gill1109 wrote:Gordon, your (15) [which you also call “WI”] does not contradict your (10) [which you also call “BI”].
You are confirming Bell’s theorem, not refuting it.
You seem to have a problem with elementary logic. Your elementary maths (simple formula manipulation) is OK. But you draw the wrong conclusions from what you find.
Richard,
Noting that my WI is mathematically and experimentally irrefutable, and BI is not:
1. How do you see me "confirming Bell's theorem" when my results differ so markedly from his?
2. Please, do me a favour: explain to me the right conclusions.
It's one thing to be deficient in elementary logic; far worse that I be seriously clueless.
Thanks,
Gordon
.