FrediFizzx wrote:http://ilja-schmelzer.de/forum/showthread.php?tid=58
ROTFLMAO! Schmelzer has promoted their mathematical nonsense to a locked thread like it is something special. Well, that is their problem as all the world can see that they for some unknown reasons are having extreme difficulty with some pretty simple math and physics postulates. It can't be ignorance because it has been explained to them exactly what they are doing wrong many times. And I can't believe it is pure stupidity so the only conclusion left is pure dishonesty. If anyone here would like us to explain once again why they are totally wrong, please post your questions.
Richard D. Gill wrote:
(The equation numbers refer to arXiv v4 of my paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355v4.pdf)
According to (55) and (56), A(a, lambda) = lambda and B(b, lambda) = - lambda where lambda = +/-1. This should lead to E(a, b), computed in (60)-(68), equal to -1. But instead the author gets the result - a . b. How is it done?
Notice formula (58) where s_1 and s_2 are argued to be equal, leading in (59) to L(s_1, lambda)L(s_2, lambda) = -1. This result is then substituted inside a double limit as s_1 converges to a and s_2 converges to b in the transition from equation (62) to (63).
So s_1 and s_2 are equal yet converge to different limits a and b.
But that is not enough. A second trick is put into play a few lines later. According to (57) we should have L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda) = D(a)D(b) independent of lambda, which means that the step from (65) to (66) can't be correct.
To take that step he uses (50), but this contradicts (51) and (52). If L(a, lambda) = lambda I a and L(b, lambda) = lambda I b then L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda) = -ab independent of whether lambda = -1 or +1 (lambda and I both commute with a and b; lambda^2 = 1, I^2 = -1)."
Richard D. Gill wrote:
Now version 5 is online: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355v5.pdf
It contains some new material, in particular, the derivations (57)-(60) and (61)-(64) on page 8. In (57)-(60), the limit is taken as s_1 converges to a of some expression which depends on s_1, a and lambda. Up to (59) everything seems to be OK. In (59) we have a limit of a sum of two terms. Going from (59) to (60) the following seems to have happened. The limit of a sum of two terms is rewritten as a sum of two limits, one for each of the two terms separately. The second of the two limits is evaluated, the result is zero. The first limit is however not evaluated: instead, no limit is taken at all, so that the end result still depends on the dummy variable s_1.
The expression concerned is continuous in s_1, a and lambda and the limit can therefore be computed by simply evaluating it with s_1 set equal to a. That results in lambda, as already claimed in (54).
So the step from (59) to (60) is non-sense, and the final result moreover contradicts (54).
Joy Christian wrote:***Richard D. Gill wrote:
Now version 5 is online: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355v5.pdf
It contains some new material, in particular, the derivations (57)-(60) and (61)-(64) on page 8. In (57)-(60), the limit is taken as s_1 converges to a of some expression which depends on s_1, a and lambda. Up to (59) everything seems to be OK. In (59) we have a limit of a sum of two terms. Going from (59) to (60) the following seems to have happened. The limit of a sum of two terms is rewritten as a sum of two limits, one for each of the two terms separately. The second of the two limits is evaluated, the result is zero. The first limit is however not evaluated: instead, no limit is taken at all, so that the end result still depends on the dummy variable s_1.
The expression concerned is continuous in s_1, a and lambda and the limit can therefore be computed by simply evaluating it with s_1 set equal to a. That results in lambda, as already claimed in (54).
So the step from (59) to (60) is non-sense, and the final result moreover contradicts (54).
Yablon wrote:After many months of staying out of the "Bell Wars," I finally got dragged into them at Retraction Watch when some folks started asking questions about poor little old me who was just sitting around minding my own business. Following some dialogue which you may follow at http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/p ... /#comments in which I offered to mediate the dispute between Joy and Richard (which I have really tried to stay out of), Richard posed the same question above, to me. So, I did the math that Richard critiqued by which Joy goes from (59) to (60). My calculation may be seen at https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... jcrg-2.pdf. I truly hope this is helpful to everyone. Beyond my desire to end a war between two people and the two "camps" they have come to represent, I feel a duty to science as a scientist to try to help resolve this quagmire if there is any chance that I can do so. Jay
Yablon wrote:After many months of staying out of the "Bell Wars," I finally got dragged into them at Retraction Watch when some folks started asking questions about poor little old me who was just sitting around minding my own business. Following some dialogue which you may follow at http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/p ... /#comments in which I offered to mediate the dispute between Joy and Richard (which I have really tried to stay out of), Richard posed the same question above, to me. So, I did the math that Richard critiqued by which Joy goes from (59) to (60). My calculation may be seen at https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... jcrg-2.pdf. I truly hope this is helpful to everyone. Beyond my desire to end a war between two people and the two "camps" they have come to represent, I feel a duty to science as a scientist to try to help resolve this quagmire if there is any chance that I can do so. Jay
Joy Christian wrote:Yablon wrote:After many months of staying out of the "Bell Wars," I finally got dragged into them at Retraction Watch when some folks started asking questions about poor little old me who was just sitting around minding my own business. Following some dialogue which you may follow at http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/p ... /#comments in which I offered to mediate the dispute between Joy and Richard (which I have really tried to stay out of), Richard posed the same question above, to me. So, I did the math that Richard critiqued by which Joy goes from (59) to (60). My calculation may be seen at https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... jcrg-2.pdf. I truly hope this is helpful to everyone. Beyond my desire to end a war between two people and the two "camps" they have come to represent, I feel a duty to science as a scientist to try to help resolve this quagmire if there is any chance that I can do so. Jay
Thank you very much, Jay. Your analysis is indeed helpful. There is of course nothing deep about the issue. But it is good to have an independent analysis for all to see.
***
FrediFizzx wrote:Be very careful about engaging with Gill, Jay.
http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_socio ... uence.html
Yablon wrote:Hi again to Joy and all. Richard send me a follow up email based on the above, and I have included this reply from him and my further analysis at https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... jcrg-3.pdf. Jay
Richard D. Gill wrote:
I agree that if a = s_1 then indeed we can get (60)
Similarly if b = s_2 we can get (64)
In (65) Joy argues that s_1 = s_2
Do you think he wants a = b to be true, as well?
Joy Christian wrote:***
Let me summarise Jay's argument refuting Gill's longstanding claim against my model, because it is instructive to compare Jay's analytical ability against Gill's. Jay has used a brilliant judo-type manoeuvre to refute Gill's claim in his own silly game, which I now summarise in the notation of my paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355
FrediFizzx wrote:Joy, I think you need to add a time parameter to your formulation so that it is more clear about the creation event and the detection events.
Since we are primarily concerned with a galactic, solar, or terrestrial scenario, in what follows we will restrict our
attention to the current epoch of the cosmos by setting the scale factor a(t) = 1 in the solution (9). Moreover, we will
not be using the time coordinate in (9) explicitly. Instead, we will follow the practice of defining the measurement
events in terms of the initial and final instants of time, as usually done within the context of Bell’s local model [1][3].
Readers who are not familiar with this practice are urged to review the Appendix below before proceeding further [8].
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest