Sci.Physics.Foundations

Yep, another update. I needed to justify rab in the product calculation. It is now justified. I'm not bothering to post the plots. They are the same as before.

Cloud File.

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

Direct files.

sims/CS-43-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.pdf
sims/CS-43-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.nb

Enjoy!
.

Well Ok, by their current silence of not finding any valid flaws in the simulation, we will take it that Gill and Reed have admitted that Bell's theory is junk physics and that Gill's math theory is junk math.
.

You don't listen to our arguments against your "simulation". It's using the detection loophole. That should be easy to understand. Let me help you understand it:

lambda1 & lambda2 = 0 -> no samples are discarded -> triangle curve and CHSH <2

lambda1 & lambda2 not = 0 -> samples are discarded -> cosine curve and CHSH > 2

Yet, you won't admit that this is the detection loophole at work. There's no point in further argument with you. It's just a waste of time.

jreed wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:23 am You don't listen to our arguments against your "simulation". It's using the detection loophole. That should be easy to understand. Let me help you understand it:

lambda1 & lambda2 = 0 -> no samples are discarded -> triangle curve and CHSH <2

lambda1 & lambda2 not = 0 -> samples are discarded -> cosine curve and CHSH > 2

Yet, you won't admit that this is the detection loophole at work. There's no point in further argument with you. It's just a waste of time.

And..., you keep changing the code and then think that you have a valid argument about the detection loophole. You DON'T! Mathematical artifacts are NOT valid samples(detections). We get about the same amount of valid detection events as the number of trial particles! It REALLY is time for you to admit that Bell's theory is junk physics! Easy to see when you DON"T change the code!
.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:34 am

jreed wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:23 am You don't listen to our arguments against your "simulation". It's using the detection loophole. That should be easy to understand. Let me help you understand it:

lambda1 & lambda2 = 0 -> no samples are discarded -> triangle curve and CHSH <2

lambda1 & lambda2 not = 0 -> samples are discarded -> cosine curve and CHSH > 2

Yet, you won't admit that this is the detection loophole at work. There's no point in further argument with you. It's just a waste of time.

And..., you keep changing the code and then think that you have a valid argument about the detection loophole. You DON'T! Mathematical artifacts are NOT valid samples(detections). We get about the same amount of valid detection events as the number of trial particles! It REALLY is time for you to admit that Bell's theory is junk physics! Easy to see when you DON"T change the code!

Here is a sample of the A and B outputs.



Now, do you really think those pure quaternions should be counted as a detection(sample)? NOT! They are just mathematical artifacts and should not be counted as any kind of valid detection. However, as I said before they do have a valid purpose in keeping the valid +/-1 detections matched up event-wise.
.

Ok - Now set beta and xi to zero and rerun your program. Take a look at this same output. You'll see no quaternions, and all samples will be counted. Tell us how many events are included in this run of the program, and what the output curve and CHSH look like. Try to understand what this means.

jreed wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:26 am Ok - Now set beta and xi to zero and rerun your program. Take a look at this same output. You'll see no quaternions, and all samples will be counted. Tell us how many events are included in this run of the program, and what the output curve and CHSH look like. Try to understand what this means.

So, you are going to continue to be some kind of very foolish person thinking that the simulation means something with beta and xi set to zero? It is completely meaningless. The simulation is only valid and meaningful when you DON'T CHANGE THE CODE! Stop with the strawman models already!
.

Like I said, trying to communicate with you is just a waste of time.

jreed wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 11:21 am Like I said, trying to communicate with you is just a waste of time.

No, you just DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND A SIMPLE FACT! DON'T CHANGE THE CODE! Why do you want to keep changing the code? After I tell you it is not allowed because you then make a strawman model out of the original. Strawmen models are not valid!

Oh..., I know why you want to keep changing the code. Because you can find any flaws in the simulation!
.

I hope everyone can plainly see what nonsense the Bell fanatic John Reed is doing here. He thinks that CHANGING THE CODE by setting beta and xi to zero mean something. As as far as the valid simulation goes, it means absolutely nothing because it is a strawman. But we have known for years, strawman models are a typical tactic of Bell fanatics when they have no legitimate flaws against the actual model. Try again John, without presenting a strawman model this time but you really should admit that Bell's theory is junk physics!
.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:38 pm I hope everyone can plainly see what nonsense the Bell fanatic John Reed is doing here. He thinks that CHANGING THE CODE by setting beta and xi to zero mean something. As as far as the valid simulation goes, it means absolutely nothing because it is a strawman. But we have known for years, strawman models are a typical tactic of Bell fanatics when they have no legitimate flaws against the actual model. Try again John, without presenting a strawman model this time but you really should admit that Bell's theory is junk physics!

But we have known for years that it is impossible to convince a Bell fanatic that Bell's theory is junk physics. I mean after all, Joy busted Bell's case back in 2007! And they still didn't get any clue for all these years!

.

Now, here is a wild looking plot for you.




.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:38 pm I hope everyone can plainly see what nonsense the Bell fanatic John Reed is doing here. He thinks that CHANGING THE CODE by setting beta and xi to zero mean something. As as far as the valid simulation goes, it means absolutely nothing because it is a strawman. But we have known for years, strawman models are a typical tactic of Bell fanatics when they have no legitimate flaws against the actual model. Try again John, without presenting a strawman model this time but you really should admit that Bell's theory is junk physics!

In Science, we do experiments. We learn by doing experiments. One learns about other people's computer simulations by doing experiments in which we modify their code and watch what happens. John is a scientist. Fred, you are not.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:23 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:38 pm I hope everyone can plainly see what nonsense the Bell fanatic John Reed is doing here. He thinks that CHANGING THE CODE by setting beta and xi to zero mean something. As as far as the valid simulation goes, it means absolutely nothing because it is a strawman. But we have known for years, strawman models are a typical tactic of Bell fanatics when they have no legitimate flaws against the actual model. Try again John, without presenting a strawman model this time but you really should admit that Bell's theory is junk physics!

In Science, we do experiments. We learn by doing experiments. One learns about other people's computer simulations by doing experiments in which we modify their code and watch what happens. John is a scientist.

And...................., now we have more nonsense from Gill adding to John's nonsense.

IF YOU CHANGE THE CODE IT IS IS NOT THE SAME SIMULATION MODEL! IT'S A STRAWMAN!

John is a hack. He couldn't even get the quaternion model for Joy's model correct (he left out the singlet particle pair!). And he doesn't seem like a scientist to me otherwise he wouldn't keep making strawmen models. A scientist usually pays attention when you tell them the truth!
.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:23 am
John is a scientist. Fred, you are not.

I am not aware of a single scientific paper by John Reed. I would be happy to be corrected on this point if references to John's papers are provided.

The above slander by Richard D. Gill thus suggests that he is clueless about what makes someone a scientist.

The following are some scientific papers that unambiguously demonstrate that Fred Diether is a scientist:

(1) https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/6/8/112

(2) https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.10902

(3) https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.04468

(4) https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:32 pm

gill1109 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:23 am
John is a scientist. Fred, you are not.

I am not aware of a single scientific paper by John Reed. I would be happy to be corrected on this point if references to John's papers are provided.

The above slander by Richard D. Gill thus suggests that he is clueless about what makes someone a scientist.

The following are some scientific papers that unambiguously demonstrate that Fred Diether is a scientist:

(1) https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/6/8/112

(2) https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.10902

(3) https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.04468

(4) https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110

Thanks, Joy. God knows I'm trying. A search for "john reed" mit turns up nothing for our John. Our Universe paper at MDPI has over 1500 full text views and 6 or 7 citations.
.

Another update to the product calculation that I like better. It utilizes Joy's null vector concept however we also have null quaternions in addition to the null vectors.

Cloud File.

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

Direct Files.

sims/CS-44-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.pdf
sims/CS-44-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.nb

Enjoy!
.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 5:55 pm

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:32 pm

gill1109 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:23 am
John is a scientist. Fred, you are not.

I am not aware of a single scientific paper by John Reed. I would be happy to be corrected on this point if references to John's papers are provided.

The above slander by Richard D. Gill thus suggests that he is clueless about what makes someone a scientist.

The following are some scientific papers that unambiguously demonstrate that Fred Diether is a scientist:

(1) https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/6/8/112

(2) https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.10902

(3) https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.04468

(4) https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110

Thanks, Joy. God knows I'm trying. A search for "john reed" mit turns up nothing for our John. Our Universe paper at MDPI has over 1500 full text views and 6 or 7 citations.
.

You won't find any papers published by me. I worked in industry, and our work wasn't published. Why would we give what we discovered to our competitors? When I worked in R&D my title was Senior Research Scientist. I programmed up routines to solve the solid model wave equation to interpret seismic reflections for exploration of oil and gas reserves. The work paid well, and was fascinating. Eventually our company was bought out by larger ones, and the work was more regimented. That's when I turned it in for a golden parachute.

Now I enjoy seeing you gentlemen try to find a fault with Bell's theorem. Like Feynman, I guess I was aware that quantum mechanics implied what Bell brought to light. In order to defeat Bell's theorem, you will have to overturn quantum mechanics. Good luck with that.

jreed wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 7:01 am ...
In order to defeat Bell's theorem, you will have to overturn quantum mechanics. Good luck with that.

Quadruple LOL! You really have no clue at all! Bell's junk physics theory has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. QM is fine. It just has some minor math flaws but mostly works well. And guess what? Bell's junk physics theory was shot down by Joy in 2007! So, you are way behind the times!

But thanks for enlightening us about your career.
.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 6:31 am Another update to the product calculation that I like better. It utilizes Joy's null vector concept however we also have null quaternions in addition to the null vectors.

Cloud File.

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

Direct Files.

sims/CS-44-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.pdf
sims/CS-44-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.nb

Enjoy!

Here is a sample of the new product calculation output showing the null quaternions.



I would have to say that it is pretty hard to argue that those null quaternions are NOT mathematical artifacts. This was for 20,000 trials and you can see once those null quaternions are deleted, we have about almost 20,000 valid events.
.