galathaea:
 ><news:slrnbfb2fd.lqt.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
 >>  
 >>   You mean the "references therein" in the first article of ghose I cited?
 >> Rather than the nonsense you wrote in response, why didn't you just provide
 >> the simple things for which I asked?
 >
 >I guess it requires someone who knows how to read and understand when
 >I post such things as "The most lucid response to Ghose's claims are
 >found in the paper by Struyve and de Baere at (0108038)."

  Gee, that would be a pretty good trick, since the article I referenced
is dated april 2003 and the one you say refutes it is dated august 2001.
Are bohmians clairvoyant, too?

 >You are
 >merely making yourself out to be a fool with these constant
 >contradictions and failure to read the references I have given.

  I'm sorry but I'm having difficulty with the concept that the supposed
rebuttal to ghose' article appeared 2 years before the article it refutes.

 >>   You haven't refuted the results of the experiment. All you've done is to
 >> say that multisimultaneity isn't bohmian mechanics. Since I never said
 >> that it was and several times told you that what was relevant was the
 >> experimental data, there was no relevance to anything you referenced on
 >> multisimultaneity as a particular model. I'm not going to take your
 >> suggestions as to what my point should be just so you have an argument.
 >
 >You came into this whole thing with the hope that Suarez and the
 >experiment would disprove Bohm.  When it was shown that even Suarez
 >didn't hold this position and even you posted a nice little quote

  You've shown no such thing.

 >explaining the position of the authors, it became clear to everyone
 >but yourself that your point with Suarez was a TOTAL AND COMPLETE

  Unless you don't understand the difference between a gibbs ensemble
and quantum statistics, You're dishonest, too. Repost what you claim
I quoted, the context around it and the message-id.

 >MISUNDERSTANDING on your part.  That coupled with the Ghose mistakes
 >detailed in my references should humble your certainty somewhat.
 >Except that you keep coming back with this quest of yours to disprove
 >something you have even claimed you don't need to study to know it is
 >wrong.  The only reason I can see you keep coming back is to entertain
 >those reading your responses.

  That is certainly easier than pointing to the errors I requested you
you find and spell out mathematically. Do you do math? Like every other
crank, you refuse to show any mathematical details and rely on miscon-
struing and misquoting to try and make a point.

  You (claim to) have ghose article.

[...]
 >>    I'll worry about ruining my life. You worry about finding the error
 >> in ghose' article I referenced in my first post. You've basically spend
 >> a half dozen posts writing ten times as much as necessary if there were
 >> a mistake in his calculations. How hard can it be to take the bosonic
 >> wavefunction for a two-particle system and calculate the trajectories,
 >> especially, since all you have to do is use symmetry arguments to obtain
 >> the result? Otherwise, take it to a philosophy newsgroup.
 >
 >Yes.  I never posted any reference that explained in detail the error
 >of Ghose.

  Precisely. The article you've referenced does not even address ghose'
point and neither have you. You've ignored everything I've written
regarding the extent to which the quantum equilibrium hypothesis is limited
in insuring equivalence - mainly because you can't seem to provide an
argument except for one that's canned and use it even when it doesn't apply.

[*snip*]