such as the pyramids required help from otherworlders. The arguments

are logical and proceed from the false assumption that

*ancient people*

were stupid.Something like that premise corrupts even 'official'

were stupid.

science.

Specifically, the assumption is that scientists of past eras were

stupid enough to believe in things like epicycles, vitalism, etc.,

*but scientists of this era are straight-'thinking' and finally have*

it right.

it right.

However, two examples:

* The usual derivations of special relativity make an arbitrary

assumption that leads to the Twin Paradox. I verified for myself, a

few years ago, that changing that assumption yieldsa specialExperimentation is required

relativity without any Twin Paradox.

to know which sr, if either, is correct. Experiments have been run,

of course, but not all think those experiments were done correctly;

I have no opinion on that matter.

* Bell's 'theorem' is wrong. In John Bell's well known 'popular' paper

about his 'theorem',Bertlmann's socks and the nature ofhe explains his reasoning (for quantum mechanics) by

reality,

analogy to a problem in statistics of heart attacks. However,inI found this a few years ago, and it shows that Bell wasn't

the heart attacks case his reasoning is wrong in an intuitive

way.

thinking straight. In my experience, pointing this out to a

prominent Bell's 'theorem' believer, I get back 'Okay, yes, Bell was

wrong about that, but his "theorem" is right.'

In fact the main error in Bell's reasoning was found in the 1980s by

the late physicist E. T. Jaynes. In the last several years other

physicists have devisedclassicalmodels of EPR

experiments. EPR experiments are supposed to demonstrate certain

difficult to comprehend 'facts' about quantum mechanics, but the

connection between the experiments and those 'facts' is Bell's

'theorem'. But Bell's 'theorem' is wrong.

What wrongly believed 'facts' am I talking about? It is believed

widely that quantum mechanics requires 'instantaneous' action at a

distance, or 'non-locality'; this 'fact' is founded on Bell's

incorrect 'theorem'. It is believed widely that there can be no

reduction of quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory; this

'fact' is founded on Bell's incorrect 'theorem'.

The field of quantum cryptography is popular and well funded these

days, and is supposed to give absolutely unbreakable ciphers; the

absolute unbreakability of those ciphers, however, is founded on the

assumption that there is no deterministic theory underlying quantum

mechanics; and that assumption depends on Bell's 'theorem'. (The

theory of quantum computing may also be affected; I don't remember

well enough what that relationship would be.)

Scientists suffer from prejudices today similar to those of earlier

times. Indeed, most likely the paper publishing culture of today

makes it harder to overcome these prejudices than it was a

hundred or more years ago.

## Error

Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

Your reply will be screened

Your IP address will be recorded