Edwin; continuing:
**I am somewhat confused by your p(lambda_sub_n_plus_i) as the 'It Bell missed'. Are you seriously proposing a new particle? You seem to be: ("WM delivers a whole new particle family,") and ("backed by the creation of a new particle.") If so, it seems that you might have developed more physics of the new particle, rather than focusing on Bell's logic -- which does not take into account any new particle. So let me be specific: is a new particle, as yet undiscovered, necessary for your scheme to work?**
R7: The new particles are NEW to the extent that they have not been announced heretofore. In this Essay, they arise from a rigorous analysis of Bell's boundary conditions, but they are plain and simple spin-half particles.
R7A: Edwin, you need to understand how their "naming = numbering" keeps account of what actually happens in experiments -- and not what is assumed to happen via BS -- "Bellian-style" -- maths, so to speak.
So the adjective "new" was thought by me to the best way to introduce them. I'm not aware of anything like them in the Bell literature. PS: I can see you slapping you forehead when you catch on!
**You repeatedly ask for critical response, so I'm responding. It seems a lot of work for a joke. Do you claim that you wrote most of this at age 11, or have you reworked it considerably? It's a lot to ask your readers to plow through for a joke. I have plowed through it, and plan to again.**
R8: Yes, critical responses are vital. And, Edwin, I do apologise for your wrestling with my text under the cloud of a hoax. It is NOT such. It is a claimed refutation of what so many believe to be "the most profound discovery of science" -- not just physics but Science!! It goes on to show what follows when nonsense and nonlocality are removed from view. Please continue to be critical -- that's the missing link here, the essence of helpful and cooperative communication, for me.
**I did find your "fill in the figure" approach interesting, and it did cause me to have an idea while contemplating it.**
R9: This is good news to me, and I thank you for it. The "fill-in" approach is akin to asking open questions in an area where the facts are so straightforward that there's reduced opportunity for creativity.
**In short, I believe that Bell's theorem is an incorrect analysis, and I believe it is the *only* reason that so many people are taking "it from bit" seriously. So it is serious business, as, in my opinion, it is leading physicists far astray. The essay sends mixed signals. On the one hand the analysis is impressive. On the other hand there are incongruous elements that throw off anyone capable of working through your logic. Perhaps these are simply remnants of your 11-year-old effort. If so, I think you should rewrite it in a more conventional style. This will deflect criticism and give your supporters more confidence that it is a serious challenge to Bell.**
R10: Really great to see those two opening sentences here. BUT there should be NO mixed signals in the Essay itself. Rest assured that I am serious; me trusting that the mixed-signals are seen to arise from perceptions of lighthearted fun not from the central facts. And me certainly hoping that we'll enjoy a productive correspondence involving a creative mix of fact and fun.
**Anyway, that's my immediate reaction to your impressive essay.**
R11: Your immediate reaction is very welcome and much appreciated.
**I look forward to your response.
Edwin Eugene Klingman**
R12: And Me-Too, to your next, Edwin; and maybe some from your group there;
with my thanks again; Gordon