still has the singlet vector and particle quaternions as 3D and the "a" and "b" detection vectors as 2D. This seems to be the best combination. Note that the spinorial sign changes are still only about 3.5 percent of total events. 5 million trials; one degree resolution.



Product Calculation Verification


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

Cloud File.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... c-forum.nb

Direct files.

sims/newCS-57-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.pdf
sims/newCS-57-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.nb

Something interesting that I just discovered about this simulation. For a million trials the trial numbers for events on the A side that have spinorial sign changes don't match any of the trial numbers on the B side for spinorial sign changes. Zero! Nada! That means the spinorial sign changes are completely independent between A and B so definitely 100 percent local. And there is less than 3.5 percent of them on each side to go from straight lines to close to the negative cosine curve! Fantastic!
.

Here's the latest challenge in the ongoing discussion that I call "Find Fred's Fallacy". First we had that simulation that used the obscure Mathematica routine "Intersection". It used a non-local computation to beat Bell's theorem. Then we went to using the detection loophole. In this latest version, we have the non-local computation back again, now called "Spinoral sign changes". It uses the same non-local computation that the first version used, but now not as well disguised. Keep at it Fred. I like these little games.

[FrediFizzx]

...
Here's the latest challenge in the ongoing discussion that I call "Find Fred's Fallacy". First we had that simulation that used the obscure Mathematica routine "Intersection". It used a non-local computation to beat Bell's theorem. Then we went to using the detection loophole. In this latest version, we have the non-local computation back again, now called "Spinoral sign changes". It uses the same non-local computation that the first version used, but now not as well disguised. Keep at it Fred. I like these little games.

Ah, jeez! More work for me. Actually I exploited your code to make the latest simulation faster to evaluate. So, thanks for that. Now, you actually have to prove that it is non-local. Which you haven't really done yet. Matching trial numbers between A and B doesn't cut it since they are created when the source is created. Yep, you are still pathetic on understanding the physics of EPR-Bell. Besides that, the spinorial sign changes are less than 3.5 percent of the total events. So Bell fanatic-wise, we are 96.5 percent local at least and most likely even closer to 99.5 percent local fanatic-wise (100 percent local with the spinorial sign changes). So, what are you going to do about that? I don't see that you can do anything about it.
.

[jreed]

Well, it's easy to prove that your spinorial sign changes are what is doing the trick. I took your latest version and bypassed the spinorial sign change part. What I got was a perfect triangle output plot. What does that tell us? That the spinorial sign change code is creating your cosine output curve.

[FrediFizzx]

Well, it's easy to prove that your spinorial sign changes are what is doing the trick. I took your latest version and bypassed the spinorial sign change part. What I got was a perfect triangle output plot. What does that tell us? That the spinorial sign change code is creating your cosine output curve.

Sure, but the spinorial sign changes are 100 percent local! Prove that they aren't local and/or they don't exist. You can't. So, what are you going to try now?
.

[FrediFizzx]

Well, it's easy to prove that your spinorial sign changes are what is doing the trick. I took your latest version and bypassed the spinorial sign change part. What I got was a perfect triangle output plot. What does that tell us? That the spinorial sign change code is creating your cosine output curve.

Sure, but the spinorial sign changes are 100 percent local! Prove that they aren't local and/or they don't exist. You can't. So, what are you going to try now?

Code: Select all

outqA3[[i]][[2]] = outqA[[i]][[2]]*-1
outqB3[[i]][[2]] = outqB[[i]][[2]]*-1

That action is 100 percent local for the spinorial sign changes!
.

[jreed]

Well, it's easy to prove that your spinorial sign changes are what is doing the trick. I took your latest version and bypassed the spinorial sign change part. What I got was a perfect triangle output plot. What does that tell us? That the spinorial sign change code is creating your cosine output curve.

Sure, but the spinorial sign changes are 100 percent local! Prove that they aren't local and/or they don't exist. You can't. So, what are you going to try now?

Code: Select all

outqA3[[i]][[2]] = outqA[[i]][[2]]*-1
outqB3[[i]][[2]] = outqB[[i]][[2]]*-1

That action is 100 percent local for the spinorial sign changes!
.

You didn't include the non-local part. Here's the do-loop for Alice's sign flip:

Do[If[hB[] == 1 && outAa[][[2]] != outAa[][[4]],
ssca[] = 1, ssca[] = 0], {i, m}]

This says if hB for this experiment is equal to 1 and Alice's detector 2 isn't equal to detector 1, flip the sign of Alice's result. Now, hB comes from Bob's side of the experiment. Alice has to communicate with Bob to get hB. This is done before the data are analyzed, and gives a non-local value.

[FrediFizzx]

Sure, but the spinorial sign changes are 100 percent local! Prove that they aren't local and/or they don't exist. You can't. So, what are you going to try now?

Code: Select all

outqA3[[i]][[2]] = outqA[[i]][[2]]*-1
outqB3[[i]][[2]] = outqB[[i]][[2]]*-1

That action is 100 percent local for the spinorial sign changes!
.

You didn't include the non-local part. Here's the do-loop for Alice's sign flip:

Code: Select all

Do[If[hB[[i]] == 1 && outAa[[i]][[2]] != outAa[[i]][[4]], 
  ssca[[i]] = 1, ssca[[i]] = 0], {i, m}]

This says if hB for this experiment is equal to 1 and Alice's detector 2 isn't equal to detector 1, flip the sign of Alice's result. Now, hB comes from Bob's side of the experiment. Alice has to communicate with Bob to get hB. This is done before the data are analyzed, and gives a non-local value.

Jeez, you can't even get the correct line. I'll do both lines for A and B.

Code: Select all

Do[If[h2[[i]] == 1 && outqA[[i]][[2]] != outqA[[i]][[4]], 
  outqA3[[i]][[2]] = outqA[[i]][[2]]*-1], {i, m}]  (*Spinorial sign change*)
Do[If[h1[[i]] == 1 && outqB[[i]][[2]] != outqB[[i]][[4]], 
  outqB3[[i]][[2]] = outqB[[i]][[2]]*-1], {i, m}]  (*Spinorial sign change*)

And it works better if you put it in a code box since the forum program doesn't like some of the characters (it thinks you are doing italics). Anyways, so what? The spinorial sign changes are still local. The only way you could possibly prove that it is non-local is by doing a test like Gill did. However, the LOCAL spinorial sign changes wipe that test out! So, try again; perhaps you could devise a test like Gill's only different.
.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 More typical misdirection so deleted your post. Ask a question about something specific in the junk theories. You can explain the more broader questions you asked if you wish. I don't have time for this nonsense actually. Working on the GRF essay.

That was not misdirection. You claim that you have demolished mathematical claims and/or scientific claims by myself and by Bell. So I asked you if you could tell us, in your own words, what you think those claims are. In science, when we say that some work by someone else is wrong, we explain what it is that we think is wrong. Anybody can go around shouting that so-and-so's scientific results are wrong, but nobody will listen to them if they don't explain what they think is wrong.

And then you simply delete my post calling it "misdirection"! No wonder *nobody* hangs out on this forum anymore. You killed it!

LOL! People get tired of discussing Bell's junk physics theory from time to time. Does this look like a face that cares? Less discussion less junk I have to read thru less work for me. Besides, I'm busy on a gravity project right now.

"Ask a question about something specific in the junk theories." is my request. Your request above is too general and not really a question so yes, more misdirection. You're lucky I didn't just delete your post. But my guess is that you can't think of a question to ask that I can't answer.

I'm still wondering if I will get asked a test question about the junk theories. Probably won't.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Yep, Gill can't think of a specific question to ask about the junk theories that I can't answer. He keeps making the same general request which I have already answered via the simulations. This simulation destroys Bell's junk physics theory.

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

This simulation destroys both Gill's junk math theory and Bell's junk physics theory.

sims/newCS-57-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.pdf

It doesn't take much to figure out the how. Gill just doesn't want to face the ugly (ugly for him; beautiful for us) truth that he is no longer a Bell fanatic.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Code: Select all

outqA3[[i]][[2]] = outqA[[i]][[2]]*-1
outqB3[[i]][[2]] = outqB[[i]][[2]]*-1

That action is 100 percent local for the spinorial sign changes!
.

You didn't include the non-local part. Here's the do-loop for Alice's sign flip:

Code: Select all

Do[If[hB[[i]] == 1 && outAa[[i]][[2]] != outAa[[i]][[4]], 
  ssca[[i]] = 1, ssca[[i]] = 0], {i, m}]

This says if hB for this experiment is equal to 1 and Alice's detector 2 isn't equal to detector 1, flip the sign of Alice's result. Now, hB comes from Bob's side of the experiment. Alice has to communicate with Bob to get hB. This is done before the data are analyzed, and gives a non-local value.

Jeez, you can't even get the correct line. I'll do both lines for A and B.

Code: Select all

Do[If[h2[[i]] == 1 && outqA[[i]][[2]] != outqA[[i]][[4]], 
  outqA3[[i]][[2]] = outqA[[i]][[2]]*-1], {i, m}]  (*Spinorial sign change*)
Do[If[h1[[i]] == 1 && outqB[[i]][[2]] != outqB[[i]][[4]], 
  outqB3[[i]][[2]] = outqB[[i]][[2]]*-1], {i, m}]  (*Spinorial sign change*)

And it works better if you put it in a code box since the forum program doesn't like some of the characters (it thinks you are doing italics). Anyways, so what? The spinorial sign changes are still local. The only way you could possibly prove that it is non-local is by doing a test like Gill did. However, the LOCAL spinorial sign changes wipe that test out! So, try again; perhaps you could devise a test like Gill's only different.

You would have to find events where a change in "a" causes a change in B or "b" cause a change in A when a spinorial sign change is NOT involved. But from what I see, that is impossible.
.

[jreed]

If you can't, or won't see that hB is causing a change in A's sign, there is nothing I can add to this silly discussion.

[FrediFizzx]

If you can't, or won't see that hB is causing a change in A's sign, there is nothing I can add to this silly discussion.

You are the one being silly. Anyone can plainly see that h2 is involved with matching trial numbers with A, but it doesn't matter because the spinorial sign changes are completely local and the matching between elements 2 and 4 of the table rows are completely local. At this point, we don't really care what the actual "cause" might be for the spinorial sign changes. And Bell fanatic-wise, what are you going to do about the other 96.5 percent of events that are completely local? And h1 and h2 don't prove non-locality. You have to demonstrate that a change in "a" made a change in B, etc. when spinorial sign changes don't happen. Heck, for that matter even when there are spinorial sign changes. You will probably find a statistically insignificant few of them then. Maybe like 20 in a million events. 3.5 percent of a million is 35,000 you only have to look thru.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Yep, another freakin' update. I was able to simplify the code for h1 and h2 quite a bit plus some other notation improvements and cleanup. h1 and h2 are simply the trial numbers for events less than the hidden variable mechanism now or 0 otherwise. 6 million trials; 1 degree resolution.



Cloud File.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... c-forum.nb

Direct Files.

sims/newCS-59-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.pdf
sims/newCS-59-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.nb

Enjoy! And thus the solution for the HUGE mystery.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Gill wrote on his blog for his latest challenge, “Alice’s nth output x may depend only on Alice’s nth input a, together with (if desired) all [ie, both Alice’s and Bob’s] preceding inputs and outputs. Similarly, Bob’s nth output y may depend only on Bob’s input b, together with (if desired) all preceding inputs and outputs”.

Talk about silly and really rigged to the max... the outputs of A and B also depend on the hidden variable and the hidden variable(s) can actually override the inputs. That is what is happening in the latest simulation with the spinorial sign changes.

So..., of course Gill's challenge is rejected once again. He really should face the fact that Bell's theory is just junk physics and Gill's math theory is junk math instead of devising rigged challenges.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Gill wrote on his blog for his latest challenge, “Alice’s nth output x may depend only on Alice’s nth input a, together with (if desired) all [ie, both Alice’s and Bob’s] preceding inputs and outputs. Similarly, Bob’s nth output y may depend only on Bob’s input b, together with (if desired) all preceding inputs and outputs”.

Talk about silly and really rigged to the max... the outputs of A and B also depend on the hidden variable and the hidden variable(s) can actually override the inputs. That is what is happening in the latest simulation with the spinorial sign changes.

So..., of course Gill's challenge is rejected once again. He really should face the fact that Bell's theory is just junk physics and Gill's math theory is junk math instead of devising rigged challenges.

Gill replies,
"Fred, my challenge is rigged, if you want to call it that way, in *your* favour. You “build” the detectors and measurement devices. You can use all that information if you like, or none of it."

Another quadruple LOL!

Yeah I know, I shouldn't be dragging Gill's nonsense over here. I'll stop now.
.

[Joy Christian]

Gill wrote on his blog for his latest challenge, “Alice’s nth output x may depend only on Alice’s nth input a, together with (if desired) all [ie, both Alice’s and Bob’s] preceding inputs and outputs. Similarly, Bob’s nth output y may depend only on Bob’s input b, together with (if desired) all preceding inputs and outputs”.

Talk about silly and really rigged to the max... the outputs of A and B also depend on the hidden variable and the hidden variable(s) can actually override the inputs. That is what is happening in the latest simulation with the spinorial sign changes.

So..., of course Gill's challenge is rejected once again. He really should face the fact that Bell's theory is just junk physics and Gill's math theory is junk math instead of devising rigged challenges.

Gill replies,
"Fred, my challenge is rigged, if you want to call it that way, in *your* favour. You “build” the detectors and measurement devices. You can use all that information if you like, or none of it."

Another quadruple LOL!

Yeah I know, I shouldn't be dragging Gill's nonsense over here. I'll stop now.

A rigged challenge that only a conman could devise and suckers would fall for. Gill has no understanding of the difference between physics and Disneyland.
.

[FrediFizzx]

So OK, I will drag some of John Reed's nonsense over here from Gill's blog...

" ... I became interested in what Joy Christian was doing with geometric algebra and its relation to quantum theory. Sorry to say I was disappointed in the way it turned out. Joy and his partner, Fred have worked for many years on some things that, in the end turned out to be incorrect. That was a dead end road. I’m still not satisfied with the present interpretations of quantum theory. Every interpretation has its problems. I’m always open to new ideas in this field. ...

John"

I would sure like to know what could possibly be incorrect about this,


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

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

It is 100 percent correct and if one were to ask sensible questions about it, we would be happy to explain. John never did, so he is lying above about being "incorrect".
.