Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 More freakin' NONSENSE! Heine is rarely correct and is totally wrong here. I already told you that the total number of sign flips is about 5 percent so no way you can get 20 percent. Pay freakin' attention! So, the percentage of a change of b involved with a sign flip is a tiny fraction of the 5 percent. Time to get over it and move on!

Moreover, "the percentage of a change of b involved with a sign flip" is accidental, not systematic. One does not have to be a "mathematical statistician" to understand that.

Twenty quaternionic sign flips in a million trials coincide with a change in the setting b. Big deal.

Well, that is for one side so I guess it is actually around 40 if a change in setting a changes B which is actually due to the quaternion flip so still local. LOL! The Bell fanatics can't find anything else wrong with the model so all they got left to say about it is nonsense. I'm going to start deleting further nonsense posts.

.