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 Rick Lockyer » Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:45 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Rick Lockyer wrote:Fred,

if(lambda==1) {q=((-C) A B (-D));} else {q=((-D) B A (-C));} //eq. (6)

This is NOT Joy's equation 6.

??? This is exactly Joy's eq. (6) for the GAViewer simulation. I think you still don't understand the physics. And / or there must be something you don't understand about that code expression.


FrediFizzx wrote:
Rick Lockyer wrote:Orientation choice, as I have been telling Joy for years now, is a non-starter.

I think I found your problem. There is no "orientation choice" in Joy's model. And that can well be seen if you understand the GAViewer code and program. GAViewer works in a fixed right handed basis only. There is no "choice". There is only a random 50-50 chance (not "choice") in Nature that a particle pair will be created with a left or right handed orientation. What happens when you look at a left handed system from a right hand only perspective? The order is reversed. Very simple.


Is this when I put up one of your disrespectful "LOL!!"'s? You have a serious problem thinking "physics" can overcome bad math. Taking this position once is too much, you have done it repetitively. How could I not understand the code expression? Seems pretty straight forward to me. I told you why it achieved the result it did, for an even numbers of terms ONLY and for pure bivectors ONLY swapping the order will produce the conjugate. But I also proved Joy's two S^3 orientation choices DO NOT produce a conjugation:

Rick Lockyer wrote:This is a straw man supportive (non)proof.

Joy wants a statistical even chance of something and its conjugate, he just does not have it with his "fair coin orientation choice". The above proof shows this is not possible. C = F, not its conjugate.


Joy Christian wrote:Let me reproduce the essential passage from this paper to bring your point home:

Image


So just what was it you did not understand about the proof, its applicability, and/or "C = F, not its conjugate"? What is it that you do not understand about Joy's position the orientation choice is for S^3 and not characteristics of the particles themselves, by the way something I would have far less issues with?

Chance vs. choice being my problem? I have used both properly. Chance is before pair production, that is before detection, which after all is what we are talking about. It is your only safe ground though, for after the choice is made, either at production time or in the "if" statements within every one of your "simulations" (you would agree this is a choice now, wouldn't you??) both you and Joy are out in the night without a flashlight.

Perhaps it is time for a new topic similarly named as this rude one was. I would suggest adding "or both" to the new one.
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 » Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:03 am

DanielLBurnstein wrote:There is a huge difference between a computer simulation in which certain laws of physics are presumed and encoded in an algorithm and a physics experiment which at its best makes no such presumptions. What will settle the question as to whether reality is local or non-local are actual physical experiments where all the parameters of every single event are taken into account.

I have proposed just such an experiment which would settle the question of local causality once and for all: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/e ... taphysics/.

The simulation I have posted above, this one, is very important and provides a "proof of concept" for the set of N vectors to be observed in the above experiment.

DanielLBurnstein wrote:Dr. Pizzella, a member of a group of physicist at the Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics, sent me this link http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2913 to a paper which he co-authored. The paper describes an experiment they performed that aimed to measure the speed of propagation of the Coulomb Field. Measurements done in 2012, later confirmed by new measurements in 2014, indicate the Coulomb Field propagate instantaneously. If (when) those results are confirmed, they will also suggest that gravity is also instantaneous. It’s not too hard to show that if Coulomb field and gravity are instantaneous (something that should know in about two years), then the entire universe is local and Bell’s theorem and all the questions it raises become moot.

This would be revolutionary if true. Unfortunately it is not. We have more than sufficient experimental evidence to know that nothing propagates instantaneously.
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 Jul 26, 2015 11:26 am

Rick Lockyer wrote: I told you why it achieved the result it did, for an even numbers of terms ONLY and for pure bivectors ONLY swapping the order will produce the conjugate. But I also proved Joy's two S^3 orientation choices DO NOT produce a conjugation:

So what? We have only TWO particles per iteration. The GAViewer code "if" line is exactly Joy's eq. (6) therefore it says you have something wrong with your "proof". Most likely it is a strawman. I still think you are missing the physics here and how to properly relate it to the math.

minkwe wrote:Fred,
I was just going to ask the same thing! The code you posted debunks such arguments.
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 Jul 26, 2015 2:07 pm

This would be revolutionary if true. Unfortunately it is not. We have more than sufficient experimental evidence to know that nothing propagates instantaneously.


While it is true that no particle or structure can move (propagate) faster than the speed of light, there is no such restrictions on interactions since interactions do not imply motion. That gravity propagates at the speed of light is a theoretical consequence of general relativity. Finite speed of propagation of gravity implies the existence of gravitational waves. But gravitational waves have never been observed. The only evidence comes from the orbital decay of binary systems, but this can be explained without loss of energy through gravitational waves. The test will be whether advanced LIGO detects them, which considering the sensitivity of the experiment, is a near certainty if they exists that is. If they are not detected, then it will be time to consider the possibility that gravity is an instantaneous interaction.

If is much easier to test for instantaneity of gravity than it is to test for gravitational waves. The problem is, no such test has ever been done.
I predicted that Coulomb field is an instantaneous interaction years prior the experiment by the Italian group. The same reason predicts that gravity is an instantaneous interaction.
DanielLBurnstein
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:01 pm
Location: Montreal

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jul 26, 2015 2:14 pm

The above is off topic for this thread. Let's get back on topic. Feel free to start a new topic in the appropriate forum. Thanks.
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 Jul 26, 2015 11:20 pm

Guest wrote:Fred is right. Christian's model depends on two geometric products: the usual one (right-handed), let us denote it by (*_R), and a left-handed one, let me denote it by (*_L). GAViewer has the right-handed one built in and used by default. The relation between them is simply x (*_L) y = y (*_R) x. The right-handed one belongs to the oriented volume element +L and the left-handed one to -L. Usually we just write y x for y (*_R) x, but it would be wise to notationally differentiate between the two geometric products explicitly.

Yes, this is a good way to express the central idea more clearly. It also immediately exposes the misrepresentation in the critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Lockyer.
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 Q-reeus » Mon Jul 27, 2015 12:34 am

FrediFizzx wrote:The above is off topic for this thread. Let's get back on topic. Feel free to start a new topic in the appropriate forum. Thanks.

Agreed. And I look forward to Daniel starting a thread on his 'instantaneous field interactions' idea. I would suggest either the Electromag or Relativity sub-forums. Probably the former as the 'experimental results' he sites specifically deal with moving charges.
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Rick Lockyer » Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:11 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Rick Lockyer wrote: I told you why it achieved the result it did, for an even numbers of terms ONLY and for pure bivectors ONLY swapping the order will produce the conjugate. But I also proved Joy's two S^3 orientation choices DO NOT produce a conjugation:

So what? We have only TWO particles per iteration. The GAViewer code "if" line is exactly Joy's eq. (6) therefore it says you have something wrong with your "proof". Most likely it is a strawman. I still think you are missing the physics here and how to properly relate it to the math.

minkwe wrote:Fred,
I was just going to ask the same thing! The code you posted debunks such arguments.


Two particles addressing the "even" I was mentioning? If so you are not paying attention. In your program your "if" statement has 4 (an even number) variables which you conditionally multiply left to right or right to left. Drop one (now an odd number of elements) and see if swapping produces the conjugate as it does with 4 terms.This is the even vs. odd I was talking about.

Both of you need to learn the difference between linear algebra, probably all you really learned or understand, and the general concept of AN ALGEBRA. In linear algebra, where all you do is add/subtract algebraic elements or maybe multiply algebraic elements by a constant, it is safe to consider the algebraic elements simply as an ordered set of coefficients, where you can freely do the adds/subtracts positionally. When you add in multiplication between algebraic elements and open the door to the consideration of variability in the rule of multiplication that creates the orientation variability we are talking about here, you can no longer be cavalier about the operation of addition/subtraction, for the algebraic element is not simply an ordered set of coefficients, there is a unique basis element attached to each coefficient. You cannot add the coefficients of algebraic elements from one orientation to those of algebraic elements from another. You both clearly do not understand this.

If you did understand, you would have been able to look at my proof and see it is both correct and on point for the criticism of Joy's work addressed by this thread. Bivector orientation change does not produce the summable conjugation necessary to make the sum of non-scalar components tend towards zero. Nobody is disputing that if the conjugation was produced that the zero in the limit would happen, the valid criticism is simply you do not get the conjugation.

The referenced program assumes Joy's bivector orientation change analysis is correct, and thus genning up a summed fair coin conjugation represents the bivector orientation change analysis. Then you say since the results are what you expected, this proves what you assumed was correct in the first place. Do either of you see a problem with this?? Debunking? You demonstrate your ignorance with such a statement.
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 Jul 27, 2015 8:31 am

Joy Christian wrote:The above comments by Rick Lockyer only serve to illustrate how easy it is to commit the straw-man fallacy.

minkwe wrote:Fred,
I was just going to ask the same thing! The code you posted debunks such arguments.

FrediFizzx wrote:I think I found your problem. There is no "orientation choice" in Joy's model. And that can well be seen if you understand the GAViewer code and program. GAViewer works in a fixed right handed basis only. There is no "choice". There is only a random 50-50 chance (not "choice") in Nature that a particle pair will be created with a left or right handed orientation. What happens when you look at a left handed system from a right hand only perspective? The order is reversed. Very simple.

Guest wrote:Fred is right. Christian's model depends on two geometric products: the usual one (right-handed), let us denote it by (*_R), and a left-handed one, let me denote it by (*_L). GAViewer has the right-handed one built in and used by default. The relation between them is simply x (*_L) y = y (*_R) x. The right-handed one belongs to the oriented volume element +L and the left-handed one to -L. Usually we just write y x for y (*_R) x, but it would be wise to notationally differentiate between the two geometric products explicitly.

Joy Christian wrote:Yes, this is a good way to express the central idea more clearly. It also immediately exposes the misrepresentation in the critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Lockyer.

Joy Christian wrote:I do not see the relative sign of the volume form, "I", as a "convention." It is an intrinsic freedom in any manifold, and especially in the spaces like S^3 and S^7. This freedom is usually neglected, or artificially curtailed, by the mathematicians, because of their own laziness or incompetence in dealing with it in a creative manner.

By contrast, I have argued that this freedom is essential for understanding the quantum phenomena like "entanglement." Not surprisingly, this freedom is even richer in S^7, and allows us to derive ALL quantum correlations in local-realistic manner, as I have shown in some of my papers (cf. the theorem on page 12 of this paper).

Joy Christian wrote:Until Lockyer learns my actual model and learns the physics and mathematics of the EPR-Bohm experiment, I will not be responding to any further comments by him.
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 Jul 27, 2015 11:32 am

Rick Lockyer wrote:Two particles addressing the "even" I was mentioning? If so you are not paying attention. In your program your "if" statement has 4 (an even number) variables which you conditionally multiply left to right or right to left. Drop one (now an odd number of elements) and see if swapping produces the conjugate as it does with 4 terms.This is the even vs. odd I was talking about.

Ah... there you go. You have found the flaw in your "proof". As suspected... you are not matching the physics properly with the math. Of course if you destroy the physics, the conjugation will not work. That is pretty simple to understand. And... there are TWO particles per iteration. Always!

Rick Lockyer wrote:Both of you need to learn the difference between linear algebra, probably all you really learned or understand, and the general concept of AN ALGEBRA. In linear algebra, where all you do is add/subtract algebraic elements or maybe multiply algebraic elements by a constant, it is safe to consider the algebraic elements simply as an ordered set of coefficients, where you can freely do the adds/subtracts positionally. When you add in multiplication between algebraic elements and open the door to the consideration of variability in the rule of multiplication that creates the orientation variability we are talking about here, you can no longer be cavalier about the operation of addition/subtraction, for the algebraic element is not simply an ordered set of coefficients, there is a unique basis element attached to each coefficient. You cannot add the coefficients of algebraic elements from one orientation to those of algebraic elements from another. You both clearly do not understand this.

You clearly don't understand how GAViewer or the Python programs work. Everything is converted to the right hand orientation before the summation. So you are wrong again. Quite frankly, the GAViewer and Python codes are too simple and elegant to be wrong. And match the physics perfectly.
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 Jul 27, 2015 6:41 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Rick Lockyer wrote:Two particles addressing the "even" I was mentioning? If so you are not paying attention. In your program your "if" statement has 4 (an even number) variables which you conditionally multiply left to right or right to left. Drop one (now an odd number of elements) and see if swapping produces the conjugate as it does with 4 terms.This is the even vs. odd I was talking about.

Ah... there you go. You have found the flaw in your "proof". As suspected... you are not matching the physics properly with the math. Of course if you destroy the physics, the conjugation will not work. That is pretty simple to understand. And... there are TWO particles per iteration. Always!


I am mystified about where the "two particles per iteration" is coming from. I thought I was pretty clear about what I was coming from in this quote. Throwing up some smoke Fred? Feeling OK? Have you been finding your car keys in the refrigerator from time to time? I am getting worried about you.

FrediFizzx wrote:
Rick Lockyer wrote:Both of you need to learn the difference between linear algebra, probably all you really learned or understand, and the general concept of AN ALGEBRA. In linear algebra, where all you do is add/subtract algebraic elements or maybe multiply algebraic elements by a constant, it is safe to consider the algebraic elements simply as an ordered set of coefficients, where you can freely do the adds/subtracts positionally. When you add in multiplication between algebraic elements and open the door to the consideration of variability in the rule of multiplication that creates the orientation variability we are talking about here, you can no longer be cavalier about the operation of addition/subtraction, for the algebraic element is not simply an ordered set of coefficients, there is a unique basis element attached to each coefficient. You cannot add the coefficients of algebraic elements from one orientation to those of algebraic elements from another. You both clearly do not understand this.

You clearly don't understand how GAViewer or the Python programs work. Everything is converted to the right hand orientation before the summation. So you are wrong again. Quite frankly, the GAViewer and Python codes are too simple and elegant to be wrong. And match the physics perfectly.


We have common ground here. GAViewer is not wrong. It only supports right handed orientation intrinsically because that is all that is necessary. The problem is not with GAViewer it is with your code and it's Python clone. It was not GAViewer that remapped the left handed orientation to an addable right handed representation, it was your code's erroneous assumption this is a matter of conjugation because you incorrectly think Joy had it correct. He doesn't so neither do you.

I have clearly demonstrated the conjugation required to make Joy's claim work does not happen. All I have gotten back from Joy and you is straw man, you don't understand, does not apply, you did not read this that or the other, you don't have the physics correct (tacitly saying physics trumps math: BS), and restatements of incorrect math as though saying a lie over and over again somehow makes it the truth. These are the tactics of debaters that are trying to win the debate without having the facts and/or reality on their side. There is no gray area to the math here, and proper physics must always square with correct math, ALWAYS!

Joy particularly and you as an avid supporter need to address the criticisms head on, not with personal attacks clearly present in the sorry title of this thread. Both of you have an opportunity here. I have explicitly stated why Joy and by extension you have it wrong, and NOBODY has been able to explicitly demonstrate either my analysis does not apply, requiring a demonstration Joy's GA bivector basis IS NOT isomorphic to quaternion algebra, or I made an error in my proof above. I will concede my position if ANYONE can explicitly demonstrate ONE of these. I am confident this just ain't going to happen.
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 Jul 27, 2015 6:47 pm

In case anyone is wondering, the codes posted by Fred above inputs Eqs. (1) and (2) from the following one-page paper, and verifies Eqs. (5), (6), and (7):

Image

Needless to say, any precocious schoolboy (apart from Gill, Moldoveanu, and Lockyer) can verify this set of equations analytically in less than 20 minutes. :D

A similar set of equations are also discussed in my book, as well as in this preprint, which is now published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics:

Image

These elementary set of equations are also verified, in great detail, by several prominent members of the foundations community, in particular by Lucien Hardy.
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 Jul 27, 2015 11:04 pm

Rick Lockyer wrote:I am mystified about where the "two particles per iteration" is coming from. I thought I was pretty clear about what I was coming from in this quote. Throwing up some smoke Fred? Feeling OK? Have you been finding your car keys in the refrigerator from time to time? I am getting worried about you.

[the rest of Lockyer's nonsense snipped out]
I'm more worried about you since you seem to not have a clue as to what the GAViewer code is all about since you are "mystified" by something that is extremely clear. And that anyone that knows about the EPRB scenario knows that for every iteration (trial), that there are two particles created in the singlet state. You truly don't have a clue about Joy's model at all. Your "proof" is complete nonsense related to the physics as I have easily shown in the previous post. You are not fooling anyone. Come back when you actually understand the physics and have a good argument. But if you truly understand the physics, you will not have any argument against 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 » Mon Jul 27, 2015 11:22 pm

Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy particularly and you as an avid supporter need to address the criticisms head on, not with personal attacks clearly present in the sorry title of this thread. Both of you have an opportunity here. I have explicitly stated why Joy and by extension you have it wrong, and NOBODY has been able to explicitly demonstrate either my analysis does not apply, requiring a demonstration Joy's GA bivector basis IS NOT isomorphic to quaternion algebra, or I made an error in my proof above. I will concede my position if ANYONE can explicitly demonstrate ONE of these. I am confident this just ain't going to happen.

Are you really that dense? I have shown you the error you made. Your proof does not match the physics. There are always two particles per iteration. And even number. If you aren't that dense then you are being both disingenuous and incompetent! What do you think "destroy the physics" means? Your proof destroys the physics that we are talking about here. It's clearly a strawman argument.
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 » Mon Jul 27, 2015 11:55 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy particularly and you as an avid supporter need to address the criticisms head on, not with personal attacks clearly present in the sorry title of this thread. Both of you have an opportunity here. I have explicitly stated why Joy and by extension you have it wrong, and NOBODY has been able to explicitly demonstrate either my analysis does not apply, requiring a demonstration Joy's GA bivector basis IS NOT isomorphic to quaternion algebra, or I made an error in my proof above. I will concede my position if ANYONE can explicitly demonstrate ONE of these. I am confident this just ain't going to happen.

Are you really that dense? I have shown you the error you made. Your proof does not match the physics. There are always two particles per iteration. And even number. If you aren't that dense then you are being both disingenuous and incompetent! What do you think "destroy the physics" means? Your proof destroys the physics that we are talking about here. It's clearly a strawman argument.

Fred,

I think perhaps your phrase "destroys the physics" may be confusing to our schoolboy. The point is that his ridiculous "proof" is totally irrelevant to the physics of the EPR-Bohm experiments (let alone my model), as I pointed out in my very first response to his rant. Michel Fodje also pointed out the same thing in different words:

minkwe wrote:Fred,
I was just going to ask the same thing! The code you posted debunks such arguments.

Given the details we have provided, if they are not accepted as clear refutation of his straw-man, then evidently he is being dense, disingenuous, and incompetent.
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 » Tue Jul 28, 2015 12:08 am

Joy Christian wrote:I think perhaps your phrase "destroys the physics" may be confusing to our schoolboy. The point is that his ridiculous "proof" is totally irrelevant to the physics of the EPR-Bohm experiments (let alone my model), as I pointed out in my very first response to his rant. Michel Fodje also pointed out the same thing in different words:

minkwe wrote:Fred,
I was just going to ask the same thing! The code you posted debunks such arguments.

Given the details we have provided, if they are not accepted as clear refutation of his straw-man, then evidently he is being dense, disingenuous, and incompetent.

Well... what we said earlier didn't seem to "take" so I thought I would try something different with "destroy the physics". :D Of course Lockyer is just like the rest and will not admit to ever being wrong when the evidence is clear that they are wrong. They lost the debate; all they have now is to lie through their teeth about it and present strawman after strawman arguments.
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 » Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:38 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy particularly and you as an avid supporter need to address the criticisms head on, not with personal attacks clearly present in the sorry title of this thread. Both of you have an opportunity here. I have explicitly stated why Joy and by extension you have it wrong, and NOBODY has been able to explicitly demonstrate either my analysis does not apply, requiring a demonstration Joy's GA bivector basis IS NOT isomorphic to quaternion algebra, or I made an error in my proof above. I will concede my position if ANYONE can explicitly demonstrate ONE of these. I am confident this just ain't going to happen.

Are you really that dense? I have shown you the error you made. Your proof does not match the physics. There are always two particles per iteration. And even number. If you aren't that dense then you are being both disingenuous and incompetent! What do you think "destroy the physics" means? Your proof destroys the physics that we are talking about here. It's clearly a strawman argument.


Damn you are thick between the ears. I never EVER implied anything about a number of particles, that was you bub, your topspin. I was just pointing out that you achieved the conjugation that Joy needs by order reversal since there was an even number of pure bivector terms, kind of a mathematical identity: conjugate for even, not conjugate for odd, nothing whatsoever to do with the number of particles. This method of conjugation has absolutely nothing to do with S^3 orientation changes. By no stretch of the imagination did your "if" statement adequately map the left handed system addable into the intrinsic GAViewer right handed system. You DID NOT "exactly" give eq. 6 you just simulated what Joy incorrectly states happens on orientation change by another method. And once again, since he was wrong, so were you. Completely incompetent of you to say this circular logic is a proof of his concept, you assumed what you set out to prove. Think about it Fred.

If you think my math proof does not represent the physics, better bring that up with Joy, since it IS his math and implied physics. I have shown the bivector basis orientation change HE employs to produce the conjugation which is required to statistically remove the non-scalar portion of the summed products does not happen. There is no conjugation when the left handed system is mapped to the right handed system, there is an equivalence. If you can't understand this, not my problem.
Rick Lockyer
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 6:22 am
Location: Nipomo

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:52 am

Rick Lockyer wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Are you really that dense? I have shown you the error you made. Your proof does not match the physics. There are always two particles per iteration. And even number. If you aren't that dense then you are being both disingenuous and incompetent! What do you think "destroy the physics" means? Your proof destroys the physics that we are talking about here. It's clearly a strawman argument.


Damn you are thick between the ears. I never EVER implied anything about a number of particles, that was you bub, your topspin. I was just pointing out that you achieved the conjugation that Joy needs by order reversal since there was an even number of pure bivector terms, kind of a mathematical identity: conjugate for even, not conjugate for odd, nothing whatsoever to do with the number of particles. This method of conjugation has absolutely nothing to do with S^3 orientation changes. By no stretch of the imagination did your "if" statement adequately map the left handed system addable into the intrinsic GAViewer right handed system. You DID NOT "exactly" give eq. 6 you just simulated what Joy incorrectly states happens on orientation change by another method. And once again, since he was wrong, so were you. Completely incompetent of you to say this circular logic is a proof of his concept, you assumed what you set out to prove. Think about it Fred.

If you think my math proof does not represent the physics, better bring that up with Joy, since it IS his math and implied physics. I have shown the bivector basis orientation change HE employs to produce the conjugation which is required to statistically remove the non-scalar portion of the summed products does not happen. There is no conjugation when the left handed system is mapped to the right handed system, there is an equivalence. If you can't understand this, not my problem.

At this point we will just have to agree to disagree. It is obvious that you are never going to admit to your error. And what you said above clearly shows your error.
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 » Tue Jul 28, 2015 12:00 pm

It is not my place to evaluate the merit of Joy Christian’s arguments against Bell’s theorem, but what is clear is the enormous amount of time and energy wasted arguing, debating, attacking and defending positions. How many years has it been?

The way I see it, if Joy Christian is satisfied with his disproof of Bell’s theorem and confident about it then he should work on something else rather than wasting even a minute in petty and useless debates. If right, his disproof will at some point it gather acceptance. The question will be settled one way or another as it always is and must be; through observations and experiments.
Even if no one actually performs the experiment proposed by Christian, other experiments will indirectly falsify or support it eventually.

The point is, Joy Christian job’s in regards to Bell’s theorem is done (unless he decides to perform the experiment himself). The time wasted on war waged to prove something that cannot be proved without experiments would have been better used working on a new problem, on doing actual physics. Anything else is in my opinion a terrible waste of talent.
DanielLBurnstein
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:01 pm
Location: Montreal

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Rick Lockyer » Tue Jul 28, 2015 6:49 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Rick Lockyer wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Are you really that dense? I have shown you the error you made. Your proof does not match the physics. There are always two particles per iteration. And even number. If you aren't that dense then you are being both disingenuous and incompetent! What do you think "destroy the physics" means? Your proof destroys the physics that we are talking about here. It's clearly a strawman argument.


Damn you are thick between the ears. I never EVER implied anything about a number of particles, that was you bub, your topspin. I was just pointing out that you achieved the conjugation that Joy needs by order reversal since there was an even number of pure bivector terms, kind of a mathematical identity: conjugate for even, not conjugate for odd, nothing whatsoever to do with the number of particles. This method of conjugation has absolutely nothing to do with S^3 orientation changes. By no stretch of the imagination did your "if" statement adequately map the left handed system addable into the intrinsic GAViewer right handed system. You DID NOT "exactly" give eq. 6 you just simulated what Joy incorrectly states happens on orientation change by another method. And once again, since he was wrong, so were you. Completely incompetent of you to say this circular logic is a proof of his concept, you assumed what you set out to prove. Think about it Fred.

If you think my math proof does not represent the physics, better bring that up with Joy, since it IS his math and implied physics. I have shown the bivector basis orientation change HE employs to produce the conjugation which is required to statistically remove the non-scalar portion of the summed products does not happen. There is no conjugation when the left handed system is mapped to the right handed system, there is an equivalence. If you can't understand this, not my problem.

At this point we will just have to agree to disagree. It is obvious that you are never going to admit to your error. And what you said above clearly shows your error.


Two people can only agree to disagree when the answer to the question is ambiguous or unclear. that is absolutely not the case here. This is a black and white issue. I am certainly not going to admit a mistake when I have not made one. Joy and you are not going to admit making mistakes even though you both clearly have. After the abuse you two have dealt, your stomachs are not big enough to eat the amount of crow you will have to, so you revert to the tactics both of you have, primarily ZERO explicit justifications of your positions and ZERO explicit mathematical defenses of the criticisms. Why ZERO? Because you have none. Simply repeating disputed statements is non-responsive.

On the other hand, I am not making empty statements like you two, I have mathematically demonstrated my position. I have given you two ways you could be a real hero here for Joy and at least partially recover both of your damaged reputations by proving me (and many others) wrong. Neither of you have given a responsive answer. Why is that? You have stated my math does not represent the physics. This is one of my suggested ways to prove me wrong: demonstrate the algebra I used in my proof is not isomorphic to JOY'S bivector GA analysis. Since you will NOT get past that one, what is left is somewhere in my proof above, I made a mistake. Was it assuming we have to map left and right orientation to a common footing prior to adding? Then tell us why the rule of algebraic element addition is incorrect. Did I make a mistake somewhere in the proof? Show us where, simply giving an unsubstantiated statement there is a mistake helps nobody least of all you and Joy. Neither of you have done this to date, because you can't. Go ahead, prove me wrong by showing us the mistake. We are all weary from the empty statements and bogus deflections.
Rick Lockyer
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 6:22 am
Location: Nipomo

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 83 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library