This breaking article by the Guardian details the secret life of lawyer Stella Moris and Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange, who fell in love against all odds; and hid it from the world for the safety of their children.

It is an incredibly important, intimately detailed, and eye opening read published with just a few days before the international hearing that will decide Julian's fate.

If you read one thing this year, let it be this article.

-

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/oct/16/stella-moris-julian-assange-secret-family

Entanglement: 'Spooky action at a distance' is not real

http://www.godparticle.xyz/entang.html

* * * * *

To explain this, quantum physicists have come up with the idea that the particles are in contact with each other over huge distances, without any mediating field or particle. Yes, they can talk to each other instantly, so that when the physicist measures one as spin up, the other can flip immediately to spin down to conserve parity.

* * * * *

This is revolutionary because, in this way, light is no longer analogous to sound: it is not a field wave, but a particle with spin.

The wave belongs to each particle, and may be assigned to a mechanical motion: spin. If each photon has a real spin with a real wavelength and a real period of rotation, then we can use that period of rotation to track it. Using Feynman's little turning clock, we can follow the photon, no matter how far it travels, and predict with some certainty what state it will be in.

* * * * *

In previous papers MM has shown the flaws in Superposition is not Mystical , and square polarizer experiments. Here MM extends that analysis to include the CHSH Bell tests

* * * * *

We are then given the equation:

C = [A1, B1] - [A1, B2] + [A2, B1] + [A2, B2]

If C>2, we are supposed to have proof of entanglement and disproof of hidden variables. Could that be any sloppier or any more pushed? You should ask yourself, why not have two minus terms and two plus terms, and say that if C>0, we have entanglement?

That is the cheat right there.

* * * * *

But the point is, if you put all the Bell tests since 1972 in a pile, and average them, you get nothing even close to 2.83. Even with all the awful pushes we have seen, getting worse every year, the average is still very much closer to 2 than to 2.83. So you may ask yourself this: how can classical physics predict 2 and quantum physics predict 2.83, and a result of 2.07 is still read as vindication of quantum physics? According to my math, the result is 3% off the classical expectation and 27% off the quantum expectation. Also according to my math, 3 is smaller than 27. Even at 2.25, we are at 11% and 20%. Still not even close. The classical expectation is much better.