Do you realize what a simulation is ?
I have "some" experience...
You use a simulation just in case some " inputs " are not perfectly known otherwise you would simply put them in some equations [...] A simulation is a widly used scientific method to tackle those kind of complex problems containing many parameters with an high degree of uncertainity
That's not how scientists view simulations. From wikipedia:
A computer simulation (or "sim") is an attempt to model a real-life or hypothetical situation on a computer so that it can be studied to see how the system works. By changing variables, predictions may be made about the behaviour of the system. [...] Computer simulation is often used as an adjunct to, or substitution for, modeling systems for which simple closed form analytic solutions are not possible.
Key elements are that a simulation is a model of reality mostly used when a closed analytic solution is not possible... no mention of "inputs that aren't known" or "variables with high uncertainty" as a requirement or part of a simulation.
The result of the simulation is so absurd that even using more favourable inputs, within the bound of the physical laws, it would lead in any case to an absurd scenario
The result is absurd because the inputs are arbitrary and does not cover the entire parameter space. The arbitrary top speed of .1 c alone makes any conclusions from the simulation suspect.
Mr Bjork did not use arbitrary inputs he explains his choice
We had this same disagreement over how scientists choose the parameters of the standard model. He does explain them, but there is NO basis for him to have chose 4 or 8 probes or .9c over .1c... THAT is what an arbritrary input is, merely basing your analysis on a set range.
Now consider, HAD Mr. Bjork done a true simulation, he would have done a full sweep between .1 and .9c, he would have done a full sweep of 4, 8, 16, etc probes. Instead, he restricts his parameters. I'm sorry Alberto, but that is not a convincing computer simulation. It just doesn't have the breadth to address all the gaps.
The result of the simulation is so absurd that even using more favourable inputs, within the bound of the physical laws, it would lead in any case to an absurd scenario. This is the reason why he did not repeat the simulation using more probes
By your own words, you can't claim knowledge of the simulation without running it. So how exactly did Mr. Bjork know NOT to run the "more probes" simulation? After all, he barely covered the parameter space of velocity and admits that there are many areas that weren't covered in his conclusion.
Honestly Alberto, I think you are reading too much into this simulation. We both admit that this simulation needs to be run at other speeds with other search parameters, so why do you keep insisting that this one simulation is THE answer to the paradox?
