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 Aug 02, 2015 9:49 am

Ben6993 wrote:Hi Rick

Thanks for your replies.
I have looked at them and do not see anything wrong with the algebra as purely maths.
I also checked with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector

Going back to your first post and summarising;
Say x= a1b1 + a2b2
and y = a1b2 - a2b1

Then the quantity in RH mode was -x + y e1 e2
and in LH mode was -x + y f2 f1.
These quantities were calculated separately from first principles in the RH and LH bases.

I think your point was mainly that the sum is identical in both modes because one can rewrite the RH sum as -x - y e2 e1, because e1 e2 = -e2 e1.
But if you then switch to a LH basis, that becomes -x + y f2 f1, because e2 e1 = -f2 f1
So the sum is the same whichever basis it is calculated in.

I don't think Joy or Fred or Michel are disagreeing with your maths.


But Joy and I cannot both have things correct. Joy will either trot out his beta_x basis products as proof he has not made a sign error, or the cross product analysis to justify his claim he has not made a sign error. Both are flawed and demonstrate he has had a poor understanding of GA, and bigger issues not being able to admit it.

You will not see Joy demonstrate his beta basis product rules are correct by using the bivector identities for his betas which are GA wedge products of the vector bases: beta_k = e_i ^ e_j. Then you have for the products of unlike betas quad vector wedge products that reduce through simple GA rules back to bivectors. If a right handed basis element is e_i ^ e_j then it's left handed counterpart is e_j ^ e_i. But Joy does not have to do this himself, although I suspect he has, I did it for him in my response to you.

If Fred and Michel still think Joy did not make a sign error, they are incompetent
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 Aug 02, 2015 10:03 am

Rick Lockyer wrote:If Fred and Michel still think Joy did not make a sign error, they are incompetent

Fred and Michel are anything but "incompetent." And they are certainly not disingenuous liars like Lockyer and his "friends." But I have already exposed his lies here:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&start=80#p5045. Lockyer's pants are badly on fire. :D
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 10:14 am

Rick Lockyer wrote:
Ben6993 wrote:Hi Rick

Thanks for your replies.
I have looked at them and do not see anything wrong with the algebra as purely maths.
I also checked with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector

Going back to your first post and summarising;
Say x= a1b1 + a2b2
and y = a1b2 - a2b1

Then the quantity in RH mode was -x + y e1 e2
and in LH mode was -x + y f2 f1.
These quantities were calculated separately from first principles in the RH and LH bases.

I think your point was mainly that the sum is identical in both modes because one can rewrite the RH sum as -x - y e2 e1, because e1 e2 = -e2 e1.
But if you then switch to a LH basis, that becomes -x + y f2 f1, because e2 e1 = -f2 f1
So the sum is the same whichever basis it is calculated in.

I don't think Joy or Fred or Michel are disagreeing with your maths.


But Joy and I cannot both have things correct. Joy will either trot out his beta_x basis products as proof he has not made a sign error, or the cross product analysis to justify his claim he has not made a sign error. Both are flawed and demonstrate he has had a poor understanding of GA, and bigger issues not being able to admit it.

You will not see Joy demonstrate his beta basis product rules are correct by using the bivector identities for his betas which are GA wedge products of the vector bases: beta_k = e_i ^ e_j. Then you have for the products of unlike betas quad vector wedge products that reduce through simple GA rules back to bivectors. If a right handed basis element is e_i ^ e_j then it's left handed counterpart is e_j ^ e_i. But Joy does not have to do this himself, although I suspect he has, I did it for him in my response to you.

If Fred and Michel still think Joy did not make a sign error, they are incompetent

All your presentation shows is that (I.a)(I.b) = (-I.a)(-I.b) in one basis or the other.

That is not Joy's model!

Joy's model is (-I.a)(-I.b) = (I.b)(I.a)! When you are in a fixed basis.
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 10:23 am

FrediFizzx wrote:All your presentation shows is that (I.a)(I.b) = (-I.a)(-I.b) in one basis or the other.

That is not Joy's model!

Joy's model is (-I.a)(-I.b) = (I.b)(I.a)! When you are in a fixed basis.

Lockyer has resorted to lying in order to protect his massive ego. His silly math errors have been repeatedly exposed, but he cannot bring himself to admitting defeat.
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 minkwe » Sun Aug 02, 2015 10:40 am

Rick Lockyer wrote:If Fred and Michel still think Joy did not make a sign error, they are incompetent

There is no sign error. If you do not see what has been explained to you yet then it is you who is incompetent. If you do see it but can't admit your error, then you are being disingenuous. Your arguments on this thread are not about Joy's model, but rather a figment of your imagination.

Let me end with some advice for Joy from Jaynes, quoted liberally from http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/backward.look.pdf:
Jaynes wrote:Dealing with Critics
Looking back over the past forty years, I can see that the greatest mistake I made was to listen to the advice of people who were opposed to my efforts. Just at the peak of my powers I lost several irreplaceable years because I allowed myself to become discouraged by the constant stream of criticism from the Establishment, that descended upon everything I did. I have never -- except in the past few years -- had the slightest encouragement from others to pursue my work; the drive to do it had to come entirely from within me. The result was that my contributions to probability theory were delayed by about a decade, and my potential contributions to electrodynamics -- whatever they might have been -- are probably lost forever.

But I can now see that all of this criticism was based on misunderstanding or ideology. My perceived sin was not in my logic or mathematics; it was that I did not subscribe to the dogmas emanating from Copenhagen and Rothamsted. Yet I submit that breaking those dogmas was the necessary prerequisite to making any further progress in quantum theory and probability theory. If not in my way, then necessarily in some other.

In any field, the Establishment is not seeking the truth, because it is composed of those who, having found part of it yesterday, believe that they are in possession of all of it today. Progress requires the introduction, not just of new mathematics which is always tolerated by the Establishment; but new conceptual ideas which are necessarily different from those held by the Establishment (for, if the ideas of the Establishment were sufficient to lead to further progress, that progress would have been made).

Therefore, to anyone who has new ideas of a currently unconventional kind, I want to give this advice, in the strongest possible terms: Do not allow yourself to be discouraged or deflected from your course by negative criticisms -- particularly those that were invented for the sole purpose of discouraging you -- unless they exhibit some clear and specific error of reasoning or conflict with experiment. Unless they can do this, your critics are almost certainly wrong, but to reply by trying to show exactly where and why they are wrong would be wasted effort which would not convince your critics and would only keep you from the far more important, constructive things that you might have accomplished in the same time. Let others deal with them; if you allow your enemies to direct your work, then they have won after all.

Although the arguments of your critics are almost certainly wrong, they will retain just enough plausibility in the minds of some to maintain a place for them in the realm of controversy; that is just a fact of life that you must accept as the price of doing creative work. Take comfort in the historical record, which shows that no creative person has ever been able to escape this; the more fundamental the new idea, the more bitter the controversy it will stir up. Newton, Darwin, Boltzmann, Pasteur, Einstein, Wegener were all embroiled in this. Newton wrote in 1676: "I see a man must either resolve to put out nothing new, or become a slave to defend it." Throughout his lifetime, Alfred Wegener received nothing
but attacks on his ideas; yet he was right and today those ideas are the foundation of geophysics. We revere the names of James Clerk Maxwell and J. Willard Gibbs; yet their work was never fully appreciated in their lifetimes, and even today it is still, like that of Darwin, under attack by persons who, after a Century, have not yet comprehended their message (Atkins, 1986).
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Aug 02, 2015 10:51 am

minkwe wrote:Let me end with some advice for Joy from Jaynes, quoted liberally from http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/backward.look.pdf.

Thanks, Michel.

Easier said than done, but I will try to follow your (or Jaynes's) advice.
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 Rick Lockyer » Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:25 pm

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.

With your self-stated superior knowledge, it should be easy for you. Why aren't you doing this? Answer: there are no issues, and this proves anyone believing Joy has not made a sign error wrong. Stop the b.s., just do it. You will see the errors of your ways if you have ANY skills in math. Once again, I think Joy, Fred and Michel already have, and they are just doing their best to save face. Too late, the damage has already been done.

If Joy wants to come out with a "clarification" that his beta algebra is NOT geometric algebra, well that is a horse of a different color. But then he needs to fully define it for all to scrutinize.
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 Aug 02, 2015 1:36 pm

minkwe wrote:
Rick Lockyer wrote:If Fred and Michel still think Joy did not make a sign error, they are incompetent

There is no sign error. If you do not see what has been explained to you yet then it is you who is incompetent. If you do see it but can't admit your error, then you are being disingenuous. Your arguments on this thread are not about Joy's model, but rather a figment of your imagination.

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 ...

FrediFizzx wrote:All your presentation shows is that (I.a)(I.b) = (-I.a)(-I.b) in one basis or the other.

That is not Joy's model!

Joy's model is (-I.a)(-I.b) = (I.b)(I.a)! When you are in a fixed basis.

Joy Christian wrote:Fred and Michel are anything but "incompetent." And they are certainly not disingenuous liars like Lockyer and his "friends." But I have already exposed his lies here:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&start=80#p5045. Lockyer's pants are badly on fire. :D

Joy Christian wrote:Lockyer has resorted to lying in order to protect his massive ego. His silly math errors have been repeatedly exposed, but he cannot bring himself to admitting defeat.
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 1:50 pm

Taking about saying the truth, it seems that this quote from Richard Gill is taken out of context. Can you provide the context?
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 1:56 pm

DanielLBurnstein wrote:Taking about saying the truth, it seems that this quote from Richard Gill is taken out of context. Can you provide the context?

The quote has not been taken out of context. It is the exact quote. The context is provided in the original post here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&start=80#p5064.
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 2:10 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

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot] and 7 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library