Dedicated to the sci.physics.* UseNet groups of yesteryear
Skip to content
by Joy Christian » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:18 pm
Joy Christian wrote:Q-reeus wrote:BTW Joy - has the experimental protocol now firmed to a specific scenario - e.g. will it still be using marked 'exploding' plastic shells and optical tracking? Performed in earth g or simulated zero-g (temporarily/periodically free-falling) environment? Closer to a firm timetable?I don't yet know the answers to these questions, because there have been some setbacks of personal nature. Consequently, nothing firm about the timetable either.
Q-reeus wrote:BTW Joy - has the experimental protocol now firmed to a specific scenario - e.g. will it still be using marked 'exploding' plastic shells and optical tracking? Performed in earth g or simulated zero-g (temporarily/periodically free-falling) environment? Closer to a firm timetable?
by Joy Christian » Wed Sep 16, 2015 5:20 am
by Q-reeus » Wed Sep 16, 2015 5:11 am
Joy Christian wrote:Well, yes, in general. But the current context is about my proposed experiment, which is restricted to testing only one of the S^3 fibers within the general S^7 bundle.
by Joy Christian » Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:48 am
Q-reeus wrote:Joy Christian wrote:...I believe that we actually live in a quaternionic 3-sphere, S^3, and not in a flatland, R^3...Err...shouldn't that be "I believe that we actually live in an octonic (or octonionic) 7-sphere, S^7, and not in a flatland, R^3"?
Joy Christian wrote:...I believe that we actually live in a quaternionic 3-sphere, S^3, and not in a flatland, R^3...
by Q-reeus » Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:39 am
by Joy Christian » Wed Sep 16, 2015 1:31 am
ericreiter wrote:I like where Joy Christian is coming from, but there is an easier, more relevent, and actually running experiment that defies quantum mysticism.Why not use my well documented working experiments that demonstrate the failure of quantum mechanics in general. It is a beam-split coincidence test. I do it with gamma-rays to lay rest to the photon model, and I do it with alpha-rays to lay rest to the always applicable massive particle. See http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -37-06.PDFAlso see my website http://www.unquantum.netAlso, ask me for my SPIE Proceedings paper of August 11, 2015. the abstract is linked from my website.Thank you, Eric Reiter.
by ericreiter » Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:12 am
by FrediFizzx » Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:08 pm
by FrediFizzx » Wed Aug 12, 2015 1:19 am
Joy Christian wrote:An interesting comment left on by blog by some "Mr. Rosenblum": http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/d ... mment-8247
by Joy Christian » Wed Aug 12, 2015 12:47 am
by Joy Christian » Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:47 am
Mikko wrote:Joy Christian wrote: A theoretical computer scientist, Paul Snively, has crystalized the essence of my work in a logical sequence that I find quite interesting.According to Snively the logic behind my refutation of Bell's theorem is:algebra with operations lacking the closure property mathematical singularities partial functions logical inconsistency.A brief discussion of what he means by this sequence can be found on his blog: http://psnively.github.io/blog/2015/01/22/Fallacy/. That web page doesn't exist anymore.
Joy Christian wrote: A theoretical computer scientist, Paul Snively, has crystalized the essence of my work in a logical sequence that I find quite interesting.According to Snively the logic behind my refutation of Bell's theorem is:algebra with operations lacking the closure property mathematical singularities partial functions logical inconsistency.A brief discussion of what he means by this sequence can be found on his blog: http://psnively.github.io/blog/2015/01/22/Fallacy/.
by Mikko » Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:38 am
by Joy Christian » Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:01 pm
by FrediFizzx » Wed May 27, 2015 1:15 pm
by Schmelzer » Wed May 27, 2015 1:01 pm
FrediFizzx wrote:You are still non-local so in fact are still prescribing to "action at a distance". You have not gotten yourself out of quantum mysticism completely.
by FrediFizzx » Wed May 27, 2015 12:39 pm
by Schmelzer » Wed May 27, 2015 12:19 pm
FrediFizzx wrote:... just curious as to why an etherist like yourself would ever buy into "spooky action at a distance"? IMHO, the only way out is for space to have spinor properties.
by FrediFizzx » Wed May 27, 2015 11:12 am
Schmelzer wrote:No. In my theory fermions appear only in electroweak doublets. So that spin and isospin operators can combine into usual nonspinor rotation.
by Schmelzer » Wed May 27, 2015 12:39 am
FrediFizzx wrote:Hi Ilja,Does your theory incorporate space as having spinor properties in any way?
by FrediFizzx » Tue May 26, 2015 4:07 pm
Top