Making such a simulation is exactly what gjm did and he inadvertently proved his thesis false.

You haven’t shown this mathematically, only conceptually. This isn’t enough. Do the calculation and present them.

The point of the post was to explain the root causes of the mistakes EHT and gjm are making, not to prove that they made a mistake by tying themselves in knots that prevented them from seeing what they’d done.

Unless you can provide specific counter-examples demonstrating your affirmations in practice, you aren’t actually proving there are mistakes. If no mistake has been strictly demonstrated in the first place, there’s no talking about root causes, for the very presence of mistakes still is, by this point, a speculative hypothesis, making any discussion about root causes a speculation on top of a speculation.

If the fact that mistakes were made isn’t obvious to a reader, there isn’t really much that anyone can say to help that person understand.

This is, at its core, pure math. Applied to physics, yes, but still math. As such, there’s no need to appeal to subjective notions of obviousness (or lack thereof). All one needs to do in such a case is to provide the equations and parameters that result in one or more counter-examples. This will prove the presence of mistakes, at which point, yes, discussing their potential root causes becomes feasible.

You haven’t shown this mathematically, only conceptually. This isn’t enough. Do the calculation and present them.

Unless you can provide specific counter-examples demonstrating your affirmations in practice, you aren’t actually proving there are mistakes. If no mistake has been strictly demonstrated in the first place, there’s no talking about root causes, for the very presence of mistakes still is, by this point, a speculative hypothesis, making any discussion about root causes a speculation on top of a speculation.

This is, at its core, pure math. Applied to physics, yes, but still math. As such, there’s no need to appeal to subjective notions of obviousness (or lack thereof). All one needs to do in such a case is to provide the equations and parameters that result in one or more counter-examples. This will prove the presence of mistakes, at which point, yes, discussing their potential root causes becomes feasible.