gill1109 wrote:Unfortunately, an attempt to claim the 10 000 Euro prize for a successful attempt before June 11 failed...
gill1109 wrote:Unfortunately, Weihs, de Raedt and Khrennikov do not agree with Christian.
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:Unfortunately, Weihs, de Raedt and Khrennikov do not agree with Christian.
Mixture of lies and half truths---a true hallmark of Richard Gill.
But hey, I am done with Richard Gill and his frauds. Go for his "challenge" if you want to be conned.
gill1109 wrote:By the way, writing words in huge letters, colouring them red, or putting them in capitals, is called "shouting" in polite circles. Calling some [dubious and outright deceptive] statements lies and half truths and calling them the hallmark of a particular person, moreover a [participant] on this forum, is an ad hominem argument.
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:By the way, writing words in huge letters, colouring them red, or putting them in capitals, is called "shouting" in polite circles. Calling some [dubious and outright deceptive] statements lies and half truths and calling them the hallmark of a particular person, moreover a [participant] on this forum, is an ad hominem argument.
Yes, I know. Tell me something I don't know. FYI: ad hominem arguments are valid and informative form of logical arguments. Calling a liar a liar is not a lie.
gill1109 wrote:You may suspect I am a liar, but you can't know it. In any case, it is contrary to the rules of decorum on this forum to directly inform everyone that you believe I'm a liar.
gill1109 wrote:Unfortunately, Weihs, de Raedt and Khrennikov do not agree with Christian.
menoma wrote:Richard arguably indulged in a semantic finesse, in a manner once fairly or unfairly called Jesuitical, because "does not agree" might easily be interpreted to mean "disagrees" ... however, that interpretation is by no means mandatory. Apparently Dr. Khrennikov didn't agree nor did he disagree; he simply felt himself unqualified to offer an opinion. The two distinguished physicists who did offer opinions, one pro-local realism, the other pro-entanglement, agree that Dr. Christian's submission failed and that the 10K euros rightfully remain in the pocket of Dr. Gill.
It's hard not to conclude that Dr. Christian has lost another round.
(1) It is quite clear that Richard Gill lied with intention to deceive.
(2) How on earth do you know anything about what Khrennikov did or did not do, or how he felt about the so-called "challenge", or what his circumstances are?
(3) How do you know the opinions of the other two physicists? How do you know that they agree that "Dr. Christian's submission failed..."? Did they tell you that?
It is quite clear that Richard Gill lied with intention to deceive. Apparently you are quite happy to be decived by him, just as many other Bell-believers are.
It is not wise to indulge in speculations about things you know nothing about.
Well, the readers have two very simple options:
(1) Fall for the overt demonization attempt above (I have seen far more sophisticated approaches), or ...
florence wrote:in Joy's latest simulation (http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298) because of the way the 'good' vectors are selected, {good <- abs(ua) > p & abs(ub) > p ## Sets the topology to that of S^3} this results in v being different for each pair of a and b values? could someone please clarify, purely from the point of view of the prize challenge, whether that is permissible under the rules?
{if i use the same v each time, the correlations i find are -.7042 (as before), but +.5415, -.5353, -.2200 for the rest, which gives a value of 2.0010 for abs(E_0_45 - E_0_135 + E_90_45 + E_90_135), as might be expected}
florence wrote:in Joy's latest simulation (http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298) because of the way the 'good' vectors are selected, {good <- abs(ua) > p & abs(ub) > p ## Sets the topology to that of S^3} this results in v being different for each pair of a and b values? could someone please clarify, purely from the point of view of the prize challenge, whether that is permissible under the rules?
{if i use the same v each time, the correlations i find are -.7042 (as before), but +.5415, -.5353, -.2200 for the rest, which gives a value of 2.0010 for abs(E_0_45 - E_0_135 + E_90_45 + E_90_135), as might be expected}
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests