Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby DanielLBurnstein » Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:10 pm

The context is larger than just the email and the posts. From what I understand, Richard Gill admits to his error in interpretation of the two equations, but believes that this creates an even bigger problem with the disproof. As I mentioned earlier, I don't pretend to have the competence to evaluate the disproofs and would rather leave that to experts, preferably experts who would have to gain from it being correct, but at this point we're only provided with one side of the argument while the other is censored.
DanielLBurnstein
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:01 pm
Location: Montreal

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:19 pm

DanielLBurnstein wrote:The context is larger than just the email and the posts. From what I understand, Richard Gill admits to his error in interpretation of the two equations, but believes that this creates an even bigger problem with the disproof. As I mentioned earlier, I don't pretend to have the competence to evaluate the disproofs and would rather leave that to experts, preferably experts who would have to gain from it being correct, but at this point we're only provided with one side of the argument while the other is censored.

Gill is free to post his opinion on many other sites. Which he has certainly done.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby DanielLBurnstein » Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:24 pm

He certainly has, but in all fairness one should be allowed to defend one's position, especially when once is the subject/target of the topic. I won't and shouldn't have to explain why.
DanielLBurnstein
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:01 pm
Location: Montreal

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:25 pm

DanielLBurnstein wrote:The context is larger than just the email and the posts. From what I understand, Richard Gill admits to his error in interpretation of the two equations, but believes that this creates an even bigger problem with the disproof. As I mentioned earlier, I don't pretend to have the competence to evaluate the disproofs and would rather leave that to experts, preferably experts who would have to gain from it being correct, but at this point we're only provided with one side of the argument while the other is censored.

Is Gill paying you to say this? He is capable of stooping that far (he has done far worse).

Are you the spy in my Facebook who is providing personal information about me to Gill?
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby DanielLBurnstein » Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:29 pm

LOL. Now really? Is this going to stoop to that level? I'm merely saying the fact that we are not provided with both sides of the argument. I would same the same if it were you who were suppressed without the opportunity to respond.
DanielLBurnstein
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:01 pm
Location: Montreal

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:31 pm

DanielLBurnstein wrote:LOL. Now really? Is this going to stoop to that level? I'm merely saying the fact that we are not provided with both sides of the argument. I would same the same if it were you who were suppressed without the opportunity to respond.

Why do you keep taking this thread off topic. I've had just about enough of it.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby DanielLBurnstein » Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:36 pm

The topic is putting the question as to whether Gill and Moldoveanu are desingenuous or incompetent? If that is the topic and if you're to answer the question, then we need the whole picture. Else, there is no point to the discussion because the opposing opinion is not presented. That is quite simple.

By the way, no want can accuse be of the mortal sin of being a Bellist. I'm not and I stated my position clearly, but for the sake of intellectual integrity, Richard Gill and Moldoveanu and whoever is being put on trial should be present.
DanielLBurnstein
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:01 pm
Location: Montreal

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:37 pm

DanielLBurnstein wrote:...Richard Gill admits to his error in interpretation of the two equations...

That is all what matters in the present context of the main topic of discussion in this thread.

Whatever other issues he may have, they have been addressed in my two arXiv replies to him.
Last edited by Joy Christian on Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:39 pm

DanielLBurnstein wrote:The topic is putting the question as to whether Gill and Moldoveanu are desingenuous or incompetent? If that is the topic and if you're to answer the question, then we need the whole picture. Else, there is no point to the discussion because the opposing opinion is not presented. That is quite simple.

Engage in the physics of all this or don't post about it.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:31 pm

Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy claims his beta algebra is GA bivector algebra. It is NOT my claim. If this is indeed the case, he has made a sign error. Rather than your spamming the site by repeating the statements that are in dispute, as though somehow it vindicates you, or wrapping yourselves in the cloaks of better men, all you need to do is show us all where my response to Ben violates any rule of geometric algebra.

Your response to Ben does not violate any rules of GA. So what? It has nothing to do with Joy's model. And that is your mistake that you continue to make. Perhaps a demonstration using GAViewer will highlight your mistake (hopefully at least Ben and others will "get it"). Run this code so that I, a and b are setup,
Code: Select all
function getRandomLambda()
{
   if( rand()>0.5) {return 1;} else {return -1;}
}

function getRandomUnitVector() //uniform random unit vector:
   //http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SpherePointPicking.html
{
   v=randGaussStd()*e1+randGaussStd()*e2+randGaussStd()*e3;
   return normalize(v);
}

   batch test()
{
   set_window_title("Test of Joy Christian's arXiv:1103.1879 paper");
   N=20001; //number of iterations (trials)
   I=e1^e2^e3;
   s=0;
     
   a=getRandomUnitVector();
   b=getRandomUnitVector();
   minus_cos_a_b=-1*(a.b);
   for(nn=0;nn<N;nn=nn+1) //perform the experiment N times
   {
      //a=getRandomUnitVector();
         //b=getRandomUnitVector();
            lambda=getRandomLambda(); //lambda is a fair coin,
                    //resulting in +1 or -1
      mu=lambda * I;  //calculate the lambda dependent mu
      C=-I.a;  //C = {-a_j B_j}
      D=I.b;   //D = {b_k B_k}
            E=mu.a;  //E = {a_k B_k(L)}
            F=mu.b;  //F = {b_j B_j(L)}
            A=C E;  //eq. (1) of arXiv:1103.1879, A(a, L) = {-a_j B_j}{a_k B_k(L)}
            B=F D;  //eq. (2) of arXiv:1103.1879, B(b, L) = {b_j B_j(L)}{b_k B_k}
      q=0;
            if(lambda==1) {q=((-C) A B (-D));} else {q=((-D) B A (-C));} //eq. (6)
      G=a.b;
      s=s+q; //summation of all terms. Add G to see that everything
                     //vanishes and that the result is -a.b
   }
   mean_mu_a_mu_b=s/N;
   print(mean_mu_a_mu_b); //print the result
      print(minus_cos_a_b);
   prompt();

}


Then do the following,
Code: Select all
>> (I.a) (I.b)
ans = 0.77 + -0.39*e2^e3 + 0.44*e3^e1 + 0.25*e1^e2
>> (-I.a) (-I.b)
ans = 0.77 + -0.39*e2^e3 + 0.44*e3^e1 + 0.25*e1^e2

Keeping in mind that GAViewer is in a fixed right handed basis. We can see that both answers are identical and that is what the result of your presentation shows. However...
that is not Joy's model!
Joy's model is this for the left handed orientation,
Code: Select all
>> (I.b) (I.a)
ans = 0.77 + 0.39*e2^e3 + -0.44*e3^e1 + -0.25*e1^e2

We can easily see that the bivector coefficients are opposite the ones in (I.a) (I.b). That answer is the correct translation that properly represents the physics of Joy's model when in a fixed right handed basis.

So while there is no mathematical error in your presentation, it doesn't fit the physics of Joy's model, as we have been saying all along. There is also no math error in what I presented.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Aug 02, 2015 10:07 pm

Fred, what you have presented is far too sophisticated for Lockyer. He does not even know what a "hidden variable" is in my model, or what it means in general.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Aug 02, 2015 10:53 pm

Joy Christian wrote:Fred, what you have presented is far too sophisticated for Lockyer. He does not even know what a "hidden variable" is in my model, or what it means in general.

Well... I mainly did it for Ben and any lurkers. Hopefully others will understand. It all seems so simple to me. And it is quite a real thing of beauty.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Ben6993 » Mon Aug 03, 2015 12:36 am

Hi Rick

I have agreed with your maths. From a mathematical point of view one can use +I or -I trivectors and get identical results. That is using GA as a mathmatical framework instead of, say, using cartesian or polar coordinates. The choice of analystical tool should not change the mathematical description of what is going on in the space being analysed. I think that is as far as your comments go?

But the above implies an inert space is being used as the backdrop for the physical events being analysed. Under that condition you would be correct. However Joy is using S3 as the physical space in which the physical events take place, and Joy maintains that the two different torsions, +I and -I in S3 are the two physically diffferent backdrops for the analysis. This provides a physical dynamism which I cannot see addressed in your comments. This is not to claim that Joy's model is correct as I am trying to be neutral in this post. But Joy has to inject the effects of the dynamism of the physical space into his mathematical model, and he has presumably done that with an extra sign change.

I admit that I have difficulty with grasping the import of the association of +I or -I to a particle. Instead, probably wrongly, I think of a torsion as being a frozen instant of a twist and that dynamic twist enables me to attempt to visualise the dyamism of the trivectors. As an example of the importance of that dynamism I have an analogy of my own. No doubt Joy would not approve of it, but here it is:

A projectile is fired north from a point on the equator. Because of the earth's spin and the Coriolis effect, the projectile lands to the east of its starting position. I associate that with the physical effects of a +I space in which the projectile is moving. The deflection to the east could be found using any of cartesian coordinates or polar coordinates or a +I GA analysis or a -I GA analysis.

Next imagine an earth rotating in the opposite direction. The projectile would land to the west of its starting point in the -I physical space of this experiment. All types of analysis would confirm this.

All types of mathematical analysis yield identical results, but there are two different physical effects, east and west deflections, caused by the two different spaces of the experiment. How do the two different physical effects, east or west deflection, get incorporated into a mathematical model without incorporating a sign change representing the physically different effects of the two different spaces?
Ben6993
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby ivica » Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:58 am

Hi Ben,
real joy should/could come with s7 and, as much as I gathered from this forum, good people work on that.
I tied my belt, waiting for results . :D
ivica
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:29 am

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Rick Lockyer » Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:35 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy claims his beta algebra is GA bivector algebra. It is NOT my claim. If this is indeed the case, he has made a sign error. Rather than your spamming the site by repeating the statements that are in dispute, as though somehow it vindicates you, or wrapping yourselves in the cloaks of better men, all you need to do is show us all where my response to Ben violates any rule of geometric algebra.

Your response to Ben does not violate any rules of GA.


Finally, a correct statement from you. But then you state this:

So what? It has nothing to do with Joy's model. And that is your mistake that you continue to make. Perhaps a demonstration using GAViewer will highlight your mistake (hopefully at least Ben and others will "get it"). Run this code so that I, a and b are setup,


Your code, which does not represent Joy's model, but does represent his sign error, got snipped because it is not meaningful to the discussion topic in this thread. It does not in any manner represent a bivector orientation change. It is my understanding Heinera put out commutation as a joke. You clearly took it hook, line and sinker.

So while there is no mathematical error in your presentation, it doesn't fit the physics of Joy's model, as we have been saying all along. There is also no math error in what I presented.


Joy's STATED MODEL is, and I quote Joy, "...where lambda = +/-1 is a fair coin representing two alternative orientations of the 3-sphere." Second Edition of his book, page 5, where the beta bivector basis multiplication rules are introduced with a formula that is at the HEART of the issue this thread is all about. His bivector lambda modified beta "rules" do not represent "two alternative orientations of the 3-sphere". The GA presentation from me you now have come to realize is correct does. Baby steps in geometric algebra, explicitly showing there is no sign change when you have elements suitably mapped such that you are not adding apples to oranges.

Your math error in the code is that it does not match Joy's model, it matches his math error. I can lead a jackass to water, but I cannot make it drink. Fred, it is too kind to say you have merely been a jackass here and on other forums. More like remove jack and add hole.

I have wasted way too much time on this.
Rick Lockyer
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 6:22 am
Location: Nipomo

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:35 pm

Rick Lockyer wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy claims his beta algebra is GA bivector algebra. It is NOT my claim. If this is indeed the case, he has made a sign error. Rather than your spamming the site by repeating the statements that are in dispute, as though somehow it vindicates you, or wrapping yourselves in the cloaks of better men, all you need to do is show us all where my response to Ben violates any rule of geometric algebra.

Your response to Ben does not violate any rules of GA.


Finally, a correct statement from you. But then you state this:

So what? It has nothing to do with Joy's model. And that is your mistake that you continue to make. Perhaps a demonstration using GAViewer will highlight your mistake (hopefully at least Ben and others will "get it"). Run this code so that I, a and b are setup,


Your code, which does not represent Joy's model, but does represent his sign error, got snipped because it is not meaningful to the discussion topic in this thread. It does not in any manner represent a bivector orientation change. It is my understanding Heinera put out commutation as a joke. You clearly took it hook, line and sinker.

Please provide a reference where Heine (Heinera) actually said that. You can't because he never did; another lie being spread by you know who. What Heine offered up was to add a.b to the summation to see if -a.b got cancelled it out. You can look at Albert Jan's blog to see what actually happened. So there was no "hook, line and sinker" to "take". It was Albert Jan that discovered the correct translation that properly represents Joy's model. At the same time, I actually discovered another method for properly showing the physics of Joy's model but Albert Jan's solution was simple, better and more elegant.

It is pretty obvious that you still don't understand Joy's physics postulate and probably never will. But I will explain it again for lurkers. You say that,

(-I.a)(-I.b) = -a.b - (+I).(a x b)

Which is true if you are stuck in say a right handed basis. But Joy's model is not stuck in a right handed only basis or viewpoint. When lambda = -1, the particle pair system is in a left handed basis. Now... you have to ask yourself. What the heck does this look like if I am stuck in a right handed viewpoint? The order of the cross product a x b will be reversed to b x a and we know that b x a = -a x b. Therefore substituting in the above expression we get for the proper left handed expression translated to the right handed perspective,

(-I.a)(-I.b) = -a.b + (+I).(a x b) = -a.b - (-I).(a x b)

Which is part of Joy's main physics postulate for his model. Now, the problem to solve was how to actually get -a.b - (-I).(a x b) in GAViewer because it still would always do the first expression which was wrong for the physics of the model. We kicked around the idea of modifying the source code of GAViewer so that it would switch to the left handed basis when lambda = -1 but that looked like a really difficult task. Fortunately there was a simple solution to get -a.b - (-I).(a x b). That being to simply reverse the order of the geometric product. And anyone can try this in GAViewer to confirm that it is correct.

(I.b)(I.a) = -a.b - (-I).(a x b)
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Rick Lockyer » Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:49 pm

For the last time Fred, the cross product is not fundamental, it is an outcome of the basis element multiplication rules for the algebras it actually exists in. The basis element multiplication rules are what is fundamental in any algebra. We have a non-disputable map between right and left handed bivector bases: ei^ej becomes ej^ei. I correctly worked out the math for bivectors a, b: a^b in both right handed and left handed bases alternately using these fundamental definitions (ei^ej) for the bivector bases, and it should be quite clear to anyone with a modicum of math skills that it demonstrates Joy's lambda modified beta bivector equation he bases his claims on are algebraically incorrect as stated since they do not correlate. You correctly saw I made no GA errors, yet you failed to make the connection to Joy's sign error. I find that rather bizarre, since it is crystal clear within the presentation.

Your GAViewer program is likewise not fundamental, and its order reversal does not map between left and right handed bases in any meaningful way that indicates Joy has not made a sign error. Your "physics postulate" crutch is idiotic, this is an algebra error on Joy's part that can't be excused by any physics.
Rick Lockyer
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 6:22 am
Location: Nipomo

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:10 pm

Rick Lockyer wrote:It is my understanding Heinera put out commutation as a joke.

Lockyer the liar is talking to (or at least taking cues from) his Master, the mega-liar, and took his lie "hook, line and sinker." What a dimwit this Mr. Mathematician is?
Heinera himself is on the record of categorically disavowing his alleged involvement in Albert Jan Wonnink's code that numerically confirms my analytical calculation.

Lockyer's Master, on the other hand, has already admitted his mistake:

Richard Gill wrote:
I am delighted to admit that I had overlooked the intended interpretation of your two equations: the interpretation which makes them entirely consistent with one another. In retrospect, very obvious ...

Lockyer the novice, however, has still to wake up and smell the coffee. The calculations in my published paper in a distinguished physics journal are explicit and elementary. Any precocious schoolboy can reproduce them in less than 20 minutes, just as several prominent physicists and mathematicians have already done.

With by construction (and being the "hidden variable" in my model),

Image

Here transition from Eq. (1.23) to Eq. (1.24) follows from geometric product, and transition from Eq. (1.25) to Eq. (1.26) follows from the fact that is a fair coin.

Non-commutativity of the GA bivectors is a trivial mathematical fact, proved with baby steps in the first appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393:

Image
Last edited by Joy Christian on Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:00 am, edited 6 times in total.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:31 pm

Rick Lockyer wrote:For the last time Fred, the cross product is not fundamental, it is an outcome of the basis element multiplication rules for the algebras it actually exists in. The basis element multiplication rules are what is fundamental in any algebra. We have a non-disputable map between right and left handed bivector bases: ei^ej becomes ej^ei. I correctly worked out the math for bivectors a, b: a^b in both right handed and left handed bases alternately using these fundamental definitions (ei^ej) for the bivector bases, and it should be quite clear to anyone with a modicum of math skills that it demonstrates Joy's lambda modified beta bivector equation he bases his claims on are algebraically incorrect as stated since they do not correlate. You correctly saw I made no GA errors, yet you failed to make the connection to Joy's sign error. I find that rather bizarre, since it is crystal clear within the presentation.

Your GAViewer program is likewise not fundamental, and its order reversal does not map between left and right handed bases in any meaningful way that indicates Joy has not made a sign error. Your "physics postulate" crutch is idiotic, this is an algebra error on Joy's part that can't be excused by any physics.

Of course you are just obfuscating again. Answer this simple question. When looking at a left handed system from a right handed only frame of reference, is a x b in the left handed system going to be b x a in the right handed frame? If your answer is no, then we know who the real idiot is that doesn't understand basic physics.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:26 pm

Moldoveanu further complaining on Aug 2, wrote:I gave up following the latest twist and turns of what Joy claimed it was his original model all along.

(b⋅σ)(a⋅σ)=−a⋅b−i(a×b)σ is the latest incarnation of the so many different variations of the attempts to arrive at -a.b, but I only consider the very first Joy proposal. If Joy will ever admit that was mistaken, then I can entertain considering a new proposal.

http://fmoldove.blogspot.com/2015/07/jo ... 2591161517

Of course expressions like (b⋅σ)(a⋅σ)=−a⋅b−i(a×b)σ never had anything to do with Joy's model proposal so he is not even close to considering Joy's very first proposal if that be the case. Anyone can see what Joy's first proposal was here in eq. (17). And eq. (17) still holds perfectly well for the classical local realistic model so how could Joy ever admit that it was mistaken? And what new proposal? :D There is no new proposal. This must be some kind of "goal post shifting" on Moldoveanu's part of course.

Now, did Joy ever say that the math for the model was in one fixed basis or the other? I don't think so. This is probably the source of the incompetence of these criticisms since alot of people seem to be able to think only in a right handed basis. But perhaps if Joy had put the math in one fixed basis or the other at the beginning, this nonsense could have been avoided. Water under the bridge now however. Anyways, now we have a correct math representation of the model in a fixed right hand basis that most should be able to understand. And you can search back in the thread to see the proof from Joy that his original eq. (17) still holds true.

http://challengingbell.blogspot.com/201 ... of_30.html
http://challengingbell.blogspot.com/201 ... f-joy.html
http://challengingbell.blogspot.com/201 ... tians.html

So I still claim that Moldoveanu is both disingenuous and incompetent. And you can throw in the other character to that description also. :lol:
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 81 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library