FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 It wouldn't be nice to tell them your work belongs in the trash can.
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Guess what folks? Another COMING SOON is coming soon.
Also coming soon: I’m giving a Zoom talk in Paris on Monday, 2pm CEST. I’ll discuss computer simulations of Bell experiments and I’ll discuss Joy’s work. Send me an email if you’d like to have the Zoom codes.
https://sites.google.com/view/statseminar-crest-cmap/home
Why would anyone want to hear your worthless talk when Bell's theorem has been dead for at least 14 years, if not from its very birth? It would be a waste of time for any rational physicist.
The statisticians and probabilists in Paris will love it! (At least, assuming that my internet is good enough). Here are the slides. Why don't you tell me where the math errors are?
https://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/bell-in-paris
Better still, join in the audience and let them know what you think about my work.
Joy Christian wrote:Ok. I glanced through your slides. Your claims are laughable. They show that even after having been on this forum for so many years, you have zero understanding of what Michel Fodje, Fred, and I have explained to you many times. You can do whatever statistics you like, they amount to absolutely nothing when it comes to Bell's silly claims about locality and realism.
PS: I also noticed that you did not cite my reply to you, published in IEEE Access: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997 (open access).
.
gill1109 wrote:My talk is about the mathematical properties of simulation models. Not about physics.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:My talk is about the mathematical properties of simulation models. Not about physics.
Make sure you talk about the simulation that shot down all your so-called "proofs".
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... -paper2.nb
gill1109 wrote: ... If you would randomly delete channel 1 or channel 2 for each trial, (snip nonsense)
jreed wrote:Ho hum. Just more of the same old detection loophole and double detectors with the added complexity of quaternions and now three dimensions. No need to do any more analysis. Fred, you need to try something else. Maybe another loophole?
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote: ... If you would randomly delete channel 1 or channel 2 for each trial, (snip nonsense)
Why would we ever do that? Do you think that is something that happens in Nature?
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote: ... If you would randomly delete channel 1 or channel 2 for each trial, (snip nonsense)
Why would we ever do that? Do you think that is something that happens in Nature?
Do you think that what you do with your data happens in the lab?
gill1109 wrote:There's a great discussion raging over at Academia.edu triggered by a new offering by Gordon Watson. Lot's of pro- and contra- Bell folk arguing away, hammer-and-nails. https://www.academia.edu/s/9feada3a8d?source=link
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:There's a great discussion raging over at Academia.edu triggered by a new offering by Gordon Watson. Lot's of pro- and contra- Bell folk arguing away, hammer-and-nails. https://www.academia.edu/s/9feada3a8d?source=link
Looks like a whole bunch more nonsense that we are not going to bother to read since we already have the Gill theory killer figured out 2 different ways.
.
gill1109 wrote:One of the interesting things that I discovered at that Academia.edu website discussion (of a paper by our old friend Gordon Watson) was Fred’s simulation model in papers five years ago by Hess, de Raedt, Michielsen.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 87 guests