1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Bell's Inequality error...

« on: 22/11/2016 07:59:19 »

The error lies in the nature of treating the cases where all doors are equal as simply 1/3 of all options and for the other 1/3 where they are the same as equivalent in weight. The probabilities should break down as:

1/3 (all 3 doors equal color and both select the same door) <--> 100% same
1/3 (of non-similar selected doors for 2/3 same color) <--> 50% same
1/3 (of non-similar selected doors for 2/3 different color) <--> 50% different

The bolded are what make up the cases as 2/3 when that first 1/3 must be split or the other two divided.

For any one door selected by both Scully, say, Mulder can pick the same door and automatically is assured of a match. But this 'appears' as it should be treated as ONE probability:

If Scully picks door T and it is blue, and Mulder picks door T, it can ONLY BE  1 x blue.

But if Mulder picked any of the other doors instead, he has 1/2 x blue or 1/2 x red.

So this would be more appropriately be:

1/3 x 1 = probability for identical door selection when all 3 the same = 1/3
1/3 x 1/2 = probability for non-similar door selection for the same = 1/6
1/3 x 1/2 = probability for non-similar door selection for differences = 1/6

Thus, when corrected, should 50% in experiment demonstrate they are the same, you have to treat this as constituting the 1/3 + 1/6 weighted parts (= 1/2) in actuality!

This definitively disproves Bell's theorem to be useful to prove anything!!

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did Time Happen First ?

« on: 23/10/2016 22:48:35 »

Appropriate question.

We cannot even question things without time as our bias. I think things begin with absolute nothingness and yet at such a ?place? time itself is not there. Yet in this sense, as soon as time is in play, all the essential laws exist and so it seems we have to default to some 'laws' when considering interpreting reality through time.

The 'singularity' of the Big Bang too is that which represents a point many believe is the beginning of time. Yet if we are to beg we only BE "scientific", are we not supposed to only judge reality based upon our limitation of perceiving time? And if so, while it may 'temporarily' appear that there is an origin of time, since we cannot SPEAK of anything outside of it concerning observation, should we not treat the singularity and the theory such logic is based on with suspicion. Should we not treat the Big Bang itself UNSCIENTIFIC because it is treating the act of an interpretation of our active senses about some origin as a point absent of time, as mistaken, UNLESS we allow metaphysical interpretation and logic to be a PART in equal significance to inspecting reality.

At present, it is more logical to assume the 'origin' at some singularity as an "approach", similar to how Calculus treats a limit. Then we have to prefer those theories based on no finite 'state' as metaphysics, not physics. This is where I believe the Big Bang fits suitably based merely on logic alone.

3

Technology / Re: Can a capacitor reduce home electritity use?

« on: 09/08/2016 18:11:13 »

Capacitors simply store and/or smooth out electricity and won't save you money for using. What is the OP here interpreting a 'capacitor' is though? It's not something a general consumer would be able to be concerned about nor could 'install' without a background in electronics. Perhaps he/she was referring to a backup supply for blackouts or storm surge? They certainly require capacitors as components but unless it is some brand name for some energy saving device, they are not something one would require using as a consumer. (And not to mention, dangerous if we're discussing general power supply.)