Re: Coming Soon!

[gill1109]

Joy’s method delivers the cosine exactly. But I wouldn’t call it a theory. I think of it as science fantasy.

Yep, Gill has had NO clue for 14 years that Bell's theory is junk physics so he lives in some kind of fantasyland all this time. I'm sorry, but it is time for you to get out of that fantasy and move on. Especially now that Joy has recently done away with your specific objections. There is now nothing left for you to cry about.

Yes, he tried. He doesn’t convince anybody. I’m laughing, not crying.

[FrediFizzx]

Joy’s method delivers the cosine exactly. But I wouldn’t call it a theory. I think of it as science fantasy.

Yep, Gill has had NO clue for 14 years that Bell's theory is junk physics so he lives in some kind of fantasyland all this time. I'm sorry, but it is time for you to get out of that fantasy and move on. Especially now that Joy has recently done away with your specific objections. There is now nothing left for you to cry about.

Yes, he tried. He doesn’t convince anybody. I’m laughing, not crying.

Joy convinced me didn't he? You are going to be crying a lot very soon. Your days are numbered as a Bell fanatic. It is quite a shame that you haven't seen the writing on the wall for 14 years. You are going to feel so foolish which you should be already.
.

[gill1109]

Indeed, Joy convinced Fred! And that's where the convincing seems to have stopped!

But OK, we will see who else you two are able to convince after your next work is published.

[Joy Christian]

Indeed, Joy convinced Fred! And that's where the convincing seems to have stopped!

I wonder how I managed to publish FIVE papers on my work in highly respected journals in the past six years without convincing anyone:

(1) International Journal of Theoretical Physics: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 014-2412-2

(2) Royal Society Open Science: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526

(3) IEEE Access: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453

(4) IEEE Access: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9226414

(5) IEEE Access: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997

And how did I manage to get invited to present my work at the conference in honor of the father of Geometric Algebra, Prof. David Hestenes?

(1) Slides of My Invited Talk at the GA Conference in Honor of Prof. David Hestenes: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21753.39529

Not to mention the unwanted interest of an obsessive-compulsive stalker of my work and my academic life for the past ten years.

All these happened without anyone interested in my work. How miraculous!
.

[gill1109]

Indeed, people are fascinated by your work. People feel a deep need for Bell to have been wrong. People want Geometric Algebra to cause the breakthrough. My obsessive-compulsive attention did not stop you getting those works published. On the contrary, it kept attention to your work alive. (It kept me alive too through some very, very dark times, that’s another story).

Notice that one person played a crucial role in the IEEE Access and RSOS papers and in the organisation of the GA conference. Derek Abbott is a great populariser of GA and has been promoting your work in the past. We could ask him what he thinks of your work now. It is excellent that it got published. There was no “establishment conspiracy” against it. It was controversial. I was asked to referee some of those papers, and I declined. One third-rate statistician should not be the gate-keeper who keeps preventing your work from getting the exposure which you want it to have. Now we can sit back and watch what impact the published work will have.

[Joy Christian]

.
Bell WAS wrong. I have presented overwhelming evidence that Bell was wrong for the past fourteen years, and more evidence is "coming soon."

Prof. Derek Abbott was not one of the organizers of the GA conference. He was not the one who invited me to present my work at the conference. The person who did invite me was adamant that he remained anonymous, especially from Richard D. Gill. But that narrows it down substantially because there were only a very small number of organizers of that conference. So you can play your guessing game and start slandering and harassing them all as you do.
.

[gill1109]

Derek was co-organiser of a session at the conference. But who cares? People were interested to hear you. They were excited to see a confrontation between you and Lasenby. They were astounded at what they heard. They were delighted that their man, Lasenby, carried the day. I doubt they’ll invite you to speak at their next conference. After all, you proudly said that you didn’t care about mathematics. Lasenby quoted a well known mathematical theorem and you said “I don’t believe that”. The reaction of people (organisers) I spoke to was “goodbye, Joy Christian”.

[Joy Christian]

Derek was co-organiser of a session at the conference. But who cares? People were interested to hear you. They were excited to see a confrontation between you and Lasenby. They were astounded at what they heard. They were delighted that their man, Lasenby, carried the day. I doubt they’ll invite you to speak at their next conference. After all, you proudly said that you didn’t care about mathematics. Lasenby quoted a well known mathematical theorem and you said “I don’t believe that”. The reaction of people (organisers) I spoke to was “goodbye, Joy Christian”.

Complete nonsense and lies. You have a vivid imagination and knack for artful lying. I shot down Lasenby's arguments completely, one by one, as anyone can see from the slides for my talk: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21753.39529. I have been invited to publish my arguments in the proceedings.

But you are welcome to remain deluded in your worthless fantasies. That is your choice. You are going down in history as a pathetic loser in any case.
.

[gill1109]

You have a vivid imagination and knack for artful lying. .... You are going down in history as a pathetic loser in any case.

"A vivid imagination and knack for artful lying". Who are you talking about, Joy?

I'm very glad that Joy Christian will get his contribution published in the proceedings. This proves yet again that there is no establishment conspiracy against him. History will tell who goes down as a pathetic loser.

[Joy Christian]

"A vivid imagination and knack for artful lying". Who are you talking about, Joy?

I am talking about you, Richard D. Gill.
.

[FrediFizzx]

History will tell who goes down as a pathetic loser.

We don't need to wait for any stinkin' freakin' history! It is clear as day. You are the pathetic loser.



And..., that baby is still screaming -a.b!

Plot Verification of the Analytical 3-Sphere Model Based on Geometric Algebra using Quaternions


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


.

[jreed]

Fred, can you post the notebook file for these plots? I'd like to see what you are doing.

[FrediFizzx]

Fred, can you post the notebook file for these plots? I'd like to see what you are doing.

Here you go,

Cloud File.

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

Direct Files.

download/CS-39-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.pdf
download/CS-39-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.nb

Enjoy the fixed code! It is really awesome and just gets better and better.

CHSH new version. 2.81796

Cloud File.

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

Enjoy!
.

[gill1109]

"A vivid imagination and knack for artful lying". Who are you talking about, Joy?

I am talking about you, Richard D. Gill.

We know that, Joy. But the description fits you to a tee.

Meanwhile, we will see your talk soon, I hope:

Thank you very much for your valuable impact to this conference.We are happy to announce we have just started publishing the lectures in our YouTube channel. We hope you shall enjoy the conference videos.
At first, the video of Opening Ceremony https://youtu.be/9PHESBoVW3c
Next, the two opening lectures:
Prof. Osamu Suzuki: Non-commutative Galois theory and its application to general evolution https://youtu.be/UW5FHVdvdwM
Prof. Massimo Vaccaro: Sp(n)-orbits of isoclinic subspaces in the real Grassmannians https://youtu.be/W1vcMiz-EIg
Next, Prof. Lino F. Resendis Ocampo: Bicomplex Bergman Projection https://youtu.be/6aXMFFBfmyM
Prof. Zhang: Exact solution of ferromagnetic 3D Ising model and computational complexity of spin-glass 3D Ising system https://youtu.be/Mlk4G2V-eDo
Prof. Sergiy Plaksa, Monogenic functions in a harmonic algebra https://youtu.be/LoYaqbsQt1Y
Next goes Chantal Roth and Marek Danielewski with Quaternion Quantum Mechanics: from Hamilton spacetime to the displacement four-potential in the Planck-Kleinert crystal https://youtu.be/QXDUItMVE4U

The order in which we are publishing depends on so many factors, that you most likely wouldn't like to know (however, remember the desserts sometimes come late!).
Please write comments, give likes, share and consider subscribing of our channel.
More of the fascinating lectures will appear soon.

[FrediFizzx]

"A vivid imagination and knack for artful lying". Who are you talking about, Joy?

I am talking about you, Richard D. Gill.

We know that, Joy. But the description fits you to a tee.

Again..., more pure nonsense. I thought I told you to stop doing that? Maybe you would get more traffic on your Google group if you didn't lie so much and didn't spew so much nonsense? Anyways, you know what happens here if you keep doing it. This thread is for discussing the simulations so get back to it or shut up!
.

[jreed]

I have looked at your latest version, and here are my comments:

You did a great job of getting things to fit the cosine curve. The fitting worked really well.
There are now two detectors for each observer. They generate two records for each experiment for each observer.
The detection loophole is still there. This is easy to see by adding the line of code:
Total[nPP + nPN + nNP + nNN]
after the statistical analysis. This will display how many records were saved out of the total of twice the number of trials.
I get about 50%. The rest were discarded.
The discarded records were those where 0.001 was added to the derived sign value, giving 1.001 or -0.999.
When these go through the statistical analysis, the program drops them since 1.001 is not equal to 1, and -0.999 is not equal to -1.

[Joy Christian]

I have looked at your latest version, and here are my comments:

You did a great job of getting things to fit the cosine curve. The fitting worked really well.
There are now two detectors for each observer. They generate two records for each experiment for each observer.
The detection loophole is still there. This is easy to see by adding the line of code:
Total[nPP + nPN + nNP + nNN]
after the statistical analysis. This will display how many records were saved out of the total of twice the number of trials.
I get about 50%. The rest were discarded.
The discarded records were those where 0.001 was added to the derived sign value, giving 1.001 or -0.999.
When these go through the statistical analysis, the program drops them since 1.001 is not equal to 1, and -0.999 is not equal to -1.

There is only one detector in Fred's code, not two. And there is no detection loophole in the code --- no data is rejected. More importantly, there is near exact one-to-one correspondence between the initial states and the results detected by Alice and Bob. I ask Fred not to explain anything further in public until our paper is completed in presentable form. Until then, let anyone think what they wish about the code. We are not responsible for their mistakes.
.

[FrediFizzx]

I have looked at your latest version, and here are my comments:

You did a great job of getting things to fit the cosine curve. The fitting worked really well.
There are now two detectors for each observer. They generate two records for each experiment for each observer.
The detection loophole is still there. This is easy to see by adding the line of code:
Total[nPP + nPN + nNP + nNN]
after the statistical analysis. This will display how many records were saved out of the total of twice the number of trials.
I get about 50%. The rest were discarded.
The discarded records were those where 0.001 was added to the derived sign value, giving 1.001 or -0.999.
When these go through the statistical analysis, the program drops them since 1.001 is not equal to 1, and -0.999 is not equal to -1.

Well, that would be a partial thanks, but here is an update for you. Took out the 0.001's as they aren't needed after all.

Cloud File

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

Direct files.

download/CS-40-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.pdf
download/CS-40-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.nb

Enjoy!
.

[FrediFizzx]

I have looked at your latest version, and here are my comments:

You did a great job of getting things to fit the cosine curve. The fitting worked really well.
There are now two detectors for each observer. They generate two records for each experiment for each observer.
The detection loophole is still there. This is easy to see by adding the line of code:
Total[nPP + nPN + nNP + nNN]
after the statistical analysis. This will display how many records were saved out of the total of twice the number of trials.
I get about 50%. The rest were discarded.
The discarded records were those where 0.001 was added to the derived sign value, giving 1.001 or -0.999.
When these go through the statistical analysis, the program drops them since 1.001 is not equal to 1, and -0.999 is not equal to -1.

Well, that would be a partial thanks, but here is an update for you. Took out the 0.001's as they aren't needed after all.

Cloud File

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

Direct files.

download/CS-40-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.pdf
download/CS-40-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.nb

Enjoy!

Here is a 5 million trial plot to go with the update.



Baby is still screamin' -a.b!
.

[gill1109]

I have looked at your latest version, and here are my comments:

You did a great job of getting things to fit the cosine curve. The fitting worked really well.
There are now two detectors for each observer. They generate two records for each experiment for each observer.
The detection loophole is still there. This is easy to see by adding the line of code:
Total[nPP + nPN + nNP + nNN]
after the statistical analysis. This will display how many records were saved out of the total of twice the number of trials.
I get about 50%. The rest were discarded.
The discarded records were those where 0.001 was added to the derived sign value, giving 1.001 or -0.999.
When these go through the statistical analysis, the program drops them since 1.001 is not equal to 1, and -0.999 is not equal to -1.

There is only one detector in Fred's code, not two. And there is no detection loophole in the code --- no data is rejected. More importantly, there is near exact one-to-one correspondence between the initial states and the results detected by Alice and Bob. I ask Fred not to explain anything further in public until our paper is completed in presentable form. Until then, let anyone think what they wish about the code. We are not responsible for their mistakes.

Joy is playing word games. The code generates numbers in various files. Mathematica's vectors, matrices, lists etc. are files containing data. From the point of view of computer science all those generated numbers, including the ones which are discarded, are data. So there is data selection.

From the point of view of computer science there are no detectors. There are just functions generating and transforming data. There are no trials. No experimenters. There is data and there is data selection.

From the point of view of probability theory, this selection process generates data from a conditional probability distribution of measurement outcomes, given selection. Selection (leading to what Christian calls "initial states") depends on a criterion which is a function of settings and of the hidden variables determining the pre-initial states. Consequently, the measurement outcomes on both sides depend on the settings on both sides. Bell's theorem is violated because an important condition is violated: statistical independence of settings from hidden variables.

I doubt that Joy and Fred will get this published in a decent journal, but who knows, scientific publishing is not what it once was. Peer review is pretty meaningless.

On a side note, and talking of peer review, my RSOS "Comment" on Joy's RSOS paper just got finally accepted.