From: nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be   
      
   On Wednesday, 22 February 2017 21:32:07 UTC+1, ben...@hotmail.com  wrote:   
      
   > I agree that the maths must agree with the experimental   
   > observations and I  need to know more about the   
   > experimental results.   
      
   But what is more each different experiment has its own math.   
      
   > The 2015 Delft experiment only used 245 pairs of particles which   
   > does not seem enough, by itself, to sustain a belief in   
   > experimental observations breaking an inequality, whatever the   
   > result's p value is (significant but not exceedingly so). That   
   > experiment was trying to simultaneously close loopholes so I   
   > guess that is why the number of pairs was small.   
      
   The Delft experiment also has its own math to describe its   
   results.   
   My understanding is that generally speaking you cannot use the   
   math of one to validate or invalidate the math of an other one.   
   As such you cannot use the math of an experiment using   
   electrons (its spin) to (in)validate the math using coins   
   which can be described using classical mechanics.   
      
   Part of this reasoning stems from the fact that coins are not correlated   
   (can not be entangled) while electrons (its spin) can.   
      
   Nicolaas Vroom.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)