The onus of understanding is always on the critic. Yet, the prevalent attitude amongst the bullies is to criticise first and then to demand the criticised spend their life "explaining" themselves. I've endured my fair share of bullies, at the beginning of my career, many years back. It turned me cynical about analytical philosophers' claim to be merely interested in 'uncovering truth' through dialectics.
Q-reeus wrote:Joy, don't you think the best answer to all this seemingly endless personal contention stuff is to have the proposed experiment actually done and dusted?
If there are real difficulties in getting it physically implemented, surely the next best, maybe the best thing, is to get someone proficient in 4D simulation (CGI, gaming industry) to just model the proposed setup and run it on a computer. Purely Newtonian physics based. That would be distinctly different to your purely GA-based simulations that require faith in the'S3-not-R3 world' algebra.
luca valeri wrote:Hi Joy
may I call your attention to a mistake you made in your paper in "https://www.academia.edu/19235737/Macroscopic_Observability_of_Spinorial_Sign_Changes_A_Simplified_Proof"?
1. Let me first point out that the definition in (14) is very unusual in the sense, that you have the s in left to be defined function, but then on the right the s is moving to a.
2. The mistake is made between formula (27) and (28). You have 2 different s: one going to a the other to b. You should use 2 different labels there. Than between (30) and (31) the L(s) terms wouldn't disappear.
3. The right thing to do would be in (30) the first s let go to a the second to b. That you would get -1 inside the sum giving -1 for E(a,b). Something you could get if you directly would put the last terms with the lambdas in the definition (14) into formula (26). Where you actually can see, that the sign(sa) does not depend from a.
Best regards
Luca
luca valeri wrote:Hi Joy,
I belief that while the understanding of the physics helps one to make the math right, it is not needed to spot math errors. (And I do understand the EPR-Bohm type experiments.)
If you have a non standard theory and want to convince the physics community it is crucial to do the math right.
For instance (35) is correct, but (29) makes no sense. Is s going to a or to b?
thray wrote:Joy,
"... product of the limits = limits of the product ..." reminds me of something else you have said: "No observation in any experiment was ever made except in some direction." A wonderfully compact and elegant way to say that spacetime is connected and continuous.
Future's so bright, you ought to wear shades.
All best,
Tom
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 3 guests