Bell's Theorem and Nonlocality

[CptBork]

CptBork,

I have a possible field test, designed to produce a selectively-etheric energy field. It is based on the same kind of information that led to the ether model I derived. The test would be expensive, and so far I haven't been able to find a financial sponsor for it. (If successful, the test as designed could detect a unique effect of an etheric field, i.e., a decrease in the densities of materials inside the test system, an effect not found with known forms of energy.) -A new form of energy could also have interesting new properties.

No one's likely to put any money up for you to conduct an expensive test, unless you can give them a reason to believe that your theory has something to offer that isn't already offered by existing theories. So what reason would you give to a potential investor to think your theory has a better shot of producing a successful test as compared to other theories that have already produced millions of successful tests and practical applications? Telling them you saw something in a dream or in a Bible code or whatnot clearly isn't convincing anyone.

 

[Michael Anteski]

No one's likely to put any money up for you to conduct an expensive test, unless you can give them a reason to believe that your theory has something to offer that isn't already offered by existing theories. So what reason would you give to a potential investor to think your theory has a better shot of producing a successful test as compared to other theories that have already produced millions of successful tests and practical applications? Telling them you saw something in a dream or in a Bible code or whatnot clearly isn't convincing anyone.

CptBork,

I mentioned my code work in previous posts in this Thread. -I came across the sets of codes I use from the work of a little-known cryptographer years ago. His code work didn't get much attention, but his basic codebreaking method is what I use. -I adapted and expanded his method to derive decipherments on controversies in science, and numerous other areas. -I won't give details here as to the exact source I have been using. -I would fully reveal it to a party capable of financing the energy field-test I want to have done.

I have seen reports about "Bible codes" on TV. The sets of codes and decipherment method I use produce much more detail and clarity than what I saw of theirs.

I grant there have been "millions" of tests of theories, many of which produced practical applications. I am claiming to have an unprecedented type of procedure that's never been tried before.

 

[CptBork]

I grant there have been "millions" of tests of theories, many of which produced practical applications. I am claiming to have an unprecedented type of procedure that's never been tried before.

As I was saying, before you get to the unprecedented parts and start asking for money, why don't you first show that your theory can successfully model at least one thing in the real world that already has a real precedent? That's how everyone else got their money, why can't you do the same thing?

 

[CptBork]

Granted. I have to rethink what HVI territory remains, if any. Maybe all of the hidden variables interpretation advocates have been convinced; I'll look around and see if there is any territory left for HVI in current professional circles :shrug:.

I don't think you'll find anyone actually working in the field who still holds out for a local hidden variables interpretation. There may be a small few clinging to a nonlocal hidden variables interpretation, but no one's come even close to a complete description that avoids Relativistic paradoxes and doesn't end up resorting to the use of probability at some point, let alone something that successfully duplicates the present understanding of particle physics.

A lot of this unpleasant outcome for me stems from my use of outdated texts and old links as I familiarized myself with QM. Often those old materials are about good sound physics, where the new major discoveries gradually become the consensus. A layman can generally hope to understood how A leads to B. That doesn't seem to be the case in QM, because the fact that it is not understood mechanically sent me down the path thinking that then it must be incomplete. That brings home the point that self learning has it loopholes, or maybe it would be better to say its gaps, i.e. we often learn better via the process of discussions like this; but an unfortunate note about forum life is that open discussions are not always as productive as they could be for a myriad of reasons.

Well, I've insisted from the very start that's there's absolutely no substitute for learning the actual technical details of a theory and how it's developed, applied and tested. Without such details, you leave yourself at the mercy of your particular sources and authorities, whereas good science is never conducted based on argument by authority.

Thanks for seeing it through from your perspective, and wish me luck in getting my model back together, given all that I have to consider going forward.

For me it is back to the drawing board, where I will have to evaluate my model and its internally consistency, in the light of the loss of local reality. I also have to work a little harder at understanding just exactly what that means when stacked up against the "spookiness" of QM. I might say that I am consoled a little by the fact that no one can explain the spookiness.

Well, best of luck and please do keep an open mind about these topics. I really appreciate that you've stuck it through and come to have a better understanding of the arguments I was making, and maybe you'll have a somewhat deeper appreciation for how thorough scientists have historically been in ruling out conventional possibilities before embracing counterintuitive/"weird" theories of nature.

In my view, by far the spookiest thing about the universe is that it even exists at all and that is appears to have well-defined physical properties. The concept of nonlocality isn't such a big deal, it simply implies that physical distance between things is more of an illusion than a reality, and that spatial coordinates and separations are really just mathematical parameters which manifest themselves in an intuitive way on macroscopic scales.

 

[Michael Anteski]

As I was saying, before you get to the unprecedented parts and start asking for money, why don't you first show that your theory can successfully model at least one thing in the real world that already has a real precedent? That's how everyone else got their money, why can't you do the same thing?

You're equating "real world" with the quantum-type-forces world of our earth surface setting, while my ether Model claims that there is a universal, vibrational, etheric-forces world underlying that, which needs a novel approach in order to penetrate it and begin to understand it. -As I view it, you're insisting that we should stick to the conventional quantally-mediated empirical observations in our earth-setting, as being all there could possibly be to investigate.

There is no way to detect the ether with existing quantum-energy technologies. I can't do that either, except for this one field-test I mentioned. I claim it's a novel approach to it that could begin to access it.

 

[CptBork]

You're equating "real world" with the quantum-type-forces world of our earth surface setting, while my ether Model claims that there is a universal, vibrational, etheric-forces world underlying that, which needs a novel approach in order to penetrate it and begin to understand it. -As I view it, you're insisting that we should stick to the conventional quantally-mediated empirical observations in our earth-setting, as being all there could possibly be to investigate.

There is no way to detect the ether with existing quantum-energy technologies. I can't do that either, except for this one field-test I mentioned. I claim it's a novel approach to it that could begin to access it.

I'm equating "real world" with what's physically observable on a universal, repeatable basis. If you're attempting to supplant an existing theory, you have to show that your own theory is at least as good at modelling and predicting whatever phenomena it attempts to describe, or that it's able to explain and predict a known phenomenon more accurately or with greater simplicity than existing models. If you want to replace a well-understood quantum explanation for a well-studied phenomenon, then you need to explain why the experimental detectors do whatever they do when they respond to the various stimuli.

If you want someone or a group of people to dedicate enormous amounts of their time and energy to you, you need to demonstrate that there's a good reason for them to seek out your ideas as viable alternatives to the existing understanding. I could smash a lead block with a hammer and hope that I have a magic hammer which can turn lead into gold when I pound it 10,000 times - after all, I've never tried it before - but what reason would I have to believe that I wouldn't be wasting my time?

If you're so convinced that you've found this secret code and it allows you to receive concrete revelations, then why don't you focus on demonstrating the efficacy of your code first rather than fussing over the particulars of whatever it supposedly reveals? If you can apply a code to seemingly unrelated gibberish and come up with rational statements far more often than one would expect at random, that in itself would be a notable discovery.

 

[Michael Anteski]

I'm equating "real world" with what's physically observable on a universal, repeatable basis. If you're attempting to supplant an existing theory, you have to show that your own theory is at least as good at modelling and predicting whatever phenomena it attempts to describe, or that it's able to explain and predict a known phenomenon more accurately or with greater simplicity than existing models. If you want to replace a well-understood quantum explanation for a well-studied phenomenon, then you need to explain why the experimental detectors do whatever they do when they respond to the various stimuli.

If you want someone or a group of people to dedicate enormous amounts of their time and energy to you, you need to demonstrate that there's a good reason for them to seek out your ideas as viable alternatives to the existing understanding. I could smash a lead block with a hammer and hope that I have a magic hammer which can turn lead into gold when I pound it 10,000 times - after all, I've never tried it before - but what reason would I have to believe that I wouldn't be wasting my time?

If you're so convinced that you've found this secret code and it allows you to receive concrete revelations, then why don't you focus on demonstrating the efficacy of your code first rather than fussing over the particulars of whatever it supposedly reveals? If you can apply a code to seemingly unrelated gibberish and come up with rational statements far more often than one would expect at random, that in itself would be a notable discovery.

I can answer your last question - My decodings have been internally consistent giving answers to mysteries in innumerable areas I have tried it on. I won't give the number of them, or provide any of the answers in this context, inasmuch as I've been at this decoding for years now, and I would want there to be something in it for me. -Again, I'd only provide details to someone interested in financially backing my proposed field test.

 

[Cheezle]

I too have decoded the same secret writings and have all the mysteries of the universe written down in excruciating detail with diagrams, commentary, and full index. All this is hand written and illuminated using indelible caligraphic inks and bound in a high quality corinthian leather bound book. These decoding are top quality, and absolutely true, money back if unsatisfied. I would be willing to part with these mysteries for the small fee of $19.99 + a meager donation to my charitable foundation, Cosmic Alchemical Superpositional Heterodynamics LLC (make the check out to C.A. S. H.). I can assure you that Michael Anteski's decodings are an inferior subset of mine and my decoding are way cheaper and more likely to answer any question you might have. Why waste your hard earned bucks on an inferior product? Not only are my decodings internally consistent they are also self consistent and even externally consistent. Consistent in every way possible. How can the competition beat that? But wait, there is more! These decodings describe an isomorphic connectivity between the internal hyperdimensional personal space inside your head and the objective spacetime continuum of your everyday life. Imagine the possibilities. Free samples are available but only for a limited time. And for a small consumer service fee I will make myself available online, 24/7, for any questions you may have after purchase. Offer void where prohibited by law. This product is meant for educational purposes only. All purchases are final.

 

[Michael Anteski]

Many persons claim to have "the approach to key scientific knowledge. -Decodings are only one of them. -There are also people who claim to have uniq

 

[Michael Anteski]

(Sorry for the typo) -I was about to say that there are many who claim to have a unique experimental design for "over unity" or "zero point energy" devices, which typically are relatively small scale laboratory designs. They then intend to go on to larger scale designs, if resources become available. (I would include so-called cold fusion designs in this category.) -My ether theoretic model would have it that these all represent theoretically-incompletely-understood applications that, at best, happen to be partially tapping into ambient etheric forces, such as cosmic radiation and other sources of natural energy in our surroundings.

To really tap into etheric forces, one needs a full scale field setup along the lines of the one I claim to have.

 

[CptBork]

I too have decoded the same secret writings and have all the mysteries of the universe written down in excruciating detail with diagrams, commentary, and full index. All this is hand written and illuminated using indelible caligraphic inks and bound in a high quality corinthian leather bound book. These decoding are top quality, and absolutely true, money back if unsatisfied. I would be willing to part with these mysteries for the small fee of $19.99 + a meager donation to my charitable foundation, Cosmic Alchemical Superpositional Heterodynamics LLC (make the check out to C.A. S. H.). I can assure you that Michael Anteski's decodings are an inferior subset of mine and my decoding are way cheaper and more likely to answer any question you might have. Why waste your hard earned bucks on an inferior product? Not only are my decodings internally consistent they are also self consistent and even externally consistent. Consistent in every way possible. How can the competition beat that? But wait, there is more! These decodings describe an isomorphic connectivity between the internal hyperdimensional personal space inside your head and the objective spacetime continuum of your everyday life. Imagine the possibilities. Free samples are available but only for a limited time. And for a small consumer service fee I will make myself available online, 24/7, for any questions you may have after purchase. Offer void where prohibited by law. This product is meant for educational purposes only. All purchases are final.

Only one thing I have to say to all this:

 

[CptBork]

(Sorry for the typo) -I was about to say that there are many who claim to have a unique experimental design for "over unity" or "zero point energy" devices, which typically are relatively small scale laboratory designs. They then intend to go on to larger scale designs, if resources become available. (I would include so-called cold fusion designs in this category.) -My ether theoretic model would have it that these all represent theoretically-incompletely-understood applications that, at best, happen to be partially tapping into ambient etheric forces, such as cosmic radiation and other sources of natural energy in our surroundings.

To really tap into etheric forces, one needs a full scale field setup along the lines of the one I claim to have.

None of those magical machines you refer to have ever been demonstrated to work in practice or to output more power than all the net inputs (including all the circuits used for "cooling"). Start with a basic device that actually does something and stands up to fraud scrutiny, and then you'll have all the investors in the world banging at your door.